Prevention File
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drugs
Spring 1999 Volume 14, Number 2
|
Marketing Sobering Messages on Campus
Changing social norms to reduce problems
Discouraging Mischief: Using Environmental Management to Curb
High-Risk Drinking by William DeJong
Education alone is not enough to change behaviors
Parental Notification: Fact or Fiction by Joel Epstein
Telling parents when their children commit alcohol or drug violations
Alcohol at Work: Debunking Myths
Its the casual drinkers who cause the most problem.
Q & A with Mary Sue Coleman
Students interview the president of the University of Iowa
Ten Years Ago in Prevention File (Vol. 4, No. 2, Spring 1989)
Raising Alcohol Taxes: Deficit Reduction Would Pay a Bonus in Prevention
THOSE WHO BELIEVE the drinking habits of college students are a fact of life that cant be changed are in for a surprise. A concept called social marketing is making impressive progress in giving students by the thousands a new respect for sobriety.
True, some students still insist on spending time, money, and energy on marathon drinking parties, and risking life and limb in the process. But a social marketing strategy called the social norms approach to prevention is proving effective in reducing their numbers significantly. On some campuses, high-risk drinking rates are down by 20 percent or more from their levels a few years ago.
Nationwide surveys during most of the 1990s have shown that about 40 percent of college students drink at high-risk levels on a regular basis, five or more drinks on an occasion for men, or four or more for women.
That figure should decline in the next decade if more colleges and universities follow the lead of those who have been experimenting with social norming as an approach to prevention.
High-risk drinking at the University of Arizona in Tucson dropped dramatically from 43.2 percent in 1995 to 30.6 percent in 1998. Using a similar strategy, Western Washington University saw a 20 percent reduction in risky drinking levels, and Northern Illinois University measured an 18 percent reduction. Smaller schools have done as well. Hobart and William Smith College, a private liberal arts college in upstate New York with fewer than 1,800 students, reduced high-risk drinking by 21 percent.
Determining Drinking Decisions
Health educators at these schools and others are building their prevention programs on
research accumulated over the years into how people make decisions about their behavior. A
powerful motivation, according to sociologists, is what we perceive others to be doing,
especially others whom we may admire and want to emulate. In other words, freshmen
arriving at college may drink heavily at parties because thats what everybody on the
campus does.
But campus surveys show that students typically have an exaggerated idea of how much drinking is going on. The secret of social marketing is to let them know in a convincing way that theyre wrong and that the norm of alcohol consumption in the campus population is less than what they think. Its not as simple, though, as just writing an article for the student newspaper explaining the divergence between perception and reality in campus drinking patterns and waiting for everyone to conform.
Wesley Perkins, PhD, a professor of anthropology and sociology at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, NY, says the one-shot treatment just doesnt work.
When a story runs in a newspaper, only a certain percentage of students will see it. When people are presented with information in one way, at one point in time, they may not believe it and internalize it. It wont generate much of a reaction or conversation or thought process.
Freshmen arriving at college may drink heavily at parties because thats what everybody on the campus does . . . campus surveys show that students typically have an exaggerated idea of how much drinking is going on. |
What Perkins and his colleagues at Hobart and William Smith aim for is a synergistic effect--conveying their message in a multitude of ways so that the impact is greater than the sum of the parts. Not only do students see the drinking-norm information in diverse forms in newspapers and on posters, but it is infused into the curriculum of sociology and psychology courses. Incoming freshmen hear about it in orientation lectures. Its emphasized in workshops for resident advisors. The information is slipped in among the campus factoids on the schools computing network.
The result at Hobart and William Smith goes beyond a decline in the drinking rates of students. In the first 18 months of the campaign there was a 36 percent decline in property damage attributable to drinking behavior, and a 31 percent decline in the number of students who say they missed a class because of their drinking. The number of students saying they drank to get drunk declined by 16 percent, while the number saying they drank to break the ice socially went down by 34 percent.
At the University of Arizona, a media campaign is based on the information that the norm for student partying is 4 or fewer drinks. The message is incorporated in a variety of ads running regularly in the campus newspaper and in other information channels. The ads and posters emphasize the positive aspects of drinking at less than high-risk levels, including one series pointing out that sex is better with one drink or none at all.
Koreen Johannesen, director of health promotion and prevention services at U of A, believes the social norming strategy is more productive than trying to restrain drinking through a crackdown on student partying.
We want to get across the idea that most students are moderate drinkers and are not causing a problem to themselves or anyone else, she says. We find that as soon as you talk about cracking down and taking away rights, even the students who dont drink at all will take up the cause in a protest.
At the U of A, the moderate and non-drinking students are happy to help in the program, providing insight and feedback for the development of media materials and even volunteering to have their pictures appear in newspaper ads.
Results on the Tucson campus have been dramatic. In a 1995 survey 17.5 percent of students said drinking had gotten them into trouble with police, their residence hall, or other college authority. In 1998 that number had dropped to 6.1 percent. The number who said they had done something under the influence that they later regretted was cut in half from 41.8 percent to 20.8 percent. The number who said they had been taken advantage of sexually after drinking went down from 14.7 percent to 8.4 percent.
A Comprehensive Approach
The Arizona program also includes an internal committee to deal with aspects of
student life involving alcohol consumption, and a campus/community coalition that brings
student and university representatives together with people from the surrounding
community&emdash;law enforcement, city and county government, the state liquor control
board, and business and neighborhood associations.
The idea is to come to the table and talk about community issues, like the neighborhood parties that are not under the jurisdiction of the university and often involve a lot of non-students, Johannessen says.
