Ways Colleges are Reducing UAD and DUI

1. Ways Colleges are Reducing UAD and DUI Randon Willard- Robert Morris University Jim McGee- Clarion University

3. Scope of the Problem CORE National Data for 2011 (50,505 students) • 81.4% of student consumed alcohol in the past year • 69.0% of students consumed alcohol in the past 30 days • 63.4% of underage students (younger than 21) consumed alcohol in the previous 30 days. • 44.8% of student reported binge drinking in the previous two weeks. A binge is defined as consuming 5 or more drinks in one sitting.

4. Consequences of Underage Drinking CORE National Data for 2011 (50,505 students) • 33.0% reported some form of public misconduct (such as trouble with police, fighting/arguments, DWI/DUI, vandalism) at least once during the past year as a result of drinking or drug use. • 22.0% reported experiencing some kind of serious personal problems (such as suicidality, being hurt or injured, trying unsuccessfully to stop using, sexual assault) at least once during the past year as a result of drinking or drug use.

5. Consequences Continued National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) • Death: Each year an estimated 1,825 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 die from alcohol-related unintentional injuries, including motor vehicle crashes.1 • Injury: Each year an estimated 599,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 are unintentionally injured under the influence of alcohol.1 • Assault: Each year an estimated 696,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 are assaulted by another student who has been drinking.1 • Sexual Abuse: Each year an estimated 97,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 are victims of alcohol-related sexual assault or date rape.1 • Unsafe Sex: Each year an estimated 400,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 have unprotected sex, and more than 100,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 report having been too intoxicated to know if they consented to having sex.2

6. Consequences Continued • Academic Problems: About one-quarter of college students report having academic consequences because of their drinking, including missing class, falling behind, doing poorly on exams or papers, and receiving lower grades overall.3–6 • Alcohol Abuse and Dependence: Nineteen percent of college students between the ages of 18 and 24 met the criteria for alcohol abuse or dependence, but only 5 percent of these students sought treatment for alcohol problems in the year preceding the survey.7 • Drunk Driving: Each year an estimated 3,360,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 drive under the influence of alcohol.1 • Other Consequences: These include suicide attempts, health problems, vandalism, property damage, and involvement with the police.

7. Why are Students Using? CORE National Data for 2011 (50,505 students) • 74.4% said it breaks the ice and enhances a social activity • 71.7% say it gives people something to do • 66.5% say it gives them something to talk about • 53.0% say it facilitates sexual opportunity

8. What approach works? Research shows that a multi-faceted approach works the best which engages: • Individual students • Students as a whole • Faculty/Staff • Parents • Community

9. Individuals • Campus Clarity • First Year Experience • Step Up • Thrive Leaders • Alcohol 101 & 102 • Student Programming

10. What messages will students listen to? • Harm reduction strategies • Education and future • Values, behavior and character • Legacy as a leader

11. Students as a Whole • Social norms campaigns • Partnerships with local treatment centers • Hero Campaign for Designated Driving • Enforcement of policies

12. Faculty & Staff • At Risk Website • Student’s in Distress Brochure • Early Alert Form

13. Parents • “Have you had the conversation?” letter • Training during orientation

14. Evaluating Efforts How do you know what’s working? • CORE survey (short or long form) • Campus Clarity data/follow up

15. Good Neighbor Program

16. Creation • Fall 2009 (PLCB Conference) • Neighborhood Watch Program • Negative Relationships between community members and Students

17. Scope of the Problem Quality of life concerns • Noise • Fights • Walking in large groups • Property damage • Debris • Large scale parties • Signs • Vandalism • Theft • Parking

18. NIAAA TASK FORCE GOALS • Provide research-based information about the nature and extent of dangerous drinking   • Offer recommendations to college and university presidents on the potential effectiveness of current strategies to reverse the culture of drinking on campus • Offer recommendations to the research community, including NIAAA, for future research on preventing hazardous college student drinking.

19. BASICS - Alcohol Abuse Prevention

20. Tier 1- Evidence of Effectiveness • Combinations of cognitive-behavioral skills training with norms clarification and motivational enhancement interventions. • Brief motivational enhancement interventions. • Interventions challenging alcohol expectancies. www.pubs.niaaa.nih.gov

21. Tier 2- Evidence of success • Implementation, increased publicity, and enforcement of laws to prevent alcohol-impaired driving. • Restrictions on alcohol retail outlet density. • Increased prices and excise taxes on alcoholic beverages. • Responsible beverage service policies in social and commercial settings. • Campus and community coalitions of all major stakeholders to implement these strategies effectively. www.pubs.niaaa.nih.gov

22. Tier 3- Evidence of promise, but needs more research • “Social norms marketing” or normative education. • Consistent enforcement of campus alcohol policies. • Safe rides for students who drink too much to drive. • Regulation of happy hour promotions. • Information for new students and their parents about alcohol use and campus policies. • Other strategies: Alcohol-free residence halls and social activities and scheduling classes on Fridays to reduce Thursday night parties. www.pubs.niaaa.nih.gov

23. Tier 4- “Evidence of ineffectiveness” • Simple education/awareness tables or programs used alone www.pubs.niaaa.nih.gov

