Topic: Press
We are often asked questions from members of the press regarding the work we do and the alcohol and other drug problem on college campuses. These prepared questions and responses may be helpful to you in your development of articles related to collegiate high-risk drinking. If you need any other assistance, or have questions which are not answered here, please contact Helen Stubbs at hstubbs@edc.org or at (617) 618-2366.
The Center has also compiled FAQs on other specialized topics.
We hope this information will support your efforts to provide effective alcohol and other drug prevention programs. We would appreciate your feedback on this feature. Please send your comments to HigherEdCtr@edc.org.
QUESTIONS:
ANSWERS:
Data from Harvard College Alcohol Study, which measures drinking behavior at 119 schools demonstates the following:
- Between 1993 and 1997, the ‘binge’ drinking rate fell slightly, from 44-43 percent.
- The 1999 data show that it still remains at about 44% (Note: This is the behavior of a minority!).
- The number of abstainers has meanwhile increased from 15% in ‘93 to 19% in ‘99.
- Unfortunately, rates of ‘frequent binge drinkers’ have also increased, yet less so, from 20% in 1993 to 23% in 1999.
- A majority of college students support measures to restrict alcohol problems on campus and to more effectively address this issue, including
- tougher enforcement of campus rules,
- prohibition of kegs on campus,
- holding hosts responsible for alcohol-related problems, and
- banning ads from local outlets.
- The data at the Southern Illinois University at Carbondale CORE Institute’s broader dataset suggests that two year community colleges have lower rates of consumption.
As far as whether we are talking about it more:
- There has generally been more focus on this issue due to tragedies—fairly isolated incidents—which can serve to support the misperception that this behavior is that of the majority, and that is worsening.
- We need to draw people’s attention to the fact that it’s the behavior of a minority.
- However, this behavior of a minority can negatively impact the experience of the majority of responsible drinkers and abstainers on campus. That’s why a majority supports policy changes on campus.
- The discussion has not focused enough on effective solutions to address the problem.
- Having conversations on campus, especially when students take the lead, can lead to a campus environment less tolerant of alcohol-related harm. Asking questions about the extent of problems links various campus factions (police, residence life, student government) and helps build coalitions willing to take action on policy changes.
- There is a common belief/expectation that this is normal college behavior, and therefore people consider college alcohol abuse a rite of passage.
- There are also gross and widespread misperceptions of what constitutes ‘normal’ drinking behavior in college. These perceptions lead to increased drinking, as students drink more to attempt to "fit in" with their peers.
- Many colleges and their surrounding communities have lax enforcement of local laws, ordinances, and campus alcohol policies. Lax academic requirements can also exacerbate the problem, with few classes scheduled on Fridays and easy course requirements enabling a lot of free time for students to drink.
- The availability of alcohol is also a problem, with many bars surrounding college campuses, and little regard for underage drinkers.
- Many schools lack of alcohol-free options for students, so that positive forms of recreation are not available. Without these options, students are not getting the message that there are other ways to enjoy themselves that don’t involve alcohol.
- We are a contract service of the U.S. Department of Education Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. At one level we help post-secondary institutions comply with a 1986 Federal law that requires campuses to have prevention policies, programs, and periodic assessment as a condition of eligibility for Federal financial assistance. At a higher level, we assist colleges and universities develop and sustain safe, healthy, and learning-conducive environments for students, staff, faculty, and surrounding communities.
- The Center offers an array of services—training, technical assistance and publications—to institutions looking to address problems associated with alcohol, other drugs, and violence on college campuses.
- We do this by stimulating the development of campus task forces, campus and community coalitions, and regional initiatives to address the issue.
- Our approach is based on environmentally-focused prevention strategies.
- Our approach is comprehensive in scope, meaning that we focus on a number of different factors that contribute to the problem of AOD on campuses (see question 2), and we employ a variety of techniques to address these contributing factors.