DRIVE-BY PREVENTION |
A campaign to discourage underage and binge drinking among Boston-area college
students is taking prevention messages to the streets. Five billboards that depict three
different scenes of apparently impaired people along with the tag line, Remind you
of last night? have been placed near popular Boston nightspots in a city-sponsored
campaign. The ads include a picture of a man lying on a bed while the room spins around him and a scene of six women at a club laughing at someone passed out beneath a table. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino said: No one wants to look like the fool in front of their friends, become the laughing stock of the party or end the night with bed spins. These billboards are grim reminders of these consequences and are aimed at getting young people to stop and think. |
We see that 75 percent of our students drink 25 percent of the alcohol consumed, and 25 percent drink 75 percent. The campus/community coalition is to identify changes we can make for that 25 percent drinking 75 percent of the alcohol.
Another feature of the Arizona program provides help to students who are getting into trouble because of their drinking habits. This moderation skills training is based on research by Alan Marlatt, PhD, at the University of Washington (see Prevention File, Vol. 13, No. 2, Spring 1998) and a curriculum developed by Allen Ebel at the University of Wisconsin. The goal is to arm students with tools to reduce their risk and provide motivation for change. They learn skills that support safe drinking strategies or non-drinking habits.
While such counseling and training can turn reckless students into safer ones, one of the advantages of a social marketing strategy is that it can achieve goals with a minimum of investment in personnel time.
Traditional programs with a lot of counseling or other one-on-one work take a lot more professional labor than a social norming campaign, says Perkins. Depending on the size of the student body, a school can run a campaign like this with very little investment. He calculates the outlay at Hobart and William Smith at around $1,000 a year but costs on larger campuses would run to multiples of that figure.
When costs are compared with benefits, getting students to tailor their drinking closer to the campus norm has a big payoff in dollars and cents. There are savings to be calculated in less damage to university property, in fewer students seeking medical help, and in a reduced dropout rate. Social marketing based on perceptions of the norm appears to be a cost-efficient and peaceful way to approach campus prevention.
By William DeJong
WHEN STANFORD UNIVERSITY opened in 1891, 400 male students moved into Encina Hall, a lavish, four-story dormitory modeled on a Swiss resort favored by Leland and Jane Stanford, the universitys founders.
Many of Stanfords first students had grown up in the rural West, and attending college was their first taste of independence. Encina Hall suffered for it. Stanford Magazine (Sept/Oct 1998) reports that on November 22, 1891, freshman Henry Boutelle wrote his mother: At 11:30 p.m. the lights went out, and the fellows fired a chair, a spittoon, and several other things downstairs . . . the chair came pretty nearly hitting Professor Swain on the head as he walked by. Boutelle and his roommate went down the hall: We saw three streaks of fire shoot out and heard three shots, so Fred and I concluded that we were in a dangerous locality and quietly went back to our room.
Stanfords first registrar Orrin Leslie Elliott, wrote about Encina House in his University history: . . . As time went on, everything that could be abused was abused. Roughhousing spared nothing. Encina was . . . known to outsiders as the madhouse.
Andrew D. White, a former president of Cornell University, after staying in Encina Hall in Spring 1892, offered this advice to the Stanfords while giving a lecture series: I would urge you not to repeat the Encina plan. For a family hotel it is perfect . . . but the fundamental principle in erecting dormitories is separation and segregation. Long halls encourage too much mischief.
Environmental Management
At the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Prevention, we have expanded on
Whites counsel to articulate a new doctrine for the prevention of high-risk drinking
and other drug problems on college campuses, which we call environmental management. The
basic idea is the same: Peoples behavior is shaped by their environment.
Mixed messages about high-risk drinking are common on college campuses. |
Therefore, if we are to change their behavior&emdash;that is, if we are to discourage mischief&emdash;we need to change that environment. What in the environment needs to change?
To start, faculty and other higher education leaders need to review the rigor of their schools academic program. In an era of rampant grade inflation, the majority of students have few adult responsibilities and a great deal of unstructured free time, especially at residential colleges.
A second key factor is the ready availability of cheap alcohol, with local alcohol retailers competing for business with low-price promotions that encourage excessive drinking. Voluntary agreements with retailers can be crafted to eliminate this practice, as is the case in Albany, New York (see Prevention File, Vol. 13, No. 2, Spring 1998), but higher education officials should be prepared to fight for municipal ordinances or state laws to get this done. The possibility of higher alcohol excise taxes&emdash;a demonstrated way to reduce access to alcohol, especially by young people&emdash;should also be considered.
Mixed messages about high-risk drinking are common on college campuses, helping convey the dangerous idea that it is a normal part of the college experience. With this in mind, many schools are moving to eliminate alcohol advertising from campus, in particular the alcohol industrys sponsorship of intercollegiate sports. Thats an obvious target, but there are other worrisome mixed messages that should be addressed, from alumni tailgating parties to unenforced rules about underage drinking.
The relative lack of social and recreational options for students that arent centered around alcohol is another factor. Concerts and other special events are part of the answer, but only part. Spontaneous sources of entertainment are also needed during the late hours kept by todays college student. Last fall Dartmouth College decided to keep its student union and gym open into the wee hours of the night.
A final consideration is that students who may be in trouble with alcohol or other drugs are not readily identified or referred to early intervention services. This is of concern, not only for the students involved, but for the impact those students have in shaping perceptions of the environment. Quick identification and referral of troubled students sends a clear message that high-risk drinking is not the norm.
All of this is hard work, but there is no alternative, for education alone will not get the job done. Nearly 20 years of work to stem alcohol-impaired driving tells us that progress can be made in reducing high-risk drinking by changing the environment in which students make decisions about their behavior. That work also tells us that this will take time.
William DeJong, PhD, is director of the U.S. Department of Educations Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Drug Prevention, which is based at the Education Development Center, Inc., in Newton, MA. The views expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Department.
Visit the Centers Website at www.edc.org/hec/ or call 800-676-1730 for more information about prevention at colleges and universities.
