How To Reduce 

High-Risk College 

Drinking: 

Use Proven Strategies, Fill Research Gaps 

Final Report of the Panel on Prevention and Treatment 

Task Force of the National Advisory Council 

on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism 

National Institutes of Health 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov 
How To Reduce Hi How To Reduce Hi How To Reduce High-Risk College Drinking:

Use Proven Strategi oven Strategi oven Strategies, Fill es, Fill es, Fill Research Gaps

Final Report of the Panel on

Prevention and Treatment

Task Force on College Drin ege Drin ege Drinking

How To Reduce High-Risk College Drinking: 

Use Proven Strategies, Fill Research Gaps 

Final Report of the Panel on 

Prevention and Treatment 

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

National Advisory Council

Task Force on College Drinking

April 2002
Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................v

WHAT IS NEW ABOUT HIGH-RISK COLLEGE DRINKING?...................................................................... 1

RESEARCH-BASED RATIONALE FOR ACTION: A WIDESPREAD PROBLEM WITH HARMFUL

CONSEQUENCES .......................................................................................................................... 1

CURRENT STATE OF PRACTICE..................................................................................................... 3

ABSENCE OF A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH ...................................................................................... 3

CONTROLS ON ALCOHOL AVAILABILITY ............................................................................................ 3

PROGRAM EVALUATION................................................................................................................ 4

IDENTIFYING RESEARCH-BASED OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROGRESS ................................................ 4

DEVELOPING THIS REPORT: THE PANEL AND THE PROCESS ......................................................... 5

RESEARCH-BASED RECOMMENDATIONS: WHAT COLLEGES

CAN DO NOW; FILLING KEY RESEARCH GAPS ................................................................................... 7

METHODOLOGY AND CAVEATS..................................................................................................... 7

CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT THAT DISCOURAGES HIGH-RISK DRINKING .................................... 8

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT RESEARCH ................................................................................................ 8

PUBLIC POLICY.......................................................................................................................... 8

Laws Affecting Consumption and Consequences................................................................. 8

Restrictions on the Availability of Alcohol ........................................................................... 9

Other Approaches to Limiting Availability ..........................................................................10

MEDIA APPROACHES ..................................................................................................................11

Alcohol Advertising Bans ..................................................................................................11

Counteradvertising ..........................................................................................................11

Media Campaigns ............................................................................................................11

SOCIAL NORMS APPROACHES .......................................................................................................12

PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS: WHAT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES CAN DO NOW ......................................13

PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS: WHAT RESEARCHERS CAN DO TO ADDRESS GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE ....................13

PROMOTING HEALTHY BEHAVIORS THROUGH INDIVIDUALAND GROUP-FOCUSED APPROACHES.........................................................................................14

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT RESEARCH ...............................................................................................14

PREVENTION............................................................................................................................14

Brief Motivational Enhancement .......................................................................................14

Cognitive-Behavioral Skills Training ..................................................................................15

Ineffective Approaches Used in Isolation...........................................................................15

TREATMENT.............................................................................................................................16

Elements of Brief Intervention..........................................................................................16

Effects of Brief Intervention .............................................................................................17

PROMISING APPROACHES FOR INCREASING STUDENT RECRUITMENT 

AND RETENTION IN PREVENTION AND TREATMENT PROGRAMS............................................................17

PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS: WHAT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES CAN DO NOW ......................................18

PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS: WHAT RESEARCHERS CAN DO TO ADDRESS GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE ....................18

-iii-
Contents (continued) 

COMPREHENSIVE COLLEGE-COMMUNITY INTERVENTIONS...........................................................19

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT RESEARCH ...............................................................................................19

COMMUNITY TRIALS PROGRAM .....................................................................................................19

Program Components ......................................................................................................20

Program Outcomes..........................................................................................................20

COMMUNITIES MOBILIZING FOR CHANGE ON ALCOHOL .......................................................................21

Program Objectives .........................................................................................................21

Program Outcomes..........................................................................................................21

MASSACHUSETTS SAVING LIVES PROGRAM.......................................................................................21

Program Components ......................................................................................................21

Program Outcomes..........................................................................................................22

OTHER COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY INTERVENTIONS .......................................................................22

PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS: WHAT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES CAN DO NOW ......................................22

PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS: WHAT RESEARCHERS CAN DO TO FILL GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE ..........................23

MANAGING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION EFFECTIVELY................................................................23

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT RESEARCH ...............................................................................................23

ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS .........................................................................................................24

SETTING-SPECIFIC ISSUES ..........................................................................................................24

EVALUATION............................................................................................................................24

PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS: WHAT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES CAN DO NOW ......................................25

PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS: WHAT RESEARCHERS CAN DO TO FILL GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE ..........................26

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................27

APPENDICES 

1 ADDITIONAL PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................39

2 TYPOLOGY: A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR ALCOHOL PREVENTION INITIATIVES ...................45

3 RESPONSES TO ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE MINIMUM LEGAL DRINKING AGE ...............................49

-iv-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

“Underage drinking to excess has a negative effect on everything we’re trying to do as a 

university. It compromises the educational environment, the safety of our students (both high-risk 

drinkers themselves and other students hurt by their actions), the quality of life on campus, 

town/gown relationships, and our reputation.” 

Dr. Judith Ramaley, Former President, University of Vermont 

“Class scheduling, class attendance, student attrition, student academic performance and the 

civility of campus life are all negatively affected by excessive student drinking.” 

Dr. Susan Resneck Pierce, President, University of Puget Sound 

“Student safety is of paramount importance, and if we save one life, our [alcohol prevention] 

program is working.” 

Dr. William Jenkins, President, Louisiana State University System 

“Universities are often afraid to reveal that they have a problem with alcohol, although 

everyone knows it anyway. But we’ve seen important benefits from focusing on the problem and 

taking a tough stand. Applications are up, student quality is up, more students are participating 

in activities like drama and music, and alumni giving has increased, for example. I know that 

support for me personally has grown with my reputation for taking strong ethical positions and 

sticking with them.” 

Dr. Robert L. Carothers, President, University of Rhode Island 

College student drinking to excess is a widespread national problem with serious 

consequencesand it has been for a long time. Although the factors that have made the problem 

so intractable are complex, todaybased on scientific research resultswe have the potential to 

make real progress in controlling excessive drinking. In fact, a substantial body of research 

studies now offers direction on how to reduce excessive, underage, and high-risk college 

drinking. On the basis of this information, colleges and universities, communities, and other 

interested organizations can take steps toward positive change more confidently. Although 

significant information gaps remain, the science-based guidance now available means campuses 

and communities no longer have to “reinvent the wheel” when they try to address the problem. It 

also enables us to avoid inadvertently perpetuating ineffective programs and approaches. 

The availability of science-based guidance is a significant step forward because lack of 

information about what works and what does not has been a major obstacle to progress. On the 

research side, high-quality research has addressed only some of the issues of concern to college 

administrators and the practical implications of research results have not been widely 

disseminated. On the institutional side, most campus alcohol efforts have not been evaluated, 

which has hindered the effectiveness of individual campus efforts and slowed the growth of the 

knowledge base from which all could learn. 

Although the research base on college alcohol problems is limited, the panel of college 

presidents, students, and alcohol research specialists that contributed to this report identified a 

number of effective strategies that colleges and universities could confidently use today. These 

include strategies for changing the environment to discourage high-risk drinking, affecting the 

behavior of individuals and groups, creating comprehensive college-community efforts to combat 

the problem, and adopting effective approaches for managing program implementation. It is 

-v-
What Colleges and Universities Can Do Now

Creating Creating Creating a Healthy Healthy Healthy Environment

Promoting Healthy Behaviors Through Individual- and Group-Focused Approaches

encouraging that many of these strategies require no new resources, are modest in costs, and can 

be accomplished by existing staff. 