- We promote five environmental management strategies:
- The promotion of alcohol-free options
- The creation of health-promoting normative environment (see question 8)
- Limiting alcohol availability
- Enforcing campus and community laws and policies
- Restricting marketing and promotion of alcohol
- Components of successful programs include: comprehensive in scope, presidential leadership; student, faculty and staff involvement.
- Vehicles to successful programs: Campus task force, campus-community coalitions, regional/statewide initiatives.
- We need to help people make healthy decisions in the presence of so many messages and opportunities that promote problematic drinking.
- The environment is polluted with these messages. That’s why focusing on individuals with awareness and education is fighting an uphill battle. These things are part of a good approach, but they’re not going to do the job alone. These measures are necessary but by themselves insufficient.
- The alcohol industry is able to pour millions of dollars into marketing their product, appealing to college students through promotions and ads with very compelling images. They use sex, sports stars, celebrities and other gimmicks that they know will draw students in.
- Local alcohol wholesalers and retailers (on-sale and off-sale) also play a role. Some, less-scrupulous, appeal to students to come in and get loaded, offering low price promotions, while others may also exert political power to keep taxes down. However, local industry segments are also community members and increasingly are discovering that they can thrive economically without undue promotion of high-risk alcohol sales and service practices.
In addition to this, enforcement of laws is under-funded, and a significant percentage of retail outlets take advantage of that by selling to minors.
- See What Campuses are Doing on website.
- Social norms marketing has shown similar effectiveness in a number of schools over a two-year period:
Hobart/William Smith Colleges: high risk drinking was reduced by 21%
University of Arizona: high risk drinking was reduced by 21%
Western Washington University: high risk drinking was reduced by 20%
Northern Illinois University: high risk drinking was reduced by 18%
- Also schools have developed campus and community coalitions, alcohol-free options, curriculum infusion, policy changes, academic reform, etc.
- 5 recommended strategies of prevention:
1) restrict availability
2) increase law/policy enforcement
3) restrict marketing and promotion
4) promote alcohol-free options
5) create a healthy normative environment
Social norms marketing uses survey data collected on individual campuses to educate students about the actual level of drinking on that campus among their peers. It has been shown that students consistently overestimate the level of drinking among their peers, which then creates pressure to drink up to the norm. Once students’ misperceptions of the norm are corrected, drinking levels on campus appear to go down by about 20%. (see examples above)
- CSAP in1999 released data on how coalitions can bring about positive changes to prevent substance abuse in community settings, demonstrating how such prevention efforts can bring about change in the environment through regulations and policy. A key component to successful efforts was the formation of coalitions and linkages in a coordinated approach, with proper planning and a clear division of responsibilities. Much of the training and assistance that the Center provides helps in the planning and coordination of such community-based efforts.
- Anecdotal evidence of the effectiveness of certain campus-based efforts offer hope through a number of environmental strategies:
- Social Norms Marketing has been shown to reduce high-risk drinking rather dramatically at the following schools:
- Hobart/William Smith Colleges: high risk drinking was reduced by 21%
- University of Arizona: high risk drinking was reduced by 21%
- Western Washington University: high risk drinking was reduced by 20%
- Northern Illinois University: high risk drinking was reduced by 18%.
- Policy changes: U Of Delaware
Following a revision of campus policies, adopting parental notification, stronger penalties, and streamlining the judicial process, and through work with a campus-community coalition, U Delaware saw significant changes:
- vandalism in residence halls down 32%
- alcohol overdoses down 20%
- Greek disciplinary cases down 50%
- high-risk drinking down from 66% to 58%
- number of abstainers increased from 6% to 16%
- Campus-Community Coalitions: SUNY Albany
Through the work of a campus community coalition, a Tavern Owner Agreement outlining several areas for improvement was established, and the drinking age was more stringently enforced. Since 1990, there has been almost 100% compliance with the Tavern Owner agreement advertising guidelines, and off-campus complaint calls related to student alcohol use have gone down 89%.- Responsible Beverage Service (RBS)– Studies since the mid-1980s have demonstrated that installation of certain sales and service policies and practices, supported by staff training and ongoing management reinforcement, can reduce the incidence of patrons leaving commercial alcohol outlets with BACs beyond legal limits. Evidence suggests that RBS techniques can have lead to similar health and safety results in large public settings (sports stadiums), special events (street faires, homecomings, etc.), and in social settings (student parties in private residences).