KEEP THEM ON CAMPUS |
Breaking with a century-old tradition of housing most of its first-year
students in fraternities, starting in 2001, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology will
require all freshmen to live on campus. MITs decision came in the aftermath of the 1997 alcohol-poisoning death of freshman Scott Krueger at a Beta Theta Pi party. The new policy, which is aimed at curbing high-risk drinking, has been proposed several times over the years but postponed due to heavy opposition from alumni and faculty who had their own memories of freshman year in MIT fraternity houses. But in May 1998 a special working group, convened by MIT president Charles M. Vest, reported that it strongly believes that requiring freshmen to live on campus would reduce that populations risk of being involved in dangerous drinking. Clearly, on-campus housing for freshmen would not preclude their participation in drinking, but it might help to reduce the perceived social pressure for such activity. MIT students are not happy with the new rule. The Undergraduate Association said a campus poll last fall showed 90 percent of students opposed requiring freshmen to live in residence halls. The first MIT fraternity house was built in 1873, but its first residence hall was not built until 1916. By then there were already 21 fraternities. The university now has 10 residence halls and 38 houses for fraternities, sororities, and independent living groups. A new residence hall on campus to hold the freshmen is in the works. |
WHATS IN A NAME? |
For some students at New Zealands University of Otago, its motto
A Degree in Distinction is less an affirmation of academic excellence than a
measure of how much beer they managed to consume in four years. Distinction is the brand
name of a beer that enjoys enormous popularity on New Zealand campuses and is a regular
feature of student parties. Karen Elliot, a health educator employed by the government to promote the responsible use of alcohol by students told the Chronicle of Higher Education that in the minds of many young New Zealanders that kind of unfortunate verbal association is less humorous than it is a matter of fact." According to Elliot, at the University of Otago, as at most other New Zealand institutions, the traditional student mindset has been that university is somewhere you go to party hard&emdash;a place where young people learn to get drunk. At Harvard University officials are unhappy with the resurgence of an old beer brand name: Harvard Beer. The Lowell Brewing Company, in Lowell, MA, has revived the beer, a lager that was brewed in Lowell, about 20 miles northwest of Cambridge, for 66 years by the Harvard Brewing Company, which closed in 1964. The beers red packaging and label with a block H give the impression that the beer is sponsored or endorsed by the university, according to Robert B. Donin, Harvards deputy general counsel. Harvards official color is crimson. He says that people will buy the beer for the same reason that they purchase T-shirts and caps with the universitys logo. But according to Lowell Brewery president Dave Elias, the beer isnt brewed for the college. Rather its a gesture to the companys history. He says that only 3 percent of the companys sales of Harvard lager comes from the Cambridge area. However, if the university keeps bringing the beer publicity, he says, then kids are going to want to drink it. |
IT HAPPENS EVERY WEEKEND. A son or daughter, away at college for the first time, drinks him- or herself into a drunken stupor at an off-campus bar. Around 3:00 a.m. two less-intoxicated friends help their roommate, hardly able to stand, onto the Happy Bus, the local college shuttle, where they join nine other similarly inebriated undergraduates for the bumpy ride back to campus. This trip is an uneventful one. No major fights ensue and none of the dozen heavily besotted souls on this outing lose it on the way back to their dorm room.
Upon staggering off the bus at the college student union, several of the more intoxicated students are approached by campus police. Whats happening here? Quickly the drunk and underage students are advised that they are being charged with violating the schools policy against underage drinking. The students are written up and told that under a newly enacted disciplinary policy their parents will be notified that the students have been charged with violating the school policy and state law.
Can a school really confront high-risk student drinking in this manner? New law aimed at curtailing college student drinking and drug use was one of several major legislative initiatives passed during the recently completed 105th Congress. At first glance, these new laws appear to represent important developments in the evolving attitude of the public toward student drinking and drug use and disorder. But some question the conviction with which the new approaches will be embraced and the debate rages on about whether student privacy rights prohibit approaches like parental notification. Indeed, Section 952, Alcohol or Drug Possession Disclosure, of the Higher Education Act, is still being widely debated both on- and off-campus.
Signed into law in October the new law clearly permits schools to disclose to parents violations of not only local, state, and federal laws but also school policies and rules governing the use or possession of alcohol or controlled substances. The parental notification amendment came about largely as a result of the efforts of Jeffrey Levy, the father of a college student killed last year in an alcohol-related traffic crash.
Levy lobbied hard for the proposal after his 20-year-old son, a student at Radford University in Virginia, was killed while riding as a passenger in a car driven by a drunk driver.
Appointed to a Virginia attorney generals task force on college drinking, Levy encouraged the task force to act forcefully with respect to parental notification. The other members of the task force listened. One of the groups leading recommendations was the parental notification idea and eventually the task force persuaded Virginia Senator John W. Warner to introduce legislation in the U.S. Senate. As enacted, the law permits but does not require schools to notify parents of a students alcohol or other drug violation.
The Death of the In Loco Parentis Doctrine
Congress giving its blessing to parental notification represents a significant shift in
public thinking about the problem of college student drinking and drug use. Prior to 1960
the countrys courts viewed schools as standing in loco parentis to their students.
Recalling this judicial thinking which extended well into the 1960s, Stetson University
Law Professor Peter Lake describes an era in which the university was like a parent to the
student and most problems were handled within the university, by the university, and often
quietly.
In their new book on the rights and responsibilities of the modern university (Carolina Academic Press, 1999) Professors Lake and Robert Bickel explain:
The most important feature of in loco parentis was to place a blanket of security and insularity around university culture . . . Under the blanket, the university was free to exercise disciplinary power&emdash;or not &emdash;with wide discretion and little concern for litigation.
With the widespread social and political upheaval of the 1960s, college and university administrators found themselves influenced and challenged by the largely young student messengers of the new wave. Freed from the shackles of parental control and life at home, though often not yet financially and emotionally independent, this group created an unprecedented atmosphere on college campuses. Drinking and illicit drug use flourished, often involving both students and faculty.
According to Bickel and Lake, to accommodate this new campus lifestyle, American courts stopped relying on the fallen parental legal model and adopted an approach to tort lawsuits against the university using the notion of duty and no duty. What emerged was the idea of the university as a helpless legal bystander to student life and danger. As bystanders, schools then owed no legal duties to students and hence were not legally responsible for harm.
