Sourcebook | Action Planner | Task Force Planner & Guide | Highlights | Publications CD
Fuels for the Engine
By David S. Anderson, Ph.D.
Director, Center for the Advancement of Public Health George Mason UniversityStarting an automobile may seem as easy as turning the key, revving the motor, and driving away - all in a matter of seconds. While this may represent what we see, the systems necessary to make it so easy for us are actually extremely complex. They require significant engineering and testing, refinement and synchronization, and ongoing adjustments. Beyond this, quality gasoline, or alternative fuels, are needed to keep the engine running.
When focusing on our campus alcohol abuse prevention efforts, we may think that it’s as easy as having someone coordinate the campus efforts. Or, we may think that all we need to do is have an awareness week, BACCHUS and GAMMA peer educators, or a few courses on this issue. Those of us who are or have been "in the trenches" know otherwise. While the results of the 1997 College Alcohol Survey (Anderson and Gadaleto) show that 73% of campuses have a designated coordinator for substance abuse prevention issues, the vast majority of these have the responsibilities folded into their overall job. Further, the same survey demonstrates that, on average, four-year institutions allocate $13,179 each year (excluding personnel) to substance abuse efforts. That reminds me of my time as a campus coordinator with a budget of $500 for 20,000 students. With the car analogy, it’s like putting a pint of gasoline in the tank and expecting to drive across the United States.
I’ve written several articles in The Peer Educator about campus alcohol prevention efforts, each of which build upon the recommendations emerging from the Promising Practices: Campus Alcohol Strategies project, funded by The Century Council. As highlighted in the project’s Sourcebook, the articles elaborate on the need for a long-term, comprehensive perspective, and program foundations that weave the prevention efforts into the fabric of the institution. The recommendation central to this article is to "allocate appropriate resources and staff commensurate with the task."
With the car analogy, a car is not just four tires, it’s not just an engine, it’s not just a steering wheel, and it’s not just brakes. It’s all of these, and much more. The complexity of the campus alcohol abuse prevention effort is well-documented in the Task Force Planner which identifies eight types of effort (from policies to curriculum) and ten clusters of individuals or groups (including campus leadership, student organizations, faculty, and community) to implement the campus-based effort. Within this 8-by-10 matrix are 311 distinct strategies! That’s a lot of effort for the comprehensive campus effort. Further, in the accompanying Task Force Planner Guide, examples from the Sourcebook are highlighted, where available, for most of the strategies. This is all available on the project’s web site (www.promprac.gmu.edu) or contact the office at 703-993-3697.
So, how do we insure that staffing and resources commensurate with the task are allocated? First, as identified with the Task Force Planner, the task is large. Again, with project co-director Gail Gleason Milgram of Rutgers University, our advisory panel of five experts, and our project staff, we identified these 311 strategies. To allocate staffing and resources commensurate with this large task means a significant institutional commitment. In a future article, I’ll look at a complementary recommendation of obtaining support from the top and bottom of the institutional hierarchy. Suffice it to say at this point that the commitment to address alcohol abuse is a big one because of a range of issues such as entrenched attitudes, the societal context, misinformation, and long-standing traditions.
A major first step is to revise the concept of addressing alcohol abuse. This is a shared responsibility. As illustrated with the Task Force Planner, it’s the responsibility of each of us; we all have a role (or two or three!) to play. Each of the ten groups or individuals has dozens of strategies which we can incorporate into our existing responsibilities. It’s just the responsibility of the designated campus coordinator. In fact, if a coordinator is to actually do what the job title suggests, responsibilities would already be shared!
A second consideration is to reflect upon the necessary responsibilities for implementing the campus alcohol abuse prevention effort. A set of qualifications would include activities such as group coordination, policy development, enforcement, counseling, assessment and referral, training, needs assessment and evaluation, public speaking, writing, resource development, fundraising, crisis management, budgeting, public relations, and more! Just like we have specialists in the medical profession, I believe we need to think more broadly about the wide range of diverse skills necessary to implement a comprehensive alcohol abuse prevention effort. Put another way, it just seems unreasonable to expect all of these to be incorporated within one human being! This adds further support to the idea of many individuals and groups sharing the responsibility for implementing the campus’ efforts.
Third, think about the diverse resources that do already exist on and off the campus. To aid with program needs assessment and evaluation, think about researchers in many different departments. To help with program implementation, think about students or groups wanting to volunteer their efforts, or those needing an internship opportunity. To assist with marketing and message development, think about involving academic classes that focus on this specialty topic. The point is to think broadly and creatively with attention to specialized needs and skills about the involvement of others to implement the wide range of strategies.
Fourth, the importance of resources other than personnel is essential. The campus program must have a budget to implement adequately and appropriately activities and strategies which support the desired outcomes. Resources may, indeed, be gathered from other offices, and may be shared as in-kind donations. This may include the reallocation of space (like converting a storeroom into a resource center or peer educator office), the donation of materials (such as providing all printing at no charge), the assignment of clerical support (for answering telephones or preparing written materials), or technical services (for developing and maintaining the state-of-the-art web site). The budget may be supplemented for specific allocations for specific activities and events, perhaps with co-sponsorship or as a direct allocation.
Finally, while thinking about involving others and gaining support of in-kind and related resources, this does not negate the need to gain support for significant funding for fulltime professional attention and resources dedicated to alcohol abuse prevention. While the professional responsibilities can, indeed, be folded into other related responsibilities such as coordinating campus wellness activities, such a decision may then require even more professional staffing. Further, resources must be dedicated to promote a thoughtful and sustained effort for the campus.
All of this should be viewed as an investment. Because without investing in staffing and resources, we will probably continue to have a low level of "return." If campuses allocate, on average, $13,000 for resources, this does not translate into substantive and meaningful programming. However, this does not suggest that resources, alone, should be allocated to the campus effort; they must be allocated in a way which incorporates the other recommendations cited in the Promising Practices Sourcebook. Specifically, resources should be used in a way which is linked to the long-range plan and is framed within the context of the program’s desired outcomes. But having the plan and outcomes, without resources, is simply not realistic or appropriate.
Recalling the car analogy again, to have a fully functioning automobile, fueled with good gasoline or alternative fuel, we need many systems with many different specialties operating together. We have to pay more for higher quality, for more reinforced doors, for better engines, and for "accessories" such as air conditioning and radios. Just as many of these one-time accessories are now standard equipment, so should our campus programs be adjusted. The budget and resources have, for all too long, been tacked on to existing personnel and funding. The task of addressing alcohol abuse is large, and the strategies to address it are numerous; it is only reasonable to have personnel and resources sufficient for making a difference, if we really expect to do so
David S. Anderson, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor at George Mason University's Center for the Advancement of Public Health. Promising Practices: Campus Alcohol Strategies is based at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA. Project Co-Directors are GMU's Dr. Anderson and Gail Gleason Milgram, Ed.D. of the Center of Alcohol Studies, Rutgers University. Funded by a grant from The Century Council, Promising Practices: Campus Alcohol Strategies hosts a web site at http://www.promprac.gmu.edu; project staff can be contacted at 703-993-3697 or caph@gmu.edu.
If you would like to order, at no cost, any of the materials featured on this website, please e-mail your request including your name and mailing address. For additional information about Promising Practices: Campus Alcohol Strategies, please call 703-993-3697 or e-mail us.