Arizona Institutions of Higher Education AZIHE Network Statewide Online AOD Survey

1. Arizona Institutions of Higher Education (AZIHE) NetworkStatewide Online AOD Survey Melissa McGee, Ph.D., MPH University of Arizona AZIHE Network, Chairperson

2. Background Arizona consortium founded in the early 1990s U.S. DOE Safe & Drug Free Schools Coalition Grant - 1999 AZ affiliate of the AZ/NV/UT region of The Network AZIHE Network’s ongoing challenge AZIHE Network’s ongoing challenge = raising state-level stakeholders’ awareness and concern regarding AOD use and related consequences among our state’s college and university students. Virtually all state prevention funds for youth are reserved solely for K-12 Historically, we have not been invited to participate in state youth prevention planning, despite the fact that our populations are part of the youth AOD use problems, and despite the fact that our universities have won local and national awards for our innovative and effective prevention programming.AZIHE Network’s ongoing challenge = raising state-level stakeholders’ awareness and concern regarding AOD use and related consequences among our state’s college and university students. Virtually all state prevention funds for youth are reserved solely for K-12 Historically, we have not been invited to participate in state youth prevention planning, despite the fact that our populations are part of the youth AOD use problems, and despite the fact that our universities have won local and national awards for our innovative and effective prevention programming.

3. AZIHE Network 2003-2006 Strategic Plan State Outcome Activity 4.A. – “Coordinate college AOD surveillance and assessment efforts across the state.” Short-term outcome – “Each campus participating in the AZIHE Network will utilize similar data collection instruments and methods to gather information about college student AOD use and related attitudes, behaviors and consequences.” Challenge = Schools using different surveys, administering at different times Solution = Develop a survey that could be easily administered to all three universities at minimal costShort-term outcome – “Each campus participating in the AZIHE Network will utilize similar data collection instruments and methods to gather information about college student AOD use and related attitudes, behaviors and consequences.” Challenge = Schools using different surveys, administering at different times Solution = Develop a survey that could be easily administered to all three universities at minimal cost

4. Launching a Statewide IHE AOD Survey Funding sources - 2003 PCCHA Dr. Joel Grinolds Grant, 2003-04 regional funds from The Network Goal: To implement a tri-university AOD survey that identifies AOD norms, trends, attitudes, knowledge and efficacy of AOD programming for the majority of Arizona university students. Objective: To collect 1,500 surveys from each university, for a total of 4,500 statewide

5. Methods Survey development Application for approval from Human Subjects Office Purchase software, domain and host site In order to reduce survey length and cost, and prevent loss of control over the survey administration process, the AZIHE Network members decided not to administer a national online survey. Instead, the group developed a core set of items that covered the content of interest (i.e., AOD use, protective behaviors, negative consequences, perceptions and attitudes related to AOD use). These items were primarily taken from existing surveys being utilized by at least one of the three participating institutions. Majority agreement was required for the inclusion of any item. Where items were developed, all members were asked for input and agreement on the final wording. Upon completion of survey development (as described above), each institution received approval from their IRB for the protection of human subjects to conduct this survey online. Prior to the grant, NAU had acquired software and server space to conduct online surveys on their campus. NAU contributed their staff time and expertise in developing and implementing this online survey including the establishment of the domain and host site necessary to operate the survey and the cleaning of the data as it was received. The domain cost is the expense to establish a URL, or website address, such as www.aztriuniversity.org and the host cost is the expense to have your site hosted by a web server. In order to reduce survey length and cost, and prevent loss of control over the survey administration process, the AZIHE Network members decided not to administer a national online survey. Instead, the group developed a core set of items that covered the content of interest (i.e., AOD use, protective behaviors, negative consequences, perceptions and attitudes related to AOD use). These items were primarily taken from existing surveys being utilized by at least one of the three participating institutions. Majority agreement was required for the inclusion of any item. Where items were developed, all members were asked for input and agreement on the final wording. Upon completion of survey development (as described above), each institution received approval from their IRB for the protection of human subjects to conduct this survey online. Prior to the grant, NAU had acquired software and server space to conduct online surveys on their campus. NAU contributed their staff time and expertise in developing and implementing this online survey including the establishment of the domain and host site necessary to operate the survey and the cleaning of the data as it was received. The domain cost is the expense to establish a URL, or website address, such as www.aztriuniversity.org and the host cost is the expense to have your site hosted by a web server.