From its review of the scientific literature, the Panel on Prevention and Treatment believes 

that adopting approaches with demonstrated effectiveness can begin to reduce high-risk college 

drinking and continue to advance knowledge by filling critical research gaps. The Panel 

recommends that the action steps and research needs described below receive priority attention 

from colleges and universities, researchers, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 

Alcoholism (NIAAA), and other potential funders, communities, and interested organizations. 

The Panel recommended more action steps in some areas than in others. This is primarily due 

to the amount of research available. Except as noted, approaches that have not been included in 

the recommendations are not necessarily ineffective. Often simply less is known about them. 

Among the “key research gaps” identified by the Panel is the need for rigorous testing of 

strategies now considered “promising” based on face value or common sense. As researchers rise 

to this challenge, the effectiveness of many of these approaches will become known. 

What Colleges and Universities Can Do Now 

The Panel suggested that colleges and universities take the following steps to create a healthy 

environment on campus, promote healthy behaviors, develop comprehensive college-community 

interventions, and implement effective programs. 

Creating a Healthy Environment 

¢ Pay careful attention to environmental factors on campus and in the community. They are 

extremely important in influencing college drinking behaviors both positively and negatively. 

¢ Actively enforce existing age 21 laws on campus; they help decrease alcohol consumption. 

¢ Use social norms interventions to correct misperceptions and change drinking practices. 

When discussing college drinking problems, do not inadvertently reinforce the notion that 

hazardous drinking is the norm. Help students understand that they have the right not to drink 

and to have negative feelings about the consequences they experience due to other students’ 

excessive drinking. 

¢ Communicate the institution’s, the community’s, and the State’s alcohol policies to students 

and parents before and after students arrive on campus. 

¢ Be cautious about making alcohol available on campus. In the general population, increased 

availability is associated with increased consumption. 

Promoting Healthy Behaviors Through Individual- and Group-Focused Approaches 

¢ Use brief motivational interventions, such as giving feedback on students’ personal drinking 

behavior and negative consequences, comparing individual drinking habits to actual campus 

norms, and teaching drinking reduction skills. Strong evidence of effectiveness supports these 

relatively low-cost interventions. 

¢ Increase screening and outreach programs to identify students who could benefit from 

alcohol-related services. 

¢ Train those who regularly interact with students, such as resident advisors, coaches, peers, 

and faculty, to identify problems and link students with intervention services and/or provide 

-vi-
Creating Comprehensive College-C College-C College-Community Interventions

Managing Program Implementation Effectively

brief motivational interventions. This allows colleges and universities to improve services 

without adding new staff. 

¢ Use educational interventions that provide new information such as describing alcoholrelated programs and policies, informing students about drinking-and-driving laws, and 

explaining how to care for peers who show signs of alcohol poisoning. Use alcohol education 

in concert with other approaches, such as skills training or social norms. 

¢ Avoid using educational efforts focused primarily on facts about alcohol and associated harm 

as a sole programmatic response to student drinking. They have proven to be ineffective. 

¢ Be inclusive of varied student subpopulations. Determine and address the special needs of 

groups such as racial/ethnic minorities, women, athletes, “Greeks,” students of different ages, 

and gay and lesbian students. 

Creating Comprehensive College-Community Interventions 

¢ Create and/or participate in joint college-community interventions to reduce student drinking 

problems. Community coalitions have been effective in addressing alcohol and other health 

issues, although there has been no research on campus-community activities to reduce highrisk drinking and related problems. 

¢ Create a task force or coalition representing relevant constituencies on campus (including 

students) and in the community (including local businesses) to develop and monitor college 

drinking initiatives. 

¢ Plan coalition activities strategically, including setting measurable objectives, establishing 

target timelines, clearly defining member responsibilities, and collecting and evaluating data 

on both the process of working together and the results of the interaction. 

Managing Program Implementation Effectively 

¢ Be critical consumers of alcohol prevention strategies. Use programs with demonstrated 

effectiveness, such as those recommended in this report. 

¢ Take a strategic, outcome-driven approach to planning that reflects the campus situation and 

recognizes the need for the alignment of alcohol programs and policies with other aspects of 

institutional policy. Evaluate policies and programs and share the results with other colleges 

and universities. 

¢ Recognize that college student drinking prevention programs require a long-term (10- to 15-

year) commitment. Set realistic objectives for change that are based on institutional 

assessment and national experience. 

¢ Establish a system for collecting data regularly on alcohol consumption and related problems. 

Report information objectively on campus and in the community, and update progress 

regularly. 

¢ Adopt and integrate complementary approaches, rather than focusing only on one. For 

example, when combined, social norms and policy enforcement efforts can enhance each 

other. 

¢ Involve students in developing and implementing activities to reduce high-risk drinking. 

¢ Involve a broad base of campus and community groups in prevention efforts, and reward 

students and others for supporting these programs. 

¢ Use social marketing approaches to create and market programs to students. 

-vii-
Recommendations to Researchers: Key Research Gaps

Creating Creating Creating a Healthy Healthy Healthy Environment

Promoting Healthy Behaviors Through Individual- and Group-Focused Approaches

¢ Encourage presidents, administrators, and other campus leaders to communicate the message 

that reducing harmful alcohol use is an institutional priority. 

¢ Have alcohol prevention interventions in place before the freshmen arrive in the fall and 

sponsor related activities frequently during the first weeks of the academic year. Train those 

who conduct prospective student tours and interviews to explain the institution’s alcohol 

policies and desired norms. 

¢ Help move the field forward. Be willing to participate in alcohol-related research programs, 

for example, or to become a State or national policy advocate on college drinking issues. 

Recommendations to Researchers: Key Research Gaps 

The Panel developed recommendations for researchers in the form of study questions to 

address gaps in the same four action areas suggested above for colleges and universities. 

Creating a Healthy Environment 

¢ What is the effect of banning or stringently regulating alcohol on campus? Do problems 

simply move off campus? How are on- and off-campus cultures affected? 

¢ Are parental notification policies effective? If so, what are the characteristics of effective 

parental notification programs? At what point should parents be notified for optimal results? 

¢ What is the most effective type of campus disciplinary system for alcohol offenses? Should 

campus alcohol disciplinary systems and standards be extended to students who live off 

campus and in what circumstances? Should infractions be handled differently for those under 

21 years of age? 

¢ How does the academic environment affect student drinking patterns? For example, would 

high-risk drinking be reduced if more classes were scheduled on Fridays or academic 

expectations were increased (e.g., reducing grade inflation, increasing difficulty of classes 

and requirements)? 

¢ What is the impact of substance-free housing on alcohol problems? 

¢ What approaches effectively reduce alcohol problems within the Greek system? Does the 

presence of a live-in resident advisor reduce drinking? Does delaying rush reduce alcohol 

problems? Do risk management efforts make a positive difference? 

¢ What are the key environmental characteristics that influence drinking? How should 

environmental characteristics and environmental change be measured? 

¢ Do alcohol-free activities and venues reduce college alcohol problems? What factors (e.g., 

frequency, timing, type, planning) influence effectiveness? 

¢ How are social norms campaigns most effectively used (e.g., in combination with other 

activities; to set the stage for more comprehensive initiatives)? 

