1 / 58

MSU Model Grant Overview

MSU Model Grant Overview. Dennis Martell Sandi Smith Michigan State University. MSU MODEL GRANT. What Makes MSU a Model Program? 1. Unique make up of team Service, Survey, and Academic Experts 2. Effectiveness of global campaign to reduce extreme drinking.

erica
Download Presentation

MSU Model Grant Overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MSU Model Grant Overview Dennis Martell Sandi Smith Michigan State University

  2. MSU MODEL GRANT • What Makes MSU a Model Program? • 1. Unique make up of team • Service, Survey, and Academic Experts • 2. Effectiveness of global campaign to reduce extreme drinking. • 3. Unique application of social norms messaging on celebratory events. • 4. Unique focus on use of protective behaviors to reduce harm.

  3. Outline of the Presentation • Overview of evaluations • Intervention design and evaluation • Social norming models • MSU’s social norming program and evaluation design • Formative research on celebratory drinking • Dissemination and enhancement strategies

  4. Assessment of Utility Monitoring Conceptualization & Design Evaluations in the Life Course of Programs Institutionalization Outcome Program Life Course Output Outcome/Impact Cost/Benefit Cost Effectiveness Implementation Planning Process Conformity to Plan Target Reach/Coverage Decision to Act Problem Evaluations Needs Assessment Formative Evaluation Adapted from: Rossi, P., and H. Freeman, Evaluation: A Systematic Approach

  5. To Evaluate a Program's Outcome, We Need to Know . . . • What was the program supposed to accomplish?(Problem to change) • How was it to accomplish this? • For whom? • Why was the intervention supposed to have the intended effect?(Conceptual Model) • Did change occur?(Outcome/Impact) • How much? • Is the change associated with the program elements? • Can alternative explanations for the change be ruled out? • How much did it cost?

  6. The Social Norming Conceptual Model of High-Risk Drinking Setting limits 1 drink per hour Designated driver Drink look-a-like Watch out for friends Stay with same group Stay with same alcohol Eating food Familiarity With the Culture Perception of Norms: Descriptive Protective Behaviors Harm Perception of Norms: Injunctive Consumption Desire To be Normal Alcohol poisoning Physical injury Auto accidents Violence Sexual assault Sexual risk behavior Academic performance Type Quantity Absorption Duration Pace

  7. The MSU Social Norming Intervention Strategy for High-Risk Drinking AOP Intervention: Posters Table Tents Familiarity With the Culture Perception of Norms: Descriptive Protective Behaviors Harm Perception of Norms: Injunctive Consumption Desire To be Normal Intervention: Flyers Newspaper Ads

  8. The Initial Question: Was there a discrepancy between the perceived norm around drinking and the actual drinking norm? i.e., Was a Social Norming approach an appropriate intervention strategy?

  9. 7.0 6.1 6.0 5.4 Number of Drinks Last Time 5.0 Partied/ Socialized 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Perceived Norm (Mean) Actual Norm (Mean) 2000 Source: MSU NCHA 2000 Difference Between Perceived Norm and Actual Behavior Before Starting Social Norming Campaign } The average perceived number of drinks consumed by the typical student the last time s/he partied is 13% greater than the actual average

  10. Difference Between Perceived Norm and Actual Behavior Before Starting Social Norming Campaign % Who Believe Typical Student Drank 0-4 Drinks Last Time Partied/Socialized by Gender and Status, 2000 Overall Actual % 0-4 = (46.6%) Grad % 0-4 = 57.8% Undergrad % 0-4 = 43.7% Source: MSU NCHA 2000

  11. 2007 National Social Norms Conference Examples of Ads, etc.

  12. Data Collection Strategy for Evaluation • Formative • Focus groups for ads • Monitoring/Process • Web survey near end of each semester • Undergrads only • N = 1,000 – 1,200 @ • Perceptions of others, celebration event drinking, protective behaviors, familiarity with ads • Monitoring/Outcome • NCHA (web) every 2 years (Feb.-March) • Grad and Undergrad • N = 900 – 1,400 • Overall drinking, harm, protective behaviors

  13. The Evaluation Questions • Did the interventions reach the targeted audience? • Did change occur in normative perceptions? • Is change associated with the intervention? • Did change occur in protective behaviors? • Did change occur in drinking behavior? • Did change occur in amount of harm? • Is there reason to believe this isn’t just coincidence?