24. Culture Change- Environmental Strategy Approaching Key Stakeholders • Resurgence of alcohol task force • Reaching out to community members, bar owners, zoning office and property owners • Student Involvement- Student Senate • Quarterly Meetings • Focus was placed on underage/harmful drinking

25. Key Constituents • Office of Residence Life and Community Assistants • Center for Leadership and Involvement • Clarion University President/VP of Student Affairs • Student Senate • Judicial Services • Members of the Alcohol Task Force • Coordinator of Health Promotions • Athletic Department • Local property owners/landlords • PSP, PLCE, Borough Police, University Police, Sheriff's Department • Passages

26. Creating a Good Neighbor Identity • Marketing/Branding • Social Norming • Letter from the President • Letter to the community members • Logo • GN Poster- Local Businesses http://www.clarion.edu/267773/

27. Program Design • The spirit of the program is to be intentional and developmental with students and their community members • Fall 2009 Pushback Fines VS. Relationship Building

28. Program Design- Continue • Identified targeted areas- Zoning Office (Maps) • May change each year due to student residence • All Freshman- LCE Discovery Weekend • Four Walk-throughs- Strategic to times of year • Social norming material flooding during 1st walk-through (PLCB materials)

29. Program Design- Continue • Additional walk-throughs- Concerns • Students (interns) conduct students stops • Pre/post Survey- community members and students • 4 Task force meetings and 2 law enforcement

30. Funding • Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board Grant • Department budgets cover speaker series and pool parties

31. Findings • Complaints have increased as well as noise citations • Shift in targeted areas • Decrease in large scale parties • Increase in relationships- Law enforcement • Red cup party • Dietz trash • Beer Tree

32. Findings

33. Findings Walk-throughs

34. Findings

35. Assessment • Surveys • Focus Groups • Open Communication • Focus on creating balance

36. Pre-Survey Community comments: • None necessary, university and local enforcement personnel appear to cooperate to assure amicable relationship between community and university. • My main concern is the lack of respect shown by students to the citizens of Clarion. Some show no respect for the property of others.

37. Pre-Survey Community comments: • Landlords should take more responsibility for their tenants behavior. • The Good Neighbor Program is wonderful, but I feel that it needs to be truly put into action, and use as an integral part of our society. • More patrolling university police especially late party nights Thurs. Friday Sat. all day

38. Post-Survey Community comments: • No real problems in neighborhood (property damage) • There was no public intoxication that caused problems (public intox) • I truly appreciate the efforts of the committee! Time and energy away from family (overall)

39. Post-Survey Community comments: • Although it may be difficult to arrange, it would be nice for a neighborhood get together, for residents to meet the students at the start of the semester. • Still throwing trash (beer cans, cigarette butts, etc. in my yard; still trespassing on my property • Great Work

40. Questions Campus Leaders Should Ask 1. What type of problem needs to be addressed (e.g., high rates of heavy drinking, fights during sporting events, underage drinking)? 2. What strategy is most likely to address each problem? 3. At what level should the strategy be implemented (e.g., at sports stadiums, campus-wide, communitywide, Statewide)? 4. Who should participate in developing strategies? Who should participate at the start and who should be brought in only after a supportive base for action is established? 5. What strategies are currently being implemented? 6. How well are existing policies being enforced? 7. Would enforcement of existing policies be more effective than implementing new policies? 8. How can environmental and individually focused approaches complement each other? 9. What resources are needed to implement new strategies? Are resources available? 10. How will new strategies be evaluated and fine-tuned to maximize their effect? 11. Are the students who need help most actually getting it? That is, are your interventions reaching the students who need them the most? 12. Are your strategies founded on solid, research-based findings? And are those strategies reaching the vast majority of your student population? SOURCE: Material for this checklist originally appeared in Toomey, T.L., and Wagenaar, A.C. Environmental policies to reduce college drinking: Options and research findings. Journal of Studies on Alcohol (Suppl.14):193–205, 2005, Updated January 2005 for NIAAA.

41. Resources 1Hingson, R.W.; Zha, W.; and Weitzman, E.R. Magnitude of and trends in alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among U.S. college students ages 18–24, 1998–2005. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs Supplement 16:12–20, 2009. 2Hingson, R.W.; Heeren, T.; Zakocs, R.C.; et al. Magnitude of alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among U.S. college students ages 18–24. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63(2):136–144, 2002. 3Engs, R.C.; Diebold, B.A.; and Hansen, D.J. The drinking patterns and problems of a national sample of college students, 1994. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 41(3):13–33, 1996. 4 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: 1992–1994. Carbondale, IL: Core Institute, Southern Illinois University, 1996. 5 Presley, C.A.; Meilman, P.W.; Cashin, J.R.; and Lyerla, R. Alcohol and Drugs on American College Campuses: Use, Consequences, and Perceptions of the Campus Environment, Vol. III: 1991–1993. Carbondale, IL: Core Institute, Southern Illinois University, 1996. 6 Wechsler, H.; Lee, J.E.; Kuo, M.; et al. Trends in college binge drinking during a period of increased prevention efforts: Findings from four Harvard School of Public Health study surveys, 1993–2001. Journal of American College Health 50(5):203–217, 2002. 7 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, 2002 (special data run).