Promoting Healthy Behaviors Through Individual- and Group-Focused Approaches 

¢ What are the campuswide effects of implementing individual- and group-focused 

interventions? 

¢ How well do these interventions work with different campus populations, including Greeks, 

incoming students, mandated students, adult children of alcoholics, athletes, students at 

various risk levels based on current alcohol practices, students living on and off campus, and 

members of different ethnic, religious, and cultural groups? 

-viii-
Creating Comprehensive College-C College-C College-Community Interventions

Managing Program Implementation Effectively

¢ How effective are student-to-student interventions? 

¢ What are the most effective uses of computer-based technologies in college alcohol 

initiatives? 

¢ Should approaches be tailored to the needs and situations of underage students versus those 

age 21 and older? 

¢ What are the most effective and cost-effective ways to conduct outreach for alcohol services? 

¢ What criteria are appropriate for diagnosing college student alcohol problems? Do they differ 

from the general population criteria used in currently available instruments? 

¢ How well do pilot programs work when taken to scale on different campuses? 

Creating Comprehensive College-Community Interventions 

¢ Are comprehensive college-community interventions to reduce high-risk college drinking 

effective? What is the most effective mix of policy and program elements? What are the 

assets and liabilities for colleges and communities? 

¢ Is it more effective to focus such efforts on drinking practices or on the health and social 

problems high-risk drinkers cause for themselves and others? 

¢ Where should decision-making responsibility be focused: in city government, the college and 

university, another group or institution, or a combination of players? 

¢ What are the best strategies for mobilizing and optimizing the effectiveness of campuscommunity coalitions? 

¢ Do effects of college-focused programs extend to others in the community? 

¢ What is the best way to enforce community alcohol-related ordinances? 

¢ How can the results of alcohol research be effectively disseminated to community audiences 

such as chiefs of police, parents, and legislators? 

¢ How effective are State-level coalitions that support individual campus-community 

collaborations? 

Managing Program Implementation Effectively 

¢ What planning structure or process is most effective in developing campus alcohol policies 

and programs? 

¢ What is the relative effectiveness of different accountability structures for managing college 

alcohol programs? 

¢ What are the costs and effects of alcohol prevention interventions including campus-based 

and comprehensive campus-community efforts? How can programs be made more costeffective? 

¢ Which alcohol policies and programs most benefit the college and university in terms of 

student recruitment, student quality and academic performance, student diversity, student 

retention, faculty behaviors, fundraising, and alumni relations? 

¢ What are the most effective strategies for involving presidents, administrators, faculty, 

students, other staff, and boards of directors in alcohol prevention programs? 

¢ Is it effective to make prospective students aware of alcohol policies during the marketing or 

admissions process? 

-ix-
Recommendations to NIAAA and Other Po d Other Potential Progr l Program Funders

Recommendations to Other Interested National Organizations

¢ What are the most effective ways of engaging, optimizing, and maintaining the involvement 

of different student subgroups, including ethnic and racial minorities? 

¢ How can higher education and secondary education work together on alcohol issues, 

including the transition from high school to college? 

Recommendations to NIAAA and Other Po Other Potential Program Funders

The Panel offered the following recommendations to NIAAA and other program funders: 

¢ Provide direction for the research field through initiatives and publications. 

¢ Consider new initiatives, mechanisms, and procedures to encourage and support needed 

research that may not conform to a typical National Institutes of Health investigator-initiated 

research format. 

¢ Provide technical assistance, remove barriers, and offer incentives to facilitate college and 

university participation in alcohol research studies. 

¢ Increase collaboration with other Federal agencies for joint funding in this field. 

¢ Invest resources in developing a model alcohol-related data collection system for campuses 

nationwide. Maintain a permanent database of this information. 

¢ Work with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to include data indicators 

needed to quantify college alcohol problems in accident reports. Indicators include whether 

subjects are enrolled in college, where, and at what level. 

¢ Conduct an annual press briefing to highlight progress made and resources needed to 

continue addressing college alcohol issues. 

¢ Open dialogue and seek partnerships with national organizations to fulfill the 

recommendations of this report. Such groups include other Federal agencies, States, the 

national Interfraternity Council and Pan-Hellenic Council, boards of individual Greek 

organizations, national student organizations, industry, athletic conferences, high schools, and 

groups representing college and university presidents, boards of trustees, and administrators. 

Give such a coalition a reason to interact, such as working together to develop the model for 

national data collection. 

¢ Create and disseminate short publications to various campus audiences (including students) 

that synthesize current research findings and identify what the college community can do 

about the problem. 

Recommendations to Other Interested National Organizations 

The Panel offered the following recommendations to other national organizations: 

¢ Provide venues (e.g., at annual meetings) for researchers to share information on this issue. 

¢ Encourage colleges and universities to enact policies and programs that research deems 

effective. 

¢ Help educate the press about campus alcohol issues, including actual levels of college 

drinking and the progress being made in reducing high-risk behaviors and their consequences. 

¢ Consider ways in which existing jobs and organizational elements could be reconceptualized 

to include a focus on college alcohol issues. 

-x-
WHAT IS NEW ABOUT

HIGH-RISK COLLEGE DRINKING?

Research-Based Rationale for Action:

A Widespread Problem With Harmful Consequences

WHAT IS NEW ABOUT

HIGH-RISK COLLEGE DRINKING?

“Most colleges visited saw alcohol abuse as a serious problem on the campus in terms of student 

drunkenness and the social, physical, and property damage or injury that resulted. Approximately 15% of 

the schools visited had already become involved in alcohol education or abuse prevention activities but 

the vast majority were looking for ideas and guidance....Antisocial behavior, which if committed by a 

sober person would never be tolerated, is readily accepted if the person is drunk. Probably the greatest 

impediment to action on many campuses is that drunkenness is looked upon as normal.” 

The Whole College Catalog About Drinking, 1976 

College student drunkenness is far from new, and neither are college and university efforts to control 

it. What is new, however, is the potential to make real progress on this age-old problem, based on 

scientific research results. New, research-based information about the consequences of high-risk college 

drinking and how to reduce it can empower colleges and universities, communities, and other interested 

organizations to take effective action. Although significant information gaps remain, the availability of 

solid, science-based guidance means we no longer have to reinvent the wheel each time we address the 

problemor inadvertently perpetuate programs and approaches that do not make any difference. 

Research-Based Rationale for Action:

A Widespread Problem With Harmful Consequences

Hazardous drinking among college students is a widespread problem that occurs on campuses of all 

sizes and geographic locations. A recent survey of college students conducted by the Harvard University 

School of Public Health reported that 44 percent of respondents had drunk more than five drinks (four for 

women) consecutively in the previous 2 weeks. About 23 percent had had three or more such episodes 

during that time (Wechsler et al., 2002). 

The reverse implications of these statistics are also important to note. Contrary to the popular 

misconception that “everybody drinks heavily” in college, the majority of students either abstain or drink 

moderately. Moreover, alcohol consumption varies by ethnicity. For example, a greater percentage of White 

and Native American students drink more frequently and more heavily than those from other ethnic 

backgrounds (Presley et al., 1995, 1996). Black students at predominantly Black or predominantly White 

colleges consume less alcohol than White students (Meilman et al., 1995). As college and university 

populations increasingly reflect the significant demographic changes now taking place in the United States, 

targets and strategies for alcohol efforts may also need modification. 

Although high-risk drinkers are a minority in all ethnic groups, their behavior is far from a harmless 

“rite of passage.” In fact, it has pervasive consequences that compel our attention. 

