Sourcebook
Promising Practices:
Campus Alcohol Strategies
ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION
Directory of Assessment and Evaluation Programs
Assessment and evaluation can be quantitative or qualitative in nature; projects are best served when evaluation begins at program inception. The category of assessment and evaluation encompasses needs assessments, evaluation protocols, instrumentation, use of research findings, dissemination of results, and preparation of journal articles. The framework for documenting program outcomes and strategies, assessment and evaluation efforts are critical aspects of campus programs, as they yield information that is helpful in modifying and improving campus efforts.
Campus program staff acknowledge the importance of evaluations; assessment and evaluations are particularly helpful in identifying a program’s strengths and weaknesses. These professionals believe that information gathered through a needs assessment process is especially helpful, in identifying needs as well as in monitoring trends over time and they know that such data can be used for social marketing, publicity, program review and future funding.
A very popular approach is to conduct a student questionnaire on a variety of topics. Instruments that gather information over time can be a helpful resource in providing baseline information (Boston College), as well as in tracking changes in student knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors concerning alcohol. The Core Survey is widely used to document these changes, particularly in federally-funded programs. Individual programs provide a rich source of information (University of Missouri at Columbia).
Topics covered in assessment instruments are knowledge, attitudes, behavior, consequences of alcohol use, awareness of policies, understanding of local resources, and campus services. Assessment information can also be used as a program strategy (Washington State University). Assessments can also determine faculty and staff members’ perceptions of student use and related problems (Northwestern University). Parents’ perspectives can also be documented (University of Colorado at Boulder).
Data can be collected, not only in written form, but through the use of police reports, health center reports, or incident reports. Information can also be gathered through audits of the campus environment (Longwood College and College of Saint Rose), through institutional self-assessments (Villanova University), and from observations of faculty and staff. Key informant interviews and focus groups (Troy State University) are also informative.
The implementation of assessment and evaluation can occur in a variety of ways: through trained peers, graduate research associates, professional campus staff, institutional research offices, administrators, existing environmental assessment approaches, and faculty (Montana State University - Bozeman). This information can be gathered through the use of existing methodologies or approaches that build upon and ultimately test the campus’ hypotheses regarding student knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors.
Ultimately, a comprehensive evaluation effort including numerous approaches is desired (Dartmouth College). Project staff emphasize the importance of linking evaluation with the institution’s mission. They recommend that the format of gathering and reporting assessment and evaluation results be as simple as possible and they recommend an interactive process of data collection.
DIRECTORY OF ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION PROGRAMS
Alcohol: Norms, Values and Responsibilities: Washington State University
Assessment of Faculty/Staff Program: Northwestern University
Athlete to Athlete Evaluation: St. John's University
Broad-Based Evaluation Efforts: Cuyahoga Community College, Southwest Texas State University, University of Pennsylvania, University of Washington
Campus Environment Evaluation: Longwood College, The College of Saint Rose
Comprehensive Evaluation Efforts: Dartmouth College
Employers Survey: University of Missouri - Columbia
Focus Group Project: Troy State University
Greek Community Improvement Initiative: Mansfield University
Hologram Peer Research Model: Montana State University - Bozeman
Institutional Self-Assessment: Villanova University
Justifying Assessments and Evaluations: Mansfield University
Normative Assessment Survey of Incoming Students: Boston College
Parents Association Alcohol Survey: University of Colorado at Boulder
Program Evaluation Processes: University of Missouri - Columbia
Alcohol: Norms, Values and Responsibilities
Contact:
Washington State University
Enrollment: 19,500
Public, Four Year Institution
John A. Miller, M.S. (E-mail)
Coordinator
Substance Abuse Prevention Program
Health and Wellness
Pullman, WA 99164-2302
(509) 335-6379
Objectives:
• To identify students’ perceptions of other students’ drinking behavior and correct existing misperceptions
• To document the effectiveness of a campaign to address student misperceptions
• To reduce alcohol use and abuse and the resulting problems at the university
Description:
This program is based on the premise that most college students believe that peers have more liberal attitudes toward drinking than in fact they do. It also assumes that most students believe that their peers drink to a greater excess than they do. An additional premise is that these misperceptions might encourage students to drink more than they would if they had accurate information concerning their peers’ use.
Based on prior research at the university, as well as documentation by others, the program planners identified that misperceptions exist and developed a questionnaire, which was distributed to a random sample of students’ at the beginning of the school year. The questionnaire determines actual attitudes and behaviors among students; it also assesses what respondents believe other students attitudes and behaviors are.
When a living group requests an alcohol awareness program, several days prior to the program, the questionnaire is distributed to members of the organization; during the program, trained student peer educators present the findings to the living group and facilitate the discussion.
Results gathered from this evaluation process indicate that those students whose misperceptions were changed (that is, had their perceptions of others’ use corrected) actually reduced the amount of alcohol they consumed; however, the frequency with which they consumed alcohol remained about the same.
Assessment of Faculty/Staff Program
Contacts:
Northwestern University
Enrollment: 14,014
Private, Four Year Institution
Sandra Derks, M.S.