In turn, the bystander era was a transitional one and soon what emerged was what Bickel and Lake call the university as facilitator. In such a world, the current one, parental notification for student drug and alcohol violations represents the university helping the not-yet fully independent student navigate the difficult transition to adulthood and independence. In this sense, the university is indeed a facilitator.
A Students View
Opinions vary widely however as to whether schools should notify parents of their
childs alcohol or drug violation. Jessica Kirshner, a first-year student at Harvard
University thinks maybe at a certain point parents should be notified, but not if the
violation is just an isolated incident.
Perhaps after repeated incidents or if the incident is serious enough that the student has to be hospitalized, but otherwise I do not believe parents need to be notified, says Kirshner.
In Cambridge and Boston, undergraduates witness a great deal of drinking by underage students.
It permeates campus life, explains Kirshner. Underage students definitely need fake IDs. Bars are conscious that these students are underage, but if the student has an ID to show at the door, theyre in.
As for local enforcement efforts, Kirshner adds, I know that liquor stores in Cambridge have Cops in Shops, so its a deterrent, but there are other ways to get around that.
One of the most common ways underage students obtain beer and liquor is simply by having of-age students purchase the alcohol. And a lot of the time students dont even have to buy it, its just around.
A close observer of campus alcohol policy, Kirshner is not aware of any disciplinary incidents this year at Harvard involving alcohol that resulted in parents being notified.
I have seen underage students who got drunk at campus parties sent before the disciplinary board, but I have not seen any expulsions. Typically they get put on probation. It doesnt look good for the time being but assuming there is no subsequent violation, the charge gets taken off the students record by the end of the term, Kirshner said. In her view, students are little concerned about under-age drinking, and parental notification is not even on their radar. She adds, I dont know if underage drinking would be considered a right of passage, its just something to do.
As for the types of drinking taking place among underage students, it tends to depend on the venue. Around the dorms its not binge drinking or heavy drinking. Heavy drinking sitting around your room is not socially acceptable. But once you get out in the bars, there it is heavier, explains Kirshner.
Whos Responsible?
Before passage of the federal parental notification law, officials at most schools across
the country had refused to tell parents about student drug and alcohol violations, citing
the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), also known as the Buckley
Amendment, a 1974 law on the privacy of student records. Nonetheless, some parents had for
years argued that they have a right to be alerted to their childrens
life-threatening habits. Now the new law is causing many school administrators to rethink
their position on parental notification, although a few schools, including Virginias
Radford University had changed their policy even before Congress acted.
Today, many university administrators believe that both students and their parents need to take more accountability and responsibility for their actions. But before the recent media focus on the problem of high-risk student drinking, most parents had little sense of the scope of the problem. Those who did know, more often than not saw it as the aberrant behavior of someone elses son or daughter.
While Jeffrey Levy views the recently enacted parental notification amendment as an important first step, he remains skeptical about the willingness of most schools to take meaningful steps to address the heavy drinking that has become a way of life for too many college students. Levy fears that many universities will now simply make the empty promise that they have a notification policy in place. The bereaved father suspects that even at many of those schools that adopt a parental notification policy, no or few notifications will be made.
What we had hoped for was a clear statement that schools will notify parents when their son or daughter has been involved in aggressive or binge drinking. Instead, at most colleges a report will only be made if there is evidence of a legal or disciplinary violation . . . [Many campus police and school administrators would not even consider apprehending heavily intoxicated students as described in the fictional scenario above], explains Levy.
Advocates of parental notification warn that students know exactly what is going on. They fear that by not having a strong parental notification policy in place and by failing to say, I will not tolerate abusive or binge drinking on my campus, schools may be sending the message that nothing has changed.
Levy says: If the notifications were going out, the students would know about it and on most campuses the students can tell you that they do not.
Levy has had a hard time finding out how many notifications are actually being made. He says, Ive also spoken to many parents and Ive never met a parent who had been notified.
A notable exception to what Levy has observed is the experience of the University of Delaware, which last year sent letters to the parents of 1,414 students who had violated the schools disciplinary rules. According to Timothy F. Brooks, Delawares dean of students, most of these letters reported a students alcohol or drug violation. Brooks notes that student recidivism has declined precipitously since Delaware enacted its three-strikes policy and initiated the practice of parental notification.
Parental notification advocates however are not persuaded by the exception to the general rule. Explains Levy, A lot of schools have a three-strikes policy, but how many kids wander around campus drunk out of their minds and still there is no action. Theres a big difference between, Oh, I had one too many to drink, and Im going to get wasted. I can accept the first, I cant and I dont think any parent can accept the second. The whole attitude Im going to open up the door, pick up a glass and drink as much as I can, as fast as I can, with the prime purpose of getting wasted, that is different from the intention of going out to have fun. . . The failure to stand up to that is unacceptable. Parents dont know about this and in failing to notify them, universities are not helping either the students or their parents.
. . . most parents had little sense of the scope of the problem. Those who did know, more often than not saw it as the aberrant behavior of someone elses son or daughter. |
In Levys experience university presidents want this problem to go away, but they do not want to be seen by students as the heavy. He predicts that on most campuses, for parental notification to be triggered the student will have to have violated a state law, or campus policy which mirrors state law. The catch is, most college officials believe they must catch the student in the act of drinking and much campus drinking has been pushed off-campus or underground. For all intents and purposes, there are no laws against public intoxication on campus.
The sight of two sober students carrying a passed-out student into the dorm should trigger a college to say, you are in violation of my policy. But it doesnt. I want to see more colleges stand up and say, Binge or problem drinking is against our policy, says Levy.
Advocates of parental notification will have to look carefully at campuses where problems continue and critically scrutinize how many parental notifications there have been.
Robert Metcalf, counsel to the Attorney General of Virginia and a prime mover behind the parental notification amendment, is the first to admit the new law is not a silver bullet.