The most serious consequence of high-risk college drinking is death. The U.S. Department of 

Education has evidence that at least 84 college students have died since 1996 because of alcohol 

poisoning or related injury—and they believe the actual total is higher because of incomplete reporting. 

When alcohol-related traffic crashes and off-campus injuries are taken into consideration, it is estimated 

that over 1,400 college students die each year from alcohol-related unintentional injuries. Additionally, 

over 500,000 full-time students sustain nonfatal unintentional injuries and 600,000 are hit or assaulted by 

another student who has been drinking (Hingson et al., 2002). Administrators are well aware of the 

burden alcohol presents to the campus environment. For example, in a recent survey of 330 colleges and 

-1-
universities (Anderson and Gadaleto, 2001), 60 percent of administrators thought that alcohol played a 

significant role in violent behavior and damage to residence halls. Fifty-five percent believed it was 

implicated in damage to other campus property; 40 percent in physical injury; 54 percent in campus 

policy violations; 36 percent in lack of academic success; and 30 percent in student attrition. 

In addition, the 1997, 1999, and 2001 Harvard surveys found that the majority of students living in dorms 

and Greek residences who do not drink excessively still experience day-to-day problems as a result of other 

students’ misuse of alcohol (Wechsler et al., 1998, 2000, 2002). The prevalence of these “secondhand 

effects” varies across campuses according to how many students on the campus engage in high-risk drinking. 

Effects include: 

¢ Interrupted study or sleep (43 to 70 percent); 

¢ Need to care for a drunken student (37 to 57 percent); 

¢ Insults or humiliation (20 to 36 percent); 

¢ Serious arguments or quarrels (14 to 23 percent); 

¢ Unwanted sexual advances (15 to 23 percent); 

¢ Property damage (7 to 16 percent); 

¢ Personal attacks such as pushing, hitting, or assault (6 to 11 percent); and 

¢ Sexual assault or date rape (1 percent). 

“When you get down to it,” says Dr. Judith Ramaley, former president of the University of Vermont, 

“underage drinking to excess has a negative effect on everything we’re trying to do as a university. It 

compromises the educational environment, the safety of our students (both high-risk drinkers themselves 

and other students hurt by their actions), the quality of life on campus, town/gown relationships, and our 

reputation.” 

Other college and university presidents on the Panel voice similar concerns. As University of Notre 

Dame President Edward A. Malloy reflects, “I’ve lived in college dormitories for much of my adult life, 

so I know firsthand the impact irresponsible drinking has on the quality of residential life... reducing 

alcohol-related harm is clearly central to our mission.” Dr. Susan Resneck Pierce, president of the 

University of Puget Sound, mentions alcohol’s negative effects on “the civility of campus life,” as well as 

its subversive impact on educational outcomes. “Nationally, excessive student drinking has led to missed 

classes, poor academic performance, and student attrition. Unfortunately, some campuses have responded 

to this by no longer scheduling early morning and Friday classes. I believe that these 

accommodationsalong with grade inflation and the failure of some faculty to hold their students 

accountable for poor academic performancehave contributed to excessive student drinking.” 

President James E. Lyons, Sr., of California State University at Dominguez Hills, notes that, for his 

predominantly commuter student population, quality of life is not the issue. “If our students are having 

problems with alcohol, they go home and punch their own walls, not ours. But we need to identify and 

refer such students to counseling or treatment, because drinking problems can have an impact on our 

educational mission.” Dr. William Jenkins, former chancellor and current president of the Louisiana State 

University System, once received that phone call in the middle of the night that every president dreads, 

telling him that a student had died from an alcohol overdose at a party. He emphasizes, “Student safety is 

of paramount importance, and if we save one life, our [alcohol prevention] program is working.” 

-2-
Current S Current S Current State of Prac of Prac of Practice

Absence of a Comprehensive Approach

Controls Controls Controls on Alcohol Availabili ilabili ilability

“Universities are often afraid to reveal that they have a problem with alcohol, although everyone 

knows it anyway,” says Dr. Robert L. Carothers, president of the University of Rhode Island (URI). 

“People are also afraid of legal liability issues, which emerging case law suggests are not a problem, and 

of angering key constituencies. But we’ve seen important benefits from focusing on the problem [at URI] 

and taking a tough stand. Applications are up, student quality is up, more students are participating in 

activities like drama and music, and alumni giving has increased, for example. It’s become clear to me 

that people are hungry for strong statements about values. I know that support for me personally has 

grown with my reputation for taking strong ethical positions and sticking with them.” 

Current State of Practice 

Prevention work in public health is often guided by a social ecological framework. This approach 

recognizes that any health-related behavior, including college student drinking, is affected by multiple 

levels of influence such as intrapersonal (individual) factors, interpersonal (group) processes, institutional 

factors, community factors, and public policies (DeJong and Langford, 2002; Stokols, 1996). Health 

promotion research shows that a strategically planned approach with a range of interventions directed at 

multiple levels of influence increases the likelihood of success. Appendix 2, “Typology: A Theoretical 

Framework for Alcohol Prevention Initiatives,” provides an example of the varied types of strategies and 

activities that can be combined to provide multiple sources of support for reducing high-risk drinking. 

Absence of a Comprehensive Approach 

On most campuses, however, prevention efforts have concentrated on affecting the individual and 

group levels, with some attention paid to the institutional level. Less attention has been paid to factors in 

the local community that affect student alcohol use, and calls by campus officials for changes in State or 

Federal policy remain rare (DeJong and Langford, 2002). 

Institutions have most often employed interventions intended to change knowledge, attitudes, and 

behavioral intentions; few take a comprehensive approach (Larimer and Cronce, 2002). A recent survey 

of college and university administrators found that most institutions have not yet put in place the basic 

infrastructure needed to develop, implement, or evaluate a comprehensive approach (DeJong and 

Langford, 2002). For example, almost all respondents (97.6 percent) to the Higher Education Center Survey 

of College Administrators reported that their school’s orientation program for new students presents 

information about alcohol and other drug policies and programs. However, educating students by infusing 

alcohol-related topics into the general curriculum was much less in evidence (Higher Education Center, 

1998); and, apart from some special focus on freshmen, Greek-affiliated students, and athletes, most 

schools did not usually tailor efforts for different student groups (Anderson and Gadaleto, 2001). 

Although some schools ban alcohol advertising from the school newspaper, the 1997 College Alcohol 

Survey found that 75 percent of responding institutions allow newspaper alcohol ads, as do 40 percent of 

campus radio stations (Anderson and Gadaleto, 2001). Very few schools have changed their academic 

calendars in an effort to change the alcohol culture by scheduling more early morning classes, regularly 

scheduling exams on Fridays to reduce the Thursday “party night” mentality, shortening the time between 

final exams and graduation, or eliminating Spring Break (Higher Education Center, 1998). 

Controls on Alcohol Availability 

Surveys differ on the extent of control institutions say they exercise over alcohol availability. For 

example, over half of responding institutions in the Higher Education Center survey reported offering 

substance-free social events, and 83 percent said they had student housing where alcohol use is banned at 

all times. Nearly three-fourths said they had programs in place to control alcohol availability (Higher 

Education Center, 1998). In contrast, the 1997 College Alcohol Survey found that less than one-third of 

schools had some or all alcohol-free residence halls. Nearly half said there were places on campus where 

-3-
Program Evaluation

Identifying Research-Based Opportunities for Progress

individuals can purchase alcohol by the drink, and drinking beer and hard liquor is permitted on twothirds or more campuses (Anderson and Gadaleto, 2001). 