Alcohol and Substance Abuse Educator/
Co-director, Health Education
Annann Hong, M.P.H.
Alcohol/Substance Abuse Educator
Health Education
633 Emerson Street
Evanston, IL 60208
(847)467-2840
Objectives:
• To provide information for planning the Natural Helpers program
• To document short-term and long-term effectiveness of the Natural Helpers program
Description:
The university implemented a Natural Helpers program to build a sense of community between campus components, and to increase availability of trained resources to provide support regarding drug and alcohol issues. The goal of the Natural Helpers program is to provide faculty and staff members with adequate knowledge and skills to serve as Natural Helper Resources for the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Education Department. The training provides knowledge and skills regarding assessment, intervention, treatment and recovery. Participants are given opportunities to network with other Natural Helpers, as well as to practice counseling and intervention skills.
At the beginning of the Natural Helpers process, an assessment form solicits participants’ thoughts about what they hope to get out of the training, what they think the role of the Natural Helper is, difficulties they may encounter as a Natural Helper, some of the symptoms to look for in a student who has a drug or alcohol problem, skills or information needed to be the kind of Natural Helper that they would like to be and what they would like to offer the program. The results of this needs assessment help the university planners to choose which specific activities to present in the three-stage training program.
The first set of questions addresses the participants’ perceptions of the university’s use and abuse of substances by asking the ways in which the use of alcohol and drugs has an impact on students’ study behaviors, class attendance, student performance in class, or social maturity. Respondents are also asked about their concern regarding the level of substance use, as well as ways they can make a difference. Three questions about the university’s policies regarding alcohol and drugs are included.
Four questions serve as the focus of awareness of campus-based intervention and services and determine if the respondent is able to recognize a substance use problem in students or colleagues. The level of involvement in campus efforts or other seminars is assessed as is the number of occasions when substance abuse issues are raised with students or colleagues. Faculty members are asked about their incorporation of substance abuse issues in their courses.
Seven knowledge questions, rated on a true/false/don’t know scale, are included in the instrument, as are six questions regarding the comfort level of talking with students, colleagues or family members about their use of substances, and the respondent’s ability to identify individuals under the influence of substances. Finally, questions are raised about perceptions of student substance use and of the prevalence of use of alcohol and other specific substances.
A final assessment is an evaluation form regarding the training program’s presentation issues, the educational experience and ways of improving it. Training is a key question to be answered in the assessment of whether answers on the items changed as a result of training, and whether more training makes a difference. Another question is the extent to which changes are maintained over time.
Outcomes are assessed via tracking interventions in which Natural Helpers have participated. The nature and outcome of each incident is documented and collated on a quarterly basis. Overall, the data received from the variety of sources provide helpful insight to the Natural Helper program staff. Different responses on each campus (Chicago or Evanston) help to provide targeted training activities for the faculty and staff.
Broad-Based Evaluation Efforts
Contacts:
Cuyahoga Community College
Enrollment: 24,758
Public, Two Year Institution
Sharon Bell, M.P.A.
Program Coordinator
4250 Richmond Road
Highland Hills, OH 44122
(216) 987-2059
Southwest Texas State University
Enrollment: 20,889
Public, Four Year Institution
Judy Row, M.Ed.
Director
ADEPT Center
Commons 223
San Marcos, TX 78666
(512) 245-3601
University of Pennsylvania
Enrollment: 22,684
Private, Four Year Institution
Kate Ward-Gaus, M.S.Ed. (E-mail)
Health Educator
Student Health Services
Box 745 - HUP
Philadelphia, PA 19104-4283
(215) 573-3525
University of Washington
Enrollment: 33,719
Public, Four Year Institution
Deborah J. Costar, M.A. (E-mail)
Assistant to the Vice President for Student Affairs
University of Washington
471 Schmitz Hall
Box 355831
Seattle, WA 98195-5831
(206) 543-4972
Objectives:
• To gather information from students on an ongoing basis
• To use diverse approaches to evaluate overall campus efforts
Description:
The efforts on four campuses exemplify the importance of integrating evaluation throughout campus strategies. These surveys were implemented to help provide the campus alcohol program administrators with ongoing information on the effectiveness of their efforts.
A common approach is the implementation of the Core Survey by colleges; this addresses substance use, age of first use, average weekly alcohol consumption, perceptions of other student use, consequences of use, attitudes toward use and related issues. Cuyahoga Community College used the Core Survey and incorporates the results into its campus-based effort; Southwest Texas State University administers the Core Survey utilizing results in their community-wide (faculty, staff and students) education efforts. Student perspectives are also gathered through locally based instrumentation such as the University Life and Substance Use Survey, developed by the University of Washington. In addition to assessing student use of alcohol and drugs, the effectiveness of educational efforts undertaken is addressed.
Another approach used by campuses is participant evaluations of prevention education efforts. Cuyahoga Community College conducts this type of evaluation for every prevention event, and the University of Pennsylvania prepares post-educational workshop evaluations. Southwest Texas State University evaluates peer education training, peer education discussions, class presentations, counseling services and the Alcohol Education Seminar.