It doesnt force colleges to do anything, notes Metcalf. It should be called the drunkenness in the sunshine amendment. The way the system was colleges were reluctant to go after students who were clearly violating the law. This new law is just one of a number of methods schools can now use to address the problem. The law removes an artificial barrier that some schools used in the past to not notify parents. Now they can. In Virginia, the development of policy is still at the school level. We just hope that they adopt the amendment approach.
With passage of the parental notification law many more schools are now considering adopting a policy of parental notification. Not surprisingly, Virginia and District of Columbia schools have been among the first to take advantage of parental notification. Recently, Virginia Tech, where two students died last year in alcohol-related incidents, became the first major Virginia college to make use of the new federal law. Effective in Spring 1999, the new policy will permit the notification of parents of underage students sanctioned for alcohol or drug violations on and off campus.
Virginia Techs new policy is also noteworthy because it forges a partnership with the local police who will notify the school if students are caught off campus with alcohol or drugs. The new collaborative approach will mean students may face both campus disciplinary penalties and public prosecution. In Washington, D.C., both American University and George Washington University are also reviewing their parental notification policies.
In considering adopting a parental notification policy, schools need to remember what the amendment is not. Schools should know that the amendment does not impose any affirmative obligation on the institution to inform parents of the disciplinary violation. Rather, it specifically states that such action does not violate FERPA or the Higher Education Act. Basically, its all up to the schools.
Joel C. Epstein, JD, is associate director and senior attorney with the U.S. Department of Educations Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention. The Center is based at Education Development Center, Inc., in Newton, Massachusetts.
DOWNWARD TREND? |
Some early indicators of alcohol problems on college campuses in Virginia show that
high risk drinking may be declining, according to the States Attorney General Mark
L. Earley. Earley, who headed a statewide task force aimed at reduce campus alcohol problems, said that theres been a reduction in students showing up in emergency rooms across Virginia. He has also gotten anecdotal reports of declines in problems from university administrators, campus police, and campus leaders. The task force was instigated in part after the alcohol-related deaths of five Virginia college students in Fall 1997. The task force recommended that each college develop a plan to curb binge drinking; that fraternity and sorority rush be moved to the spring semester; and that students face mandatory penalties, such as suspension or expulsion, for violating campus alcohol policies. According to William Harmon, vice president for student affairs and head of the University of Virginas alcohol task force, high-risk drinking is down on his campus though we only have soft data. And number of students turning up at emergency rooms with alcohol-related illnesses has been cut in half compared with last year. Destruction in residence halls, often caused by inebriated students, has also lessened. In Harmons view other strategies that have helped reduce high-risk drinking at the University of Virginia include new student identification cards, which now carry birth dates, and an increase in nonalcoholic social events now available to students. |
COMMON WISDOM would have it that most alcohol-related problems in the workplace are caused by those so-called problem drinkers who drink on the job, show up with hangovers, or routinely miss work. Not so, says a recent corporate drinking study. Its the casual drinkers who cause the majority of workplace problems.
Occasional drinkers cause nearly 29 percent more incidents such as absenteeism, tardiness, less than acceptable work or arguments with colleagues than workers who said they didnt drink at all. |
And those problems spill over to co-workers, who say that their productivity on the job goes down because of secondhand effects of the alcohol use of others. The study found that fully 21 percent of workers reported being injured or put into danger, having to redo work or to cover for a co-worker, or needing to work harder or longer due to others drinking.
The report New Perspectives for Worksite Alcohol Strategies: Results from a Corporate Drinking Study is drawn from one of the largest worksite studies ever conducted. Researchers surveyed 7 corporations, 114 worksites, and nearly 14,000 employees. These survey findings lead report authors Thomas W. Mangione, PhD, JSI Research and Training Institute; Jonathan Howland, PhD, Boston University; and Marianne Lee, Harvard School of Public Health, to believe that the cost of lost productivity due to alcohol use alone exceeds the $27 billion estimated in the National Institute of Healths 1995 Report to Congress.
It may seem harmless, but an employee who drinks too much champagne at a Sunday evening wedding, consumes a few too many beers during Monday Night Football, or has a drink at lunch could be costing you money, say the authors.
They found that people considered occasional drinkers cause nearly 29 percent more incidents such as absenteeism, tardiness, less than acceptable work or arguments with colleagues than workers who said they didnt drink at all.
According to the researchers, its not that those who are alcohol dependent or alcoholic dont cause serious problems at work. Its just that there are so many nondependent drinkers who occasionally drink too much that the total sum of their problems outweighs the problems caused by employees who are truly alcohol-dependent.
However, most worksite policies and efforts are directed at identifying and treating alcohol- dependent workers. While this is important work, it wont get rid of the majority of alcohol problems in the workplace, because those 20 percent of drinkers who are dependent account for only 40 percent of alcohol-related performance problems. The 80 percent of drinkers who are not alcohol-dependent account for the remaining 60 percent of problems.
This study is a wake-up call for business. Employee Assistance Programs have not paid sufficient attention to the role of the non-addicted drinker on workplace productivity and safety, says Bruce Davidson, an EAP manager at Compaq Computer.
Who Is Doing the Drinking?
One perception of senior executives surveyed in corporate study is that hourly workers are
more likely to drink during work hours than managers or supervisors. In fact, the opposite
is true. The study found that upper-level managers were three times more likely to report
drinking during working hours within the last 30 days than either first-line supervisors
or hourly workers. However, because there are proportionally more hourly workers than
managers, hourly workers account for the majority of workday drinking incidents.
Most of the workday drinking takes place during lunchtime or at company-sponsored functions. Only a fraction of drinking events takes place before work, during breaks, or actually on the job. The researchers found that most corporate policies prohibit alcohol use on the worksite unless a special waiver is granted. But lunchtime drinking is not specifically prohibited. Essentially, corporate policy takes the view that lunchtime is personal time, and that policies prohibiting working under the influence are sufficient to keep employees from imbibing too much at lunch.