- The Harvard College Alcohol Study defined ‘binge drinking’ as having five or more drinks in a sitting for men, and four or more for women.
- We tend not to use this term, unless citing the study. There has been some controversy about this definition—it doesn’t account for time elapsed while drinking, meals eaten, or size/weight of the drinker.
- We prefer the term "high-risk" drinking. This shifts the focus away from precisely how much alcohol is consumed, and draws attention to the negative consequences of misuse of alcohol.
- This reaction by students is very common. We believe the over encompassing definition alienates a number of responsible students who would otherwise be receptive to prevention messages. Additionally, the definition creates a misperception of the norm, the idea that all college students are engaging in this behavior and that this is the thing to do when you’re in college.
- We would rather target "frequent binge drinkers" with our message, as members of this population are more likely to be accurately labeled as high-risk drinkers.
- We should focus on this issue because a problem still exists. The rate of frequent binge drinkers is still at around 23%.
- Additionally, the degree of second-hand effects felt by those who don’t abuse alcohol is still significant enough (77%) for us to focus on this issue.
- Our goal is not to abolish all alcohol from college campuses. Rather, we are trying to help students make better decisions, to learn to use alcohol in a responsible manner if they do chose to drink, and to offer a variety of other options if they chose not to drink.
- Additionally, we cannot expect change to occur on an "all or nothing" basis. Positive cultural change around certain seemingly permanent unhealthy behaviors happens gradually. Look at smoking: thirty or even twenty years ago, no one would have predicted how much smoking would be out of favor among the general public.
- Although many policies do not acheive 100% reduction in unhealhty behaviors, several policies have been able to achieve measurable beneficial behavioral changes:
- In several states, Administrative License Revocation (ALR) law was enacted, whereby police revoke a driver’s license for refusing a breathalizer or for failing it. These states have witnessed an approximate 10% reduction in alcohol-related road fatalities.
- Age 21 Law: the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that since 1975, this piece of legislation has prevented over 17,000 traffic deaths among the underage population.
- .08% BAC: The first five states to adopt this legal cut-off for drunk drivers witnessed a 16% decline in proportion of fatal crashes involving fatally injured drivers with BAC of .08 and higher, and 18% reduction in fatal crashes with drivers with a BAC of .15% and higher.
- Zero tolerance law (BAC limit for under-21 year old drivers between 0.00% and 0.02%): States adopting this law experienced a 20% greater decline in proportion of single-vehicle, nighttime fatal crashes among 15- to 20-year old drivers.
The effectiveness of these policies demonstrates that environmental strategies (in this case, policy change and enforcement) can effect change. No, we won’t get everybody in our efforts, but we can make a measurable effect on many others.
- Education is one approach, but it cannot serve to counteract the pervasive and very strong messages out there that tell students that it’s okay to abuse alcohol.
- The fact is that students are not simply educated in the classroom, but receive "educational" messages from the environment in which they live and go to school. Without aligning the messages in the environment to the messages students hear from prevention professionals, they are living in a mixed message environment. We’re trying to change that.
- Education reaches a certain number of people effectively. A certain number of people will also respond to normative influences. But for a certain group of people, stricter policies need to be enacted to create the kind of behavioral changes that we’re looking for. We have seen this demonstrated in both seat belt and drunk driving behavior. Smoking too.
- The responsibility of the school is to provide students with a safe and healthy environment in which to live, learn, and grow as human beings. That’s not extreme, it’s fundamental, and that’s essentially what we’re asking of them.
- It’s also what the law requires. Colleges are being held increasingly accountable in cases where students drink alcohol and cause injury or damage to themselves or others. These legal changes move towards a shared (vs. individual) responsibility for alcohol risks in the college environment, and increased legal responsibility of the college to create a more responsible alcohol culture.