An annual quality assurance review is another approach used; Cuyahoga Community College conducts an annual review of goals and assessment data, as required by the county’s Drug and Alcohol Services Board. Other approaches include evaluation of the peer education course, processes and presentations, and the reception by students of each event (used by Southwest Texas State University). The University of Pennsylvania uses quantifiable data from Health Services, Counseling, Residential Life, Judicial Affairs and Public Safety to determine service needs.
A variety of campus offices are involved in the implementation of these various approaches. At the University of Washington, the Office of Educational Assessment conducts the survey. Southwest Texas State University’s ADEPT Center evaluates counseling/referral services and maintains the results on file.
The use of these findings is particularly important. The University of Washington conducts its own survey to evaluate university policies and programs and the survey results are used in program planning on an ongoing basis. Cuyahoga Community College’s Planning and Action Committee uses the long- and short-term evaluation to monitor its project objectives. Southwest Texas State University reviews the qualitative and quantitative data by semester to make its student-based effort as effective and efficient as possible. At the University of Pennsylvania, planners have the goal of having programming and resources available for each type of drinking or non-drinking behavior; thus, the evaluation information generated is used to monitor the success of resources and programming, as well as policies.
Campus Environment Evaluation
Contact:
Longwood College
Enrollment: 3,351
Public, Four Year Institution
Susan Bruce, M.Ed.
(New Contact: Lisa Cheyne) (E-mail)
Coordinator
The Wellness Center
Longwood College
201 High Street
Farmville, VA 23909
(804) 395-2509
The College of Saint Rose
Enrollment: 3,879
Private, Four Year Institution
John R. Ellis, M.Ed. (E-mail)
Director of Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Services
The College of Saint Rose
432 Western Avenue
Albany, NY 12203
(518) 454-5166
Objectives:
• To gather information about the campus environment
• To generate ongoing information to guide the campus alcohol abuse prevention effort
Description:
Longwood College and The College of Saint Rose consider the overall campus environment as a way of dealing with alcohol abuse and design strategies to blend the assessment efforts with the implementation of alcohol abuse prevention strategies.
The Campus Climate Council (CCC) at The College of Saint Rose is charged with assessing the overall climate of the campus and recommends appropriate programs and activities for all campus constituencies.
The CCC’s Assessment Subcommittee has implemented several distinct efforts: a campus needs assessment and numerous specific assessments. The results of these assessments are reported to the CCC and the Programming Subcommittee of the CCC utilizes the results to recommend and/or or implement appropriate campus programming.
The campus needs assessment identifies student perceptions of the nature of the educational, social and safety environment of the campus. Students are randomly selected and mailed the survey. To motivate completion, the names of those who complete the survey are entered into a raffle for a gift certificate from the campus store. Ongoing mini-surveys are also conducted informally on a bi-weekly basis to learn students’ perceptions, knowledge and behaviors regarding alcohol and drug use. One question asked is, "When did you take your first drink and why?" (71% indicated that they had their first drink by the age of 15). Another question is "What does the slogan `think before you drink’ mean to you?" Coverage of this bi-weekly informal survey is provided in the campus newspaper.
Longwood College’s approach of gathering information on the overall environment also incorporates the information gathered on student alcohol use. A Culture Audit highlights aspects of the campus environment. The audit’s evaluators note that students define involvement in high-risk behaviors primarily in terms of social activities, which are often perceived to be in competition with academic involvement. Teaching students the information and prevention skills necessary to intervene when they are aware of a substance abuse problem and engaging them in valued and valuable activities that do not include alcohol consumption are recommended. Following the review of these data, the campus planners’ resolve is to build a critical mass of students who are willing to challenge their peers to adopt health-enhancing attitudes and behaviors.
A related environmental strategy was a study on sexual assault, which identified levels of physical abuse in a dating relationship and documented high-risk and abusive behaviors in many students. Based on the finding that many students are at risk of experiencing substance abuse problems as a result of suffering from sexual abuse, the campus planners determined that prevention efforts to address substance abuse must be combined with those identified to address sexual violence.
On an ongoing basis, Longwood College personnel assess attitudes of students on these environmental issues. For example, they ask agree/disagree questions such as, "If a man who is drunk forces a women to have sex, he is not really at fault because he didn’t know what he was doing," or "If a woman who is drunk is forced into having sex, she is at fault, because she should have known what she was doing." Positive changes in attitudes regarding the use of alcohol and appropriate dating behaviors have been demonstrated, and blending these approaches with other campus efforts is a way of addressing the overall climate.
Comprehensive Evaluation Efforts
Contact:
Dartmouth College
Enrollment: 4,283
Private, Four Year Institution
John Pryor, M.A. (E-mail)
Coordinator of Evaluation and Research
Office of the Dean of the College
7 Rope Ferry Road #6143
Hanover, NH 03755
(603) 650-1449
Objectives:
• To understand the role that alcohol plays at the college
• To assess the effectiveness of the current prevention programs
Description:
A campus-wide survey indicated that the vast majority of students felt that the social atmosphere contributed to alcohol abuse. In addition, determining the effectiveness of current programs was deemed to be essential to evaluating the campus efforts. Based on recommendations of the campus task force, several in-depth assessment and evaluation strategies to determine the role of alcohol at the college, including beliefs about use, consequences of use, understanding of policies and the effect on the social climate were implemented.