  14. Did the Interventions Reach the Targeted Audience? % of Undergrads Reporting Seeing at Least 1 of the Norming Ads During the Semester, by Semester and Year • Males as likely to report seeing ads as females • Freshmen more than Sophomores more than Juniors more than Seniors • Average number times reported seeing ads varied from 2.8 (Fall, 06) to 7.5 (Spring, 04) • No difference between males and females • Generally, Freshmen saw more times than Sophomores more times than Juniors more times than Seniors Source: Celebration Surveys 2-9, n=1,211; n=1,040; n=1,277; n=1,073; n=1,334; n=1,110; n=891; n=1,405

  15. Are Respondent Reports of Seeing Ads Reliable? % of Respondents Who Claimed to Have Seen Each Ad/Poster PERCENT Source: Spring Celebration Survey, 2005

  16. 2007 National Social Norms Conference Percent Students’ Latitude of Acceptance/Rejection of Ad Claims “For each percentage, please indicate if you find the statement to be very believable, somewhat believable, or not believable at all.” "The percentage of MSU students that typically drink 4 or fewer drinks when they party is___% " Ave. Number Drinks R’s Believe Typical Student Drank Actual % of Respondents who drank 0-4 Last Time Source: Spring Celebration Survey, 2005, n=1,073

  17. 7.00 6.36 6.24 5.93 5.87 6.00 5.63 5.48 5.00 4.64 4.50 4.00 3.00 2000 2002 2004 2006 Grads Undergrads Did Change Occur in Normative Perceptions? Average Number of Drinks the Typical Student Believed to Have Consumed the Last Time Partied/Socialized A 6.8% Decrease } } A 19% Decrease Source: MSU NCHA 2000-2006

  18. Did Change Occur in Normative Perceptions? % of Respondents Who Believe the Typical Student Drank 0-4 Last Time Partied, by Gender and Student Status Percent Source: MSU NCHA 2000 - 2006

  19. 2007 National Social Norms Conference Did Change Occur in Use of Protective Behaviors? % of Undergrads Who Always or Usually Use Various Protective Behaviors, by Year

  20. Change in Use of Protective Behaviors Among those who drank 5+ drinks last time partied

  21. 2007 National Social Norms Conference Did Change Occur in Drinking Behavior? Number of Days in Previous Month Drank Alcohol Percent Of All Students 5.9% decrease from 2000 in percentage of students drinking 3 or more days per month

  22. Did Change Occur in Drinking Behavior? Mean Number of Drinks Last Time Partied/Socialized, by Year

  23. Is Drinking Related to the Likelihood of Harm? Types of Harm Asked About in NCHA • Physical/Psychological • Injury to self as result of alcohol • Injury to other as result of alcohol • Involved in fights • Did something later regretted • Forgot where you were/what did • Had unprotected sex • Had forced sex • Academic • Lower grade on exam or project • Lower grade in course • Incomplete or dropped course

  24. Is Drinking Related to the Likelihood of Physical/Psychological Harm?

  25. % of Students Experiencing Harm by Drinking Levels Heavy = Drink 10 or more days per month and 5+ drinks last time partied Light = Drink 2 or fewer days per month and 2 or fewer drinks last time partied Moderate = Everything else Source: MSU NCHA 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006; n = 4,155

  26. 2007 National Social Norms Conference Did Change Occur in Amount of Harm? This school year, as a consequence of your drinking, have you experienced. . . Among those who drink 34.8% reduction from 2000 to 2006 8.5% reduction from 2000 to 2006 17.0% reduction from 2000 to 2006 78.3% reduction from 2000 to 2006 Source: MSU NCHA 2000-2006

  27. Change in Academic Harm, by Year

  28. Summary • Evidence of initial misperception of drinking norm • Evidence norming campaign reached targeted audience • Evidence perception of norm changed • Evidence use of protective behaviors changed • Evidence drinking behaviors changed • Evidence for reduction of drinking related harm • Program is working

  29. Is There Reason to Believe This Isn’t Just Coincidence? • Dejong et al., 2006. “A multisite randomized trial of social norms marketing campaigns to reduce college student drinking” Journal of Alcohol Studies 67: 868-879. • From 2000 to 2003, found experimental group of colleges implementing social norming campaign had no or very small increases in perceptions of drinking norms, actual consumption and harm, while control group of colleges and universities not implementing social norming campaigns had substantial increases in all three. • The magnitude of the effect at experimental sites correlated positively with the intensity of the norming campaign. • The secular trend in the time period was for drinking and harm to increase. • Evidence MSU’s results are not just coincidence because of a secular trend.

  30. Mean # Ad % Who Times % Saw as % Saw as New Saw Saw Believable Information Tailgating ad 40.7% 2.7 42.4% 60.5% Designated driver ad 36.6% 2.9 73.9% 41.8% Basketball playing ad 27.3% 2.6 52.9% 68.7% Pool playing ad (Fall) 36.9% 2.6 45.3% 56.0% Moderation ad (Fall) 41.2% 2.9 59.6% 58.1% Pool playing ad (Spring) 61.8% 3.1 39.3% 54.4% Moderation ad (Spring) 52.3% 3.1 54.6% 54.3% Spring Break: snow 18.8% 2.3 59.4% 41.1% Spring Break: luggage 14.8% 2.3 62.8% 41.0% MSU basketball 26.3% 2.4 55.9% 44.2% Respondents’ Assessments of Social Norming Ads Distributed in 2003-05