Program Evaluation 

In the 1997 College Alcohol Survey more than half of respondents reported having a task force or 

partnership with the surrounding community to address alcohol-related concerns, but only 39 percent had 

conducted a formal assessment of the effectiveness of their alcohol effort (Anderson and Gadaleto, 2001). 

In the Higher Education Center survey only 19.8 percent reported formal evaluations (Higher Education 

Center, 1998). 

Overall, the extent of alcohol-related initiatives on campus does not appear to have changed through 

the mid-1990s. In a 1998 Survey of College Administrators conducted by the Higher Education Center, 

fully 81.1 percent of the respondents reported that “hard money” (non-grant) funding for their school’s 

alcohol and other drug prevention programs had remained the same during the past 3 years (Higher 

Education Center, 1998; DeJong and Langford, 2002). In a separate survey of administrators conducted in 

2000, 89 percent reported “great or some increase” in the “extent of alcohol education and prevention efforts 

on their campus compared with several years ago,” but increased funding did not appear to accompany the 

reported increase in level of effort (Anderson and Gadaleto, 2001). Although surveys over time have found 

some modest progress at some institutions, overall, the outlook has changed little since 1975. 

Identifying Research-Based Opportunities for Progress 

In reviewing the literature to develop this report, the Panel found a significant number of individualand group-focused, environmental, comprehensive college-community, and program implementation 

strategies that college presidents and administrators could use confidently today. Many of them require no 

new resources and only modest costs. 

The Panel also identified a number of gaps in both information and the research infrastructure. Lack 

of information about what works has been a major obstacle to progress. On the research side, high-quality 

work has addressed relatively few of the issues that concern college administrators, and results have not 

been widely disseminated. On the institutional side, campus alcohol efforts are rarely subject to rigorous 

evaluation. This has hindered the effectiveness of individual campus efforts and limited the knowledge 

available from which to learn. 

This report is designed to help colleges and universities and researchers apply the knowledge that 

currently exists and to advance understanding about effective strategies for intervening with alcohol 

problems on campus. It provides background on the theoretical framework of college drinking 

interventions and the current state of practice today. It offers recommendations to colleges and 

universities about steps to take now and synthesizes the research that led to these recommendations. A 

section on key research gaps identifies the most salient research questions that alcohol investigators need 

to address. Appendix 1 lists additional research recommendations as well as the Panel’s recommendations 

to NIAAA and other organizations interested in supporting alcohol research. 

-4-
Developing This Report:

The Panel and the

Process

Developing This Report: 

The Panel and the 

Process 

In 1998, the National Advisory 

Council to the National Institute on 

Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism 

(NIAAA) established the Task Force 

on College Drinking to contribute to 

the development of a national plan for 

college drinking research at NIAAA. 

The Task Force created two working 

panels: the Panel on Contexts and 

Consequences and the Panel on 

Prevention and Treatment. College and 

university presidents, students, and 

experts on college drinking research 

participated in both panels. Each panel 

commissioned a series of background 

papers that reviewed the literature in 

their areas of focus. A number of those 

papers are being published in a 

supplement to the Journal of Studies 

on Alcohol. A full list of the authors 

and papers commissioned by the Panel 

on Prevention and Treatment appears 

in the References section of this report. 

The Task Force has also issued a 

report, A Call to Action: Changing the 

Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges, 

that synthesizes the two panels’ 

documents and their 

recommendations. Other products 

include a series of booklets for college 

presidents, peer educators, parents, 

high school guidance counselors, and 

community leaders, highlighting 

information of special importance to 

them, and a handbook for college 

administrators on implementing 

effective prevention programs on 

campus. For more information, 

contact: National Institute on Alcohol 

Abuse and Alcoholism, National 

Institutes of Health, 6000 Executive 

Boulevard, Willco Building, Bethesda, 

MD 20892-7003; www.niaaa.nih.gov. 

Task Force on College Drinking 

Co-Chairs 

Mark S. Goldman, Ph.D. 

Distinguished Research Professor 

Department of Psychology 

University of South Florida 

Rev. Edward A. Malloy, C.S.C. 

President 

University of Notre Dame 

The Panel on Prevention and Treatment 

Co-Chairs 

Ralph Hingson, Sc.D. 

Professor 

Social and Behavioral Sciences 

Department 

Associate Dean for Research 

School of Public Health 

Boston University 

Members 

David Anderson, Ph.D. 

Director, Center for the 

Advancement of Public Health 

George Mason University 

Robert L. Carothers, Ph.D. 

President 

University of Rhode Island 

Michael Fleming, M.D. 

Department of Family Medicine 

University of Wisconsin, Madison 

William L. Jenkins, Ph.D. 

President 

Louisiana State University System 

Michaela Keegan 

Student 

University of Rhode Island 

Stacie Lambert 

Student 

Louisiana State University 

G. Alan Marlatt, Ph.D. 

Professor and Director 

Addictive Behaviors Research Center 

University of Washington 

Susan Resneck Pierce, Ph.D. 

President 

University of Puget Sound 

Marcus A. Rothschild, M.D. 

Consultant 

Nuclear Medicine 

Veterans Administration Medical 

Center 

Consultants 

Elaine Arkin 

Health Communications Consultant 

NIAAA Staff 

Gayle Boyd, Ph.D. 

Staff Liaison 

National Institute on Alcohol 

Abuse and Alcoholism 

Judith Ramaley, Ph.D. 

Former President 

University of Vermont 

Marilyn Aguirre-Molina, Ed.D. 

The Joseph L. Mailman School of 

Public Health 

Division of Population and Family 

Health 

Columbia University 

William DeJong, Ph.D. 

Center Director 

The Higher Education Center for 

Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention 

Education Development Center, Inc. 

Professor, Boston University 

School of Public Health 

Donald S. Kenkel, Ph.D. 

Office of Policy Analysis and 

Management 

Cornell University 

Chris Linder 

Student 

University of Nebraska 

Robert Saltz, Ph.D. 

Associate Director and Senior 

Research Scientist 

Prevention Research Center 

Pacific Institute for Research 

and Evaluation 

David Odell 

Student 

University of Puget Sound 

Joy Roff Mara, M.A. 

Science Writer 

Health Communications Consultant 

Joy R Mara Communications 

-5-
RESEARCH-BASED RECOMMENDATIONS: NDATIONS: NDATIONS:

WHAT COLLEGES CAN DO NOW;

FILLING KEY RESEARCH GAPS

Methodology and Caveats

RESEARCH-BASED RECOMMENDATIONS:

WHAT COLLEGES CAN DO NOW;

FILLING KEY RESEARCH GAPS

The reviews of existing research commissioned by the Panel found a substantial number of 

approaches with moderate to significant evidence of effectiveness. They also found a few strategies that 

were clearly ineffective. For the most part, the approaches identified targeted: 

¢ The environment, 

¢ Students as individuals or by specific group (e.g., women, members of sororities or fraternities, 

athletes), 

¢ Colleges and their surrounding communities as a whole, and 

¢ Issues affecting the implementation of prevention programs aimed at reducing high-risk drinking and 

its consequences. 

Methodology and Caveats 

The Panel considered several issues related to the quantity and quality of studies used in evaluating 

the research literature. They provide an important context for the results reported here and include: 

¢ Number of available studies. The quantity of studies availableand deemed of sufficient quality for 

inclusiondiffered substantially among topics. For example, many more studies have been 

conducted on individual-focused interventions and the minimum drinking age laws than on most 

environmental activities, policies, and comprehensive community interventions. When interpreting 

the recommendations that follow, it is important to understand that approaches with fewer proven 

strategies are not necessarily less effective overall; there simply may be less known about them. 