The campus effort uses quantitative and qualitative approaches. From a quantitative perspective, the Core Survey is used annually to measure student behavior, attitudes and beliefs. An addendum to the Core instrument asks more specific questions about the quantity and frequency of alcohol use, as well as some additional questions on the consequences of alcohol use. Campus personnel receive the data on disk to run their own analysis. Periodic special reports are also prepared for campus administrators.
Another quantitative approach is a pre-test/post-test using the On Campus Talking About Alcohol program, which contains two follow-up post-tests (at one month and six months) to be completed after the alcohol education program. The data documents whether students learn key components of the curriculum and maintain them over time, as well as report some behavioral changes. Program modifications are made based on the evaluation and have been received positively by students involved.
Focus groups are conducted throughout the academic year with numerous constituencies to further examine alcohol and its effects on both individual students and the social structure at the college. Specific groups are fraternity officers, students living in the Alcohol/Other Drug-Free Residence Hall, students attending non-alcohol social events, and other targeted groups. Some focus groups have emphasized gathering information on topics such as the experience of the living group situation, while others have asked participants to expand on responses to a question from the campus Core Survey. Questions are also raised to gather reactions to some of the survey findings.
A final evaluative approach is a policy analysis, which compares this institution’s alcohol policies with those of peer institutions to study the methods being used to deal with alcohol on campus.
Focus Group Project
Contact:
Troy State University
Enrollment: 6,449
Public, Four Year Institution
Brooke Faulk, M.A., M.S.
STEP Project Coordinator
Counseling and Wellness Services
110 Wright Hall
Troy, AL 36082
(334) 670-3700
Objectives:
• To assess the campus culture through qualitative assessments
• To provide comparisons over a two-year period
Description:
Pre- and post-tests using the Core Survey and an Assessment of STEP Survey gauge administrator, faculty and staff knowledge of alcohol and drug policies, programs, enforcement and assessment. Focus groups are conducted to gain a better understanding of the student culture.
There are 10 groups in this study: four groups consist of randomly selected university students; the other six groups represent athletic teams, sorority women, fraternity men, religious organizations, band members and minority students. Students may sign the consent form to participate, which is distributed on arrival at the session, or they may leave.
The session begins with an explanation of the research process and the staff planners express their concern about current trends among college students’ alcohol use. The fact that students are in the best position to help campus leaders understand the campus culture is stressed. Student facilitators indicate that the participants were randomly selected, and that all comments made in the Focus Group are confidential. They are also told that the discussion will be videotaped to help the research process; however, the tape will be erased after the researchers review the videotape.
To frame the discussion, the Focus Group members are asked the following questions:
• What are some of the reasons why students drink alcohol?
• Do most students on campus drink more now than they did in high school?
• Is it easier to get alcohol in college than in high school? What makes it easier?
• What is it about the university culture that contributes to alcohol use and abuse?
• Do any of your friends have problems with alcohol and other drugs? What do you suggest that we do about the problems? Are there any solutions?
• Have you ever tried to do anything about someone’s alcohol use or your own?
The data gathered from the Focus Groups are compared over time. Pre-test results provide guidance for the campus program and the post-test comparisons provide additional insight.
Hologram Peer Research Model
Contact:
Montana State University - Bozeman
Enrollment: 10,692
Public, Four Year Institution
Jennifer Haubenreiser, M.A.
Program Evaluation/Research Specialist
Jeff Linkenbach, Ed.D.
Director
Department of Health Promotion
Student Health Service
Montana State University-Bozeman
Bozeman, MT 59717
(406) 994-2337
Objectives:
• To guide campus efforts on health- related norms and behaviors
• To provide meaningful research projects designed and implemented by students
Description:
The Hologram Peer Research Model was designed by the health promotion staff to guide the campus’ efforts on health-related norms and behaviors. The Hologram is comprised of seven components: research, social marketing, behavior change, health reciprocity (service learning), membership/leadership development, organizational continuity and financial responsibility. Emphasizing research and evaluation activities, projects designed and implemented by health promotion staff and students are used to help focus programming and training.
The first step in implementing this research based model was the hiring of a full-time research/evaluation specialist to conduct both qualitative and quantitative studies to assess needs and evaluate existing health promotion efforts. Strategies include the Core Survey, focus groups with specific audiences, and the assistance of undergraduates with research experiences and evaluation projects. Examples of evaluation activities facilitated by the specialist and a baseline summary of incoming freshman and an evaluation of the outdoor orientation program. These projects help faculty, staff and students better understand the unique roles they play on the campus and how they can contribute to changing the myths about campus substance use.
Students are mentored through the research and evaluation process by the Health Promotion Research/Evaluation Specialist. Student Health leadership classes also include research as part of the curriculum and a new course has been developed to involve students in the process of research and evaluation within the field of health promotion.