- Again, we’re here to address the behavior of a minority—the students who are abusing—not the majority who are abstaining or drinking responsibly.
- There’s substantial evidence that abusers are not the only ones suffering as a result of their behavior. There are many others on campus who are not high risk drinkers who are negatively affected by this behavior (sleep and study interruption, property damage, verbal and physical assault, even rape).
- The drinking going on today has a different quality—an intensity not seen previously. It involves using funnels and other equipment, where the goal is to get totally drunk and to flirt with danger.
- One of the biggest barriers we face is reticence on the part of presidents to talk about the issue and aggressively address it. Lots of colleges have introduced education programs on the issue, but we are looking for a greater commitment and leadership on the part of presidents.
- Many presidents fear that by acknowledging the problem, the school’s reputation may be called into question. But from the schools we have seen with strong presidential leadership, this has not been the case. In fact, quite the contrary. (See our Presidental Profile Series for evidence.)
- There also is a widespread and gross misperception of what is ‘normal’ college drinking behavior, with many people believing that the situation is a lot worse than it is. This, coupled with ignorance of fact that a majority of students support measures to reduce the alcohol problem on campus, lead people to think that little can be done to address it, which is not the case.
- Working for sustained changes in the community also takes some time, and can be hard work. It takes a long-term commitment and perseverance by leaders within both the college campus and surrounding community.
- The alcohol industry is quite powerful and has a lot of money at stake when it comes to college alcohol consumption. They will attempt to sabotage our efforts with promotions and specials targeting college students, and with their lobbying power to curtail liquor taxes and fees for liquor vendors.
Schools need to start by assessing what environmental factors contribute to their problem and by developing a strategic plan to address these factors. This plan should include:
- A comprehensive approach
- Strong presidential leadership
- Campus and community coalitions (broad-based, diverse)
- A focus on 5 strategies for prevention: promote alcohol-free options, create a healthy normative environment, limit alcohol availability, increase enforcement, and restrict alcohol marketing and promotion.
Regional initiatives to address the issue and to stimulate formation of coalitions can also be very effective.
- The best thing a school can do is to examine the problem and not deny that it exists, then take real steps to address the issue at its source, and that means not just offering education and awareness activities.
- The worst thing a school can do is to ignore the issue or to deny that there’s a problem. Still others have responded to the problem by pushing it off campus into the community. It’s another way of choosing to ignore the issue by transferring the responsibility to another group.
- We can’t forget the myriad other problems that arise on campus: assault, rape, property damage, etc. It’s important to consider that DUI is not the only problem we’re attempting to address.
- The fact of the matter is that by making it more inconvenient for students to drink on campus will result in some people not engaging in high-risk drinking. We need to acknowledge that some students will travel in order to get alcohol. That’s why we advocate for a more comprehensive approach that works with the surrounding community as well as on campus.
- Colleges have successfully worked with tavern and liquor outlet owners to better enforce the drinking age and to advertise more responsibly, and with local law enforcement to step up enforcement as well.
- The term "cracking down" is a caricature of what we’re proposing. We favor changing the environment, and that includes the way students think about drinking alcohol and the risks they run doing so.
Actually, as a society, we have yet to invest the resources necessary to enforce the age 21 law. The age distribution of students makes it more complicated for colleges to enforce the drinking age law, but they still have to do it.
- That would be hard to say. Some colleges try to suppress this information for fear that it may affect their reputation.
- Deaths are obviously a severe consequence of high-risk drinking, but they are certainly not the only one. There are other much more common consequences that can negatively affect those who abuse alcohol, such as academic failure, unplanned and unprotected sexual activity, automobile accidents, acquaintance rape, etc.
No. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that since 1975, this piece of legislation has prevented over 17,000 traffic deaths among the underage population. It would be very unwise to revoke this policy.
To order publications or for further information, please contact the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention.
Last Update: April 16, 2004