¢ Research design. Authors of commissioned papers adopted different criteria for including studies in 

their literature reviews depending on the research base available in their topic areas. All looked for 

high-quality, controlled trials with randomized, representative samples that were not based solely on 

self-report. However, this type of research design was not always availableand, in some cases, 

almost never available. Individual papers describe the research consulted and criteria for inclusion in 

detail. Some reviews included unpublished material to capture recent trends because that information 

can be slow to appear in the traditional literature. Where feasible, authors weighted studies based on 

methodological strength in developing their conclusions. The confidence level from one 

methodologically sound trial could outweigh the findings and conclusions from several weaker 

studies. 

¢ Lack of college-specific studies. In many cases, only general population studies or research on 

college-age individuals was available. As a result, effectiveness in campus situations was unknown. 

Where appropriate, approaches proven effective in a broader population including college students 

are included in the recommendations. In the absence of more specific studies, they may provide 

useful direction to program planners and suggest areas where more focused research is needed. 

¢ Lack of setting-specific studies. Colleges and universities differ substantially in parameters such as 

size, average age, composition of the student body, geographic location, and whether they are public 

or private institutions, offer 2- or 4-year programs, and provide extensive on-campus student housing. 

Although such differences may be highly pertinent to the effectiveness of specific alcohol 

-7-
Creating an EnvironmentThat Discourages High-RiskDrinking

Summary of Relevant Research

Public Poli Public Policy

interventions, virtually no existing research addresses the impact of setting-specific factors on 

program outcomes. 

The following section of the report presents the Panel’s top recommendations for colleges and 

universities and researchers in four major areas: environmental intervention approaches; individual- and 

group-focused approaches; comprehensive campus and community approaches; and program 

implementation. A summary of relevant research findings introduces and provides the context for each set 

of recommendations. For more detailed information on these approaches and the literature reviewed, 

please refer to the original papers listed in the References section of this report. 

Creating anEnvironment That Discourages High-Risk Drinking

Many of the following approaches have proven effective with college-age youth and young adults 

who may or may not have been students. They are included here because results from numerous carefully 

conducted studies and community trials suggest their potential value in reducing high-risk drinking 

among college students. 

Summary of Relevant Research 

Interventions that change the broader environment increase the likelihood of long-term reductions in 

alcohol use and alcohol-related problems (Bangert-Drowns, 1988; Moskowitz, 1989; Perry and Kelder, 

1992; Rundall and Bruvold, 1988; Tobler, 1992; Toomey and Wagenaar, 2002). Individual drinking 

behavior is influenced by myriad environmental factors such as public and institutional policies and 

practices, economic factors, messages in the media, and social norms (Wagenaar and Perry, 1995). 

Reductions in alcohol use and related problems may be achieved by changing such environmental factors 

(Edwards et al., 1994; NIAAA, 1997; Toomey et al., 1993; Toomey and Wagenaar, 2002). 

The Panel found strong to moderate evidence supporting the effectiveness of the following 

environmental approaches. 

Public Policy 

Laws designed to decrease alcohol-related harm in the general population have had considerable 

success. Public policies designed to reduce the commercial availability of alcohol have also shown 

promise in some areas. 

Laws Affecting Consumption and Consequences 

Laws affecting consumption and related problems include minimum legal drinking age laws, lowered 

blood alcohol concentration limits, and administrative license revocation. 

Minimum Legal Drinking Age: In 1984, the Federal Government enacted the Uniform Drinking Age 

Act, which withheld Federal highway funds from States that failed to increase their minimum legal 

drinking age (MLDA) to age 21 (King, 1987). By 1988, all States had established an MLDA of 21. 

Because the MLDA had been at younger ages in many States, researchers had access to “natural” 

experiments to assess the effect of these policy changes on alcohol consumption and related problems 

among youth. As a result, the MLDA is the most well-studied alcohol control policy. 

The Panel reviewed 48 published studies that assessed the effects of changes in the MLDA on 

indicators of alcohol consumption (Wagenaar and Toomey, 2002). Together the 48 studies analyzed a 

total of 78 alcohol consumption outcome measures (e.g., sales figures, self-reported drinking). The 

preponderance of evidence suggests that higher legal drinking ages reduce alcohol consumption. 

-8-
In addition, the Panel reviewed 57 published studies that assessed the effects of changes in the MLDA 

on indicators of drunk driving and traffic crashes (Wagenaar and Toomey, 2002). These studies analyzed 

a total of 102 crash outcome measures including fatal crashes, drunk-driving crashes, and self-reported 

driving after drinking. Over half the studies found that a higher legal drinking age is associated with 

decreased rates of traffic crashes. There is also some evidence that higher drinking ages are associated 

with lower rates of other health and social problems such as suicide, homicide, and vandalism. The 

research also suggests that these results have been achieved with minimal enforcement of the law overall. 

As might be expected, the studies showed that increased enforcement produces greater results (Wagenaar 

and Toomey, 2002). 

It is important to note that almost all the studies reviewed were conducted among general youth and 

adult populations; very few high-quality, college-specific studies exist. The review commissioned by the 

Panel compiled all identified published studies on drinking age from 1960 to 1999, a total of 132 

documents (Wagenaar and Toomey, 2002). It also includes an indepth discussion of methodological 

issues and a table that presents the results of each study, coded for a range of variables. Appendix 3 of this 

report contains a summary of the review authors’ responses to arguments to lower the MLDA, which may 

be useful to college presidents and administrators who hear these sentiments from students, alumni, and 

others. 

Lowered Blood Alcohol Concentration Limits: Studies also attest to the effectiveness in the general 

population of laws designed to reduce alcohol-related traffic crashes. For example, States that lowered 

legal blood alcohol concentration limits from 0.10 percent to 0.08 percent experienced a 6 percent greater 

post-law decline in alcohol-related fatal crashes in which drivers had blood alcohol levels of 0.10 percent 

or higher than States that retained the 0.10 percent standard. Estimates suggest that when all States adopt 

these laws, 400 to 500 fewer traffic fatalities will occur annually (Hingson et al., 2000; Shults et al., 2001; 

Voas et al., 2000). Laws making it illegal for drivers under 21 to drive after any drinking also have 

produced 9 to 24 percent declines in alcohol-related deaths and driving while intoxicated (DWI) (Hingson 

et al., 1994; Schults et al., 2001; Wagenaar et al., 2001). 

Administrative License Revocation: In addition, legally mandated administrative license revocation 

for drinking-and-driving offenses and mandatory seat belt use have resulted in decreases in alcoholrelated fatalities (Voas et al., 2000; Zador et al., 1989). 

Restrictions on the Availability of Alcohol 

A number of environmental strategies are available to reduce the social and commercial availability 

of alcohol to college students. The Panel’s review describes these options in detail, but most have not 

been studied, and evidence is limited or nonexistent regarding their effectiveness for college populations 

(Wagenaar and Toomey, 2002). Nevertheless, a few strategies for reducing commercial availability show 

some evidence of success. These include increasing the price, restricting the density of retail outlets, and 

limiting the hours and/or days of sale. 