But the researchers say that even small amounts of drinking during work hours can affect work performance, regardless of where it occurs or by whom. In fact, employees who drink during the workday are more likely to report poor work-performance incidents than those who dont. And thats true for nondependent and dependent drinkers alike.
Whats an Employer to Do?
Even though the corporate executives interviewed for this study believe that they have
little influence over their employees drinking practices away from the job, the
researchers say that companies already influence employee drinking behaviors.
This study highlights that worksites and workgroups develop their own micro-cultures about drinking; that is, they develop norms which influence how an employee drinks at work as well as away from work . . . If where you work influences how much you drink, then harnessing the power of these groups is an underutilized strategy for influencing employee drinking practices.
In addition to recommending that employers examine their overall attitudes toward alcohol and how the corporate culture influences drinking behavior, the researchers call for more employee awareness campaigns and other public health measures in the workplace.
The precedent to exert an influence on drinking behaviors already exists when businesses use education and normative strategies for other health-related lifestyle issues, such as fitness, nutrition, cholesterol reduction, and smoking cessation, said the study authors.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism funded the Corporate Alcohol Study. The seven participating corporations included an insurer, an oil company, a paper manufacturer, a building-materials concern, and two conglomerates.
Editors note: Copies of the report are available by writing to JSI Research and Training Institute, Attn: Thomas Mangione, 44 Farnsworth Street, Boston, MA 02210. Or send E-mail to: tmangione@jsi.com.
What can you tell us about the overall health and safety of the University of Iowa
from an alcohol and other drug standpoint? Are we getting better?
A. I like to believe that the University of Iowa is a pretty safe environment. But we are
not out of the woods yet. Our data indicate that some of our students are consuming too
much alcohol and that they get into trouble because of this excess consumption. We think
that the problem is probably most severe for people under the age of 21&emdash; that
is, underage drinkers. We recognize that some binge drinkers are of legal age, but we
believe we can have the biggest impact on safety by concentrating our efforts on the
younger drinkers first.
One of the issues that were beginning to understand&emdash; and its been a real learning process for us in our Stepping-up Project for the Matter of Degree program&emdash;is the extent to which abuse of alcohol affects other people, even those who are not drinking. It comes in a number of ways&emdash; through property damage, through assaults on people, through higher insurance costs, through clean-up the city has to do, neighborhoods have to do, through more police protection. That impact is far greater on the nondrinking public than it is on the drinkers, though of course theres always the health and safety risk for people who are drinking themselves.
How does the University of Iowa compare with other Big Ten schools in problems with
alcohol use?
A. Alcohol use is very prevalent in colleges across the United States. I would imagine
that if you look at the age of our undergraduate population, that other Big Ten schools
probably have similar problems. I believe that the research literature
finds&emdash;and my own experience confirms this&emdash;that the older the mean
age of the student population the lower the incidence of high-risk drinking, simply
because older students have other responsibilities and dont engage so much in binge
drinking. Were probably pretty comparable with other schools that have a large
cohort of students between the ages of 17 and 22, where the problems are most dramatic.
What measures are in place to gauge change in the extent of alcohol and other drug
problems?
A: We use self-report surveys to look each year at what students have to say about their
own consumption of alcohol. In addition, we are monitoring reports of alcohol-related
incidents, such as assaults on others. Some indicators will go up simply if we do a better
job of reporting and a better job of controlling data collection, so Im not
necessarily concerned if those figures go up. But in the long haul
we want to see reductions in those kinds of incidents&emdash;and thats the
direction that I hope were headed.
Several states such as Ohio, Massachusetts, and Virginia have developed state-wide
mechanisms to work on alcohol policies that affect the majority of public universities
within those states. Is something similar contemplated for Iowa?
A: I certainly hope that we will really look at what other communities are doing and
compare ourselves with those communities. I have encouraged the mayor of Iowa City to
contact the city councils of cities where the other two state universities are located.
But we cant take the attitude that one size fits all or that there are blanket
solutions for the whole state because, in fact, our communities are very different. Our
student populations are very different. Something that might work in Cedar Falls at the
University of Northern Iowa may not work here because we are different schools. We have a
different dynamic between the town and the university.
I am not necessarily looking for statewide solutions. We need local solutions for our issues, our problems. And we need to have the city working with us. I think thats the most effective way to get change&emdash;its our responsibility, it isnt the states responsibility to solve our problems.
What measures are being taken by the University to divert the attention of
first-year students from the bar scene and get them to focus more on University-sponsored
activities and projects?
A. I really have become a believer that we have to start earlier than we do, so I want to
start communicating with students before they even come to the campus. We want them to
know that we want students to get involved and have them help us craft solutions. We
understand that we need to have activities that are alcohol-free, but that those
activities have to be social, they have to be fun, and they have to be at the hours that
students might otherwise go to the bars.
In the past we often developed activities that we, who are in our mid-50s, might enjoy. But these are not necessarily the activities that students who are under 21 want to engage in. One of our most successful so far has been night games at the recreation center&emdash;with activities, food, and fun late at night.
We recognize that some binge drinkers are of legal age, but we believe we can have the biggest impact on safety by concentrating our efforts on the younger drinkers first. |
At the beginning of the academic year&emdash;a critical time for students who are new to campus to get involved in things&emdash; this year a lot of departments worked together on the Weeks of Welcome activities. Is that something you were involved with?
A: Yes, we think the first few weeks are very critical because students set patterns that they will follow throughout the year. The more that we can do to get people introduced to and engaged in activities that dont revolve around alcohol, the better off we are all going to be. Students have to find a fit; theyve got to find friends; theyve go to find things that they can be comfortable with and enjoy.
Our campus has been a grant recipient under the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundations Matter of Degree program for the past two years. What has been
accomplished and what can we expect next from that program?
A: The Robert Wood Johnsons Matter of Degree program has helped us create some
alliances with the city. Weve gotten to know each other better at all levels. We sit
together on the executive committee and talk about the kinds of problems we are
experiencing. We have started task forces; weve gotten a lot more people involved.