One result of the Hologram Model is the development of a cost-effective way to generate data and improve health promotion programs on the campus. A related outcome is that the information received provides guidance in the process of spending resources to improve the health of university students. Finally, a yearly publication documenting health promotion research and evaluation activities is prepared. Collection and dissemination of relevant data (for assessing needs and for use in social marketing campaigns) has made the department of Health Promotion a valuable source of information on campus.
Institutional Self-Assessment
Contact:
Villanova University
Enrollment: 10,735
Private, Four Year Institution
Janice Janosik, M.A. (E-mail)
Director
Center for Alcohol and Drug Assistance
800 Lancaster Avenue
Villanova, PA 19085
(610) 519-7407
Objectives:
• To evaluate the effectiveness of services offered to students
• To acquire internal and external evaluation data
Description:
The Center for Alcohol and Drug Assistance evaluates the effectiveness of its student services by distributing anonymous questionnaires to its constituents each academic year.
One evaluation is conducted with students who are mandatory judicial referrals. A 12-item program evaluation asks the respondents to indicate the extent to which each of the specified items has been successful. Each of the items is rated on a five-point scale, from poor to excellent. Questions have to do with the scheduling of appointments, quality of Center personnel and facilities, the degree to which they feel they were listened to and treated fairly during their appointments, confidentiality, quality of the educational program and information presented, and degree to which information shared made them think and will influence their behavior in the future. The students were also asked whether they felt comfortable using the services of the Center, if they would refer the Center to a friend, and whether they think the Alcohol and Drug Program should continue. The results for one academic year illustrate that 95% of the respondents indicate that the presented information made them think and influenced their behavior. In addition, 90% felt that the mandatory referral program should continue, and 90% felt comfortable utilizing Center services.
The second type of evaluation is conducted with self-referrals, as well as all short-term and long-term counseling. Again, the questions are assessed on a five-point scale (from poor to excellent) and address issues of scheduling of appointments, quality of Center facilities, availability of support services, availability of resource literature, degree to which Center staff greeted them warmly and made them feel comfortable, degree to which Center services met their personal expectations, degree to which confidentiality was respected, and degree of personal support received from Center staff and services. In addition, the individual counselor was rated on a four-point scale (from poor to excellent) on issues of his/her knowledge about addiction, ability to accept the student in a supportive and non-judgmental way, promptness in keeping appointments, ability to positively promote change in the student’s life and ability to respect confidentiality. Additional questions about recommending the Center to a friend and plans to continue using the services provided were asked; as was a question regarding whether the students think the Alcohol and Drug Program should continue. All of the Center’s clients responded that they would recommend the Center to a friend and think that the program should continue.
In addition to these two evaluations, Center staff conduct self-assessments using internal and external resources. Guidelines from the Council on the Advancement of Standards for Alcohol and Drug Programs provide a basis for self-analysis. In addition, regular external analysis is conducted through benchmarking studies with the University’s peer group. Further, intra-divisional feedback is solicited from offices most involved in outreach activities.
Normative Assessment Survey of Incoming Students
Contact:
Boston College
Enrollment: 14,698
Private, Four Year Institution
Kimberley Timpf, M.Ed.
Assistant Dean for AOD Education
O’Connell House
Room 109
Chestnut Hill, MA 02167
(617) 552-8639
Objectives:
• To gather information during new student orientation to present to parents and students
• To influence norms and behaviors on the campus
• To empower the majority of students who make positive choices and do not engage in abusive behavior
Description:
During the summer the college offers three-day orientation sessions for incoming first-year students. A survey, developed by the Office of Alcohol and Drug Education with the assistance of the director of the First Year Experience, is administered during each session by 35 orientation advisors. On the first day, students are given a survey on attitudes about drinking and drug use, quantity and frequency of drinking over the past year, consequences resulting from alcohol abuse (such as blackouts, vomiting, or unplanned/unwanted sexual experiences, or low grades) and perceptions regarding student substance use to both parents and students at the college. The information is compiled and presented on the following day in separate sessions on community standards. The Assistant Dean for Alcohol and Drug Education and the Dean for Student Affairs conduct these sessions.
Professional staff acknowledge that the norms of campus life are, to a large extent, the result of perceived behaviors. The orientation program was initiated because much of the campus alcohol abuse is believed to result from the reputation that students feel they must live up to once arriving on campus. The aim of addressing norms is to empower the majority of students who make positive choices and do not engage in abusive behavior. Further, it increases students’ awareness of the services and programs available on campus.
Providing information during the summer orientation program, to both parents and students, provides an opportunity for parents and their children to discuss positive choices prior to enrollment. It further provides an opportunity for expectations to be shared, prior to the fall classes.
One insight gained from conducting this effort has been the realization by parents that many behaviors and attitudes are fairly well established before the student arrives at college and this creates a context for discussing alcohol and drug use. Informal observations include an increase in first-year student membership in substance abuse peer education efforts, an increase in first-year students identifying themselves as persons in recovery from addiction and an increase in applications for substance free housing in the freshman areas.