Increasing the Price of Alcohol: With the exception of MLDA, alcohol control policies affecting 

price of alcohol are the next most-studied alcohol policies (Toomey and Wagenaar, 2002; Wagenaar and 

Toomey, 1998). Studies of price in the general population indicate that as the price of alcohol increases, 

consumption rates decline (Clements and Selvanathan, 1991; Gao et al., 1995; Leung and Phelps, 1993; 

Österberg, 1995). However, the effect on consumption varies by culture, drinking level, age group, and 

type of alcohol (Coate and Grossman, 1988; Cook and Tauchen, 1982; Manning et al., 1995). For 

example, all types of drinkers appear to be affected by price, but the heaviest drinkers may be less 

affected by variations in price than other consumers (Manning et al., 1995). An exception to this trend 

occurs among young heavy drinkers. This group, which includes college students, may be more affected 

-9-
by price than heavy drinkers in the general population (Chaloupka and Wechsler, 1996; Godfrey, 1997; 

Kenkel, 1993; Sutton and Godfrey, 1995). Inverse relationships also exist between price of alcohol and 

several types of alcohol-related problems, including motor vehicle fatalities, robberies, rapes, and liver 

cirrhosis mortality (Cook and Moore, 1993; Cook and Tauchen, 1982; Ruhm, 1996). 

Two major types of policies affect alcohol pricing: restrictions on happy hours or price promotions 

and placing excise taxes on alcohol. Evaluation of the impact of these policies on college populations is 

limited. One study of college students found that an increase in beer excise taxes had little effect on male 

college students’ consumption (Chaloupka and Wechsler, 1996). However, the authors noted that local 

excise tax may be a poor proxy for price differences among campuses. 

Restricting Licenses for Retail Sales of Alcohol: Studies of the density or the number of alcohol 

licenses per population size have found statistically significant relationships among density of alcohol 

outlets, consumption, and related issues such as violence, other crime, and health problems. It is important 

to note that many of these studies use cross-sectional designs, which are weaker than randomized, 

controlled trials (Gliksman and Rush, 1986; Gruenewald et al., 1993; Ornstein and Hanssens, 1985; 

Scribner et al., 1995; Stitt and Giacopassi, 1992). Researchers who specifically studied college students 

found higher levels of drinking, drinking participation, and excessive drinking among underage and older 

college students when a larger number of businesses were selling alcohol within one mile of campus 

(Chaloupka and Wechsler, 1996). Numbers of outlets may be restricted directly or indirectly through 

policies that make licenses more difficult to obtain, such as increasing their cost. 

Limiting Hours/Days of Sale: Evaluations of the effect of restricting hours and days of sale are 

mixed. A few studies suggest that changes in hours may decrease rates of problem drinking, cirrhosis 

mortality, and some types of alcohol-related problems such as traffic crashes and violence in the general 

population (Duffy and Pinot de Moira, 1996; Smith, 1986). Other studies indicate no changes in problems 

or a shift in the timing of problems from the original closing time to the new closing hour (De Moira and 

Duffy, 1995). Some (but not all) studies have found that an inverse relationship may exist between the 

number of days of sale and alcohol use and alcohol-related problems (Ligon and Thyer, 1993; Ornstein 

and Hanssens, 1985; Northridge et al., 1986; Smith, 1988). 

Other Approaches to Limiting Availability 

Underage youth do not always have to purchase alcohol themselves in order to drink. It is readily 

available from other youth and young adults in party situations, and it may also be provided by older 

adults who condone underage drinking. 

A number of policy strategies have been developed to reduce social availability. Some address 

locations where alcohol can be consumed legally and include community bans on drinking in public 

places where large numbers of youth are likely to congregate. Colleges interested in limiting social 

availability can employ a variety of policy options ranging from campuswide bans on any alcohol use to 

designating sites and occasions where alcohol can and cannot be used. When alcohol is allowed, 

restrictions on how it is provided can reduce the likelihood that underage persons will be served. 

Restrictions include keg bans or keg registration, server training, and limitations on server practices such 

as prohibiting self-service and limiting the number of drinks served at one time. Education and 

enforcement are key to all these policies and to the effectiveness of existing laws that prohibit serving 

alcohol to persons under age 21 (Toomey and Wagenaar, 2002). 

-10-
Media Approaches

The media are another important element of the environment that can influence college student 

drinking. Research addresses the effects of media on drinking from two perspectives: combating the 

negative impact of advertising from the alcohol industry and using the media constructively to create 

positive change. 

Alcohol Advertising Bans 

A recent report by the Federal Trade Commission (Evans and Kelly, 1999) concluded that underage 

individuals experience significant exposure to alcohol advertising. Researchers have also found that 

alcohol advertising increases awareness, which affects intentions to drink (Grube, 1993; Parker, 1998). 

This has led some public health groups to conclude that there is a link between advertising and alcohol 

consumption. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (1999), for example, identified alcohol advertising 

and marketing as environmental factors that help create problems of underage and high-risk college 

student drinking. Although there is limited evidence indicating that alcohol advertising has an effect on 

consumption (Goel and Morey, 1995) and related consequences such as highway fatalities (Saffer, 1997), 

methodological factors explain why more such evidence has not been found (Saffer, 2002). 

Some advocates have pushed for reform of advertising practices or other restrictions on alcohol 

advertising (DeJong and Russell, 1995). Research and experience with advertising bans are limited 

(Saffer, 2002), but available evidence from the general population suggests that banning alcohol 

advertising appears to reduce alcohol abuse in some circumstances (Ornstein and Hanssens, 1985; Saffer, 

1991). Partial bans on advertising in one or two media, however, are not effective and result in increased 

advertising in other media (Saffer, 2002). 

Counteradvertising 

Evidence from tobacco advertising suggests that counteradvertising that casts doubt on the credibility 

of an industry and its messages can be effective (Flay, 1987; Goldman and Glantz, 1998; Hu et al., 1995; 

Warner, 1981). 

Media Campaigns 

The public health community frequently uses media campaigns to convey information to the public. 

However, media initiatives can also support a range of other strategic objectives, including creating a 

climate of support for environmental change (DeJong, 2002). Most media campaigns to prevent or reduce 

college student drinking have been campus-based and have used a mix of posters, flyers, e-mail, and 

college newspaper advertisements. Recently some regional, State, and national organizations have 

implemented information, social norms, and advocacy campaigns to reduce hazardous college student 

drinking (DeJong, 2002). 

Although evaluation data on individual campaigns are limited, the body of evidence supports the 

following general guidelines for using the mass media effectively to address college student drinking 

(DeJong, 2002). 

¢ Conduct a strategic planning process, with strategic objectives that complement an institution’s larger 

goals and objectives. To select program goals and objectives, analyze the student drinking problems 

that the institution or town faces and consider a range of communication options. The typology in 

Appendix 2 offers some suggested options. 

¢ Select the target audience, and define it in terms of its geographic, demographic, psychological, and 

problem-relevant characteristics to help create appropriately focused messages and materials. 

Conduct formative research with the audience to determine perceptions and message appeal. 

-11-
Social Norms Approaches

¢ Develop a staged approach that recognizes the need to build toward behavior, norm, or policy change. 

For example, to promote personal behavior change, an audience may need to be led through a series 

of steps that include awareness, knowledge and beliefs, behavioral skills, self-efficacy (i.e., the 

conviction that individuals can master or maintain a behavior), and supports for sustaining change. 

¢ Include a specific “call to action”; ask the audience to take a particular step. 

¢ Select a message source or sponsor that is credible to the particular audience; be wary of choosing 

celebrity spokespeople, whose appeal or credibility may be fleeting. 

¢ Choose a mix of media channels, including online resources, and provide a clear and consistent 

message. 

¢ Conduct process and outcome evaluations. 