6. Methods (cont.) Request random sample of 6,000 student names and email addresses from campus Office of Registration Solicit survey participants Clean data and perform frequency analyses A random sample of 6000 undergraduate students was generated by the registrar’s office at each of the three participating institutions. Many students use email addresses other than those assigned by their respective university. Therefore, it was anticipated that approximately 50% of students would actually look at the email and of those, approximately 50% would respond. This would yield a final sample size of 1500 per institution. An invitation was sent to all selected students that briefly described the survey, time requirements and incentives. For incentives, each campus was provided $500 from non-grant funds to purchase a variety of incentives to be given away through a raffle. If students were interested in completing the survey, they clicked on a link in the invitation that sent them to the survey website. The first page was the consent form that described the purpose of the survey, the time required, the procedures taken to remove identifying information from the database where survey responses would be stored, and the procedures for entering the raffle for the incentive prizes. If students agreed to participate, they clicked on the “agree” box that then sent them to the first page of the survey. Once students completed and submitted the survey, they could choose to go to a different website to register for the raffle. In this way, the email address by which they would be notified if they were one of the winners was not connected with the survey data. Each institution did a random selection for their prize winners and notified them via email to pick up their prizes. Data cleaning consists of looking for extreme outliers – responses that are not realistic or logical (e.g., claiming inordinate amount of drinks in very short time period A random sample of 6000 undergraduate students was generated by the registrar’s office at each of the three participating institutions. Many students use email addresses other than those assigned by their respective university. Therefore, it was anticipated that approximately 50% of students would actually look at the email and of those, approximately 50% would respond. This would yield a final sample size of 1500 per institution. An invitation was sent to all selected students that briefly described the survey, time requirements and incentives. For incentives, each campus was provided $500 from non-grant funds to purchase a variety of incentives to be given away through a raffle. If students were interested in completing the survey, they clicked on a link in the invitation that sent them to the survey website. The first page was the consent form that described the purpose of the survey, the time required, the procedures taken to remove identifying information from the database where survey responses would be stored, and the procedures for entering the raffle for the incentive prizes. If students agreed to participate, they clicked on the “agree” box that then sent them to the first page of the survey. Once students completed and submitted the survey, they could choose to go to a different website to register for the raffle. In this way, the email address by which they would be notified if they were one of the winners was not connected with the survey data. Each institution did a random selection for their prize winners and notified them via email to pick up their prizes. Data cleaning consists of looking for extreme outliers – responses that are not realistic or logical (e.g., claiming inordinate amount of drinks in very short time period

7. Arizona College/University AOD Survey Demographics Actual AOD Use Perceived AOD Use Consequences of AOD Use Protective Behaviors Attitudes related to AOD use and relevant issues ethnicity/racial origin, involvement in specific extracurricular activities (e.g., fraternity/sorority member, intercollegiate athlete), gender, living arrangement (off-campus vs. on-campus), classification, weight, height, age, GPA. Change in AOD use in past year, AOD use within current school year, details about “last drinking occasion”, level of drinking in certain situations (e.g., at a restaurant, on a date, at a large off-campus party, etc), Perception of level of consumption among other students at their “last drinking occasions” Injury, violence, sexual assault, trouble with authorities/police, academic troubles, driving under the influence, unprotected sex Alternating with non-alcoholic beverages, setting a drinking limit, pacing (both women and men), eating before and during drinking, having a designated driver, avoiding drinking games Attitudes about campus AOD rules and regulations, about state AOD laws and ordinances, about consumption levels in general ethnicity/racial origin, involvement in specific extracurricular activities (e.g., fraternity/sorority member, intercollegiate athlete), gender, living arrangement (off-campus vs. on-campus), classification, weight, height, age, GPA. Change in AOD use in past year, AOD use within current school year, details about “last drinking occasion”, level of drinking in certain situations (e.g., at a restaurant, on a date, at a large off-campus party, etc), Perception of level of consumption among other students at their “last drinking occasions” Injury, violence, sexual assault, trouble with authorities/police, academic troubles, driving under the influence, unprotected sex Alternating with non-alcoholic beverages, setting a drinking limit, pacing (both women and men), eating before and during drinking, having a designated driver, avoiding drinking games Attitudes about campus AOD rules and regulations, about state AOD laws and ordinances, about consumption levels in general

8. Survey Results(N = 4,426) AZ students report lower rates of AOD use than college students nationwide. About a third of students report experiencing negative consequences; most use some type of protective behavior when drinking. Most troubling trends are concentrated among our youngest students – freshmen and students under the age of 21. With the exception of gender, the study sample proved to be fairly representative of undergraduate students enrolled at Arizona’s three universities. Alcohol use (77% vs 85%), tobacco use (32% vs 43%), marijuana use (22% vs 36%) Driving under the influence ranked highest (19%) followed by having unprotected sex (14%) and physically injuring self (12%); 91% use a designated driver, 87% refuse to ride with a driver who has been drinking, and 84% eat before and during drinking. Freshmen reported the highest levels and greatest increases of alcohol consumption, and largest number of negative experiences related to AOD use than any other class. The same holds true for students under 21 versus their aged 21 and older counterparts. Whereas students under 21 averaged a BAC of .085% at their last drinking occasion, students 21 and older averaged a BAC of .051%. Freshmen averaged even higher at .097% BAC. Students under 21 were also less likely to report use of the most effective protective behaviors (I.e., alternating with non-alcoholic beverages, pacing, setting consumption limits, avoiding drinking games) than students 21 and older. With the exception of gender, the study sample proved to be fairly representative of undergraduate students enrolled at Arizona’s three universities. Alcohol use (77% vs 85%), tobacco use (32% vs 43%), marijuana use (22% vs 36%) Driving under the influence ranked highest (19%) followed by having unprotected sex (14%) and physically injuring self (12%); 91% use a designated driver, 87% refuse to ride with a driver who has been drinking, and 84% eat before and during drinking. Freshmen reported the highest levels and greatest increases of alcohol consumption, and largest number of negative experiences related to AOD use than any other class. The same holds true for students under 21 versus their aged 21 and older counterparts. Whereas students under 21 averaged a BAC of .085% at their last drinking occasion, students 21 and older averaged a BAC of .051%. Freshmen averaged even higher at .097% BAC. Students under 21 were also less likely to report use of the most effective protective behaviors (I.e., alternating with non-alcoholic beverages, pacing, setting consumption limits, avoiding drinking games) than students 21 and older.

9. Data Supporting Environmental Management Initiatives Support for campus AOD rules and regulations Support for laws and ordinances regarding drinking and driving Support for laws and ordinances maintaining quiet, safe neighborhoods Support for restricting alcohol availability at campus celebration events 80% of students stated that they are aware of campus rules and regulations regarding AOD use, only 9% stated that they oppose these rules/regulations. 98% stated that they were aware of state laws and ordinances pertinent to drinking and driving, only 3% stated that they oppose these laws/ordinances. 82% of students responded that they were aware of laws and ordinances for maintaining quiet, safe neighborhoods; only 8% stated that they oppose these laws/ordinances. 74% of students feel alcoholic beverages should be available at Homecoming or other campus celebration events, but only accessible to those of legal drinking age. 21% feel alcohol should not be available at these events at all. This data will help us in moving our Board of Regents toward a “beer garden” concept at campus celebration events, away from the free-for-all atmosphere currently in place.80% of students stated that they are aware of campus rules and regulations regarding AOD use, only 9% stated that they oppose these rules/regulations. 98% stated that they were aware of state laws and ordinances pertinent to drinking and driving, only 3% stated that they oppose these laws/ordinances. 82% of students responded that they were aware of laws and ordinances for maintaining quiet, safe neighborhoods; only 8% stated that they oppose these laws/ordinances. 74% of students feel alcoholic beverages should be available at Homecoming or other campus celebration events, but only accessible to those of legal drinking age. 21% feel alcohol should not be available at these events at all. This data will help us in moving our Board of Regents toward a “beer garden” concept at campus celebration events, away from the free-for-all atmosphere currently in place.

10. Advantages & Disadvantages of Online Surveying Pros Convenient for survey respondent Convenient for survey administrator Convenient for survey evaluator Cons Non-use of university issued email account Survey respondent bias Online surveys provide a medium with which students are becoming increasingly more comfortable, and in some cases prefer as the survey is sent to the student’s email address and returned electronically. Survey responses are transferred at high speed – administrator knows within a couple of days what their survey response rate is, and whether they need to send an additional survey reminder email. Survey responses are directly input into a database for cleaning and analysis, thus eliminating the need for costly and time-consuming data entry. It is impossible to determine how many of the email accounts issued by the registrars office were actively being used by students. Although all students attending Arizona’s IHEs are issued a university email account, many students opt not to use it, favoring their own commercial email accounts instead. Therefore, project staff members were not able to determine how many students actually read the email requesting participation in the survey. Therefore, while we estimate that a certain percentage of non-responses are due to students never actually reading the email, we have no means of calculating exactly what that percentage is. In this study, the email solicitation and online survey seemed to draw a slightly higher response rate from females than males. At this time, project staff members do not know why this occurred, or if this pattern will prove longstanding in future online survey attempts. Since there are generally differences in AOD use and related items (i.e., consequences, protective behaviors, attitudes) between males and females, this response bias may affect statewide data. To minimize this impact, data can be analyzed for males and females separately and/or can be weighted by gender. Online surveys provide a medium with which students are becoming increasingly more comfortable, and in some cases prefer as the survey is sent to the student’s email address and returned electronically. Survey responses are transferred at high speed – administrator knows within a couple of days what their survey response rate is, and whether they need to send an additional survey reminder email. Survey responses are directly input into a database for cleaning and analysis, thus eliminating the need for costly and time-consuming data entry. It is impossible to determine how many of the email accounts issued by the registrars office were actively being used by students. Although all students attending Arizona’s IHEs are issued a university email account, many students opt not to use it, favoring their own commercial email accounts instead. Therefore, project staff members were not able to determine how many students actually read the email requesting participation in the survey. Therefore, while we estimate that a certain percentage of non-responses are due to students never actually reading the email, we have no means of calculating exactly what that percentage is. In this study, the email solicitation and online survey seemed to draw a slightly higher response rate from females than males. At this time, project staff members do not know why this occurred, or if this pattern will prove longstanding in future online survey attempts. Since there are generally differences in AOD use and related items (i.e., consequences, protective behaviors, attitudes) between males and females, this response bias may affect statewide data. To minimize this impact, data can be analyzed for males and females separately and/or can be weighted by gender.