And we have certainly raised awareness levels so that we can speak about these issues in
common terms.
Im very excited about the fact that were communicating better. So far we have
gotten the Disorderly House Ordinance amended by the City Council, which is also willing
to look at some other ordinances that will help. I am very encouraged about what
weve been able to do. We are also getting a lot more articles in the newspaper now
about alcohol and other drug issues.
I think the community better understands what were trying to do. We have done a community- wide survey so we know how people feel in the community. We didnt know any of that before we started the Matter of Degree program. We have come a long way and I really look forward to the next few years of building on those strengths and achievements.
I really have become a believer that we have to start earlier than we do, so I want to start communicating with students before they even come to the campus |
Whats the students role in all this?
A: The students are involved in the task forces. Student government leaders are involved
in the executive committee. The more students that we can get into the process the better
off were going to be. I dont want to insult the students or have them believe
that we think theyre the problem. Id like to encourage more students to come
and talk to us about the issues and craft the solutions. I think thats happening.
Were beginning to get the kind of dialog that occurs when people realize that we respect each other. The fraternity leadership has been trying to be helpful and, while the fraternities still face some big challenges, theyve tried to take ownership of problems and actively deal with them.
Speaking of the media, how can the media such as the The Daily Iowan, our
student paper, aid in this effort?
A: The Daily Iowan is crucial, but I dont think that the staff understand
yet where they need to be, though theyre getting a little bit better. The paper
publishes more articles now about the harmful effects of alcohol than before. When I first
came to the University, people sort of looked at drinking as, oh, this is part of going to
college and just fun and games. They didnt take it seriously. But I think that
attitude is changing. I do wish that The Daily Iowan would look very hard at what it does
in accepting advertisements for drink specials. Promoting cheap drinks is a major piece of
the problem. As long as The Daily Iowan doesnt place controls on these ads then what
were doing is basically reaching to an underage population and creating the kind of
pressure that will encourage that population to drink. At some point the newspaper has got
to say, hey, wait a minute&emdash;were stopping. And I hope they will.
Mary Sue Coleman, PhD, is president of the University of Iowa and holds academic appointments as professor of biochemistry in the College of Medicine and professor of biological sciences in the College of Liberal Arts. Coleman was elected to the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine in 1997. She served on the Presidents Leadership Group of the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, which issued recommendations to college presidents in its report Be Vocal, Be Visible, Be Visionary. The University of Iowa receives funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundations Matter of Degree Program, which seeks to reduce high-risk drinking at colleges and universities. University of Iowa students Dan Patterson and Sue Ann Johnson interviewed Coleman.
Big Changes at Dartmouth
The 1978 film Animal House, which for many still epitomizes fraternity life, was
co-written by a Dartmouth alumni who was a member of Alpha Delta when he was a student.
Founded in 1769 Dartmouth has had fraternities for more than 150 years, and they are a major part of campus life. But all that may change with the colleges decision to put an end to single-sex fraternities and sororities. According to campus officials, plans to phase out the current Greek system are intended to make college life substantially coed and to encourage respectful relations between women and men. The administrators said the decision reflects concerns about problem drinking and the exclusive nature of the Greek system.
This isnt the first time that Dartmouth fraternities have come under fire. In 1978 the faculty recommended that fraternities and sororities be abolished, believing that they fostered anti-intellectualism and sexism.
A more recent report from the college's committee on diversity and community leveled similar criticisms.
Commenting on the decision Stephen Bosworth, chairman of Dartmouths board of trustees, said: What were really looking for is more of a socializing effect in terms of preparing young men and women for life in a world in which there is much more diversity in the workplace.
Students arent happy with the decision and mounted protests in the form of canceled Greek events for Dartmouths Winter Carnival. According to an Associated Press dispatch, Jamie Paul, a member of the Coed Fraternity Sorority Council, said the cancellations were intended to show that without Greek life theres simply nothing to do at Dartmouth.
Dartmouth trustees are aware that they cannot simply abandon the Greek system without replacing it with new types of housing and places for students to socialize. They say they are prepared to make the necessary investments.
Restaurateurs Get in the Prevention Act
In an effort to curb high-risk drinking, especially by students at Michigan State
University, two East Lansing restaurateurs are calling on their colleagues to join them in
a council to promote more responsible alcohol sales and service.
The goal is to discourage binge drinking among young people in this community. Were trying to say, drinking til you cant walk isnt cool, Vaughn Schneider, owner of Small Planet Food and Spirit, told The Michigan Daily.
The council, a joint effort of Schneider and Joe Bell of the Peanut Barrel Restaurant, has asked all of East Lansings alcohol licensees for their support of measures such as reducing drink specials like $1 pitchers and quarter drafts. So far the response has been positive.
Were not saying they shouldnt run drink specials, Schneider said. Its about encouraging the restaurants and bars to advertise responsibly.
According to Nate Smith-Tyge, chair of MSUs student government, the council has asked students to participate on the council.
It shows the need for restaurateurs and bar owners to put together responsible hospitality, Smith-Tyge said. People are sort of learning their lesson from what happened at Ricks with Bradley McCue.
McCue, a junior at MSU, died in November after celebrating his 21st birthday by drinking 24 shots in 90 minutes. Ricks American Cafe in East Lansing, where McCue drank the night of his death, is serving a 30-day suspension for violating state liquor laws.
Michigan Colleges Combat Deadly Drinking
All 15 public colleges and universities in Michigan got together last February to hammer
out ways to get students to understand that passing out isnt the worst consequence
of high-risk drinking. It can result in alcohol poisoning, emergency room admissions, and
sometimes death.
M. Peter McPherson, president of Michigan State University said: We want to focus on celebration drinking. Students think they will sleep it off. But if they had a lot to drink quickly, there is more alcohol in the stomach and the alcohol poisoning will continue.