  31. Mean # Ad/Poster % Who Times % Saw as % Saw as New Saw Saw Believable Information Sidelines ad (football) 31.8% 2.6 61.1% 50.0% Spartans Think (fall) 48.0% 2.5 60.2% 63.3% Spartans Do (fall) 50.5% 2.5 68.7% 68.4% Spartans Do (spring) 53.8% 2.8 76.0% 61.4% Spartans Think (spring) 52.0% 2.5 59.7% 56.7% St. Patrick’s ad (spring) 46.4% 3.0 62.3% 55.2% Courtside ad (spring) 32.6% 2.6 68.8% 43.4% Courtside ad (Izzone) 44.9% 2.1 57.4% 40.3% Halloween ad 25.4% 2.0 68.5% 39.9% Halloween Poster 29.3% 3.5 73.6% 52.4% Respondents’ Assessments of Social Norming Ads Distributed in 2003-05

  32. Mean # Ad/Poster % Who Times % Saw as % Saw as New Saw Saw Believable Information Global ad (Spring) 25.5% 2.5 77.7% 29.0% Courtside ad 18.0% 2.1 78.2% 37.8% Izzo ad 38.5% 2.8 79.6% 51.8% Izzo Poster 38.1% 3.1 79.0% 47.o% Spring Break Ad 42.6% 2.5 72.0% 52.0% Spring Break Table tent 48.2% ** 73.4% 56.9% Global Scrambled (Fall) 43.1% 2.9 68.8% 44.3% Spartan Do TT 59.6% ** 60.7% 70.8% Halloween TT 44.4% ** 72.3% 47.9% Halloween ad 48.3% 2.1 79.2% 50.5% Respondents’ Assessments of Social Norming Ads Distributed in 2006-7

  33. *Ad Believability and Over and Under Estimation of Drinking Norms This study looked at estimation and accuracy of normative perceptions for students during both everyday drinking and celebration drinking.

  34. Believability and Estimation • It found that students who drank less than four drinks underestimated the norm, and those who drank more than five drinks overestimated the norm. • Ad believability played a crucial role in this process. Those who believed the ad more closely estimated alcohol consumption by their peers.

  35. Effectiveness • The reduction of specific primary harms (NCHA and Celebratory Survey data) • The increased adoption of protective behaviors across the target population • The level of acceptance the campaign has received from students, including levels of message believability and message usefulness

  36. Ethnographic and Formative Research Findings “Celebratory Occasions” U.S. Department of Education Grant 2001-2003

  37. DRINKING AND DRUNKENNESS ON CELEBRATORY OCCASIONS Holiday DRINK DRUNK Occasion: PREVAL RATE Halloween 32% (57%) St. Patrick’s 26%(58%) Typical Thursday 19%(48%) DRINK PREVAL = Percent of all students that report drinking DRUNK RATE = Proportion of drinkers who report getting drunk

  38. DRINKING AND DRUNKENNESS ON CELEBRATORY OCCASIONS Football DRINK DRUNK Occasion: PREVAL RATE Big Gameday 38%(56%) Other Games 37%(50%) Typical Saturday 23%(39%) DRINK PREVAL = Percent of all students that report drinking DRUNK RATE = Proportion of drinkers who report getting drunk

  39. DRINKING AND DRUNKENNESS ON CELEBRATORY OCCASIONS Weeklong DRINK DRUNK Occasion: PREVAL RATE Spring Break 48% (62%) Welcome Week 37% (72%) End of Semester 23% (55%) Typical Week 47% (48%)

  40. Non-Drinking Norm Prevalence: 76% End of Semester 74% St. Patrick’s 68% Halloween 62% Big Game 60% Welcome Week 52% Spring Break

  41. Non-Drunkenness Norm Prevalence: (Moderately or not at all) 86% End of Semester 85% St. Patrick’s 82% Halloween 79% Big Game 71% Welcome Week 70% Spring Break

  42. Types of Drinkers: “Anytime” Drinkers -- 54% Drink on typical days and special days “Celebration” Drinkers -- 35% Drink on special days but not typical days

  43. Types of Drinkers:   “Non-Celebration” Drinkers -- 2% Drink on typical days but not special days Seldom Drinkers -- 9% Drinkers who didn’t drink on the special or typical days measured in survey

  44. Table 5. Percentage Distribution of Drinking Types, by Demographic Characteristics

  45. “Focused” Findings • Identified Protective Behaviors showed a reduction in harm independent of consumption • Normative climate seemed to approve of drinking and higher than normal consumption on celebratory occasions • Individuals identified as ‘celebratory’/event specific drinkers!

  46. Protective Behaviors: Promising protective behaviors not necessarily related to consumption: (Celebration ‘02) • Staying with same group of friends- • Remaining in one location- • Consuming only one type of alcohol.

  47. Findings from the Social Norming Study of Student Alcohol Use 2003-05

  48. Student approval of activities Respondents were asked about their approval of various activities, and also their estimates as to whether ‘most MSU students’ approve the same behavior. • The following slides show the results as a function of level of student drinking

  49. Perception of various celebrations: Celebration Survey data

More Related