Parents Association Alcohol Survey
Contact:
University of Colorado at Boulder
Enrollment: 24,548
Public, Four Year Institution
Sara Borst
Coordinator, CU Parents Association
Campus Box 459
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309
(303) 492-2283
Objectives:
• To gather insights from students’ parents regarding alcohol issues on campus
• To gain parental support for and in participation for designing programs
Description:
Following the highly publicized alcohol-related death of a university student, the Parents Association wanted to identify ways that they could be helpful in reducing alcohol abuse on the campus. They decided to conduct an informal survey of other parents to determine the variety of views on campus alcohol abuse and to use the survey information to assist in the planning of future campus policies and prevention programs. The three specific objectives of the parent survey were: to obtain an understanding of parental views of whether alcohol use on campus was a problem; to learn parents’ perceptions of the extent of problems associated with alcohol; and to learn parents’ perspectives on the viability of certain potential solutions.
Representatives of the university’s Parents Association worked with the Research Department to develop the "fax it in" questionnaire. This was published as part of a regular parent newsletter. Specific concerns on the questionnaire included:
• How parents felt about campus drinking
• Whether parents were able to get information about campus substance abuse efforts
• Whether beer should be served at football games (for those age 21 and older)
The questionnaire was prepared by the university Research Office. A research office in student affairs tabulated the returns and then distributed the results to the Parents Association.
The written responses, coded by the research office staff, revealed that there was a wide diversity of opinion about campus drinking, at the football games and with other issues, providing helpful insights for campus planning. Questions were raised by parents regarding the implementation of policies, the availability of support services on campus and the need for enforcement. Comments also showed appreciation of the Parents Association for addressing this issue "head-on."
University personnel cite the questionnaire as successful since information on the three specific areas was ascertained. Also, 400 questionnaires were returned out of the 20,000 mailed, which allowed the planners to make some qualified generalizations. In addition, the information provided by the respondents was quite complete. Specific actions taken by the university demonstrated to the parents that their involvement has impact on current campus activities. Parents have expressed a willingness to participate in other joint ventures.
Program Evaluation Processes
Contact:
University of Missouri - Columbia
Enrollment: 22,136
Public, Four Year Institution
Kim Dude, M.Ed.
Assistant Director Student Life
Wellness Resource Center and ADAPT
205 Brady Commons
University of Missouri-Columbia
Columbia, MO 65211
(573) 882-4634
Objectives:
• To obtain prompt feedback from students about campus prevention programs
• To provide accountability to use for ongoing program planning purposes
Description:
ADAPT and the Wellness Resource Center staff administer a one-page questionnaire after most of their sponsored programs and events. The Program Evaluation Questionnaire was constructed with the goal of having a single, all-purpose, easy to administer questionnaire that could be used to evaluate different kinds of programs, events and services. It is typically administered during the Alcohol Awareness Month activities, Peer Educator presentations, Wellness Month events and other organized programs. Students can complete the survey in one minute, resulting in the extremely high response rate of 95% of program attendees.
Information about the respondent is asked, including gender, year in school, fraternity/sorority affiliation and typical alcohol consumption. Four questions focus on the event just attended. One question is, "How much did today’s program make you think about alcohol abuse among college students?" Another question is, "How much did today’s program make you think about your own alcohol use?" A third question asks about whether the information received in the program makes respondents more or less interested in using alcohol, and the final question asks him/her to assess the value of the program.
One question on the survey provides a quick measure of a student’s "state of change." This question provides three choices in response to the question, "Which of the following best describes your feelings about your own alcohol use?" Responses are: "I don’t think I drink too much"; "Sometimes I think I should cut down on my drinking"; and "I am actually changing my drinking habits right now." This particular question helps the staff understand how well they are reaching students who consume large amounts of alcohol, but who do not feel that they have a drinking problem.
The information gathered from these surveys is compiled and compared with the university norms to determine how those who attended the program are similar to or different from the "typical" university student. When examining the results of the survey, the responses of different groups are compared (men versus women, fraternity/sorority member versus not). Another comparison is whether students have different responses based on their level of alcohol consumption. With this type of analysis, one event can be compared with another to determine which was more effective with a particular group of students.
Program results are typically available the day after the program or event. Tables and graphs are prepared and personal comments are compiled. While this is often done by a graduate research assistant, peer educators frequently tabulate the results by hand.
Athlete to Athlete Evaluation
Contact:
St. John’s University
Enrollment: 1,816
Private, Four Year Institution
Daniel Casey, M.A.
Counselor
St. John’s University
CCS Box 2000
Collegeville, MN 56321
(320) 363-2681
Objectives:
• To reduce alcohol use and its negative
consequences
• To engage students in establishing and maintaining team guidelines about
alcohol use and non-use
• To document effectiveness of changes among student athletes
Description:
The Athlete to Athlete Program was designed in 1988 to assist student athletes to establish and maintain key team guidelines about alcohol use and non-use. Conducted by an alumnus of St. John’s University, the program is implemented with team captains from each sport. The initial discussions take place in four 2-hour training sessions held with all coaches and trainers. These sessions address the role of drugs and alcohol among college athletes, the role of athletic departments, ways of preventing and responding to substance use problems, and strategies for helping student athletes set personal and team guidelines for the use of substances. Following these training sessions, each team conducts, on an annual basis, a meeting prior to the sports season, at which time team members discuss the risks associated with drug and alcohol use. Each team sets its own guidelines for the use and non-use of substances.
The evaluation process has three components. Interviews were conducted with all college staff members involved in some aspect of alcohol education on campus including those with administrative leadership, as well as community representatives. Throughout these interviews, it was clear that each interviewee was concerned about alcohol use in general and its impact on student development. The staff members cited the Athlete to Athlete Program as a significant and consistent component of prevention efforts on the campus. Virtually all of the perceptions of the program’s impact are positive. Although not initially accepted by all members of the Athletics Department, the program currently is implemented in all varsity sports and has consistently favorable assessments from coaches, administrators, and counseling staff.
Focus groups serve as the second component of the evaluation process. Groups interviewed included Athletics Department programming personnel, as well as student leaders, student athletes, team leaders, and representatives from the general student population. This process demonstrated that student athletes are willing and able to talk with peers about alcohol use, choices, and problems. Both student athletes and non-athletes believe that student athletes drink less than other students. Further, student athletes tend to report less intoxication.
The third method of evaluation is a survey. Both the quantity and frequency patterns of drinking by athletes, compared to non-athletes, have reversed since the program began; currently student athletes report a lower consumption level than non-athletes. Marked declines in the instances of negative consequences of alcohol use, being intoxicated, doing something that was later regretted, driving a car when drunk, and similar behaviors have been reported among the student athletes over the 10-year period.
The results of these evaluation methods suggest that the Athlete to Athlete Program is having a positive impact on the behavior of student athletes, their alcohol use choices, and alcohol-related behavior. The survey data show an increased rate of abstinence and more moderate rates of consumption by program participants and a marked decline of negative consequences due to alcohol. The qualitative measure suggests a generally positive feeling about the program among staff and student participants.
Employers Survey
Contact:
University of Missouri – Columbia
Enrollment: 22,313
Public, Four Year Institution
Kim Dude, M.Ed.
Assistant Director of Student Life
Wellness Resource Center and ADAPT
34 Brady Commons
Columbia, MO 65211
(573) 882-4634
Objectives:
• To communicate information on substance use to students throughout the university community
• To gather information regarding the role of drink "specials" in the alcohol use of young adults
• To communicate the risk of negative consequences that could hurt students’ chances of future employment
Description:
In an effort to provide students with current information on a range of issues, the ADAPT Program implemented several distinct surveys. These telephone surveys gather information that can be used to enhance the quality of student life, as well as to inform students of their employment opportunities following college.
One survey addresses the role of drink specials in the alcohol use of young adults and asks questions about times when alcoholic beverages are sold at a discount (such as "penny pitchers," "two-for-one specials," "quarter draws," and "ladies’ nights"). Questions address frequency of going to bars and nightclubs, importance of drink specials, and feelings about a law that prohibits drink specials.
This survey, conducted by ADAPT peer educators, is administered to students who have been to a bar in the college town and also to students who have not been to a local bar. The findings of this survey suggest that student alcohol consumption would decrease if drink specials were regulated. This information was shared with the Community 2000 organization as well as state legislators and other state government officials.
The other survey gathers information that indicates the negative consequences of students’ use of drugs and alcohol during college on their chances for future employment. The university’s ADAPT Program prepared an Employers Survey to examine how employers deal with drug and alcohol issues in the workplace. This five-minute survey was administered by telephone to the personnel directors of the largest businesses in the area surrounding the university, including insurance companies, hospitals, local government, private business, and universities. These companies employ approximately 50 percent of the region’s labor force. Questions include the likelihood of hiring a person who had a drug/alcohol-related offense on his/her record and any assistance that companies provide to employees with substance use problems.
The results were presented in programs conducted by the ADAPT staff and peer educators. They were also presented during a panel discussion called "Alcohol, Drugs and Careers," offered during alcohol awareness month. The findings were also distributed through the office’s "Reality Check" advertisement in the student newspaper. The purpose of these advertisements is to raise students’ awareness of actual substance use norms on campus as well as the potential negative consequences of substance use.
A formal evaluation of the "Alcohol, Drugs and Careers" program found that most students felt that the program was of at least some value while approximately one-third felt that it was of either considerable or great value.
Greek Community Improvement Initiative
Contact:
Mansfield University
Enrollment: 2,954
Public, Four Year Institution
Carmen Bianco
Director
Office of Alcohol and Other Drugs Education
120 Pinecrest Manor
Mansfield University
Mansfield, PA 16933-1623
(717) 662-4932
Objectives:
• To improve the Greek community’s image by reducing the level of heavy drinking
• To identify problems associated with the overall "health" of fraternity and sorority members
• To disseminate accurate information about fraternity and sorority members’ attitudes and behavior
Description:
Based on national statistics and local anecdotes, fraternities and sororities are high-risk groups for problems related to alcohol use. A large portion of the campus population has a negative perception of the fraternity and sorority communities due to the drinking by members of these groups. In addition, the health of the fraternity/sorority group has been a concern for university officials, as well as the leaders of these organizations. The leaders of the Greek organizations were invited to be part of the effort to improve the image of the fraternity/sorority community by reducing the extent of heavy drinking. Three needs assessment methodologies were implemented to identify the nature and scope of the problem and to provide baseline information for subsequent evaluation.
The first instrument, designed for Greek members, was taken from the "Our Chapter, Our Choice" survey, which is distributed nationally by the National Interfraternity Conference. This "opinionnaire" identifies attitudes and levels of drug and alcohol use.
Questions emphasize perceptions of the chapter, its social activities, and policy enforcement. Questions also focus on the individual, including positive activities, problem behaviors, and their use of drugs and alcohol.
The second instrument is the Greek Organization Assessment which asks fraternity/sorority students questions in 10 different areas to help them identify their role as part of the solution regarding the image of fraternities and sororities on the campus. General topic areas include academics, community service/public relations, social activities, pledging, leadership development, the advisor, the Greek Affairs coordinator, university support, and strategies to help improve Greek affairs.
The third instrument is the Focus Group Assessment of Greek Organizations. Students who are not in a fraternity or sorority are asked a series of questions about their perception of Greek organizations, including perception of activities related to Greek affairs (such as pledging or service projects) and a rating of the Greek community on specific issues.
Implementation of the needs assessment protocol was conducted through the Greek Affairs coordinator with the assistance of an intern. A president’s council has also been formed to collect information, to discuss the data, to make recommendations, and to formulate an action plan.
Costs of the assessment are covered by the campus Office of Alcohol and Other Drugs Education and have been kept to a minimum.
Justifying Assessments and Evaluations
Contact:
Mansfield University
Enrollment: 2,954
Public, Four Year Institution
Carmen Bianco
Director
Alcohol and Other Drugs Education
120 Pinecrest Manor
Mansfield University
Mansfield, PA 16933-1623
(717) 662-4932
Objectives:
• To define the purpose of and direction for the campus drug and alcohol education effort
• To produce drug and alcohol educational efforts that are outcome-based, cost-effective, and reflective of student needs
• To facilitate a process for ongoing review and dialogue
Description:
The campus alcohol education efforts were initiated many years ago with a theme week. Educational programming was conducted without a defined purpose and without goals, objectives, or an action plan. Through use of assessments and evaluation approaches, refinements in the purpose and direction of campus drug and alcohol education efforts have been accomplished.
Three specific strategies are used to provide information for direction setting: a Student Background and Behavior Survey, which is conducted during the new student orientation; assessment methodologies used with the fraternity and sorority members; and implementation of the processes from the Council for the Advancement of Standards (CAS) for Student Services/Development Program, the Alcohol and Other Drug Program.
The Student Background and Behavior Survey is designed to profile student information including personal habits and behavior, particularly relating to the use of drugs and alcohol. The results are used to learn more about the factors that facilitate or inhibit a student’s academic success and to improve services to students on campus. A complementary survey is conducted during the students’ third year on campus. This instrument consists of 33-items that address family background, use of drugs and alcohol, beliefs about alcohol and its effects, perceptions of drinking problems, and experiences with negative consequences.
The approach used with the fraternity and sorority communities includes the "Our Chapter, Our Choice" survey, which identifies attitudes and levels of drug and alcohol use. Conducted simultaneously, another survey instrument, the Greek Organization Assessment, identifies weaknesses in the Greek system that interfere with community development and success. Each of these instruments and protocols is summarized in a separate abstract.
The third assessment and evaluation activity uses the CAS programs. The preliminary review consists of an internal self-assessment. A committee of students, faculty, and staff conducts an evaluation of the campus drug and alcohol program in 13 areas on a scale from noncompliance to compliance. The format specifically includes the identification of documentation and rationale, description of deficiencies, actions needed for compliance, and program enhancement. The second phase includes having an external auditor on campus who interviews students, faculty, and staff; reviews CAS internal assessments; and identifies strengths and weaknesses of the program, internal opportunities and external threats. This review provides the program with a needed focus. In addition to these three standard methodologies, all educational efforts are evaluated by participants for content, satisfaction, and application, and suggestions are encouraged. Educational programs receiving such evaluation include T.I.P.S. training, Safe Spring Break, theme weeks and the policy violator class (utilizing On Campus Talking About Alcohol).
Finally, other campus departments provide data for evaluation, such as Residence Life violation frequencies, campus police arrests, and counseling and health center referrals. A yearly review is conducted and revisions of the goals and objectives, including the extent to which the objectives are measurable and whether they have been met, are made. Accountability of individuals and offices is inherent in this assessment and evaluation process. Sharing the information garnered with appropriate offices helps to facilitate the institutionalization of the program and to broaden support. Inclusion of faculty and staff with interest in drug and alcohol concerns helps broaden the scope. Evaluation processes are disseminated through campus-wide newsletter, radio, TV, and other media.