Challenging the Primacy of Alcohol in the Campus Culture of … · · 2013-05-30Challenging the...

Challenging the Primacy of Alcohol in the Campus Culture of the 14 Universities in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE)

U.S. Department of Education Grant2009-2012

The PASSHE Coalition for the Prevention and Reduction of Underage and Binge DrinkingFinal Report and Independent Evaluation

BLOOMSBURG CAL IFORNIA CHEYNEY CLARION EAST STROUDSBURG ED INBORO IND IANA KUTZTOWN LOCK HAVEN

MANSF IELD M ILLERSVILLE SH IPPENSBURG SL IPPERY ROCK WEST CHESTER

BLOOMSBURG CAL IFORNIA CHEYNEY CLARION EAST STROUDSBURG ED INBORO IND IANA KUTZTOWN LOCK HAVEN

MANSF IELD M ILLERSVILLE SH IPPENSBURG SL IPPERY ROCK WEST CHESTER

As members of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher

Education (PASSHE), the Pennsylvania State System Coalition

values each constituent institution’s efforts to provide students

with exemplary educational programs that foster student

learning and student success. We recognize that graduates

of our respective institutions must possess and demonstrate

contextually appropriate cognitive, social and personal maturity.

In support of those goals, the Coalition members strive to reduce

the impact that dangerous and illegal uses of alcohol by PASSHE

students have upon their full and successful participation in

the learning opportunities offered at the respective universities.

We recognize that our efforts must be grounded in the student

learning outcomes advanced at each institution while assuring

that each campus has a program fully able to provide prevention,

education and intervention services responsive to its students’

needs and contextually appropriate to its campus culture.

The PASSHE Coalition for the Prevention and Reduction of Underage and Binge Drinking

Challenging the Primacy of Alcohol | 1

Introduction

In an April 2012 publication entitled College Drinking, the

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)

reported that high-risk and dangerous drinking on campus, what

the popular media have called binge drinking, is a “significant

public health (problem).” The report states that high-risk

drinking claims “an enormous toll on the intellectual and social

lives of students on campus across the United States” (College

Drinking, NIAAA; April 2012 - http://1.usa.gov/HiVdOl).

While eliminating underage and high-risk or dangerous drinking

at colleges and universities is extraordinarily challenging given

American culture, implementing strategies to reduce the occurrences

and the harm associated with high-risk drinking remains a priority for

most institutions of higher education (IHE). With the consumption

of alcohol being a ubiquitous part of collegiate life since colonial

times, the development of preventive efforts that dissuade most,

or even some contemporary college students from drinking until

they turn 21 has proven to require long-term, multi-pronged, and

sustained commitments to culture change.

CHAPTER I

CHAPTER I

Introduction ........................................1 A. History ................................................2 B. Overview of PASSHE Coalition for the Prevention or Reduction of Underage and Binge Drinking .............................................3

CHAPTER II

Challenging the Primacy of Alcohol in the Campus Culture ....4 A. Strategic Planning ...............................5B. Evidence-Based Programming i. BASICS ....................................... 6 ii. Social Norms ..............................8 C. Reduction in Underage and Binge Drinking ...........................9

CHAPTER III

Evaluation of PASSHE’s Implementation of the DOE Grant A. Coalition Formation .......................12 B. Evidence-Based Programming i. BASICS ..........................................14 ii. Social Norms ................................15 C. Reduction of Underage and Binge Drinking ................................16 D. Obstacles ...........................................18 E. Benefits Realized ..............................18 F. Recommendations ............................20

Appendices ............................................21

2 | Challenging the Primacy of Alcohol

History of PASSHE alcohol culture change efforts

For decades, the student affairs colleagues in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education

(PASSHE) have been educating college students to positively change their choices and to resist the influence of the American alcohol culture. During the latter part of the 20th Century, the 14 universities in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education addressed collegiate drinking with approaches similar to most other public universities in the United States -- institutionally-based, with limited resources, and guided by professionals with varied levels of experience including alcohol prevention and intervention.

The historical absence of coordination in Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) programming within PASSHE resulted in individual campuses developing unique prevention strategies. These included those reflective of the evidence-based best-practices recommended by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA-Appendix E) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), with several campuses utilizing strategies rated as ineffective or having no impact by the NIAAA.

These discrete programs were developed in response to: 1) sensitivity to ethnically and culturally unique student populations, 2) available resources, 3) the level of understanding and commitment by senior administrators to address the issue, and 4) the availability of informed and experienced university employees capable of implementing evidence- based strategies.

Several PASSHE universities had identified Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) coordinators as “lead staff.” Of those with designated coordinators, these professionals were likely to have other duties and responsibilities in addition to those related to AOD prevention and intervention.

Recognizing that the challenges faced on each of the 14 campuses were similar, in the middle of the first decade of the 21st Century, PASSHE Vice Presidents for Student Affairs agreed to explore the development of collaborative assessment and common prevention and intervention strategies.

Though the California State System of Higher Education had developed a system-wide alcohol culture change initiative in response to a state legislative mandate, PASSHE became the first State System to choose to comprehensively pursue the universal problem of high-risk and

underage drinking. In 2006, under the direction of the Vice Presidents for Student Affairs, PASSHE wrote and received a small grant from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) to support the preliminary steps in assessing the needs of the System and its member institutions and developing a focused, coordinated program to address underage and high-risk, dangerous drinking. With PLCB funding, PASSHE 1) assessed the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) regarding the issue of collegiate drinking at PASSHE institutions; 2) conducted an environment assessment of the state of collegiate drinking on each of the 14 campuses in PASSHE, using the CORE survey tools and CARA (College Alcohol Risk Assessment); and3) assessed the readiness of each of the 14 System institutions to participate in a formal, coordinated effort to address collegiate drinking with evidence-based strategies of prevention and intervention.

The promising results of this PLCB-funded project motivated PASSHE Vice Presidents for Student Affairs, and their college health staff, to submit a U.S. Department of Education (DOE) grant, which resulted in the successful funding of a $497,971 project entitled, “Challenging the Primacy of Alcohol in the Campus Culture of the 14 Universities in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education.”

PASSHE became the first State System to choose to comprehensively pursue the universal problemof high-risk and underage drinking.



Overview of PASSHE Coalition for Prevention or Reduction of Underage and Binge Drinking

Within this large state system of higher education, representing over 115,000 students, PASSHE Vice Presidents for Student Affairs sought to coordinate an integrated program of high-risk alcohol use prevention and intervention, grounded in evidence-based practice, while overcoming differences associated with geography (campuses are hundreds of miles apart), campus size, and diversified student populations from both metropolitan and rural locations. Funding provided by the U.S. Department of Education enabled PASSHE to formalize a coalition specifically charged with addressing underage, high-risk, dangerous drinking issues in PASSHE as recommended by the outcomes documented through the 2006 PLCB grant.

In 2009 the U. S. Department of Education (DOE) awarded $497,971 to the Pennsylvania State System of

Higher Education. The coalition included Commonwealth partners, one of which was the Bureau of Alcohol Education of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, to reduce underage alcohol consumption and binge drinking. Through a system-wide coalition, representing each of the 14 PASSHE universities, higher education administrators strengthened and sustained earlier efforts to design and deliver coordinated programs to reduce high-risk alcohol behaviors among the 115,000 students attending Bloomsburg, California, Cheyney, Clarion, East Stroudsburg, Edinboro, Indiana, Kutztown, Lock Haven, Mansfield, Millersville, Shippensburg, Slippery Rock, and West Chester.

This PASSHE Alcohol Culture Change Coalition created a strong and coordinated organization (see Appendix A and B). Through this structure, PASSHE effectively assessed alcohol use among the almost 21,000 first-year students attending its 14 universities. The Coalition planned, implemented, and coordinated a comprehensive program of evidence-based “best practice” strategies to reduce high-risk and dangerous drinking among college students. In so doing, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania became the first to not only acknowledge the urgency of this public health issue, but also to create an administrative structure through which to oversee evidence-based alcohol prevention and intervention efforts, assess outcomes, and serve as the catalyst for positive change in the alcohol culture on each of the 14

PASSHE university campuses.In its original application for funding, approved by the U. S. Department of Education, PASSHE stated that it, “…(proposed) to reduce underage alcohol consumption and binge drinking…” for residential first-year students on the 14 institutions making up the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education.

This report summarizes the 2009-2012 PASSHE Coalition’s efforts to implement evidence-based strategies of prevention and intervention and assesses the effectiveness of those efforts. The report addresses each of the goals articulated in the DOE grant:1) institutionalize a System-wide Alcohol Culture Change Coalition, with a clearly articulated vision, mission, and portfolio of measurable objectives;2) implement evidence-based programs to reduce underage alcohol use and binge drinking among first-year students by approximately seven percent; and3) build a culture of evidence to support the development and implementation of university-based alcohol strategic plans.

In addition to describing the effectiveness of the grant’s implementation and recommendations for future sustainability of PASSHE Coalition efforts, this report provides insights for other state systems of higher education interested in developing similar system-wide coalitions to address the underage and high-risk, dangerous drinking among college students.

...successful funding of a

$497,971 project entitled, “Challenging the Primacy of Alcohol in the Campus Culture of the 14 Universities in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education.”

PASSHE became the first State System to choose to comprehensively pursue the universal problemof high-risk and underage drinking.

CHAPTER II

Challenging the Primacy of Alcohol in the Campus Culture


From 2009-2012, the Pennsylvania State System of Higher

Education successfully implemented a U.S. Department of

Education grant. The purpose of the three-year grant was to:

1) institutionalize a System-wide Alcohol Culture Change

Coalition, with a clearly articulated vision, mission,

and portfolio of measurable objectives;

2) implement evidence-based programs to reduce underage

alcohol use and binge drinking among first-year students by

approximately seven percent; and

3) build a culture of evidence to support the development and

implementation of university-based alcohol strategic plans.

Working as a unified multi-campus organization, the Coalition

developed, implemented, and oversaw the operation of a

comprehensive program designed to address underage and

high-risk, dangerous drinking on all 14 PASSHE campuses. The

Coalition’s Oversight Committee ensured implementation of all

aspects of the funded project, including project administration,

data collection, and project evaluation. This chapter provides an

overview of the achievement of the DOE grant objectives.

BLOOMSBURG

CAL IFORNIA

CHEYNEY

CLARION

EAST STROUDSBURG

ED INBORO

IND IANA

KUTZTOWN

LOCK HAVEN

MANSF IELD

M ILLERSVILLE

SH IPPENSBURG

SL IPPERY ROCK

WEST CHESTER


Strategic Planning

The first goal of the grant was:To enhance the existing State System Special Projects Committee on

Alcohol to become a system-wide coalition which will be inclusive or representative of all 14 PASSHE institutions, key internal and state agency constituents.

The primary goal of the grant involved the formal establishment of a Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE) Statewide Coalition for the Prevention and Reduction of Underage and Binge Drinking.

The establishment of a coordinated, viable, sustainable coalition of professional staff and administrators on the 14 campuses of the Pennsylvania States System for Higher Education enabled a dedicated focus on addressing issues of high-risk and dangerous student behavior related to underage drinking. The Coalition developed a Strategic Plan which served as the guide for system-wide change.

Since the inception of the project, the leadership of each of the 14 universities were actively involved. One of the three (3) principle goals was to develop a PASSHE-wide strategic plan. When this plan was developed, it included a set of clear imperatives:


• PASSHE and its constituent universities are complex organizations with unique cultures, differing constituent and resource bases, and structural designs. The success of the PASSHE Coalition Strategic Plan depended on each campus’ fidelity to planning processes that incorporated the System’s shared strategic goals into implementation and assessment plans that demonstrated the respective campuses’ commitment to sustainable action in addressing the issues of underage and binge drinking.• PASSHE universities must develop robust infrastructures and dedicated resources to support programs designed to address the structural, behavioral, and cultural components of substance abuse on the campuses. Infrastructures must be comprehensive and encourage the coordinated engagement of campus and community leaders, faculty, staff and students in creating systemic change. • PASSHE Coalition members must commit to working together to implement evidence-based strategies, develop innovative applications, and design new strategies shown to be effective in addressing underage and binge drinking on the System university campuses.

Supporting the PASSHE Coalition’s mission, vision, values, and principles, the key themes served to frame PASSHE’s specific strategies for implementation on the respective campuses.

The five themes are:1) Organizational Infrastructure and Leadership;2) Planning and Assessment;3) Communication and Innovative Technology Use;4) NIAAA and PASSHE Best Practices; and5) Collaboration and Complementary Programs.Each of the five themes was further developed to reflect System-Wide Strategies, University-Wide Strategies, and Community-Wide Strategies. These strategies and their associated System-Wide achievements are represented in Appendix C. These strategies also served as the framework for the strategic plans developed by each of the 14 PASSHE universities. During the three years of the PASSHE DOE Coalition grant, each of the 14 universities conducted university-specific strengths/weaknesses/opportunities/ threats analyses, from which were formed university-specific strategic plans. Appendix D includes strategies adopted by a summary of each of the 14 universities.

Supporting the PASSHE Coalition’s mission, vision, values, and principles, the key themes served to frame PASSHE’s specific strategies for implementation on the respective campuses.

CHAPTER II


As members of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE), the Pennsylvania State System Coalition values each constituent institution’s efforts to provide students with exemplary educational programs that foster student learning and student success. We recognize that graduates of our respective institutions must possess and demonstrate contextually appropriate cognitive, social and personal maturity. In support of those goals, the Coalition members strive to reduce the impact that dangerous and illegal uses of alcohol by PASSHE students have upon their full and successful participation in the learning opportunities offered at the respective universities. We recognize that our efforts must be grounded in the student learning outcomes advanced at each institution while assuring that each campus has a program fully able to provide prevention, education and intervention services responsive to its students’ needs and contextually appropriate to its campus culture.

VISION STATEMENTThe Pennsylvania State System Coalition will measurably improve the quality of life and student success on its constituent university campuses by implementing innovative and evidence-based strategies for the reduction of high-risk and dangerous drinking by students, while promoting harm- reducing and health-promoting values, in its academically challenging and culturally rich campus environments.

MISSION STATEMENTIt is the mission of the Pennsylvania State System Coalition for the Prevention and Reduction of Underage and Binge Drinking to provide education and prevention services that will assist students attending the 14 State System universities in reducing the high-risk and illegal use of alcohol; empower campus communities to successfully establish expectancies for healthy, legal and responsible alcohol use for its constituencies; foster student adoption of healthy, legal and responsible alcohol use behaviors; improve students’ campus experiences; and promote student success.

Through the grant, “Challenging the Primacy of Alcohol in the Campus Culture of the 14 Universities in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education,” the universities will collaborate to develop organizational partnerships and support systems for the efficient delivery of NIAAA strategies and State System best practices in alcohol prevention, enabling participating institutions to achieve the goal of reducing underage and high-risk alcohol use by students System-wide.

VALUES STATEMENTThe PASSHE Coalition is committed to the principles of respect for the individual, engaged student learning, good citizenship, shared community standards, collective action, extended partnerships, innovative approaches to address complex issues, excellence in programs and services, thoughtful stewardship of resources, and dedication to improving the quality of life on constituent campuses and in the surrounding communities.

BEHAVIOR CHANGE• Reduce the frequency and severity of alcohol issues on each campus;• Increase student adoption of protective behaviors when using alcohol;• Reduce the impact of alcohol use on student academic performance.

STUDENT LEARNING and SUPPORT• Enrich students’ learning by incorporating issues of alcohol into research, internships, service learning and student employment opportunities in cooperation with faculty and staff partners;• Strengthen the universities’ infrastructures to support and provide programs and services that fully address student alcohol issues.

COLLABORATION• Continue Coalition’s work after the Department of Education grant ends. System leveraging of knowledge and resources advances the efforts on all the campuses;• Use technological resources of the campuses to improve collaboration and service delivery while keeping costs down;• Seek other grant resources. Campuses need additional resources to assure full program development and implementation System-wide;• Seek to cultivate and expand linkages with state agencies, and other non-university partners;• Evaluate the effectiveness of efforts through a comprehensive outcomes assessment program with the goal of continuously improving programmatic and behavioral outcomes System-wide.

P A S S H E A L C O H O L S T R AT E G I C P L A N

Overarching PrinciplesCOMMITTED AND SUSTAINABLE ACTIONThe PASSHE Coalition is dedicated to the implementation of innovative and proven strategies through direct engagement of universities and surrounding communities, as well as System and agency partnerships to improve student success and quality of life, and to achieve systemic environmental changes.

SYSTEM LEVERAGINGThe PASSHE Coalition will benefit from collaboratively utilizing the expertise and resources of PASSHE and its state agency partners in advancing significant and systemic change.

ASSESSMENT-DRIVEN IMPROVEMENTSThe PASSHE Coalition will utilize qualitative and quantitative measures to evaluate strategic planning goals, action plans, and program improvements developed to address the issues associated with the drinking culture on PASSHE campuses.

Strategic Themes Through five strategic themes the PASSHE Coalition will achieve systemic change. Each of the five broad themes is framed by System-Wide, University-Wide, Departmental Strategies, and Community-Wide strategies. The five broad strategic themes are supported by specific tactics.

ORGANIZATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND LEADERSHIPPASSHE universities must develop robust infrastructures and dedicated resources to support programs designed to address the structural, behavioral, and cultural components of substance abuse on the campuses. Infrastructures must be comprehensive and encourage the coordinated engagement of campus and community leaders, faculty, staff and students in creating systemic change.

PLANNING AND ASSESSMENTPASSHE and its constituent universities are complex organizations with unique cultures, differing constituent and resource bases and structural designs. The success of the PASSHE Coalition Strategic plan is dependent upon each campus’ fidelity to planning processes that incorporate the System’s shared strategic goals. These strategic goals include implementation and assessment plans that are demonstrative of the respective campuses’ commitment to sustainable action addressing the issues of underage and binge drinking.