According to a report in The Detroit News, students think that colleges and universities need to do a better job informing students about the dangers of drinking. One MSU sophomore said that she had no idea drinking alcohol could lead to death. Another said that students who are drinking while they are celebrating dont think that anything bad can happen to them.
Royster Harper, dean of students at University of Michigan, wants to push for a major cultural change in how drinking is seen.
Most students do not believe its possible to have a good time without alcohol. We have to help make that shift, he said.
Things that have been tried at some Michigan campuses include alcohol-free nightclub activities, laser tag and virtual reality games at Ferris State University. Administrators at the University of Michigan are working with a coffee shop to provide a late-night alternative to bars.
Ten Years Ago in Prevention File (Vol. 4, No. 2, Spring 1989) |
Pressure to reduce the federal deficit appears to be tilting the scale toward an increase in federal excise taxes on alcohol beverages.
The case for an alcohol tax increase can be made on its own merits&emdash;as a prevention measure. The deficit crisis simply gives Washington more reason to resist the arguments of the beverage industry that its products should continue to enjoy an immunity to higher taxes.
Increased alcohol taxes would both provide substantial funds to reduce the deficit and improve our nations economic and social health, says William B. Snyder, chairman and chief executive officer of Government Employees Insurance Co. (GEICO). He is one of 29 executives of major corporations who petitioned congress last year to use alcohol taxes as a deficit-reduction measure.
There is growing political support for higher alcohol taxes. The bi-partisan National Economic Commission was urged by many economists to include such as tax increases among its recommended deficit-reduction measures. Former presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter recommended increases in alcohol taxes in their proposals to incoming president George Bush. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker is backing higher excise taxes on alcohol, and they have the editorial support of major newspapers including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times.
The general public is behind the tax increase, too. A Louis Harris poll has indicated that three out of four Americans believe increased excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco should be part of a deficit-reduction strategy.
Editors note: Support for increased alcohol taxes remains strong. According to a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation survey conducted in 1997 by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 82 percent of respondents would be willing to raise alcohol taxes by 5 cents per drink if the funds were used to pay for programs to prevent minors from drinking and to increase alcohol treatment programs. Nearly three-quarters (70 percent) would support the tax if it were used to lower other taxes such as income taxes.
Letters |
What Can Parents Do? Although I agree with the intent of Rodney Skagers article (Were Not the Problem, Its the Parents! Vol. 14, No. 1, Winter 1999), it is missing one key element. What can parents do, within the family context, to prevent alcohol and other drug problems amongst their sons and daughters? They cannot single handedly make that decision for their kids, but surely you have an idea of what they can do to help the situation. As a parent, and a prevention specialist working with parents, after reading your article I am left with no direction. What is your response? Bob Walberg Prevention Education Consultant Addictions Foundation of Manitoba Canada Rodney Skager responds: Parents of course are very conscious&emdash;or should be&emdash;of the peer groups their children join. Affluent parents choose schools and neighborhoods accordingly. That is obviously one significant area. As Harris points out, even home schooling is an answer to this issue, one pursued by some parents today. Parents also do influence their children in many ways&emdash;choice of career, how to behave at home, how to parent, and so on. Telling parents to talk to their kids about marijuana, as the current U.S. television ad blitz recommends, might be a good thing if there were absolute honesty on the part of the parent, because kids ask difficult questions and know when we are hiding. But the ads dont recommend such a radical idea, needless to say. Admitting that you used marijuana a few times when you were in high school or college and suffered no ill effects may not stop your kid from experimenting, but it would help establish an open, honest, frank dialog which, in the long run, is more important, in my view. Saying that you never tried marijuana if you have of course undercuts your credibility, especially if your kid has, and maybe even for many who havent. It doesnt do any good to tell parents to talk to kids about marijuana unless the realities of the situation are understood. |
Prevention File is available at both individual and bulk subscription rates. Our bulk subscribers distribute Prevention file in their communities as a way to stimulate informed responses to alcohol, tobacco, and other drug problems. Subscribe to Prevention File so that you can join the growing number of advocates for public health-based prevention measures.
SINGLE SUBSCRIPTIONS (four issues per year):
United States 1 yr/$25 2 yrs/$40 3 yrs/$55 Canada 1 yr/$29 express Beyond Canada 1 yr/$39 express
MAIL TO:
Prevention File: Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drugs
4635 Talmadge Drive
San Diego, CA 92116-4834
Include your Name, Organization, Address, City, State, and Zip Code.
Prevention File is a publication of The Silver Gate Group (Federal Tax ID: 33-0714724) Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors or other sources cited do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the Silver Gate Group, its editorial advisers, its officers, or its personnel. Publisher: Tom Colthurst Copyright 1999 by the Silver Gate Group. Permission to reprint articles is granted for noncommercial use and with acknowledgment. We would appreciate receipt of any publication carrying a reprinted Prevention File article. Comments and suggestions are welcome. |
Scientific and Policy Advisory Board Thomas K. Greenfield, PhD George F. Koob. PhD Kathy Kellermann, PhD John Pierce, PhD Robert I. Reynolds Christopher Ringwalt, PhD Robin Room, PhD Mary L. Walshok, PhD Friedner D. Whitman, PhD |
Funded by the U.S. Department of Education since 1993, the Higher Education Center provides support to all institutions of higher education in their efforts to address alcohol and other drug problems. the Center also receives financial support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
The U.S. Department of Education established the Center to provide nationwide support for campus alcohol and other drug prevention efforts. The Center is working with colleges, universities, and proprietary schools throughout the country to develop strategies for changing campus culture, to foster environments that promote healthy lifestyles, and to prevent illegal alcohol and other drug use among students.
The Higher Education Center provides technical assistance, develops publications, and conducts training workshops. It also provides support for the Network of Colleges and Universities Committed to the Elimination of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. You can find out more by contacting the Higher Education Center directly at:
The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and other Drug
Prevention
Education Development Center, Inc.
55 Chapel Street
Newton, Massachusetts 02158-1060
Phone: (800) 676 1730
Fax: (617) 928-1537
Website: