SAFER CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITIES PROJECT

1. SAFER CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITIES PROJECT Richard McGaffigan Prevention Research Center Karen Hughes UC Berkeley Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation Prevention Research Center

2. Safer Overview

3. Why Care About College Student Drinking? • Over 1,700 deaths among 18-24 year old college students • 590,000 unintentionally injured under the influence of alcohol • More than 690,000 assaulted by another student who has been drinking • More than 97,000 are victims of alcohol-related sexual assault or date rape • About 25 percent of college students report academic consequences of their drinking including missing class, falling behind, doing poorly on exams or papers, and receiving lower grades overall

5. Task Force Recommendations • Tier 1:Evidence of Effectiveness Among College Students • Tier 2:Evidence of Success With General Populations That Could Be Applied to College Environments • Tier 3:Evidence of Logical and Theoretical Promise, But Require More Comprehensive Evaluation • Tier 4:Evidence of Ineffectiveness

6. Safer California UniversitiesProject Strategy To evaluate the efficacy of a“Risk Management” approach to alcohol problem prevention NIAAA grant #R01 AA12516with support from CSAP/SAMHSA.

7. What are we trying to prevent? • Intoxication • Harm related to intoxication

8. Intervention Sites CSU Chico Sacramento State CSU Long Beach UC Berkeley UC Davis UC Riverside UC Santa Cruz Comparison Sites Cal Poly SLO San Jose State CSU Fullerton UC Irvine UC Los Angeles UC San Diego UC Santa Barbara Random Assignment

9. Risk Management

10. Risk Management

11. Campus Drinking Problems by Setting and Campus

13. Risk Management ApproachSummation • Targeting times: Fall session • Targeting places: Off-campus parties • Focus: Reducing intoxication and harm at off-campus parties • Data: mobilizes support and select focus • Directive: Intervention design based on EBP from general population • Tied to continuous monitoring and improvement

14. Integrated Intervention Strategies for Off-Campus Parties • A Social Host Safe Party Campaign • Compliance Checks • DUI Check Points • Party Patrols • Pass Social Host “Response Cost” Ordinance

15. Practical Significance • At each campus, 900 fewer students drinking to intoxication at off-campus parties and 600 fewer getting drunk at bars/restaurants during the fall semester at intervention schools relative to controls. • Equivalent to 6,000 fewer incidents of intoxication at off-campus parties and 4,000 fewer incidents at bars & restaurants during the fall semester at Safer intervention schools relative to controls

16. Anticipated Obstacles for Risk Management Strategy • Implicit assumption that “target” is very high-risk drinkers

17. The Prevention Paradox Questions / discussion Source: Weitzman & Nelson (2004)

18. The Prevention Paradox The highest number of negative consequences happen to moderate drinkers However, 80% of resources are spent on high-risk drinkers 60% of students are moderate or light drinkers 20% of students are high-risk drinkers 20% of students are abstainers Source: Weitzman and Nelson (2004). College Student Binge Drinking and the “Prevention Paradox”: Implications for Prevention and Harm Reduction. J Drug Education

20. Anticipated Obstacles for Prevention Strategy • Implicit assumption that “target” is high-risk drinkers • Ambivalence about student drinking

21. Negative Consequences of Alcohol Use at Berkeley During the past two weeks, to what degree did the following happen to you when drinking or as a result of your drinking? • Performed poorly on an assignment/test 17% • Got behind in school work 17% • Missed a class 11% • Missed going to work 7% • Had a Hangover 23% • Can’t remember what I did 18% • Regret my actions 18% • Injured myself 10% • Was taken advantage of sexually 9% • Got in trouble with authorities 8% • Took advantage sexually 7% • Damaged property 7%

22. Anticipated Obstacles for Prevention Strategy • Implicit assumption that “target” is high-risk drinkers • Ambivalence about student drinking • Low perceived efficacy and approval for environmental interventions

23. What Works? • Principles of Effective Prevention: • Environmental, public-health approach to prevention • Comprehensive efforts addressing both high-risk groups and campus-wide efforts • Evidence-based, best-practice strategies • Coalition-based efforts with broad support

24. Basic Premise to Environmental Prevention: People’s behavior is shaped by the physical, social, legal, and economic environment in which they live, work, and play The Ecological Framework • Individual factors (students) • Peer factors (students) • AND • Institutional factors • Community factors • Public policy Environmental Prevention

25. Anticipated Obstacles for Prevention Strategy • Implicit assumption that “target” is high-risk drinkers • Ambivalence about student drinking • Low perceived efficacy of environmental interventions • Possible fears of “backlash”

26. Secondhand Effects Drive Motivation Prevalence of Secondhand Effects Experienced by Abstainers and Non-Binge Drinkers Source: Wechsler et al. Am J Public Health (2002)

27. Gauging Student Support for Alcohol Prevention • Survey Questions • (32 institutions; N= 5,210) • To what extent do you support or oppose the following possible policies or procedures? • To what extent do you think other students at this school support or oppose the following possible policies or procedures?

28. A Call for Stricter Enforcement Percent Student Support for Policy Enforcement

30. Action Plan Components

31. Action Plan • This is what we know: If you implement the action plan as designed you can get some effect • The more enforcement and visibility the greater the effect (dosage) • And the implementation strategy can be flexible, based on local conditions

32. Safer Action Plan for Off-campus parties

33. Enforcement Operations

34. Enforcement Operations • Conduct nine of the operations listed below in any combination • DUI Checkpoints • Compliance checks • Party patrols* • Assess existing enforcement options and adopt local ordinance to support party patrols • Communicate with visibility component

35. Model Response Cost Ordinance • Benefits: • Enforcement less costly • Easily administered (e.g. similar to parking ticket) • Triggered by 2nd response (up to 1 year window • Fee / fine increases with each offense • Party host(s) and landlords held accountable • Violations can be reported to code compliance for further investigation

36. City of Berkeley’s Response Cost Ordinance • Chapter 13.48 CIVIL PENALTIES FOR MULTIPLE RESPONSES TO LOUD OR UNRULY PARTIES, GATHERINGS OR OTHER SIMILAR EVENTS

37. Visibility Campaign • Align messaging with enforcement activities (deterrent affect) • Students target audience • How do students get their information? • Moving target • Required being innovative • Dosage important • How would your group reach students?

38. Student Visibility Components

44. 3 Outreach materials

46. Alcohol & Academics An Overview of the Berkeley Campus Academic Senate – Student Affairs Committee

47. Keys to Success • Staying focused: • Target setting (off-campus parties) • Having a deadline (start fall session) • Anticipating obstacles • Conducting up front work • Keep planning group small • Develop innovative ways to reach students • Implementing Action Plan as designed

48. Implementation Strategy

49. Implementation Strategy 2009Activities linked to objectives

50. 2010 Implementation Strategy