COMMUNICATION AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY USEEffective communication is the foundation for building and sustaining System-wide efforts. With innovative technology, the PASSHE universities will efficiently communicate relevant, critical, System-wide information across campuses. The success of the PASSHE Coalition’s Strategic Plan is contingent upon the campuses being up to date and proficient in using the technological resources available within the System.

NIAAA AND PASSHE BEST PRACTICESPASSHE Coalition members recognize and embrace the NIAAA’s efforts to identify and promote the implementation of strategies proven to reduce illegal and high-risk drinking on college and university campuses. These strategies can be adapted and implemented to produce changes in the alcohol culture on any size campus that commits itself to sustained action. PASSHE Coalition members commit to working together to implement these evidence-based strategies, develop innovative applications, and design new strategies that are shown to be effective in addressing underage and binge drinking on the System university campuses.

COLLABORATION AND COMPLEMENTARY PROGRAMSPASSHE Coalition members recognize the importance of partnering with surrounding communities and campus neighbors. PASSHE university efforts to address illegal and high-risk drinking by students have been invigorated by the development of a coalition, increased communication, and collaborative planning that utilizes the expertise of professionals across the System.




Evidence-BasedProgramming

The second goal of the Coalition’s efforts was to oversee and coordinate the efforts of each PASSHE

institution’s use of National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) strategies to affect collegiate drinking (see Appendix E). The Coalition sought to:Implement identified evidence-based programs at participating PASSHE universities for the purpose of reducing underage alcohol use and binge drinking among first-year students residing in on-campus residence halls.

The Coalition utilized evidence-based prevention and intervention strategies as a part of a coordinated System-wide plan designed to draw upon the existing experience, strengths, and expertise of individual institutions in the System.

Outcomes: 1) Implement BASICS (Brief Alcohol and Screening Intervention for College Students) on each of the 14 PASSHE campuses.2) Implement a Social Norms communications campaign designed to challenge the perception of alcohol use on PASSHE campuses.

BASICS) BASICS is an intervention with college students using brief motivational interventions, with a focus on harm reduction with the students participating in this SAMHSA model program. Implementation of BASICS on each PASSHE campus represented the first strategy associated with pursuing this goal, and was managed by the “BASICS” Subcommittee. This plan included:

1) Training BASICS facilitators on each of the PASSHE campuses to conduct sessions with referred students;2) Using “BASICS mentors,” composed of professional staff familiar with conducting BASICS on their campuses in the State System to serve as resources to support BASICS facilitators; 3) Developing an archive of specific tools and resources necessary for the administration of BASICS; and4) Designing instruments used in the collection, with Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for admistration on all PASSHE campuses, of pre-BASICS, post-BASICS, and 30-day follow-up data necessary for project evaluation.

Three groups of trained facilitators conducted sessions and implemented BASICS, as outlined by the Subcommittee. They were Student Affairs professionals, professional

Principles of Motivational Interviewing (characteristics of

facilitator)

• Collaborative rather

than adversarial

• Rolls with resistance

• Celebrates

ambivalence

• Enhances

discrepancies

• Reframes personal

choices

Interactions are

conducted with the

student and not done to

the student

Harm Reduction (H.R.) – (objective of intervention)

• Increase thinking about

drinking and its effects

• Revisit personal

consumption

• Explore cost – benefit

ratio of drinking

Any movement towards

proactive change is seen

as progress

Target Population

• Identified

high-risk user

• In violation of

campus policies

• Documented problem/

difficulty related

to use

Intervention with

identified high-risk

students with the intent

of reducing risk

counselors, and graduate students.The level of training and depth of experience for those staff facilitating the BASICS sessions varied from being seasoned facilitators to individuals trained specifically to administer BASICS for the Coalition. Training provided to all facilitators was comprehensive and consistent across all PASSHE campuses. These facilitators varied in their familiarity with motivational interviewing—a specific approach to conducting interviews, especially with individuals for whom BASICS was mandated or those with little intention of moderating their behavior. The model (see Appendix F) adopted by the Coalition included a uniform syllabus for both an individual and small group approach to conducting BASICS. Both iterations of this syllabus complied with established practices associated with the administration of BASICS .

BASICSa SAMHSA Model Program (2008)

Dimeff, L. A., Baer, J. S., Kivlahan, D. R., & Marlatt, G. A. (1999). Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students (BASICS): A harm reduction approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.



SOCIAL NORMS MARKETING) The second objective was implementation of a social norms campaign designed to challenge the misperceptions of alcohol use on the PASSHE campuses. Social norms marketing has proven to clarify cultural norms and correct misperceptions about cultural beliefs and practices of individuals within communities.

The majority of the messages used for the PASSHE campaigns were derived from CORE Survey data (February 2010). The social norms marketing campaign included six individual campaigns which were implemented during the 2010-2011 academic year. The campaigns included consistency in the marketing materials employed across all campuses. Universities with campus-specific data designed university-specific social norms messages based on the university-specific student use data.

Reduction in Underage and Binge Drinking

The final goal of the grant sought a significant decrease (seven percent) in the frequency of underage and

binge drinking of first-year resident students: Implement evidence-based program to reduce underage alcohol use and binge drinking among first-year students by approximately seven percent.

The PASSHE Coalition administered the CORE Drug and Alcohol Survey, in February 2010 and 2011. CORE, developed in the late 1980s by the U.S. Department of Education and advisors from several universities and colleges, measures actual collegiate underage, high-risk, dangerous drinking use and consequences of that use. See http://core.siu.edu/

The CORE Survey served as the primary vehicle for collecting quantitative data describing first-year student behavior. Data collected in February of 2010 regarding alcohol use and drinking behavior served as a baseline on reported drinking practices among first-year residential students. These data served as the methodological starting point for evaluative purposes and provided the backdrop against which responses to the same instrument, administered during the identical weeks of the spring 2011 semester, were compared.

The grant Oversight Committee and Evaluation Subcommittee considered various means by which to solicit respondents. These included: 1) emailed invitation to an online administration of the survey, 2) hardcopy administration in the classroom, or 3) direct mailing of the hardcopy survey with instructions on returning via campus mail.

Following a review of the literature concerning the collection of student information as well as consultation with faculty regarding the feasibility of an in-class administration, soliciting students via emailed invitation to complete the survey online was determined to be the most desirable method of survey administration. With IRB approval, obtained for System-wide research, the CORE Survey was administered on each campus. This resulted in an 18% response rate in 2010 (N=3,109) and a 19% response rate (N=3,137) in 2011. The low response rate, even with multiple emailed invitations to participate and the inclusion of incentives for participation (individual campus drawing for prizes such a iPods), raised concerns regarding the reliability of the data from which to draw conclusions. This will be discussed further in Chapter III.

Summary Comments

The Coalition developed an infrastructure to sustain alcohol culture change throughout PASSHE.

A PASSHE-wide Strategic Plan provided the foundation for complementary and supportive efforts on each of the 14 university campuses within PASSHE. The Coalition oversaw and coordinated the use of National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) strategies to motivate behavior change. By employing evidence-based prevention and intervention strategies through its coordinated System-wide plan, the Coalition built expertise among each of its 14 institutional members.

1) BASICS (Brief Alcohol and Screening Intervention for College Students) was implemented at most universities by trained facilitators who had available uniform practices for their use.2) A PASSHE-wide social norms campaign was implemented to challenge the misperceptions about alcohol use and abuse among PASSHE first-year students. The majority of the social norms messages were drawn from data from the CORE Survey, reflecting the opinions of first-year students attending each of 14 PASSHE universities. 3) The Coalition administered a pre- and post survey of students’ perception and use patterns PASSHE-wide, as the primary tool to demonstrate a seven percent decline in the frequency of underage and binge drinking among first-year students living on the campuses of the 14 institutions.

Pennsylvania

CHAPTER III

Evaluation of the PASSHE’s Coalition for the Prevention or Reduction of Underage and Binge Drinking

As a large state system of higher education, PASSHE has a

distinct challenge: to coordinate and integrate a program of

prevention and intervention steeped in evidence-based practice

where matters of geography—numerous campuses are

hundreds of miles apart—and campus size, diverse student

populations from geographically distinct areas (metropolitan

vs. rural locations) resulted in profound logistical challenges.

Such diversity made the establishment of a viable Coalition a

significant undertaking.

BLOOMSBURG

CAL IFORNIA

CHEYNEY

CLARION

EAST STROUDSBURG

ED INBORO

IND IANA

KUTZTOWN

LOCK HAVEN

MANSF IELD

M ILLERSVILLE

SH IPPENSBURG

SL IPPERY ROCK

WEST CHESTER


EDINBORO

BLOOMSBURG

KUTZTOWN

EAST STROUDSBURG

MANSF IELD

WEST CHESTER

CHEYNEY

LOCK HAVENCLARION

SL IPPERY ROCK

IND IANA

CAL IFORNIA SH IPPENSBURG

MILLERSVILLE



In its original application for funding, approved by the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), PASSHE succinctly stated that it, “…(proposed) to reduce underage alcohol consumption and binge drinking…” for residential first-year students on the 14 institutions making up the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education or PASSHE. Further, it identified five specific pursuits, which would constitute a superstructure to support evidence-based strategies and best practice programming efforts. These included:1) Creating “…a mission statement that clearly articulates the State System’s position on alcohol as a key public health issue to be addressed by PASSHE’s constituent universities.”2) Formulating “…a system-wide strategic plan that will assist in aligning priorities, providing meaningful direction, and identifying critical activities pertinent to each university’s needs.”3) Overseeing “…the administration of the Coalition’s strategic plan to ensure a coordinated administration of NIAAA strategies to affect collegiate drinking.4) Evaluating “…the effectiveness of the Coalition’s strategic plan.”5) Positioning “…PASSHE to effectively continue the Coalition and its work following the completion of the U.S. Department of Education’s grant.”

This chapter evaluates the results of the Coalition’s efforts to implement evidence-based strategies of prevention and intervention in the Pennsylvania State System. The evaluative processes included both quantitative and qualitative methodologies as a means by which to chart the extent of the grant’s overall impact on each of the PASSHE university campuses and also to reflect on its effect on student behaviors and perceptions.

As is the case when vetting any newly designed product or program, evaluation of its performance after the fact enables the designers to assess its strengths and weaknesses. The evaluation of the grant’s efforts outlines what worked well, what showed promise but needs improvement, what did not work as well as was intended, and what needs to be redesigned or eliminated as the Coalition continues its work.

Evaluating the grant’s activities includes considering the appropriateness of interventions implemented to address students’ behaviors related to alcohol use; assessing the impacts and outcomes of the interventions implemented; and determining whether the DOE grant was efficiently and effectively administered.

In addition to reporting to the U.S. DOE regarding the return on its investment, PASSHE was most interested in seeing and understanding the “big picture,” which emerged as a result of its work. The PASSHE Coalition anticipated that an added benefit of the grant would be the development of a viable template by which other large state systems of education could pursue a coordinated effort to address the issue of underage and high-risk, dangerous collegiate drinking. Continuing to build on strengths demonstrated in Pennsylvania through replication by other state systems would afford continued benefits to result from the grant and PASSHE’s efforts.

Evaluation of the grant relied on traditional qualitative and quantitative methods of investigation and assessment. Surveys soliciting student attitudes and demographic information was one means to acquiring facts about alcohol, students, and their drinking practices. Instruments such as these have become a common experience for college students. Such research designs are effective when gathering information, organizing and cataloging demographics, and noting specific characteristics of college students exposed to and/or participating in alcohol use and abuse. However, access to the meaning students place on alcohol and its consumption as well as an understanding of their individual perspectives on drinking and its impact on the collegiate experience remain conspicuously absent when analyzing the data collected through surveys. By employing a qualitative research methodology, insight regarding student, staff, and faculty perspectives and attitudes also may be discovered.

The qualitative researcher, exploring the role played by alcohol and its consumption in collegiate life, may juxtapose the words, provided by members of the PASSHE community, in order to recognize similarities of thinking that may emerge from those data. If similarities were to emerge, trends may also appear, thus enabling a more complete understanding of individual perspectives and the Coalition’s impact.

PASSHE was most interested in seeing and understanding the “big picture” which emerged as a result of its work.

CHAPTER III


Administrators and staff representing each of the 14 PASSHE institutions participated in interviews and focus groups, resulting in the collection of individual and campus opinions. These qualitative data provided additional insight as to the Coalition’s ability to address its primary objective, namely the establishment of a viable, coordinated effort to consistently address underage and high-risk drinking PASSHE-wide. In addition, students were interviewed through the qualitative method of focus groups to verify data collected through quantitative means (see Appendix G). Qualitative measures employed were:1) Student focus groups conducted on representative campuses to discern the perceived reliability of CORE data.2) Interviews with Senior Student Affairs Officers (SSAO) of PASSHE member schools regarding their feedback on the project and its impact on their individual campuses and PASSHE as a whole.3) Anonymous online survey soliciting candid comments from staff who facilitated BASICS interviews regarding student reactions to BASICS and the facilitator’s experience in the project.4) Student Affairs focus groups conducted with the Oversight Committee of the PASSHE Coalition in May 2011 during the annual PASSHE Student Affairs conference, held at Cheyney University.

Coalition Formation

5) Detailed minutes and attendance records regarding all administrative meetings associated with the project— Oversight Committee, Social Norms Subcommittee, BASICS Subcommittee, briefings of Chief Student Affairs Officers (CSAO).

Specific objectives of this grant included facilitating changes in student behavior related to alcohol use. In order to evaluate the impact of grant activities on these specific behaviors, baseline behaviors were collected prior to the administration of proposed treatments. Likewise, collecting the same data following administration of specific treatments enabled consideration of their effectiveness. A quantitative methodology provided the best means by which to collect these data. Quantitative measures were: 1) administration of the CORE Survey of Alcohol & Other Drugs, in February 2010 and 2011; 2) administration of pre-BASICS and post-BASICS surveys to students referred to Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students (BASICS) conducted on PASSHE campuses; 3) 30-day follow-up surveys of students having completed BASICS; and 4) online anonymous survey of Coalition members involved in administering this project.

Working as a unit, the Coalition was able to develop a coordinated effort to design,

implement, and oversee the operation of a comprehensive program designed to address underage and high-risk, dangerous drinking on all 14 campuses of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. Supported by a Project Director, the Coalition established an organizational infrastructure, with each group charged with specific aspects of the grant. See Appendix A and B.

PASSHE Coalition – The Coalition represented content experts at each of the 14 universities within PASSHE, and met regularly through video conferencing (12) and face-to-face meetings (3), to receive updates and engage in the fulfillment of the grant objectives of their respective campuses.

Oversight Committee – The Oversight Committee ensured implementation of all aspects of the grant. Committee members were responsible for supervising project administration, data collection, BASICS, Social Norms, and Project Evaluation. It conducted 46 regular meetings (40 via conference calls, 6 in person).

These qualitative data provided additional insight as to the Coalition’s ability to address its primary objective, namely the establishment of a viable, coordinated effort to consistentlyaddress underage and high-risk drinking PASSHE-wide.



BASICS Subcommittee – This subcommittee designed the specific BASICS curriculum administered to students on individual campuses. Members of the subcommittee designed training on each PASSHE campus to facilitate BASICS implementation. These trained individuals at each of the 14 universities conducted BASICS sessions and collected data on referred students. BASICS facilitators on each campus analyzed specific information related to each student’s pattern of alcohol use. This information assisted facilitators in providing specific alcohol-related personal feedback to enable students to review their own personal pattern of use objectively. When students’ use patterns reached a certain threshold, they were referred to the University’s Counseling Center for intervention. In addition, the BASICS subcommittee designed a pre, post, and 30-day post BASICS sessions evaluation plan.

Social Norms Subcommittee – This subcommittee reviewed the CORE data and designed specific social marketing messages designed to confront identified misperceptions of drinking norms on PASSHE campuses. This subcommittee designed specific messages based on collected data; test-marketed these messages; and selected the creative vehicles by which to expose the target population to the social norm messages. In addition, the subcommittee was instrumental in designing and implementing a social media design contest. This project sought to identify various creative vehicles, in addition to posters, by which social norms data were communicated throughout PASSHE.

Underage and Binge Drinking Assessment Tool (CORE Survey-type instrument) Subcommittee – This subcommittee was charged with the task of designing a PASSHE-specific instrument to substitute for the now-dated CORE Survey. This PASSHE instrument will collect data related to the underage and binge drinking practices and perspectives among PASSHE students.

Evaluation Subcommittee – This subcommittee designed the methodology for the collection of data, for use in evaluating the grant’s administration and outcomes. The subcommittee provided the Oversight Committee with periodic updates on data collection, identified potential challenges and difficulties in the collection of data, and recommended and assisted in the design of alternative or additional data collection methodologies intended to ensure the efficacy of the evaluation of project outcomes.

This subject-specific Coalition became an effective vehicle for positive change within PASSHE. However, since the scope and depth of alcohol culture change work varied by campus, the value of the Coalition work had differential impacts on the respective campuses, depending upon the sophistication of the individual campus’ alcohol prevention and intervention program.

To assess the effectiveness of the Coalition and the systemic impact of the Coalition’s efforts at each of the 14 universities, Coalition members conducted interviews with each of the PASSHE vice presidents responsible for the grant’s administration. In spring 2012, each vice president participated in a phone interview conducted by Dr. Doreen Tobin, East Stroudsburg, or Dr. Rhonda Luckey, Indiana. (see Appendix H)

The interview included a set of common questions addressing the following topics:1) Extent of university commitment to each of the three (3) primary project goals: Strategic Planning and Assessment, delivery of BASICS, and the use of Social Norms;2) Preferences for consultative assistance in the development of the University’s strategic plan either through a PASSHE colleague or an outside consultant;3) Areas for further assistance and/or Coalition inquiry;4) Recommendations for sustaining the work of the Coalition;

5) Level of engagement of campus project representative with the University’s efforts; and6) Interest in new, continued, or removed representation on the project’s Oversight Committee.From these interviews the following key themes emerged:1) Since the scope and depth of alcohol culture change work varied by campus, the value of the Coalition work had differential impact, depending upon the sophistication of the individual campuses’ alcohol prevention and intervention program.2) This subject-specific coalition became an effective vehicle for positive change within PASSHE and may serve as a model for addressing other critical higher education issues, such as sexual violence prevention, crisis assessment and response or retention of first-year students.3) Professional development opportunities within PASSHE continue to be a high need, particularly given the economic challenges facing each institution. 4) PASSHE colleagues have developed programs and services (BASICS, brief motivational interventions, other evidence-based strategies, strategic planning techniques, etc.) worthy of replication; sharing their expertise through a structured PASSHE-wide professional development workshop series will facilitate institutionalizing the use of these practices.5) Social norms messaging is more effective when the messages are aligned with campus-specific data and culture.6) PASSHE-wide assessment efforts have added and will continue to add value to the work conducted on individual campuses; employing a PASSHE instrument similar to the CORE Survey of alcohol and other drugs should ensure that this occurs.


BASICS ) BASICS is an intervention with college students using the principles of brief motivational interventions, with a focus on harm reduction with the students participating in BASICS. The Coalition’s implementation of BASICS included training facilitators, developing a set of common tools for administration, and assessing behavior change among participating students.

Even though a consistent syllabus was used in the training of all facilitators and was followed on individual campuses, project evaluators were unable to discern the extent to which a facilitator’s experience with BASICS prior to this project affected the ability to spontaneously improvise during individual sessions. This raised the question whether facilitators were focusing on the student and his or her issues during the session rather than on the prescribed interview format, thus conveying a less collaborative and more authoritative relationship with the student(s).

Once BASICS sessions began on each PASSHE campus, problems developed with the online screening instrument used to collect drinking-related data from students participating in BASICS sessions. The tool, www.checkyourdrinking.net, proved cumbersome.

Experienced AOD staff administering the instrument to students participating in BASICS reported that the normative data seemed “off ” and therefore questioned its usefulness. As a result, facilitators talked more with students about the specific University data. For seasoned AOD professionals this was not a significant concern, but those recently trained BASICS facilitators had more difficulty using the “checkyourdrinking.net” feedback.Students who had completed the BASICS program were surveyed at a point 30 days following completion of the program. The academic calendar proved to be a limiting factor in two ways: the five-week hiatus from campus between the fall and spring semesters and the summer time. The 30-day post-BASICS response rates were low, in part, because of logistical challenges related to collecting these data during these times of the year. In addition, evaluators believed that student responses may have compromised the integrity of the data during the semester breaks.

Students who received BASICS provided perspectives on drinking, both before (pre) and following (post) their BASICS experience. Both men and women reported that they had changed their thinking about drinking rather than actually changing their drinking patterns. In other words,

the findings for both men and women suggested more about their movement along the continuum of readiness to changing their behavior than was suggested about their actual behavior. This is significant because the literature suggests that movement towards readiness to change is a prerequisite to making change; as thinking about drinking changes, so is the resulting behavior likely to follow. For this reason it is reasonable to conclude that few PASSHE first-year, residential student drinkers moved from high-risk to low-risk behavior in the two to three week period during administration of the BASICS sessions.

Although speculative, there is reason to hypothesize that involvement in BASICS, especially for females, hastened the maturing-out or aging-out phenomenon. The survey data further supported this, and indicated that approximately 54% of post-BASICS survey respondents had three drinks or fewer during the two weeks prior to completing the survey compared to 50% of pre-BASICS respondents. Of note, evaluators believed this change would likely have been more significant for females had the evaluators been able to disaggregate the data by gender.

Evidence-Based Programming

The findings for both men and women suggested more about the movement of these students along the continuum of readiness to change their behavior than was suggested about their actually behavior.



Count Col% Count Col% Count Col% Count Col% Count Col% Count Col%

Male 153 52.94 93 50.54 65 47.79 40 54.35 47 52.81 408 51.65

Female 136 47.06 91 49.46 71 52.21 42 45.65 42 47.19 382 48.35

TOTAL 289 100 184 100 136 100 82 100 89 100 790 100

PRE Definitely Very Likely Likely Somewhat Likely Not Likely Total

Count Col% Count Col% Count Col% Count Col% Count Col% Count Col%

Male 57 35.85 43 42.57 43 44.79 30 57.69 24 54.55 197 43.58

Female 102 64.15 58 57.43 53 55.21 22 42.31 20 45.45 255 56.42

TOTAL 159 100 101 100 96 100 52 100 44 100 452 100

POST Definitely Very Likely Likely Somewhat Likely Not Likely Total

Count Col% Count Col% Count Col% Count Col% Count Col% Count

Pre 25 6.5 33 8.6 60 15.7 72 18.9 191 50.1 381

Post 6 2.3 20 7.8 29 11.4 64 25.1 135 53.2 254

Change (65%) (9.3%) (27.4%) 33.8 6.91%

Female Definitely Very Likely Likely Somewhat Likely Not Likely Total

Count Col% Count Col% Count Col% Count Col% Count Col% Count

Pre 51 13.4 40 10.5 44 11.5 76 19.9 194 50.9 381

Post 19 7.5 21 8.3 27 10.6 46 18.1 84 33.1 254

Change (44.03%) (20.95%) (7.83%) (9.06%) (34.97%)

Male Definitely Very Likely Likely Somewhat Likely Not Likely Total

How likely is it that you will reduce the number of times you will choose to drink alcohol in the next two (2) weeks? 3

Looking at female data from these pre/post surveys, 91% of females reported that it was likely or better that they (would) reduce the number of times (they) will choose to drink alcohol in the next two (2) weeks compared with 79% prior to BASICS4.

Although the sample size is small, the results are positive with a 65% decrease (6.5% “pre” to 2.3% “post”) in the number of women reporting they would have 4+ drinks in the next two weeks following BASICS. In addition, there is a 46.6% decrease in the number of women who reported they were definitely, very likely, or likely to consume 4 or more drinks in one night/occasion following completion of the BASICS program.

Results for males were equally impressive, but indicate a somewhat different move towards moderation:

How likely is it that you will have five (5) or more drinks in one night/occasion (including pre-gaming) in the next two (2) weeks?6 (Answered by males)

As with females, the males showed an impressive decrease in the intent to consume 5+ drinks per outing. More impressive, however, is that it would appear these changes came as the result of significantly fewer males believing it is not likely that they would consume less than 5 drinks.

3 BASICS pre/post survey, StudentVoice4 It should be noted that a judicial referral to BASICS likely influenced the pre-BASICS responses to this question, making the reported change all the more significant.5 BASICS pre/post survey, StudentVoice6 BASICS pre/post survey, StudentVoice

How likely is it that you will have four (4) or more drinks in one night/occasion (including pre-gaming)


Using StudentVoice2, via computer or iPad access, permitted collecting consent to participate in the survey, gender information, and specific data related to a student’s participation in BASICS. Questions regarding student perspectives on drinking, both before (pre) and following (post) the BASICS experience were collected. Opinion questions included:

• How likely is it that you will reduce the number of times you will choose to drink alcohol in the next two (2) weeks?

For women –• How likely is it that you will have four (4) or more drinks in one night/occasion (including pre-gaming) in the next two (2) weeks?

For men –• How likely is it that you will have five (5) or more drinks in one night/occasion (including pre-gaming) in the next two (2) weeks?

• Think about the past two (2) weeks. When you drank alcohol, how many drinks did you typically have in one night/occasion (including pre-gaming)?

Student responses to these pre/post questions yielded modest improvements when viewed as a combined data set for males and females. When disaggregated, however, there was a more pronounced indication of change for women having completed BASICS than for men.

Although there were interesting results gleaned from an analysis of student responses to surveys provided as part of their BASICS sessions, generalizing these findings to the aggregate PASSHE student population did not occur.

SOCIAL NORMS MARKETING) As a measure of the impact of the social norms marketing campaigns, the Coalition reviewed detailed data from the CORE survey related to students’ perceptions of the average student’s alcohol use (see Appendix I). These data suggested modest changes in student perceptions regarding how often their peers use alcohol. Nevertheless, the misperception of the social norm remains: although 26% of respondents to the 2011 CORE survey reported not consuming alcohol during the year prior to being surveyed themselves, they perceived that only 5% of their peers remained alcohol-free.

An unanticipated finding of this project was the lack of understanding related to the acronym PASSHE by individual members of the student body on each of the 14 member campuses. It was unclear if the use of PASSHE data in the earliest iterations of the campaign had a compromising effect on an individual student’s tendency to identify with the information provided on true social norms. In short, was PASSHE too large a normative group for the reported data to be of any consequence when viewed by students on individual PASSHE campuses?

The Coalition sought to reduce underage alcohol use and binge drinking among first-year students

by approximately seven percent. To assess the achievement of this outcome, the CORE Survey was administered during February 2010 and February 2011. The 2010 data collection preceded implementing any evidence-based treatments as outlined in the original grant proposal. These data:

Reduction in Underage and Binge Drinking

(1) established the baseline for first-year residential students responding to the survey for comparative purposes, and (2) informed the intended social norms marketing campaign scheduled during the second academic year of the grant.

Unanticipated technical challenges and difficulties were likely contributors to the lower than expected response rates for each of the administrations of the CORE Survey (18 and 19 percent response rate, for February 2010 and 2011, respectively). One entire campus in the State System had e-mail server difficulties that resulted in sporadic delivery of survey participation invitations. This was one of the smallest institutions in the System. This technical problem necessitated a paper-and-pencil administration of the CORE in the classroom. Because of required faculty permission to enter the classroom coupled with challenges in sampling the first-year residence hall students, the data collected at this site were deemed spurious by the Evaluation Subcommittee.

The following table summarizes the key findings from the two CORE survey administrations. It should be noted that, given low response rate, the Coalition did not find evidence of the reduction of “binge-drinking” by seven percent for first-year students residing in campus housing.

When considering the reported incidents of never consuming five or more drinks in a single sitting, there is a decrease in both males and females reporting such behavior from 2010 to 2011. This change, suggesting more students engaged in “binge drinking,” may be spurious when considering the overall small sample size for both iterations of the CORE.



There is virtually no change in the numbers of drinks consumed per week by students in either iteration of the CORE: 78.8% of students reporting consuming on average of four or fewer drinks per week in 2010; 77.4% doing so in 2011. Yet, only 64.7% of 2010 respondents and 61.7% of 2011 respondents reported not consuming four or fewer drinks in one sitting during the two weeks prior to the Survey’s administration.

Appendix (J) provides a full description of the results of the two administrations of the

CORE Survey, in February 2010 and 2011. As promising as the CORE Survey findings were relative to perceptions, they were not associated with any corresponding changes in individual student behavior.

The CORE Survey data did not find a reduction of “binge-drinking” by seven percent for first-year students residing in campus housing. Nevertheless, it is difficult to discern what impact implementing evidence-based strategies designed to pursue this goal had, as the “experimental

CORE 2011 FINDINGS

• 73.6% of the respondents consumed

alcohol in the past year (“annual

prevalence”).


alcohol in the past 30 days (’30-day

prevalence”).

• 56.2% of underage respondents

(younger than 21) consumed alcohol

in the previous 30 days.

• 38.4% of the respondents reported

binge drinking in the previous two

weeks. A binge is defined as consuming

5 or more drinks in one sitting.

• 86.6% of the respondents believed that

the average student on campus uses

alcohol once a week or more.

• 44.0% of the respondents indicated

they would prefer not to have alcohol

available at parties they attend.

• 86.3% of the respondents said they saw

drinking as central in the social life of

male students.



female students.

CORE 2010 FINDINGS


alcohol in the past year (“annual

prevalence”).


alcohol in the past 30 days (’30-day

prevalence”).

• 52.2% of underage respondents

(younger than 21) consumed alcohol in

the previous 30 days.

• 35.3% of the respondents reported

binge drinking in the previous two

weeks. A binge is defined as consuming

5 or more drinks in one sitting.

• 90.0% of the respondents believed that

the average student on campus uses

alcohol once a week or more.

• 46.4% of the respondents indicated

they would prefer not to have alcohol

available at parties they attend.



male students.



female students.

noise” and methodological challenges, such as a poor response rate for both pre- and post iterations of the CORE AOD Survey, resulted in a paucity of quantitative data. Further, regarding those data that were collected, the apparently skewed distribution of respondents, with slightly more than 70% of respondents being women (general population of all PASSHE schools during this period consisted of over 57% women), the Coalition is not able to generalize the findings to the population served – first-year residential students living on the campuses of the 14 universities.

Given the nature of this two year project—collecting baseline data during the 2009 – 2010 academic year and repeating the process in 2010 – 2011—coupled with the unanticipated poor response rate for both the 2010 and 2011 administrations of the CORE, the failure to document a seven percent reduction in high-risk drinking by first-year residential students was not surprising. However, the collected data suggest that if (1) employed strategies were continued and (2) alternative methods for collecting data regarding alcohol use behaviors in the target population were developed, a more conclusive finding may emerge.


Obstacles Experienced

There were aspects of each of the three components of the Coalition’s efforts which limited successful

implementation. 1) BASICS (Appendix F) a. Inconsistent levels of training and experience among BASICS facilitators. b. Lack of consistency in the administration of the BASICS syllabus. c. Limitations of the academic calendar related to BASICS follow-up data collection.2) SOCIAL NORMS (Appendix I) a. Lack of student familiarity with the PASSHE acronym.3) CORE Survey (Appendix J) a. Low response rates for the two on-line administrations of the CORE. b. Technical issues related to the administration of the CORE. c. Lack of student familiarity with the PASSHE acronym.

...this project represented an action-oriented approach to implementing evidence-based strategies designed to impact underage and high-risk, dangerous drinking throughout PASSHE.

Benefits Realized

This project built on the previous efforts of the State System, funded by a small grant from the

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, to review the issue of underage drinking specifically and collegiate drinking in general. Picking up where those efforts concluded, this project represented an action-oriented approach to implementing evidence-based strategies designed to impact underage and high-risk, dangerous drinking throughout PASSHE. It has enabled an in-depth and comprehensive review of efforts to address alcohol and other drug issues on all the campuses of PASSHE universities.

Were it not for the Coalition created by this U.S. DOE grant, limited staff and fiscal resources would have precluded this assessment. The comprehensive data provided in regular intervals throughout the execution of this special project have provided individual campuses with a comprehensive overview of their campuses’ standing based on established and nationally recognized benchmarks for program planning and implementation.

While quantitatively evaluating any change in binge-drinking rates for first-year resident students proved impossible, qualitative evidence suggested that Coalition efforts to implement evidence-based strategies positively affected the campus culture. The use of traditionally designed, implemented, and executed social norms campaigns on all 14 PASSHE campuses in concert with the training of staff to administer BASICS, and the subsequent review of survey data related to this experience appear to have contributed to increased awareness of collegiate drinking in general and binge-drinking specifically for students attending the 14 member institutions in PASSHE. The following table summarizes additional benefits realized as a result of the Coalition’s successful administration of the U.S. DOE grant to prevent or reduce underage and binge drinking.


PASSHE COALITION FOR PREVENTION OR REDUCTION OF UNDERAGE AND BINGE DRINKING:Challenging the Primacy of Alcohol in the Campus Culture

LEADERSHIP – PASSHE System-Wide, University-Wide• Developed strategic thinking practices for PASSHE and each of the 14 institutions addressing the prevention and reduction

of underage and binge drinking

• Developed a PASSHE Alcohol Strategic Plan, including Mission, Vision, Values, Themes, and Tactics

• Through both traditional communications tools and social media, raised visibility of alcohol culture change as an “all-institutional”

responsibility moving from the margins of environmental management concerns to the core of the University’s mission

• Developed and demonstrated the success of a formal PASSHE organizational model to coordinate a proactive,

evidence-based approach to addressing alcohol issues

• Motivated the development of a System-wide research IRB approval process.

• Motivated PASSHE-wide, inter-university, and intra-university networking, communication, coordination, collaboration, and training

• Provided professional development opportunities in this field System-wide.

• Shifted from “siloed” and fragmented institutional responses to a “coalition” addressing underage, high-risk, and dangerous alcohol behaviors

• Raised visibility, respect, and acknowledgement of the professional acumen of the University professionals addressing

alcohol issues on their campuses

• Modeled the development of an effective PASSHE-wide leadership structure for issues common among the 14 institutions

NIAAA Evidence-Based Strategies: BASICS

• Implemented BASICS on all PASSHE

campuses, through formal, documented

curriculum, staff training, and program

administration

• Developed a syllabus and related training

materials for BASICS facilitator training

• Institutionalized BASICS as a common

intervention approach

• Motivated greater awareness among

faculty, staff, and administrators regarding

BASICS, which was one of several

university tactics to address student

well-being, community, health, and

academic success and thereby positively

impacted student retention and satisfaction

• Opened conversations among faculty

colleagues regarding academic-

centric activities to promote healthy

decision-making

• Opened university-wide dialogue about other

student issues affecting student success,

e.g., violence, sexual assault, drug use

NIAAA Evidence-Based Strategies: Social Norms

• Developed a System-Wide Social

Norms campaign

• Empowered students to challenge

the norms and request alcohol-free

alternatives to “party-school drinking”

• Provided voice to the “silent-majority”

of students who engage in safe,

responsible, and legal choices related

to alcohol use

• Raised awareness of the need to shift

System-wide and university-wide

thinking from a “deficit-based” model

to a proactive “strength-based” model,

emphasizing institutional responsibility

and System collaboration

Assessment

• Reinforced and developed skills in

assessment and the importance of

NIAAA evidence-based best practices

• Applied a methodical qualitative and

quantitative evaluation plan for the

assessment of the Coalition’s efforts to

achieve the outcomes envisioned in the

U.S. DOE Grant

• Developed BASICS assessment tool

• Stimulated the development of a PASSHE

assessment tool similar to the CORE Survey

• Developed a set of “benchmarks” for all

PASSHE universities to measure their

individual progress toward the establishment

of policies, goals, objectives, and programs to

address high-risk and dangerous

collegiate drinking

• Identified issues for continued study, e.g.

analysis of student conduct data

System-wide


BENEFITS REALIZED

Recommendations

As summarized in this report, the evaluation of the PASSHE U.S. DOE Grant “Challenging the

Primacy of Alcohol in the Campus Culture” demonstrated partial achievement of the grant’s three overarching goals, which were to:1) institutionalize a System-wide Alcohol Culture Change Coalition, with a clearly articulated vision, mission, and portfolio of measurable objectives;2) build a culture of evidence to support the development and implementation of university-based alcohol strategic plans; and3) implement evidence-based programs to reduce underage alcohol use and binge drinking among first-year students by approximately seven percent.

Though the data collected through the CORE Survey did not demonstrate a seven percent reduction in underage alcohol use and binge drinking among first-year students living on the campuses of the 14 universities within the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, the Coalition concluded that continued improvements in the Coalition’s efforts were needed, in order to positively affect the perceptions and behaviors of all students attending PASSHE institutions.

With the end of the DOE grant in October 2012 (see Appendix L), the PASSHE Coalition for the Prevention and Reduction of Underage and Binge Drinking continued its work:

1) continued BASICS on each campus;2) developed a new CORE-like survey; and3) designed a three-part plan for long-term and sustained commitment to alcohol culture change was developed.

This final report of the Coalition’s efforts and the recommendations for sustainability served as the basis of a presentation to the PASSHE Chancellor and Council of Presidents in Spring 2013. The plan for sustainability (see Appendix N) consisted of the following components:

1) PASSHE would continue to invest in the Coalition as the primary vehicle for leadership in the strategic implementation of culture change within the campus cultures of PASSHE universities. Specifically, the Coalition would: • reorganize the governance structure of the Coalition; • review and revise the Coalition’s mission, vision, and scope of its work to include all students enrolled at PASSHE universities; • leverage resources among System universities to sustain the delivery of BASICS and continuing assesment efforts; • design a sustainable internal funding model to continue the Coalition’s work, which would include external funding; and • appoint a Coalition Coordinator, supervised by the Coalition’s Steering Committee, responsible for centralized communication, organization, and support for Coalition initiatives.

2) The PASSHE Alcohol Coalition would continue to employ NIAAA, evidence- based best practices throughout the System. Specifically, the Coalition would continue to use BASICS as the primary method of intervention for students whose alcohol use behaviors present a risk for their health and well-being.

...the Coalition concluded that continued improvements in the Coalition’s efforts were needed, in order to positively affect the perceptions and behaviors of all students attending PASSHE institutions.


3) The PASSHE Alcohol Coalition would design and implement an annual assessment plan. Specifically, the Coalition would administer PASSHE- wide a survey of students’ perceptions and use behaviors related to alcohol.



APPENDICES

Appendix A. Coalition Organizational Chart ................................................................... 23

Appendix B. Coalition Leadership and Participants ....................................................... 25

Appendix C. PASSHE Coalition Strategic Plan – 2012 ..................................................... 31

Appendix D. PASSHE University Strategic Plans – 2010 TO 2015 ............................... 37

Appendix E. NIAAA Tiers of Evidence-Based Best Practices ........................................ 49

Appendix F. BASICS Curriculum ...................................................................................... 51

Appendix G. Focus Group Interviews and Data ............................................................... 53

Appendix H. SSAO Interviews and Summary .................................................................. 57

Appendix I. Social Norms Project ...................................................................................... 59

Appendix J. Core Survey Findings .................................................................................... 61

Appendix K. Campus Data – Freshmen Living On Campus .......................................... 69

Appendix L. PASSHE U.S. DOE Project Status Report – October 30, 2012 ................... 71

Appendix M. Evaluator’s Recommendations ...................................................................... 81

Appendix N. Plan for Sustainability ................................................................................... 83



Appendix APASSHE Coalition Organizational Structure

Chancellor’s Office

Bloomsburg

Cheyney

East Stroudsburg

Indiana

Lock Haven

Millersville

Slippery Rock West Chester

Shippensburg

Mansfield

Kutztown

Edinboro

Clarion

California

Project Director

Coalition

GraduateAssistantGraduateAssistant

BASICCommittee

State and AlcoholBoards

Advisory/OversightCommittee

PA LiquorControl Board

PA Dept. ofHealth

Social NormCommittee

AOD AssessmentTool Committee

Subcommittees

ProjectEvaluator

EvaluationCommittee



Appendix BPASSHE Coalition Leadership and Participants

Jim McGee, MS Coordinator of Health Promotions Clarion Alyson C. Patascher, MPH Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs Prevention Services Coordinator East Stroudsburg Doreen M. Tobin, D.Ed. Coalition Facilitator East Stroudsburg Joe Miller, M.A. Associate Director for Residence Life and Housing Edinboro Shellie Barbich Director of Campus Life & Leadership Development Edinboro Ann Sesti, M.A., NCC, LPC Assistant Director, Center for Health and Well-Being Indiana Rhonda H. Luckey, Ed.D Vice President for Student Affairs Indiana Frances C. Cortez Funk, BA Director of Health Promotion Services Kutztown Mary Gutekunst RETIRED Executive Director of the Health and Wellness Center at Kutztown University Kutztown Dr. Dwayne L. Allison Dean of Student Affairs Lock Haven Ray Steele Coordinator of Student Life / Alcohol and other Drug coordinator Lock Haven Larry Watts, Mansfield University RETIRED Mansfield Daniel F. O’Neill, Psy.D. Associate Professor, Clinical Psychologist, Department of Counseling & Human Development Millersville Jayme Trogus, M.P.H. Director, Elsie S. Shenk Wellness and Women’s Center Millersville Angela Winter, MEd, NCC Interim Director, Connection Alcohol & Other Drug Services Shippensburg Donna Gross Associate Dean of Students and Director, New Student Orientation Shippensburg Christopher G. Cubero, Ph.D., LPC, CAADC, MAC, NCC Asst. Professor / AOD Counselor Alcohol and Other Drug Program Director Slippery Rock Renee Bateman, MPH, CHES Coordinator of Health Promotion Slippery Rock Mary Jane Rogan, CRNP Coordinator of ATOD Programs West Chester

Robert Chapman, PhD, MS Ed Clinical Associate Professor Drexel University Angela C. Smith-Aumen, MS, CRA Director of Sponsored Programs and Grant Development PASSHE Candace White, MPH, BS Project Director (2011-12) PASSHE/ESU Candace White,MPH, BS AOD GA (2010-11) PASSHE/ESU Dr. James D. Moran III Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs PASSHE Kit Liggett Academic Student Affairs PASSHE Melissa Hrynyk, BS, MPH AOD GA (2011-12) PASSHE/ESU Wendy Bartkus PASSHE Statewide Coalition for the Prevention and Reduction of Underage PASSHE/ESU and Binge Drinking, Project Director (2010-11) Kenneth Healy Bureau of Alcohol Education, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board


Appendix BOversight Committee

Timothy Susick D. Ed. Associate Vice President for Student Affairs California Doreen M. Tobin, D.Ed. Coalition Facilitator East Stroudsburg

Ann Sesti, M.A., NCC, LPC Assistant Director, Center for Health and Well-Being Indiana

Rhonda H. Luckey, Ed.D Vice President for Student Affairs Indiana

Donna Gross Associate Dean of Students and Director, New Student Orientation Shippensburg

Mary Jane Rogan, CRNP Coordinator of ATOD Programs West Chester

Robert Chapman, PhD, MS Ed Clinical Associate Professor Drexel University

Angela C. Smith-Aumen, MS, CRA Director of Sponsored Programs and Grant Development PASSHE

Candace White, MPH, BS Project Director (2011-2012) PASSHE/ESU

Dr. James D. Moran III Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs PASSHE

Kit Liggett Academic Student Affairs PASSHE

Wendy Bartkus PASSHE Statewide Coalition for the Prevention and Reduction of Underage and Binge Drinking, Project Director (2010-11) PASSHE/ESU

Kenneth Healy Bureau of Alcohol Education, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board


Appendix BBASICS Subcommittee

Evaluation Subcommittee


Jim McGee, MS Coordinator of Health Promotions Clarion


Christopher G. Cubero, Ph.D., LPC, CAADC, MAC, NCC Assistent Professor / AOD Counselor Alcohol and Other Drug Program Director Slippery Rock


Candice White, MPH, BS Project Director (2011-12) PASSHE/ESU


Robert Chapman, PhD, MS Ed Clinical Associate Professor, Associate Director, Subcommittee Facilitator Drexel University

Jennifer Young, PhD Faculty Psychologist, Counseling & Psychological Services East Stroudsburg University

Todd Whitman, PhD Faculty Psychologist, Counseling & College Student Personnel Shippensburg University


Appendix BSocial Norms Subcommittee

Catherine Shooter , MSW/LCSW Interim Coordinator for Drug and Alcohol Wellness Network Bloomsburg

Shellie Barbich Director of Campus Life & Leadership Development Edinboro


Mary Gutekunst RETIRED Executive Director of the Health and Wellness Center at Kutztown University Kutztown

Renee Bateman, MPH, CHES Coordinator of Health Promotion Slippery Rock



Wendy Bartkus PASSHE Statewide Coalition for Prevention and Reduction of Underage and Binge Drinking, Project Director (2010-11) PASSHE/ESU



Appendix B Survey Instrument Development Subcommittee

Catherine Shooter , MSW/LCSW Interim Coordinator for Drug and Alcohol Wellness Network Bloomsburg


Christopher G. Cubero, Ph.D., LPC, CAADC, MAC, NCC Assistant Professor / AOD Counselor Alcohol and Other Drug Program Director Slippery Rock

Renee Bateman, MPH, CHES Coordinator of Health Promotion Slippery Rock Mary Jane Rogan, CRNP Coordinator of ATOD Programs West Chester




Appendix BSustainability Plan Subcommittee

Jim McGee, MS Coordinator of Health Promotions Clarion




Wendy Bartkus PASSHE Statewide Coalition for the Prevention and Reduction of PASSHE/ESU Underage and Binge Drinking, Project Director (2010-11)



Vision StatementThe Pennsylvania State System Coalition will measurably improve the quality of life and student success on its constituent university campuses by implementing innovative and evidence-based strategies for the reduction of high risk and dangerous drinking by students while promoting harm-reducing and health-promoting values in its academically challenging and culturally rich campus environments.

Mission StatementIt is the mission of the Pennsylvania State System Coalition for the Prevention and Reduction of Underage and Binge Drinking to provide education and prevention services that will assist students attending the 14 State System universities to reduce the high-risk and illegal use of alcohol; empower campus communities to successfully establish expectancies for healthy, legal and responsible alcohol use for its constituencies; foster student adoption of healthy, legal and responsible alcohol use behaviors; improve students’ campus experiences; and promote student success.

Through the “Challenging the Primacy of Alcohol in the Campus Culture of the 14 Universities in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education” grant, the universities will collaborate to develop organizational partnerships and support systems for the efficient delivery of NIAAA strategies and State System best practices in alcohol prevention, enabling the participating institutions to achieve the goal of reducing underage and high-risk alcohol use by students System-wide.

Values StatementThe PASSHE Coalition is committed to the principles of respect for the individual, engaged student learning, good citizenship, shared community standards, collective action, extended partnerships, innovative approaches to address complex issues, excellence in programs and services, thoughtful stewardship of resources, and dedication to improved quality of life on constituent campuses and surrounding communities.

OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES

Committed and Sustainable ActionThe PASSHE Coalition is dedicated to the implementation of innovative and proven strategies through direct engagement of universities, surrounding communities, as well as System and agency partnerships to improve student success and quality of life, and to achieve systemic environmental changes.

System LeveragingThe PASSHE Coalition will benefit from collaboratively utilizing the expertise and resources of PASSHE and its state agency partners in advancing significant and systemic change.

Assessment Driven ImprovementsThe PASSHE Coalition will utilize qualitative and quantitative measures to evaluate strategic planning goals, action plans, and program improvements developed to address the issues associated with the drinking culture on PASSHE campuses.

SYSTEMIC CHANGE

As members of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE), the Pennsylvania State System Coalition values each constituent institution’s efforts to provide students with exemplary educational programs that foster student learning and student success. We recognize that graduates of our respective institutions must possess and demonstrate contextually appropriate cognitive, social and personal maturity. In support of those goals, the coalition members strive to reduce the impact that dangerous and illegal uses of alcohol by PASSHE students have upon their full and successful participation in the learning opportunities offered at the respective universities. We recognize that our efforts must be grounded in the student learning outcomes advanced at each institution while assuring that each campus has a program fully able to provide prevention, education and intervention services responsive to its students’ needs and contextually appropriate to its campus culture.

Behavior Change• Reduce the frequency and severity of alcohol issues on each of the campuses;• Increase student adoption of protective behaviors when using alcohol;• Reduce the impact of alcohol use on student academic performance.

Appendix CPASSHE Coalition Strategic Plan – 2012



Student Learning and Support• Enrich students’ learning by incorporating issues of alcohol into research, internships, service learning and student employment opportunities in cooperation with faculty and staff partners;• Strengthen the universities’ infrastructures to support and provide programs and services that fully address student issues with alcohol.

Collaboration• Continue Coalition’s work after the Department of Education grant ends. System leveraging of knowledge and resources advances the efforts on all the campuses;• Use technological resources of the campuses to improve collaboration and service delivery while keeping costs down;• Seek other grant resources. Campuses need additional resources to assure full program development System-wide;• Seek to cultivate and expand linkages with state agency, and other non-university partners;• Evaluate the effectiveness of efforts through a comprehensive outcomes assessment program with the goal of continuously improving programmatic and behavioral outcomes System-wide.

MISSION

Committed andSustainable Action

Ass

essm

ent D

riven

Impr

ovem

ents System

Leveraging

VISION VALUES

OrganizationalInfrastructure and

Leadership

Communication and Innovation

Technology Use

Planning and Assessment

Collaborationand Complementary

Programs

NIAAA andPASSHE

Practices

SYSTEMICCHANGE

STRATEGIC THEMES AND OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES

2010-2015



ORGANIZATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND LEADERSHIP

PASSHE universities must develop robust infrastructures and dedicated resources to support programs designed to address the structural, behavioral, and cultural components of substance abuse on the campuses. Infrastructures must be comprehensive and encourage the coordinated engagement of campus and community leaders, faculty, staff, and students in creating systemic change.

System-Wide Strategies• Identify university and system resources that can be utilized to build and sustain programs, engage appropriate numbers of staff, assess programmatic outcomes, and secure technologies required for full program implementation.

University-Wide Strategies• Engage leadership and involvement at all levels and among all constituent groups within the universities in the examination of student alcohol use and enhancement of substance abuse prevention as a campus priority, not the sole purview of an office or division of a university.• Develop a standing university-based advisory council comprised of multiple stakeholders to provide guidance, support and assistance at each coalition member campus.• Develop program mission, vision, and values statements to guide program development and implementation and that support the universities’ strategic directions.• Develop institutional policies and procedures that support campus-based goals related to university expectancies and shared community standards.

Departmental Strategies• Develop sustainable staffing structures that honor the organizational history of the university and assure effective delivery of identified programs and services.• Assure that identified staff members have the appropriate credentials and competencies to support program development and implementation, and provide access to education and training designed to advance specialized skills.• Seek grants that will support continued program development and innovation.

Community-Wide Strategies• Identify relevant community partners and engage them in program planning and implementation.

PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT

PASSHE and its constituent universities are complex organizations with unique cultures, differing constituent and resource bases and structural designs. The success of the PASSHE Coalition Strategic plan is dependent upon each campus’ fidelity to planning processes that incorporate the System’s shared strategic goals into implementation and assessment plans that are demonstrative of the respective campuses’ commitment to sustainable action in addressing the issues of underage and binge drinking.

System-Wide Strategies• Identify desired student learning and community outcomes, university and system benchmarks, and other corresponding qualitative and quantitative measures that will be used in the implementation plans to determine program efficacy and drive desired changes on the PASSHE campuses.• Utilize system resources to clarify and address Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) limitations on program development and implementation.• Link campus-based plans and priorities to campus and system resource streams to assure implementation of critical initiatives.




• Utilize university and system experts in research and data collection to inform, guide, and support the processes at the campuses. Link Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug (ATOD) planning and assessment processes to campus structures for institutional planning and assessment.• Maintain a PASSHE level advisory group to guide strategic plan implementation and seek external funding sources for continued program development and innovation.

University-Wide Strategies• Identify broad-based advisory teams to guide the planning, implementation and assessment processes at each PASSHE campus.• Develop strategic plan implementation documents that address campus-specific education, prevention and intervention initiatives, target populations for program and services, collaborative partners, timelines, and program/services delivery mechanisms that support the respective universities and the PASSHE coalition strategic plans.• Engage campus constituents and collaborative partners in full discussion about implementation plans, desired outcomes, resource implications, and cost benefits associated with these efforts.Departmental Strategies• Develop assessment plans and timelines for routine data collection and analysis. Communicate findings and progress toward established goals to all relevant constituencies.

Community-Wide Strategies• Engage community agencies in the development and implementation of multiple assessment strategies.• Involve key community partners in the collection and analysis of data for program effectiveness.

COMMUNICATION AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY USE

Effective communication is the foundation for building and sustaining system wide efforts.Through the use of innovative technology, the PASSHE Universities will efficiently communicate relevant, critical, system-wide information across campuses. The success of the PASSHE Coalition’s strategic plan is contingent upon the campuses being up to date and proficient in using the technological resources available within the system.

System-Wide Strategies• Educate the respective system and campus constituencies about the human and organizational costs that are the result of illegal and high risk drinking. Link efforts to established programs in support of academic success, student retention and town gown collaborative efforts.• Encourage the articulation of the strategic goals for reduction of illegal and high risk drinking by senior system and university administrators.• Develop and deliver system-wide messages aimed at reducing the perception of PASSHE institutions as “party schools.”

University-Wide Strategies• Solicit support of faculty to adopt professional and personal classroom management strategies that do not reinforce illegal and high risk drinking by students.

Departmental Strategies• Develop effective social norms campaigns to correct inherent misperceptions about student drinking frequencies and practices.• Expand and develop reliable and innovative use of technologies for the effective delivery of campus/community expectancies, program related information and resources, application of assessment measures, and communication of results.• Develop target marketing strategies for campus programs and services that are reflective of individual campus cultures.

Community-Wide Strategies• Use technology in bidirectional consistent communication with neighboring communities with regard to the goals of the university strategic plan.



IMPLEMENTATION OF NIAAA AND PASSHE BEST PRACTICES

PASSHE Coalition members recognize and embrace the NIAAA’s efforts to identify and promote the implementation of strategies proven to reduce illegal and high-risk drinking on college and university campuses. These strategies can be adapted and implemented to produce changes in the alcohol culture on any sized campus that commits itself to sustained action. PASSHE Coalition members commit to working together to implement these evidence-based strategies, develop innovative applications, and design new strategies that are shown to be effective in addressing underage and binge drinking on the system university campuses.

System-Wide Strategies• Work with university and system leadership to consider the implications of the sanctioned use of alcohol on system university campuses, including but not limited to tailgating, alumni events, and faculty/staff socials, and consider adopting common guidelines for appropriate use.• Utilize the expertise of Coalition members and System specialists to develop strategies for the System-wide adoption of NIAAA Tier I activities. Extensive research has proven these activities to be effective among college students and include implementation of the BASICS motivational interviewing model and challenging alcohol expectancies.• Utilize the expertise of coalition members and System specialists to develop strategies for System-wide adoption of social norms marketing programs. Utilize innovative technologies and other campus communication vehicles to share relevant data about campus norms directed toward correcting misperceptions held by campus constituents. (NIAAA Tier III)

University-Wide Strategies• Develop resource streams and staff support for the development of sustained late night programming on all coalition campuses. Utilize innovative technologies to attract student interest and participation. (NIAAA Tier III)

• Collaborate with providers of new student orientation, first year programs, retention programs, and parents’ programs to develop targeted initiatives for delivery of alcohol education programs. This should include implementation of software programs that deliver on-line education to new first-time full-time students before they enter PASSHE universities. (NIAAA Tier III)• Develop opportunities/incentives for faculty to provide leadership in the development of curriculum infusion and classroom management training modules. (NIAAA Tier III)

Community-Wide Strategies• Continue to address enforcement issues on and off campus through strategic partnerships, training, and education. Develop campus-based benchmarks to assess improvements over time. (NIAAA Tier II)• Develop and maintain an active campus-community coalition and extended community outreach activities. (NIAAA Tier II) Coalitions should involve top university leadership, representation from all campus constituencies, broad community involvement, regional resources, and key opinion leaders.• Develop working relationships with relevant sub-sets of community coalitions for targeted action, e.g. tavern owners on drink specials and enforcement, landlords on party policies or keg policies, school districts on peer education work, borough leaders on alcohol sales and retail outlet densities (NIAAA Tier II).

COLLABORATION AND COMPLEMENTARY PROGRAMS

PASSHE Coalition members recognize the importance of partnering with surrounding communities and campus neighbors. PASSHE university efforts to address illegal and high-risk drinking by students have been invigorated by the development of a coalition, increased communication and collaborative planning that utilizes the expertise of professionals across the System.

System-Wide Strategies• Create new and expand existing partnerships with local, state and federal agencies, using collaborative efforts directed toward the reduction of illegal and high risk drinking practices.• Consider co-sponsoring a PASSHE coalition meeting in tandem with the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board annual conference to advance System-wide coalition initiatives and share best practices.




• Conduct annual or biennial PASSHE conferences on System best practices in alcohol prevention, education, and intervention with a focus on improvements verified through assessment.

University-Wide Strategies• Create new and expand existing partnerships with local, state and federal agencies, using collaborative efforts directed toward the reduction of illegal and high-risk drinking practices.• Encourage the development of interdepartmental collaboration in the implementation of ATOD prevention strategies and programs.

Departmental Strategies and Complementary Programs • Increase the educational profile of student conduct programs on the member campuses by delivering peer educational outreach programs and collaborating with other student services to provide integrated educational approaches to alcohol use by students.• Partner with campus-based first-year seminars to integrate information regarding the role of alcohol with other issues and topics of concern to entering students.• Explore the development of parents program initiatives that could include regular communication with families electronically, parents website development, parents roundtables, and resources parents could use to assist their students as needed.• Examine potential program linkages and resource development potentials with campus departments and organizations such as Athletics, Greek Life, New Student Orientation Programs, Women’s Center, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered Center, Disability Services and the respective colleges at each of the universities.

Community-Wide Strategies• Develop and maintain campus-community coalitions.• Develop “Good Neighbor” and “Good Samaritan” policies and programs that engage campus constituents and community agencies in articulating shared expectancies for student conduct, health and safety protocols, and enforcement activities.



Appendix DPASSHE University Strategic Plan – 2010 to 2015

PASSHE SUMMARY

Organizational Infrastructure and Leadership

1. Identify university and system resources that can be utilized to build and sustain programs, engage appropriate numbers of staff, assess programmatic outcomes, and secure technologies required for full program implementation. • All 14 campuses signed on to participate in the grant. 12 of 14 were active and engaged throughout the process. Further, coalition members at 11 of the 14 were deeply engaged in subcommittees that provided oversight, grant project implementation, and special project development through the life of the grant and no cost extension. • Utilized PASSHE resources for grant support, communications, feedback tool development, and web site host. Utilized University resources for graphic design; training site support; consultation on research tool design and development; consultation on evaluation; and implementation of individual grant initiatives: social norms campaigns, BASICS program, campus SWOTs, strategic planning, etc. • Staff and faculty on most campuses were very involved throughout. Many campuses had multiple individuals involved in the grant activities. Coalition members were able in some instances to bring in other campus constituents for special training or topical discussions. Several campuses added ATOD responsibilities to professional staff responsibilities. Programmatic outcomes were evaluated at very modest levels. This area requires significant improvement for purposes of sustainability.

Planning and Assesment

1. Identify desired student learning and community outcomes, university and system benchmarks and other corresponding qualitative and quantitative measures that will be used in the implementation plans to determine program efficacy and drive desired changes on the PASSHE campuses.2. Utilize system resources to clarify and address Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) limitations on program development and implementation. • Several meetings with State APSCUF did clarify system support for BASICS program implementation on PASSHE campuses by trained facilitators spanning several bargaining units. APSCUF has requested information on measures of facilitator effectiveness. 3. Link campus-based plans and priorities to campus and system resource streams to assure implementation of critical initiatives. • Links were made to campus plans and resource needs. Developed an in-house data collection tool which will allow all PASSHE campuses to assess student use patterns and campus climate/social support for use at minimal cost to the campus. This data can be used to target areas for future prevention and intervention activities. Developed an in-house tool for individual students to record their use patterns as part of the BASICS program intervention. Developed and delivered training in BASICS to the campus identified facilitators.4. Utilize university and system experts in research and data collection to inform, guide, and support the processes at the campuses. Link Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug (ATOD) planning and assessment processes to campus structures for institutional planning and assessment. • Utilized campus and system experts in program initiative design, implementation and evaluation. Utilized campus- based trainers, software design experts, psychometric design experts, graphic design experts, AOD issue experts, and program/process evaluation experts through the life of the grant.5. Maintain a PASSHE level advisory group to guide strategic plan implementation and seek external funding sources for continued program development and innovation. • Advisory group was actively engaged in oversight at all phases of the grant. Advisory group held conference calls on a bi-weekly basis and met face to face 2-3 times per year.



Communication and Innovation Technology Use

1. Educate the respective system and campus constituencies about the human and organizational costs that are the result of illegal and high-risk drinking. Link efforts to established programs in support of academic success, student retention and town gown collaborative efforts. • This greater portion of education process will commence with the dissemination of the grant evaluation and proposal for sustainability of the structures/programs/processes built to support future initiatives. Presentations are scheduled with PASSHE presidents and provosts for Fall 2012. • To date the coalition hosted programs re: PA’s new Good Samaritan law, Clarion University’s Good Neighbor Program, BASICS training for facilitators and others, and student worker education. • Have engaged in dialogue with PASSHE Executive Vice Chancellor re: activities undertaken in grant and sought guidance re: ensuring continuation of coalition beyond the life of the grant. • Have secured a PASSHE presidential advocate to assist in bringing this issue before PASSHE leadership for action.2. Encourage the articulation of the strategic goals for reduction of illegal and high risk drinking by senior system and university administrators. • Grant advisory board members who sit on the Chief Student Affairs officer group have and will continue to advocate for progressive goals and systemic action to reduce illegal and high risk drinking practices among students. • Have addressed the need to identify common judicial (and other relevant) data collection and database attributes in order to identify changes in student infractions of law, primary and secondary infraction of university policy due to substance use, and other related indicators of student use/abuse of alcohol.3. Develop and deliver system-wide messages aimed at reducing the perception of PASSHE institutions as “party schools.”

Implementation of NIAAA and PASSHE Best Practices

1. Work with university and system leadership to consider the implications of the sanctioned use of alcohol on system university campuses, including but not limited to tailgating, alumni events, and faculty/staff socials, and consider adopting common guidelines for appropriate use.

2. Utilize the expertise of coalition members and System specialists to develop strategies for the System-wide adoption of NIAAA Tier I activities. Extensive research has proven these activities to be effective among college students and include implementation of the BASICS motivational interviewing model and challenging alcohol expectancies. • Coalition has made extensive use of coalition member and system specialists to assist in development, implementation and evaluation of the grant initiatives.3. Utilize the expertise of coalition members and system specialists to develop strategies for System-wide adoption of social norms marketing programs. Utilize innovative technologies and other campus communication vehicles to share relevant data about campus norms directed toward correcting misperceptions held by campus constituents. (NIAAA Tier III) • Through the grant activities it was discovered the campus identities, cultures, and expectancies are so different that a single social norms campaign for the system was not effective. • A bank of social norm posters and strategies are maintained for access and use by all the campuses.

Collaboration and Complementary Programs

1. Create new and expand existing partnerships with local, state and federal agencies, using collaborative efforts directed toward the reduction of illegal and high-risk drinking practices. • This was not accomplished to date. Invited partners in PA Dept of Health and State Police did continue to have an interest in working with the coalition after the first meetings.2. Consider co-sponsoring a PASSHE coalition meeting in tandem with the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board annual conference to advance System-wide coalition initiatives and share best practices. • This was accomplished in 2011 but was not feasible in 2012. Made all-conference presentation at the PASSHE Student Affairs conference held at Cheyney University in May 2011.3. Conduct annual or biennial PASSHE conferences on system best practices in alcohol prevention, education and intervention with a focus on improvements verified through assessment. • The feasibility of such an initiative needs to be assessed.



UNIVERSITY-WIDE STRATEGIES


1. Develop program mission, vision, and values statements to guide program development and implementation and that support the universities’ strategic directions. 2. Develop institutional policies and procedures that support campus-based goals related to university expectancies and shared community standards.3. Engage leadership and involvement at all levels and among all constituent groups within the universities in the examination of student alcohol use and enhancement of substance abuse prevention as a campus priority, not the sole purview of an office or division of a university.4. Develop a standing university-based advisory council comprised of multiple stakeholders to provide guidance, support and assistance at each coalition member campus.


Bloomsburg x

California x

Cheyney x

Clarion x

East Stroudsburg x

Edinboro x

Indiana x

Kutztown x

Lock Haven x

Mansfield x

Millersville x

Shippensburg x

Slippery Rock x

West Chester x

Bloomsburg x

California x

Cheyney x

Clarion x

East Stroudsburg x

Edinboro

Indiana x

Kutztown

Lock Haven

Mansfield

Millersville x

Shippensburg x

Slippery Rock x

West Chester x


1. Develop strategic plan implementation documents that address campus specific education, prevention and intervention initiatives, target populations for program and services, collaborative partners, timelines and program/services delivery mechanisms that support the respective universities and the PASSHE coalition strategic plans.2. Engage campus constituents and collaborative partners in full discussion about implementation plans, desired outcomes, resource implications and cost benefits associated with these efforts.3. Identify broad-based advisory teams to guide the planning, implementation and assessment processes at each PASSHE campus.



Bloomsburg x

California x

Cheyney

Clarion x

East Stroudsburg x

Edinboro

Indiana x

Kutztown

Lock Haven

Mansfield

Millersville x

Shippensburg

Slippery Rock x

West Chester

Bloomsburg x

California x

Cheyney

Clarion x

East Stroudsburg x

Edinboro x

Indiana x

Kutztown

Lock Haven

Mansfield

Millersville x

Shippensburg

Slippery Rock x

West Chester x


1. Solicit support of faculty to adopt professional and personal classroom management strategies that do not reinforce illegal and high risk drinking by students.


1. Develop resource streams and staff support for the development of sustained late-night programming on all coalition campuses. Utilize innovative technologies to attract student interest and participation. (NIAAA Tier III)2. Collaborate with providers of new student orientation, first year programs, retention programs, and parents’ programs to develop targeted initiatives for delivery of alcohol education programs. This should include implementation of software programs that deliver on-line education to new first-time full-time students before they enter PASSHE universities. (NIAAA Tier III)3. Develop opportunities/incentives for faculty to provide leadership in the development of curriculum infusion and classroom management training modules.




Bloomsburg

California x

Cheyney x

Clarion x

East Stroudsburg x

Edinboro x

Indiana x

Kutztown

Lock Haven

Mansfield

Millersville x

Shippensburg x

Slippery Rock x

West Chester x


1. Create new and expand existing partnerships with local, state and federal agencies, using collaborative efforts directed toward the reduction of illegal and high-risk drinking practices.2. Encourage the development of interdepartmental collaboration in the implementation of ATOD prevention strategies and programs.



Bloomsburg x

California x

Cheyney

Clarion x

East Stroudsburg x

Edinboro

Indiana x

Kutztown

Lock Haven

Mansfield

Millersville x

Shippensburg x

Slippery Rock x

West Chester x


1. Develop assessment plans and timelines for routine data collection and analysis. Communicate findings and progress toward established goals to all relevant constituencies.

Bloomsburg x

California x

Cheyney

Clarion x

East Stroudsburg x

Edinboro

Indiana x

Kutztown

Lock Haven

Mansfield x

Millersville x

Shippensburg x

Slippery Rock x

West Chester x


1. Assure that identified staff members have the appropriate credentials and competencies to support program development and implementation, and provide access to education and training designed to advance specialized skills. 2. Seek grants that will support continued program development and innovation.

DEPARTMENT-WIDE STRATEGIES



Bloomsburg x

California x

Cheyney

Clarion x

East Stroudsburg x

Edinboro

Indiana x

Kutztown

Lock Haven

Mansfield

Millersville x

Shippensburg x

Slippery Rock x

West Chester x


1. Develop effective social norms campaigns to correct inherent misperceptions about student drinking frequencies and practices. 2. Expand and develop reliable and innovative use of technologies for the effective delivery of campus/community expectancies, program related information and resources, application of assessment measures, and communication of results. 3. Develop target marketing strategies for campus programs and services that are reflective of individual campus cultures.

Bloomsburg x

California x

Cheyney

Clarion x

East Stroudsburg x

Edinboro

Indiana x

Kutztown

Lock Haven

Mansfield

Millersville x

Shippensburg x

Slippery Rock x

West Chester x



1. Increase the educational profile of student conduct programs on the member campuses by delivering peer educational outreach programs and collaborating with other student services to provide integrated educational approaches to alcohol use by students. 2. Partner with campus-based first-year seminars to integrate information regarding the role of alcohol with other issues and topics of concern to entering students. 3. Explore the development of parents program initiatives that could include regular electronic communication with families, parents website development, parents roundtables, and resources parents could use to assist their students as needed.4. Examine potential program linkages and resource development potentials with campus departments and organizations such as Athletics, Greek Life, New Student Orientation Programs, Women’s Center, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered Center, Disability Services and the respective colleges at each of the universities.



Bloomsburg x

California x

Cheyney

Clarion

East Stroudsburg x

Edinboro

Indiana

Kutztown

Lock Haven

Mansfield x

Millersville x

Shippensburg x

Slippery Rock x

West Chester x


1. Engage community agencies in the development and implementation of multiple assessment strategies.2. Involve key community partners in the collection and analysis of data for program effectiveness.

Bloomsburg x

California x

Cheyney

Clarion x

East Stroudsburg x

Edinboro

Indiana x

Kutztown

Lock Haven

Mansfield x

Millersville x

Shippensburg x

Slippery Rock x

West Chester x


1. Identify relevant community partners and engage them in program planning and implementation.

COMMUNITY-WIDE STRATEGIES



Bloomsburg

California

Cheyney

Clarion

East Stroudsburg

Edinboro

Indiana

Kutztown

Lock Haven

Mansfield

Millersville x

Shippensburg

Slippery Rock x

West Chester x


1. Use technology in bidirectional consistent communication with neighboring communities with regard to the goals of the university strategic plan.

Bloomsburg x

California x

Cheyney

Clarion x

East Stroudsburg x

Edinboro

Indiana x

Kutztown

Lock Haven

Mansfield

Millersville x

Shippensburg

Slippery Rock x

West Chester x



1. Continue to address enforcement issues on and off campus through strategic partnerships, training, and education. Develop campus-based benchmarks to assess improvements over time. (NIAAA Tier II)2. Develop and maintain an active campus-community coalition and extended community outreach activities. (NIAAA Tier II) Coalitions should involve top university leadership, representation from all campus constituencies, broad community involvement, regional resources, and key opinion leaders.3. Develop working relationships with relevant sub-sets of community coalitions for targeted action, e.g. tavern owners on drink specials and enforcement, landlords on party policies or keg policies, school districts on peer education work, borough leaders on alcohol sales and retail outlet densities (NIAAA Tier II).



Bloomsburg

California

Cheyney

Clarion x

East Stroudsburg x

Edinboro

Indiana

Kutztown

Lock Haven

Mansfield

Millersville x

Shippensburg

Slippery Rock x

West Chester x


1. Develop and maintain campus-community coalitions.2. Develop “Good Neighbor” and “Good Samaritan” policies and programs that engage campus constituents and community agencies in articulating shared expectancies for student conduct, health and safety protocols, and enforcement activities.




UNIVERSITY ALCOHOL STRATEGIC PLAN CONTACTS:

CAMPUS REPRESENTATIVE EMAIL PHONE UNIVERSITY

Jeffrey Long [email protected] 570-389-4198 Bloomsburg University of PennsylvaniaAssistant VP-Student Life Donna George [email protected] 724-938-5515 California University of PennsylvaniaAOD Prevention Specialist Timothy Susick [email protected] 724-938-1603 California University of PennsylvaniaAssoc. VP or Student Afairs Suzanne Phillips [email protected] 610-399-2217 Cheyney University of PennsylvaniaVice President for Student Affairs Susan Bornak [email protected] 814-393-1616 Clarion University of PennsylvaniaDean of Student Development Jim McGee [email protected] 814-393-1949 Clarion University of PennsylvaniaCoordinator of Health Promotions Alyson Patascher [email protected] 570-422-3298 East Stroudsburg University of PennsylvaniaCoordinator, ATOD Prevention Services Kahan Sablo [email protected] 814-732-2313 Edinboro University of PennsylvaniaVice President for Student Affairs Ann Sesti [email protected] 724-357-4028 Indiana University of PennsylvaniaAsst. Director, Alcohol, Tobacco & Other Drugs Frances Cortez Funk [email protected] 610-683-4082 Kutztown University of PennsylvaniaDirector of Health Promotion Services Dwayne Allison [email protected] 570-484-2317 Lock Haven University of PennsylvaniaDean of Student Affairs Colleen Moore [email protected] 570-662-4945 Mansfield University of PennsylvaniaResidence Director Daniel O’Neill [email protected] 717-872-3122 Millersville University of PennsylvaniaAssociate Professor, Clinical Psychologist Angela Winter [email protected] 717-477-1164 Shippensburg University of PennsylvaniaInterim Director, Drug and Alcohol Services Renee Bateman [email protected] 724-738-4206 Slippery Rock University of PennsylvaniaCoordinator of Health Promotion/Co-Chair Slippery Rock Alcohol and Addictions Coalition Mary Jane Rogan [email protected] 610-430-4194 West Chester Universiy of PennsylvaniaCoordinator of ATOD Programs



Appendix ENIAAA Tiers of Evidence-Based Best Practices Checklist

Combining cognitive-behavioral skills with norms clarification and motivational enhancement interventions

Offering brief motivational enhancement interventions

Challenging alcohol expectancies

Increased enforcement of minimum drinking age laws

Implementation, increased publicity, and enforcement of other laws to reduce alcohol impaired driving

Restrictions on retail alcohol outlet density

Increased price and excise taxes on alcoholic beverages

Responsible beverage service policies (social and commercial settings)

Campus and community coalition involving all major stakeholders

Reinstating Friday classes and exams

Implementing alcohol-free, late-night student activities

Eliminating keg parties on campus

Employing older, salaried resident assistants or adults

Further controlling or eliminating alcohol at sports events and prohibiting tailgating

Refusing sponsorship gifts from the alcohol industry

Banning alcohol on campus, including faculty and alumni events

Increasing enforcement at campus-based events that serve alcohol

Increasing publicity about enforcement of underage drinking laws

Consistently enforcing disciplinary actions associated with policy violations

Conducting marketing campaigns to correct student misperceptions of alcohol use

Providing “safe rides”

Informing new students and parents about alcohol policies and penalties before arrival and during orientation

Informational, knowledge-based, or values clarification interventions about alcohol and the problems related to its excessive use

Providing blood alcohol content feedback to students

Effective among college students

Effective with general populations

Promising

TIER 2 STRATEGY YES NO






Appendix FA Consideration of BASICS: as Employed in the PA State System of Higher Education

Demonstrates an Appreciation for

H.R

PASSHE’SBASICS

EmploysPrinciples or

M.I.

Is Prevention w/IndicatedPopulation

Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students (BASICS) was implemented throughout PASSHE. BASICS is an intervention with college students using the principles of motivational interviewing , with a focus on harm Reduction with the students participating in BASICS.

Three groups of trained facilitators of BASICS conducted BASICS session, adopted the spirit of BASICS, which the Coalition expected, but also implemented BASICS, as outlined by the BASICS Subcommittee. They were Student Affairs Professionals, Professional Counselors, and Graduate

Target Population

• Identified high-risk user• In violation of campus policies• Documented problem/difficulty related to use

Intervention with identified high-risk students with the intent of reducing risk

Principles of Motivational Interviewing (characteristics of facilitator)

• Collaborative rather than adversarial• Rolls with Resistance• Celebrates Ambivalence• Enhances Discrepancies• Reframes personal choices

Interactions are conductedwith the student and not done to the student

Harm Reduction (H.R.) – (objective of intervention)

• Increase thinking about drinking & its effects• Revisit personal consumption• Explore cost – benefit ratio of drinking

Any movement towards proactive change is seen as progress

LIMITATIONS

Inconsistent levels of training and experience for BASICS facilitators.

Although employing Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students (BASICS) on each PASSHE campus, the level of training and depth of experience for those staff facilitating the BASICS sessions varied from being seasoned facilitators to individuals trained specifically to administer BASICS for this project.

Although the training provided to all facilitators was comprehensive and consistent across all PASSHE campuses, familiarity with Motivational Interviewing—a specific approach to conducting interviews, especially with mandated individuals or those with little intention of moderating current behavior—varied across facilitators.

Because of this, evaluators were unable to discern the extent to which this was a mitigating factor as regards the effectiveness of a given student’s BASICS experience.

Recommendations

• BASICS facilitators be experienced student affairs professionals or graduate students of counseling, familiar with interviewing students • BASICS facilitators be familiar with Motivational Interviewing and have participated in training workshops specific to this interviewing technique in addition to training in BASICS


Appendix FA Consideration of BASICS: as Employed in the PA State System of Higher Education

1. Dimeff, L., Baer, J., Kivlahan, D., & Marlatt, A. (1999). Guilford Press; NYC:NY.

2. After student would visit the site and respond to questions, results from the online survey proved difficult to print out. Graphs and tables based on student data that were part of the online feedback provided by the web site proved difficult for facilitators to follow or interpret when printed out. This resulted in difficulties attempting to understand results provided students and thereby complicate the feedback provided regarding risk.

3. NOTE: Challenges related to checkyourdrinking.net resulted in the BASICS subcommittee of the coalition developing a specific online tool for the collection of student drinking data that is the standard tool used on all PASSHE campuses.

• An experienced BASICS facilitator be identified at each campus to oversee ongoing training and supervision of staff and graduate students facilitating BASICS as well as address and resolve any questions regarding BASICS administration when they arise for individual facilitators

Related to but separate from the BASICS issue of facilitator training is a question regarding the consistency of administering the BASICS syllabus. The BASICS subcommittee developed a uniform syllabus for both an individual and small group approach to conducting BASICS for use on individual PASSHE campuses. Both iterations of this syllabus complied with established practices associated with conducting BASICS1.

Even though a consistent syllabus was used in the training of all facilitators and followed on individual campuses as BASICS was administered, project evaluators were unable to discern the extent to which facilitator experience with BASICS prior to this project affected the ability to spontaneously improvise during individual sessions. This raised the question if facilitators were focusing on the student and his or her issues during the session rather than on the prescribed interview format thus conveying a less collaborative and more authoritative relationship with the student(s).

Once BASICS sessions had begun on each PASSHE campus, problems developed with the online screening instrument used to collect drinking-related data from students participating in BASICS sessions. The tool, www.checkyourdrinking.net, proved cumbersome2.

Experienced AOD staff administering the instrument to BASICS students reported that the normative data seemed “off ” and therefore questioned it usefulness. This necessitated talking with the student more about the specific University data, which was not a significant issue for seasoned AOD professionals, but those Student Affairs professionals trained to facilitate BASICS sessions during this project reported more difficulty using the “checkyourdrinking.net” feedback3.

Recommendations:

• Utilize the PASSHE-specific online tool for the collection of student drinking data

The nature of the academic calendar made consistent collection of follow-up data in the BASICS portion of this project difficult. The methodology employed in this project included the surveying of students completing the BASICS program at a point 30-days following completion of the program. The five-week hiatus from campus between the fall and spring semesters as well as students leaving campus for the summer before 30-days elapsed following the completion of BASICS in the spring term represented a mitigating factor in collecting these data. 30-day post BASICS response rates were low, in part, because of logistical challenges related to collecting these data consistently.

Regarding the 30-day post BASICS follow-up data, the likelihood that at least some students may have had to negotiate decisions regarding drinking in an environment different than that of the project, for example, responding to 30-day follow-up inquiries when “Christmas and New Year’s break” occurred during this period, make these data suspect.

Recommendations:

As little can be done to alter that academic year or the timing of referrals to BASICS, those completing the program with less than 30-days before leaving campus for a significant period, such as semester break, co-op or internship experiences, or summer recess should be informed that they will receive a follow-up survey in 30-days. Further, segregating these data from those collected from subjects remaining on campus will minimize creating a biased sample as well as permit comparison of BASICS with students whose follow-up occurred while they remained on campus and following their regular campus lifestyle.



1. The use of data provided by the 2010 CORE survey enabled 2011 second-year student, who completed the survey as first-year students, to reflect on the perceived veracity of those data via focus group discussions. This then afforded a qualitative measure by which to explore the reliability of those CORE data.

2. These students clearly did not see—or if they did, attend to—the social norms campaign on their campuses.

Appendix GSummary of Focus Interviews

In an effort to augment the quantitative data collected via the CORE Survey, focus groups were conducted on four of the five selected campuses from the PA State System: Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP), West Chester University of Pennsylvania (WCUP), Clarion University of Pennsylvania (CUP), Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania (SUP), and Cheyney University (CU).

Of the five campuses identified to host focus groups, IUP and WCUP represented the two largest institutions in the state system. In addition, each of these institution tends to draw from applicants residing in specific separate and specific regions of PA; IUP drawing from the western and more rural portion of PA and WCUP drawing from the eastern, more suburban and urban portion of PA. CUP and SUP represented moderately sized institution in the state system and attract students from the central region of Pennsylvania. The fifth identified school was CU, which is the smallest institution in the state system as well as being a Historically Black College or University.

In designing a methodology to evaluate the effectiveness of coalition efforts to impact underage and “binge” drinking rates among first-year residential student, qualitative measures were considered a key component in the design. As a qualitative means for collecting data, focus groups provided student perspective on the reliability of alcohol & other drug use data provided by the February 2010 administration of the CORE Alcohol & Drug Survey1.

Although qualitative data do not afford the opportunity to answer questions regarding changes in student behavior, they do provide one means by which to reflect on the reliability of data resulting from the CORE survey. Given the sparse response rate for both the 2010 and 2011 iterations of the CORE, the results of these focus group interviews became all the more valuable when considering to what extent the CORE results may be indicative of actual student practices and appropriate to generalized to the overall first-year student population in the state system.

Unfortunately, the opinions expressed by focus group participants are inconclusive at best and suggestive of further doubts on the reliability of CORE Survey data. General themes that emerged from the focus groups include the following:

Regarding the question:The survey of first-year students and their use of alcohol conducted last February indicated that 90% of “[your] University” Freshman students reported consuming 5 or fewer drinks per week with 64% reporting consuming no drinks in the previous 2 weeks before the survey. How do the reported “numbers of drinks consumed per week” match up with your perception of student drinking behaviors? • This appears to be accurate, perhaps a bit conservative. • Consumption of alcohol during holiday weeks may increase. • Ninety (90%) percent seems high; I think they consume more.

Regarding the question: The survey of first-year students and their use of alcohol conducted last February (2010) indicated that 53% of students reported “0” days on which they had anything to drink with 12% reporting drinking on 3 – 5 days. How do these reported “numbers of drinks consumed per week” match up with your perception of student drinking behaviors? • 12% is OK. • The 53% is conservative. • Homecoming causes this to be inaccurate. • The numbers sound correct, most freshmen have a few drinks. • The 3 to 5 drinks is not a high amount, the zero drinks number is fair. • The 53% number appears to be high. • 12% is low. Most students go out Friday and Saturday nights and drink2.

Regarding the question: Reflecting on the past 30-days, how many standard drinks do you believe you have consumed? • Answers varied from: 0 to 1, 1 to 10, 10 drinks, 10 drinks, 30 drinks



Regarding the Question:In general, how do you believe students respond to campus-wide surveys of their alcohol or other drug use behaviors? • Most students are conservative when answering; they drink more than they indicate with their answers. • They respond accurately, but conservatively. • It depends; some do not take it seriously so the information could be doubted. • They put a number on the form just to take the survey. They “just want to get thru it.”

Regarding The Question:What factors may influence the answers students provide on such surveys? • Afraid of being in trouble for reporting self-use. • Afraid of the information getting out in public. • The setting it is administered in...if a one on one setting the results are going to be underestimated...and with friends the results will be exaggerated.

Regarding the Question: What are your thoughts on how this year’s (2010-2011) first-year students have used alcohol compared to (2009-2010) when you were a first-year student? • About the same. • I don’t know because I do not hang out with freshmen. • Another response was that with the increased police presence and stricter enforcement there is a greater fear of getting caught. All agreed that this past year there has been fewer “parties” in and around campus3.

Of additional note, although specific work with campus police and professional staff involved in the campus judicial system was not an element of the design in this project, student opinions voiced during the focus groups that the risk of detection acted as a deterrent to use is interesting. If this were the case, it is likely that the attention given this grant and its objectives coupled with the training of professional staff involved in conducting BASICS sessions may have increased awareness regarding the issue of underage and “binge” drinking. In addition, with the intent of this project to involve students referred for alcohol-related violations in an evidence-based intervention designed to motivate objective self-evaluation of personal choices related to alcohol, it would not be surprising if those responsible for enforcing campus alcohol policy

became increasingly diligent in their duties. When, for example, Resident Assistants recognize that an incident report (IR) written concerning an alcohol violation is likely to result in a referral to BASICS rather than a punitive judicial sanction, the IR becomes a proactive interaction with a peer rather than reactive follow through on administrative policy. In any event, this suggests a recommendation the evaluation committee can make to the coalition’s oversight committee regarding ways to further its intent to affect the campus culture of drinking.

OVERVIEW OF FOCUS GROUP METHODOLOGY

This outline based on the guidelines for conducting focus groups created by the Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Lehigh University http://www.cse.lehigh.edu/~glennb/mm/FocusGroups.htm

Before The Focus Group:1. PURPOSE, I.E. OBJECTIVES OF THE FOCUS GROUP • To access student perspective on the reliability of alcohol & other drug use behavior provided by the February 2010 administration of the CORE Alcohol & Drug Survey 2. TIMELINE a) 21 February 2011– facilitators identified and trained b) March and April 2011 - Focus groups conducted on five PASSHE campuses (Clarion University, Shippensburg University, Cheyney University, Indiana University of PA, and West Chester University)

3. PARTICIPANTS a) Each focus group will include 6 to 12 students Criteria for student selection: • primary - second-year student at the current PASSHE university; • secondary – residential student during the spring semester of the 2009-2010 academic year b) Number of focus groups per campus – minimum of one, maximum of three c) Number of students participants solicited – 36 per targeted school



d) Possible participants - Students currently living in: 1. campus housing 2. athletic teams 3. Greek-letter societies

4. QUESTIONS – QUESTIONS 1. The survey of first-year students and their use of alcohol conducted last February indicated that (insert 2010 CORE results for question 15 here). How do these reported “numbers of drinks consumed per week” match up with your perception of student drinking behaviors? a. During a typical week at school last year, how many drinks might you have consumed? b. NOTE #1: Student will be given the “standard drink” chart used in the BASICS feedback report c. NOTE #2: Students will be invited to “think out loud” regarding factors that might influence the total number of drinks a first-year student might consume during a typical week.

2. The survey of first-year students and their use of alcohol conducted last February indicated that (insert 2010 CORE results for question 18B here). How do these reported “numbers of drinks consumed per week” match up with your perception of student drinking behaviors? a. Reflecting on the past 30-days, how many standard drinks do you believe you have consumed? b. NOTE #1: Students will be reminded that no information shared by a specific individual in the focus group will be reported as having come from that individual following the focus group. c. NOTE #2: Students will be invited to “think out loud” regarding factors that might influence the total number of drinks a first-year student might consume during a typical week.

3. The survey of first-year students and their use of alcohol conducted last February indicated that (insert 2010 CORE results for question 21C here). a. Please indicate how often you have been in trouble with police, residence hall, or other authorities during the last year b. NOTE #1: Reiterate that no information shared by a specific individual in the focus group will be reported as having come from that individual following the focus group.


4. The survey of first-year students and their use of alcohol conducted last February indicated that (insert 2010 CORE results for question 35I [#1? – the ‘had more than 5 in one sitting’ option] here). a. How much do you believe people harm themselves if having 5 or more standard drinks in the same sitting? b. NOTE #1: Reiterate that no information shared by a specific individual in the focus group will be reported as having come from that individual following the focus group.

5. In general, how do you believe students respond to campus- wide surveys of their alcohol or other drug use behaviors? a. What factors may influence the answers students provide on such surveys?

6. What are your thoughts on how this year’s first-year students have used alcohol compared to when you were a first-year student?

7. Did you complete the 2010 CORE survey last February? a. If yes – what did you think of the survey when you were completing it? b. If no – what influenced your decision to not complete the survey?

5. DEVELOP A SCRIPT Generating questions is a prelude to developing a more detailed script for your focus group. A minimum of one-hour and maximum of two-hours is planned for each group. The Script 1. The facilitator(s) welcome the group, introduce the purpose and context of the focus group, explain what a focus group is and how it will flow, and make the introductions. 2. Present and discuss questions outlined in step 4 above one at a time. 3. Wraps up the focus group by thanking the participants, giving them an opportunity and avenue for further input, telling them how the data will be used, and explaining when the larger process will be completed.



6. THE FACILITATOR(S) – A member of the Evaluation Subcommittee of the PASSHE Statewide Coalition will conduct the focus groups for the Prevention and Reduction of Underage and Binge Drinking or the designee of the chair of the evaluation committee. Members include Robert Chapman, Ph.D., who is the external evaluator for the PASSHE U.S. Department of Education Grant, “Challenging the Primacy of Alcohol in the Campus Culture of the 14 Universities in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education,” and serves as the Chair of the Evaluation Subcommittee. The other subcommittee members are Dr. Todd Whitman (Shippensburg University Faculty) and Dr. Jennifer Young (East Stroudsburg University Faculty). Drs. Chapman and Whitman have substantial clinical experience in the addictions and substance abuse arena, and are knowledgeable about alcohol-related topics. Dr. Young has substantial clinical experience with college students and is knowledgeable about alcohol-related issues. In addition, Mr. Ken Healy, an Alcohol Education Specialist for Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, will also serve as a facilitator for the focus groups. In addition to being a member of the PASSHE Statewide Coalition for the Prevention and Reduction of Underage and Binge Drinking, Mr. Healy has in excess of 24 years of prevention and education experience, including training in conducting focus groups by United States Department of Education, Higher Education Center, and has eight years of experience conducting focus groups.

7. CHOOSE THE LOCATION – A setting that can accommodate the participants and where they would feel comfortable expressing their opinions is of paramount importance; for example, campus conference room, classroom or other such available meeting area. NOTE: When choosing a location, ask these questions: • What message does the setting send? (Is it corporate, upscale, cozy, informal, sterile, and inviting?) • Does the setting encourage conversation? How will the setting affect the information gathered? Will the setting bias the information offered? • Can it comfortably accommodate nine to fifteen people (six to twelve participants plus facilitators), where all can view each other? • Is it easily accessible? (Consider access for people with disabilities, safety, transportation, parking, etc.)Once decided, reserve the location if necessary.



Appendix HSummary of Interviews with Vice Presidents of Student Affairs

Since the inception of the project, the leadership of each of the 14 universities has been actively involved. One of the three (3) principal goals was to develop a PASSHE-wide strategic plan. When this plan was developed, it included a set of clear imperatives:

• PASSHE and its constituent universities are complex organizations with unique cultures, differing constituent and resource bases, and structural designs. The success of the PASSHE Coalition Strategic Plan depended on each campus’ fidelity to planning processes that incorporate the System’s shared strategic goals into implementation and assessment plans that are demonstrative of the respective campus’ commitment to sustainable action in addressing the issues of underage and binge drinking. • PASSHE universities must develop robust infrastructures and dedicated resources to support programs designed to address the structural, behavioral, and cultural components of substance abuse on the campuses. Infrastructures must be comprehensive and encourage the coordinated engagement of campus and community leaders, faculty, staff and students in creating systemic change. • PASSHE Coalition members must commit to working together to implement evidence-based strategies, develop innovative applications, and design new strategies shown to be effective in addressing underage and binge drinking on the system university campuses.

The project director and the lead Vice President, Dr. Doreen Tobin, regularly updated the 14 Vice Presidents for Student Affairs, responsible for each University’s implementation of the project on their respective campuses. As well, a representative of the remaining 13 vice presidents served as a member of the project’s Oversight Committee.

As a part of the assessment of the grant, it was essential to solicit the opinions of university leaders regarding the effectiveness of the systemic impact the Coalition was having on each campus. In spring 2012, each vice president participated in a phone interview conducted by Dr. Tobin, East Stroudsburg University, or Dr. Rhonda Luckey, Indiana University. The interview included a set of common questions addressing the following topics:

1. Extent of university commitment to each of the three (3) primary project goals: Strategic Planning and Assessment, delivery of BASICS, and the use of Social Norms 2. Preferences for consultative assistance in the development of the University’s strategic plan either through a PASSHE colleague or an outside consultant 3. Areas for further assistance and/or Coalition inquiry 4. Recommendations for sustaining the work of the Coalition 5. Level of engagement of campus project representative with the University’s efforts 6. Interest in new, continued, or removed representation on the project’s Oversight Committee

From these interviews the following key themes emerged:

1. Since the scope and depth of alcohol culture change work varied by campus, the value of the Coalition work has had differential impact, depending upon the sophistication of the individual campus’s alcohol prevention and intervention program. 2. Social norms messaging is more effective when the messages are aligned with campus-specific data and culture. 3. This subject-specific coalition became an effective vehicle for positive change within PASSHE and may serve as a model for addressing other critical higher education issues, such as sexual violence prevention, crisis assessment and response, retention of first-year students. 4. Professional development opportunities within PASSHE continue to be a high need, particularly given the economic challenges facing each institution. PASSHE colleagues have developed programs and services (BASICS, Motivational Interviewing, other evidence-based strategies, strategic planning techniques, etc.) worthy of replication; sharing their expertise through a structured PASSHE-wide professional development workshop series will facilitate institutionalizing the use of these practices. 5. PASSHE-wide assessment efforts have and will continue to add value to the work conducted on individual campuses; employing a PASSHE instrument similar to the CORE Survey of alcohol and other drugs should ensure that this occurs.



Appendix ISocial Norms Project

August / September 2010Move In

November/ December 2010

September 2010

February 2011Valentines Day

October 2010Halloween/Fall

March 2011 Spring Break

The Coalition’s Social Norms Subcommittee designed the Social Norms campaign which was implemented during the 2010-2011 academic year.

Within the first few days of the Fall 2010 semester, the posters, bookmarks, and t-shirt for the first two campaigns were sent to each campus, in quantities equivalent to 30% of each university’s freshman class.The Social Norms Subcommittee created a “Social Norms Campaign Guide,” for use by each campus to help with the roll-out of each campaign. Posters and promotional items changed six times throughout the year: August, September, October, November, February, and March.

The messages on each of the posters and promotional materials reflected the findings of the Fall 2010 CORE Survey. The social norms promotional items, paid for by the grant, for all six campaigns also used the PASSHE messages. The remaining four campaigns used campus-specific social norms messages, drawing upon university-specific CORE survey findings. A Facebook page also was created to support the entire campaign.



Appendix JCORE Survey Findings

Approval from the Indiana University of Pennsylvania IRB to conduct the CORE Survey arrived in February 20101. The Feb administering the 2011 iteration of the CORE survey received approval from the IRB of IUP based on the resubmission of the previously approved 2010 proposal. Millersville University’s IRB granted approval to conduct pre, post, and 30-day post BASICS surveys in September of 2010. Likewise, the IRB at Clarion University reviewed a proposal to conduct focus groups on five PASSHE campuses and approved such in April of 2011.

Administration the CORE Survey

Two separate administrations of The CORE Alcohol and Drug Survey, Long Form – FORM 194 – occurred during February 2010 and February 2011. The 2010 data collection preceded implementing any evidence-based treatments as outlined in the original grant proposal. These data: (1) established the baseline for first-year residential students responding to the survey for comparative purposes, and (2) informed the intended social norms marketing campaign scheduled during the second academic year of the grant.

2011 data were collected approximately five (5) months following implementation of the intended treatments—A formal social norms marketing campaign on all 14 PASSHE campuses and implementation of Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students (BASICS) on 13 of 14 PASSHE campuses.

The 2010 iteration of the survey presented data based on a sample of 3,109 students of which 2,182 or 70% were female and 927 or 30% were male2. The completed surveys resulted from 17,462 invitations sent in 2010 to first-year residential students at the 14 PASSHE campuses. In all, 16,990 invitations to participate in the 2011 iteration of the survey yielded 3,137 respondents from the target population. In this sample, 2,285 or 73% were female and 825 or 27% were male3.

The 2010 sample represented an 18% response rate. Multiple emails were sent to students, with those failing to respond to the initial

emailed invitation being contacted a second time; those failing to respond to the second email received a third, albeit different invitation. All invited students knew of the focus of the coalition conducting the survey, the confidential nature of that survey, incentives available to encourage participation, as well as the nature of the survey and the intended use of the data it would provide.

Regarding the 2011 iteration of the CORE, 3,137 completed surveys were received from the 16,990 students receiving invitations to participate in the survey representing approximately a 19% response rate. As with the 2010 iteration, multiple emails were sent to students failing to respond to the initial emailed invitation to participate. All invited students were informed of the focus of the coalition conducting the survey, the confidential nature of that survey, incentives available to encourage participation, as well as the nature of the survey and the intended use of the data it would provide.

As noted, both the 2010 survey used to establish a baseline regarding practices and perspectives in the target population as well as the 2011 iteration used to evaluate change in that population represent poor response rates. Although key indicators takes from the CORE survey will be considered using both aggregated and disaggregated data, and although attempts were made to assess the reliability of information collected via the CORE surveys using focus groups to access student opinions regarding responses to key questions taken from the CORE, the reliability of data provided by the CORE surveys remains questionable.

Worthy of note is that one of the 14 PASSHE campuses had trouble with its email client. Although one of the smaller campuses in the state system, this may have contributed to the rate of response in 2010. Because of this, that campus elected to administer the CORE as a “paper and pencil” instrument in the residence halls for the 2011 iteration. In addition, technical problems limiting the amount of time during which 2010 respondents to the CORE could actually access the survey in order to complete it, may have affected the total number of responses received.

1. Note: Prior to execution of this grant there was no procedure to grant IRB approval to conduct research system-wide. Historically, individual institutional IRBs received separate, independent proposals. To make conducting system-wide research feasible and facilitate a process by which a minimum of four IRB proposals could be reviewed in a timely fashion, a process by which individual PASSHE member school IRBs would review proposals in rotation, render a decision on the merits of said proposal, and then grant approval was devised. This was an unanticipated benefit realized as the result of executing this grant.

2. The breakdown of female to male first-year students in 2010 was 57.9% female; 42.3% male

3. The breakdown of female to male first-year students in 2011 was 58.9% female; 41.1% male



General Comparison of CORE Executive Summaries: 2010 & 2011

A general comparison of items from the 2010 and 2011 iterations of the CORE related to number of drinks consumed and frequency of drinking suggest that there were no significant changes in these measures. The follow data collected support this position:

• 71.6 % of the students consumed alcohol in the past year (“annual prevalence”) • 52.7 % of the students consumed alcohol in the past 30 days (“30-day prevalence”) • 52.2 % of underage students (younger than 21) consumed alcohol in the previous 30 days • 35.3 % of students reported binge drinking in the previous two weeks. A binge is defined as consuming 5 or more drinks in one sitting

• 90.0 % of students believe the average student on campus uses alcohol once a week or more • 46.4 % of students indicated they would prefer not to have alcohol available at parties they attend

• 86.5 % of the respondents said they saw drinking as central in the social life of male students • 79.7 % of the respondents said they saw drinking as central in the social life of female students 2010 PASSHE CORE data

• 73.6% of the students consumed alcohol in the past year (“annual prevalence”) • 56.4% of the students consumed alcohol in the past 30 days (“30-day prevalence”) • 56.2% of underage students (younger than 21) consumed alcohol in the previous 30 days • 38.4% of students reported binge drinking in the previous two weeks, a binge being defined as consuming 5 or more drinks in one sitting

• 86.6 % of students believe the average student on campus uses alcohol once a week or more • 44.0 % of students indicated they would prefer not to have alcohol available at parties they attend

• 86.3 % of the respondents said they saw drinking as central in the social life of male students • 79.2 % of the respondents said they saw drinking as central in the social life of female students 2011 PASSHE CORE data

2010 2011

Lifetime Prevalence Annual Prevalence 30-Day Prevalence 3X/wk or more

PASSHE Reference PASSHE REF PASSHE REF PASSHE REF

Alcohol 74.0 87.1 71.6 84.2 52.7 71.9 9.7 23

2010 lifetime prevalence/annual prevalence/30-day prevalence/high frequency use (3X/week or more) 2010 PASSHE CORE data



Alcohol 75.6 86.9 73.6 84.3 56.4 71.7 11.4 21.8

2011 lifetime prevalence/annual prevalence/30-day prevalence/high frequency use (3X/week or more) 2011 PASSHE CORE data






Alcohol 2010CORE

74.1 67.1 71.6 84.2 52.7 71.9 9.7 23

Alcohol 2011CORE

75.6 86.9 73.6 84.3 56.4 71.7 11.4 21.8

SPECIFIC CORE FINDINGS

Regarding “Binge Drinking”

When considering the reported incidents of never consuming five (5) or more drinks in a single sitting, there is a reported decrease in both males and females reporting such behavior from 2010 to 2011. This change, although suggesting more students engaged in “binge drinking,” becomes somewhat spurious when considering both the overall small sample size for both iterations of the CORE and the fact that the 2011 iteration is based a smaller sample than the 2010.

20104: 14. Think back over the last two weeks. How many times have you had five or more drinks at a sitting?

None

Once

Twice

3 to 5 times

6 or more

Valid responses=

None

Once

Twice

3 to 5 times

6 or more

Valid responses=

(Invalid responses include no response or multiple responses).

20115: 14. Think back over the last two weeks. How many times have you had five or more drinks at a sitting?

556 60 1455 67 1 100 2012 64.7

123 13 291 13 0 0 414 13.3

86 9 174 8 0 0 260 8.4

112 12 195 9 0 0 307 9.9

49 6 66 3 0 0 115 3.7

926 30 2181 70 1 0 3108 99.5

Male Female Unknown TotalFreq. Pct. Freq. Pct. Freq. Pct. Freq. Pct.

446 55 1458 64 16 67 1940 61.6

115 14 286 13 2 8 403 12.8

114 13 233 10 4 17 351 11.1

108 13 231 10 1 4 340 10.8

48 6 48 2 1 37 83 2.6

851 27 2274 72 24 1 3149 99.6


4. 2010 PASSHE CORE data

5. 2010 PASSHE CORE data

Appendix J00

01

02

03

04

subtotal

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

24

25

28

30

35

36

40

43

45

46

50

56

58

60

64

90

99

Valid responses=

15. Average # of drinks consumed/week (2010 PASSHE CORE data)

488 53 1289 60 1 100 1778 57.8

55 6 191 9 0 0 246 8.0

40 4 138 6 0 0 178 5.8

39 4 103 5 0 0 142 4.6

21 6 62 3 0 0 83 2.7

69 83 78.9

45 5 92 4 0 0 137 4.5

23 3 53 2 0 0 76 2.5

18 2 17 1 0 0 35 1.1

11 1 42 2 0 0 53 1.7

7 1 10 0 0 0 17 0.6

35 4 64 3 0 0 99 3.2

1 0 3 0 0 0 4 0.1

15 2 19 1 0 0 34 1.1

3 0 7 0 0 0 10 0.3

6 1 6 0 0 0 12 0.4

25 3 23 1 0 0 48 1.6

6 1 1 0 0 0 7 0.2

1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0.1

6 1 1 0 0 0 7 0.2

1 0 2 0 0 0 3 0.1

24 3 18 1 0 0 42 1.4

1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0.1

3 0 2 0 0 0 5 0.2

8 1 4 0 0 0 12 0.4

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0

9 1 9 0 0 0 18 0.6

4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.1

2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.1

3 0 3 0 0 0 6 0.2

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0

3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.1

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0

2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.1

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0

0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.0

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.1

913 30 2162 70 1 0 3076 98.4


Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev

Male 4.7306 9.2940 Female 2.2507 4.8659 Overall 2.9860 6.5989

(Invalid responses

include no response or

multiple responses).



00

01

02

03

04

subtotal

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

28

30

32

34

35

36

40

42

50

56

60

70

75

Valid responses=

15. Average # of drinks consumed/week (2011 PASSHE CORE data)

382 46 1257 56 11 148 1650 53.0

65 8 210 9 4 17 279 9.0

49 6 149 7 2 9 200 6.4

43 5 123 5 2 9 168 5.4

27 3 84 4 1 4 112 3.6

68 81 77.4

49 6 105 5 2 9 156 5.0

23 3 53 2 0 0 76 2.4

17 2 30 1 0 0 47 1.5

17 2 41 2 0 0 58 1.9

3 0 11 0 0 0 14 0.4

38 5 77 3 1 4 116 3.7

0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0.1

12 1 23 1 0 0 35 1.1

3 0 5 0 0 0 8 0.3

3 0 2 0 0 0 5 0.2

24 3 32 1 0 0 56 1.8

4 0 4 0 0 0 8 0.3

1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0.1

4 0 2 0 0 0 6 0.2

32 4 22 1 0 0 54 1.7

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0

0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0.1

2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.1

2 0 3 0 0 0 5 0.2

15 2 4 0 0 0 19 0.6

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0

0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.0

10 1 6 0 0 0 16 0.5

2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.1

1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0.1

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0

2 0 2 0 0 0 4 0.1

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0

0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.0

0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.0

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0

0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.0

837 27 2255 72 23 1 3115 98.5


Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev

Male 4.8507 8.0315 Female 2.4878 4.9963 Overall 3.1165 6.1448

(Invalid responses

include no response or

multiple responses).



Anomalous Finding

Looking at these data more closely, there is virtually no change in the numbers of drinks consumed per week by students in either iteration of the CORE: 78.8% of students reporting consuming on average 4 of fewer drinks per week in 2010, 77.4% doing so in 2011. Yet, only 64.7% of 2010 respondents and 61.7% of 2011 respondents reported not consuming 4 or fewer drink in one sitting during the two weeks prior to the survey’s administration. This apparent discrepancy suggests that the timing of the administration of the CORE may have influenced student reports regarding the number of drinks consumed in one sitting during the two (2) weeks prior to the survey’s administration. As an unanticipated discrepancy when planning data collection6, it is impossible to discern if the timing of the CORE’s administration was a mitigating factor in this apparent anomaly in the data. It would seem appropriate, however, to speculate that the lack of significant change between 2010 and 2011 data regarding either of these points of comparison is consistent with the perception noted earlier in this report that there was no discernable change in student drinking behavior during this period as reported by the CORE Survey. The administration of the CORE during the identical period of the 2010 and 2011 academic years further supports this contention.

Because national CORE data regarding collegiate drinking for the identical period of this project—2009-2010 and 2010-2011—did not exist, a comparison of national trends with those noted in the PASSHE data did not occur7.

Limitations• Motivating student participation in the two online administrations of the CORE Survey. Soliciting student respondents to the Feb 2010 and Feb 2011 iterations of the CORE Survey proved challenging.

The CORE Survey served as the primary vehicle for collecting quantitative data on first-year student behavior. Data collected in February of 2010 regarding alcohol use and drinking behavior served as a baseline on reported drinking practices of first-year residential students. These data served as the methodological starting point for evaluative purposes and provided the backdrop against which responses to the same instrument, administered during the identical weeks of the spring 2011 semester, permitting a comparison to assess change.

The grant oversight committee and evaluation subcommittee considered various means by which to solicit respondents. These included: 1) emailed invitation to an online administration of the survey, 2) hardcopy administration in the classroom8, or 3) direct mailing of the hardcopy survey with instructions on returning via campus mail.

Following a review of the literature concerning the collection of student information as well as consultation with faculty regarding the feasibility of an in-class administration, soliciting students via emailed invitation to complete the survey online appeared most appropriate. This resulted in an 18% response rate in 2010 (N=3,109) and a 19% response rate (N=3137) in 2011.

6. The timing of administering the CORE presented logistical challenges. A fall administration included the likelihood of collecting predominately “high school” data; January would collect semester break data; March & April data would be influenced by spring break.

7. An interesting aside related to a comparison of national data from 2008 (CORE Alcohol and Drug Survey Long Form – Form 194; Executive Summery) and 2009 (CORE Alcohol and Drug Survey Long Form – Form 194; Executive Summery) was the mean number of drinks consumed per week: 5.2 and 4.6 respectively. PASSHE CORE data indicated essentially a flat 2.99 drinks per week mean for 2010 and 3.12 drinks per week for 2011.

8 Because of technical problems with the Cheyney email system during the 2009-2010 administration, the 2010-2011 administration was conducted in the residence halls.




The paucity of respondents, even with multiple emailed invitations to participate and the inclusion of incentives for participation (individual campus drawing for prizes such a iPods) raised concerns regarding the reliability of the data as regards discerning outcomes.

Recommendations: • Develop a personalized AOD survey for use on PASSHE system campuses. • If employing an electronic means by which to solicit survey completion, have said contact emanate from the specific school in which the recipient is matriculated to minimize students deleting such as “junk mail” because of being unfamiliar with “PASSHE” acronym. • Begin preparing target sample for receipt of the survey as well as incentives associated with completion “significantly in advance” of the actual survey administration, e.g., the previous semester • Evaluate the efficacy of targeting a smaller, more specific sample4 and administering the instrument via traditional “paper-and-pencil” means• Technical issues related to the administration of the CORE Survey. Unanticipated technical challenges and difficulties were likely contributors to the lower than expected response rate to the CORE Survey. One entire campus in the state system had trouble with its email server that resulted in sporadic delivery of invitations to participate in the survey. Fortunately, this was the smallest institution in the system, but the technical problem necessitated a paper-and-pencil administration of the CORE in the classroom. Because of required faculty permission to enter the classroom coupled with challenges in sampling the first-year residence hall students, the data collected at this site were deemed spurious by the evaluation committee. • A lack of student familiarity with the “PASSHE” acronym It is possible that because students were unfamiliar with the PASSHE acronym, they were not motivated to open the e-mail received to invite them to participate in the CORE. It is unclear whether this may have been a factor in the low response rate.

9. NOTE: In following this recommendation, it is important, when determining sample size, to consider: 1) the level of precision desired, 2) the level of confidence or risk to be assumed, and 3) the degree of variability in the attributes being measured. For this reason, following recommended statistical formulae for determining sample size is critical if statistically significant results are desired.



Appendix KCampus Data

1739 1058 60.8% 681 39.2% 1797 1077 59.9% 720 40.1%

927 455 49.1% 472 50.9% 914 489 53.5% 425 46.5%

324 160 49.4% 164 50.6% 331 191 57.7% 140 42.3%

801 467 58.3% 334 41.7% 787 503 63.9% 284 36.1%

1008 557 55.3% 451 44.7% 846 487 57.6% 359 42.4%

987 578 58.6% 409 41.4% 1044 648 62.1% 396 37.9%

2224 1360 61.2% 864 38.8% 2323 1401 60.3% 922 39.7%

1632 924 56.6% 708 43.4% 1615 951 58.9% 664 41.1%

870 501 57.6% 369 42.4% 886 463 52.3% 423 47.7%

536 306 57.1% 230 42.9% 457 248 54.3% 209 45.7%

1107 640 57.8% 467 42.2% 973 540 55.5% 433 44.5%

1352 714 52.8% 638 47.2% 1368 727 53.1% 641 46.9%

1388 818 58.9% 570 41.1% 1392 868 62.4% 524 37.6%

1931 1179 61.1% 752 38.9% 1797 1146 63.8% 651 36.2%

16826 9717 57.7% 7109 42.3% 16530 9739 58.9% 6791 41.1%

Bloomsburg

California

Cheyney

Clarion

East Stroudsburg

Edinboro

Indiana

Kutztown

Lock Haven

Mansfield

Millersville

Shippensburg

Slippery Rock

West Chester

PASSHE

UNIVERSITY Total # of % of # of % of # of % of # of % of Females Females Males Males Total Females Females Males Males

Full-Time Freshmen Living on Campus Spring 2010 and Spring 2011

Source: Data Warehouse, official Freeze enrollments


Appendix LPASSHE USDOE Project Status Report – October 30, 2012

77

+8+::

+8+::

77

+;+::

+<+<9+<

+:: 4


77

++::

++::

77

+::

++::

77

++::

++::

77

++::

++::



77

++::

++::

77

++::

++9+

+::

77

+::

+:: 1


77

+::

++::

77

+::

++9+

+::

77

+::

+:: 8



77

+:: 7

7

++::

++::

77

+::

+:: 9


77

+::

+::

77

+::

+=>=

77

+::

+=>=



77

+::

+::

77

++::

++::

77


+::

+::

/

77

+::

+::

77 :


Appendix MEvaluator’s Recommendation - Robert Chapman, PhD

1. Develop a uniform manner to record and collect judicial data at system schools: A uniform process by which to collect and analyze AOD-related judicial data from across the state system will enable the coalition to better track changes and coordinate proactive programming based on best practices and evidenced- based strategies.2. Coordinate the collection of judicial data across all System campuses: Once developed, this reporting system will facilitate this process. In addition, a uniform data retrieval system will reduce the burden on individual institutions to develop their own reporting system and provide system benchmarks against which individual campuses can track local change as compared to system change. This will provide a quick indication of not only pending problems as they begin, but solutions when they occur.3. Continue ITV meetings: Teleconferences on a regular and ongoing basis facilitated coordination, familiarity between coalition members, collegiality, and the opportunity to “brag about successes and commiserate regarding challenges.” This, in turn, increased the likelihood that an individual coalition members on campus “X” would call a coalition colleague at campus “Y” to discuss challenging situations and brainstorm possible solutions.4. Continue BASICS on all campuses: As an evidence-based means by which to intervene in high-risk and dangerous collegiate drinking, BASICS is an invaluable tool in changing the campus drinking culture. That said, the unique nature of higher education with its four to six year process of cycling individuals through the academic system ensures that approximately 20 to 25% of its population will be replace each year. Graduating seniors whose behaviors have changed may well be replaced by incoming first-year students displaying high-risk behaviors, necessitating an ongoing need for BASICS.5. Development of a CORE-type instrument: To update the CORE Survey as well as eliminate its sizeable cost of administration and to score, the AOD Survey committee developed a PASSHE survey to collect AOD-related data.6. Regular and uniform use of the PASSHE CORE-type instrument – all system schools administer the instrument in the same way at the same time to ensure greater continuity and comparison of data across campuses.7. Develop uniform BASICS data collection tool for providing feedback to students regarding their alcohol use: Implement the use of a prototype online tool developed by the BASICS subcommittee for students to review their alcohol use. This tool analyzes student responses to non-invasive questions regarding

alcohol use and generates non-judgmental feedback that can then be reviewed during a BASICS feedback session. 8. Ongoing training for BASICS facilitators: Continue the use of the BASICS training syllabi, developed to prepare facilitators of individual and small group BASICS programs for the current project, to prepare future facilitators. In addition, use of existing and yet to be developed online BASICS training materials, such as webinars and video workshops, as continuing education for trained facilitators.9. Train the trainers of BASICS: Retain the services of a professional trainer or trainers to prepare experienced AOD professionals in PASSHE to train future facilitators of BASICS.10. Maintain and further develop the AOD website: Frequent updating of the website created in association with the project will provide individual practitioners and/or administrators unfamiliar with evidence-based practices of prevention and intervention with a convenient online location by which to remain current regarding AOD-related materials.11. Address issues related to soliciting respondents to CORE-type survey: Work with members of the AOD CORE-type survey committee to address logistical and technical issues affecting student participation in completing the AOD Survey. This should include but not be limited to issues related to: 1) identifying statistically significant random samples, 2) ensuring completion of said survey by a majority of those sampled, and 3) investigating the use of online and/or “paper and pencil” surveying techniques.12. Continue regular interaction with Chief Student Affairs Officers (CSAO) regarding AOD issues: The most effective means by which to accomplish this recommendation is for a sitting CSAO to be involved with the coalition and to report at each meeting of PASSHE CSAOs.13. The Vice President of Student Affairs initiates an Interdepartmental Reporting System for AOD-related incident. This can be similar to the Incident Reports completed by Resident Assistants to document violation of University policy. Further, that this Interdepartmental Report be electronic, simple to complete, and be circulated among all key administrators—as determined by the Vice President of Student Affairs—via an online Intranet immediately upon filling by the initiating administrator.14. The Vice President of Student Affairs charges the AOD task force to proffer recommendations on a policy that details procedures when students refuse recommended treatment. NOTE: This policy should advise presenting students with a choice when faced with a recommended medical evaluation. For


Appendix MEvaluator’s Recommendations

example, to accept the recommended referral to hospital or have the student’s parent(s) or guardian(s) called to come to campus and assume responsibility for the student’s well-being15. Develop a position/job description for those facilitating BASICS. NOTE: This should comply with all aspects of the collective bargaining system. 16. An appropriate position be created in the Chancellor’s office to oversee and direct the efforts of the AOD coalition: Although the exact title and job description would be the purview of the chancellor, it is recommended that this be a senior advisor to the chancellor who is ultimately responsible for the administration and evaluation of the PASSHE System-wide AOD program.17. Faculty – more involved in the SWOT, BASICS, and general AOD efforts of the coalition: Faculty on each of the 14 PASSHE campuses be solicited to participate in AOD Coalition activities and that such be recognized by the chancellor as Campus and Community Service as regards tenure and promotion for involved faculty.18. Develop a means by which students can receive invitations from their own institution to complete any future system-wide survey NOTE: all students receive the same invitation to complete the same survey, but each invitation comes from the school in which the recipient is matriculated.19. Develop a more technologically elegant and easy to apply means by which to collect pre/post and 30-day follow up data for BASICS students: This will likely necessitate both the identification of a reliable, online means by which to collect these data as well as the hardware necessary to facilitate such at all sites conducting BASICS sessions.1

20. To explore a more efficient means by which to collect student survey data to look at when such surveys are completed so as to best access accurate data, uncompromised by campus life, for example, to solicit first-year students before they have been indoctrinated by campus culture. In addition, the logistical challenges related to collecting 30-day post BASICS data regarding student-drinking behavior represents a particularly challenging obstacle to evaluating the effectiveness of BASICS involvement. It is recommended that PASSHE statisticians be consulted regarding how best to design an elegant yet robust means by which to evaluate student participation in BASICS when considering the

issues of absence from campus during semester break and summers.21. Develop a personalized AOD survey for use on PASSHE system campuses. NOTE: Prototype developed spring 201222. If employing an electronic means by which to solicit survey completion, have said contact emanate from the specific school in which the recipient is matriculated to minimize students deleting such as “junk mail” because of being unfamiliar with “PASSHE” acronym.23. Begin preparing the research or target sample for receipt of any survey as well as incentives associated with completion “significantly in advance” of the actual survey administration, e.g., the previous semester.24. Evaluate the efficacy of targeting a smaller, more specific sample and administering the instrument via traditional “paper-and- pencil” means. Note the importance of adhering to recommended statistical practice for estimating sample size.25. Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students (BASICS) facilitators be experienced student affairs professionals or graduate students of counseling, familiar with interviewing students.26. BASICS facilitators be familiar with Motivational Interviewing and have participated in training workshops specific to this interviewing technique in addition to any training in BASICS.27. An experienced BASICS facilitator be identified at each campus to oversee ongoing training and supervision of staff and graduate students facilitating BASICS as well as address and resolve any questions regarding BASICS administration when they arise for individual facilitators.28. Utilize the PASSHE-specific online tool for the collection of student drinking data.29. Students completing the program with less than 30-days before leaving campus for a significant period—semester break, co-op or internship experiences, summer recess—should be informed that they will receive a follow-up survey in 30-days. Further, segregating these data from those collected from subjects remaining on campus will minimize creating a biased sample as well as permit comparison of BASICS with students whose follow-up occurred while they remained on campus and following their regular campus lifestyle.

1. The StudentVoice data collection and retrieval system used during this project is a likely candidate for the online data collection mechanism as this worked well during the current project. Securing electronic tablets that can be used to collect pre-BASICS and post-BASICS student opinions will likely present the greatest challenge because of the expense associated with implementing this recommendation.



The grant from the Department of Education that funded the PASSHE Statewide Coalition for the Prevention and Reduction of Underage and Binge Drinking ended in fall 2012. Highlights of accomplishments of the Coalition include: System-wide training and implementation of BASICS, System-wide implementation of Social Norms Campaigns, development of individual university and an overall PASSHE strategic plan, development of a web-based BASICS feedback tool, and development of an Alcohol and Other Drug Survey. The Coalition also served as a networking vehicle to share and disseminate best practices that are in place at PASSHE schools. The Oversight Committee, the governing body for the grant, along with the general membership, strongly and unanimously supports the continuation of the coalition. This proposal will outline the on-going structure, function and goals to ensure the sustainability of the coalition.

Recommendations:The first recommendation is to rename the coalition to The Pennsylvania State System Coalition for Prevention and Reduction of Dangerous Drinking. This name change reflects the need and interest to broaden the focus of the coalition and its initiatives. The grant project focused on first-year students and alcohol use, while the continuing coalition will widen the scope of the coalition to include all students on PASSHE campuses. To mirror this change, there were minor changes to the mission and vision statements that reflect the termination of the grant and its requirements and the expanded focus of the coalition in the future.In order to continue to move the work of the Coalition forward, it is imperative to continue to have a Coalition Coordinator. This position was a SUA 3 and was supported by the grant funds. A Coalition Coordinator is absolutely necessary in order to provide centralized communication, organization, and support to the coalition and its processes and initiatives. We are recommending that the PASSHE Universities provide institutional funding to support the position. The specific job responsibilities of the position are outlined in a separate document.

Coalition Structure and Membership:Steering Committee:The Steering Committee will continue to serve as the governing body for the Coalition. The Coalition Coordinator would act as a member of the Steering Committee and work closely with the Committee on the day to day tasks. The success of the Coalition will depend upon the makeup of the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee will be composed of 7 representatives from 7 different PASSHE member institutions, if possible, to provide broad representation.

It is imperative that the Steering Committee include representation of a Vice President. It will be up to the PASSHE Chief Student Affairs Officers (CSAOs) to identify the Vice President designated to serve on the committee for each two year cycle.

To fill the remaining 6 positions, the CSAOs will seek nominations from their respective campuses. Steering Committee Member participation is to be based on professional skills, position and interest in the coalition initiatives. The names of the nominees will be brought forward and will be voted upon by the general coalition membership. To ensure on-going continuity, the first round of elections will include up to 3 current members of the Steering Committee who will continue to serve for one year. The other three members will be from the membership at large. At the end of the academic year, the three continuing member slots will be open for new elections.

Appendix NSustainability Proposal


Steering Committee Duties Include: • Regularly review and update mission statement of the coalition. • Establish and regularly review a strategic plan that charts how the coalition will accomplish its mission. • Approve and assess the identified outcomes and objectives of the strategic plan • Perform or coordinate periodic evaluations of the coalition processes and initiatives. • Support the Coalition Coordinator • Approve coalition project objectives, scope, deliverables, budgets and timelines • Oversee resources of projects, if applicable • Facilitate intra-system support and collaboration for coalition initiatives to ensure fidelity and standardization of key elements • Assist in securing external funding for the coalition through participation in grant writing, etc. • Assure that coalition initiatives and outcomes are transparent and communicated to the appropriate PASSHE and other constituencies • Participate as ad hoc members on project subcommittees as needed.In addition the Steering Committee will include the following Ad Hoc members: • Representatives from public and governmental agencies that can contribute to the mission of the Coalition. Examples include, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PA-LCB), PA Department of Health, PA commission on Crime and Delinquency. • Sub-Committee chairpersons

The Coalition Structure will continue to use work groups that function as sub-committees to implement the Coalition Initiatives. The Coalition Sub-Committees includes the ongoing groups: • BASICS (Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students) • Social Norms • AOD survey • Assessment and Evaluation

Additional Sub Committees will be added based upon the Coalition goals and may include: • Judicial Conduct Issues • Other Drug Issues

Coalition Membership:The general Coalition membership will be open to all PASSHE employees who have a direct interest due to job classification as well as other employees who have an interest in the Coalition mission and goals. There are no limitations to the number of members who can serve at each PASSHE school. The Coalition will continue to meet on a monthly basis via ITV meetings. The ITV meetings and ITV connection will be arranged and communicated by the Coalition Coordinator.

Appendix NSustainability Proposal

Challenging the Primacy of Alcohol in the Campus Culture of … · · 2013-05-30Challenging the...

Documents

Transcript of Challenging the Primacy of Alcohol in the Campus Culture of … · · 2013-05-30Challenging the...