Social Norms Approaches 

Norms are social “facts” of life that help frame perceptions and influence behavioral choices 

(Festinger, 1954; Newcomb and Wilson, 1966; Sherif, 1972). Within the disciplines of social science, the 

term norm is used in two different but related ways. One refers to widely shared attitudes or expectations 

about how people in general or members of a social group ought to behave; that is, what constitutes 

acceptable behavior. The term also refers to the most common behavior actually exhibited in a social 

group; that is, the statistical average or most typical behavior of group members. The Panel considered 

approaches for affecting both types of norms. 

Research shows that peers have the greatest influence on student norms. When peer norms appear to 

encourage immoderate drinking, consumption goes up (Lo, 1995; Perkins, 1986; Robinson et al., 1993). 

Regardless of gender, ethnic group, residential circumstance, and Greek affiliation, most students believe 

that their peers hold more permissive attitudes about drinking than they actually do. Likewise, they 

believe that their peers drink more heavily than they do (Baer and Carney, 1993; Baer et al., 1991; 

Perkins and Berkowitz, 1986, 1991; Perkins et al., 1999). 

The strategy of communicating actual student norms to dispel myths, referred to as the “social norms 

approach,” is receiving increased attention due to its simplicity, cost efficiency, and effects. The basic 

idea is to convey the truth about what the majority of students actually think and do concerning alcohol 

consumption. This approach gives students a positive message. It says that the norms are safety, 

responsibility, and moderation because these are the thoughts and behaviors of most students on virtually 

every campus. 

Social norms interventions can publicize data about actual drinking norms in orientation programs, 

student newspaper ads and articles, radio programs, lectures, campus poster campaigns, and other public 

venues (social norms marketing). These activities can clarify the misperceptions of the general student 

body and of those students at high risk for alcohol-related problems (Berkowitz, 1997; Haines and Spear, 

1996; Johannessen et al., 1999; Perkins, 1997, 2002). Programs can also target the most problem-prone 

groups (e.g., first-year students, fraternity or sorority members, athletes) for special attention. Workshops 

can help these students confront their own misperceptions of peer use and can facilitate discussion about 

student norms as identified in group assessments and campuswide studies (Barnett et al., 1996). One 

university, for example, targeted social norms interventions to entire fraternities and sororities (Marlatt et 

al., 1995). 

Initial results from programs adopting an intensive social norms approach are promising. Several 

institutions that persistently communicated accurate norms have experienced reductions of up to 20 

percent in high-risk drinking over a relatively short time (Berkowitz, 1997; DeJong and Linkenbach, 

-12-
Panel Recommendations: Wha ns: Wha ns: What Colleges and Universitie iversitie iversities Can Do Now

Panel Recommendations: What Researchers Can Do To Ad Do To Ad Do To Address Gaps in Knowledge

1999; Haines, 1996, 1998; Haines and Spear, 1996; Johannessen et al., 1999). Together these findings 

provide strong support for the potential impact of the social norms approach. Although any case report in 

this literature could be challenged methodologically, the results of each study are remarkably consistent. 

Panel Recommendations: What Colleges and Universities Can Do Now 

The Panel recommends that colleges and universities: 

¢ Pay careful attention to environmental factors on campus and in the community. They are extremely 

important in influencing college drinking behaviors both positively and negatively. 

¢ Actively enforce existing age 21 laws on campus; they help decrease alcohol consumption. 

¢ Use social norms interventions to correct misperceptions and change drinking practices. When 

discussing college drinking problems, do not inadvertently reinforce the notion that hazardous 

drinking is the norm. Help students understand that they have the right not to drink and to have 

negative feelings about the consequences they experience due to other students’ excessive drinking. 

¢ Communicate the institution’s, the community’s, and the State’s alcohol policies to students and 

parents before and after students arrive on campus. 

¢ Be cautious about making alcohol available on campus. In the general population, increased 

availability is associated with increased consumption. 

Panel Recommendations: What Researchers Can Do To Address Gaps in Knowledge 

The Panel recommends that researchers address the following questions to fill key gaps in 

knowledge: 

¢ What is the effect of banning or stringently regulating alcohol on campus? Do problems simply move 

off campus? How are on- and off-campus cultures affected? 

¢ Are parental notification policies effective? If so, what are the characteristics of effective parental 

notification programs? At what point should parents be notified for optimal results? 

¢ What is the most effective type of campus disciplinary system for alcohol offenses? Should campus 

alcohol disciplinary systems and standards be extended to students who live off campus and in what 

circumstances? Should infractions be handled differently for those under 21 years of age? 

¢ How does the academic environment affect student drinking patterns? For example, would high-risk 

drinking be reduced if more classes were scheduled on Fridays or academic expectations were 

increased (e.g., reducing grade inflation, increasing difficulty of classes and requirements)? 

¢ What is the impact of substance-free housing on alcohol problems? 

¢ What approaches effectively reduce alcohol problems within the Greek system? Does the presence of 

a live-in resident advisor reduce drinking? Does delaying rush reduce alcohol problems? Do risk 

management efforts make a positive difference? 

¢ What are the key environmental characteristics that influence drinking? How should environmental 

characteristics and environmental change be measured? 

¢ Do alcohol-free activities and venues reduce college alcohol problems? What factors (e.g., frequency, 

timing, type, planning) influence effectiveness? 

¢ How are social norms campaigns most effectively used (e.g., in combination with other activities; to 

set the stage for more comprehensive initiatives)? 

-13-
Promoting Healthy Behaviors Through Individual- and GroupFocused Approaches Approaches Approaches

Summary of Relevant Research

Prevention

Promoting Healthy Behaviors Through Individual- and GroupFocused Approaches 

Individual- and group-focused prevention and treatment approaches include a number of tested 

strategies. Prevention-oriented strategies include motivational enhancement techniques, cognitivebehavioral interventions, including expectancy challenges, and educational/awareness programs. 

Treatment-oriented strategies also include brief intervention, in addition to more intensive traditional 

treatment approaches. Accessible screening and recruitment programs are essential for service delivery. 

Hybrid approaches may combine elements of both prevention and treatment strategies to respond to the 

special needs of campus-based college students. 

Summary of Relevant Research 

There is a larger body of research on individual- and group-focused approaches in college populations 

than there is for environmental strategies. Collectively, individual- and group-focused interventions have 

proven valuable in both preventing and treating alcohol problems. 

Prevention 

Effective college drinking prevention programs frequently employ a multicomponent approach. For 

example, one study randomly assigned 348 high-risk freshman students to receive or not receive a 45-

minute, in-person session that included feedback on students’ personal drinking behavior and negative 

consequences; accurate information about alcohol-related norms on campus and comparison of their 

personal drinking habits to actual campus norms; and advice or information regarding drinking reduction 

techniques (Marlatt et al., 1998). This approach combined brief motivational enhancement with normative 

reeducation, skills training, and information. 

Brief Motivational Enhancement 

The Panel reviewed a series of related studies that provide strong support for the efficacy of brief 

motivational enhancement (Anderson et al., 1998; Aubrey, 1998; D’Amico and Fromme, 2000; Dimeff et 

al., 2000; Marlatt et al., 1998; Monti et al., 1999). Motivational enhancement is based on the theory that 

individuals alone are responsible for changing their drinking behavior and complying with that decision 

(Miller et al., 1992). Interviewers assess student alcohol consumption using a formal screening 

instrument. Results are scored, and students receive nonjudgmental feedback on their drinking behavior 

and its negative consequences. Students also receive suggestions to support their decision to change 

(Miller et al., 1992). Studies on motivational enhancement report significant reductions in alcohol 

consumption and negative consequences such as driving after drinking, riding with an intoxicated driver, 

traffic violations, and injuries. In addition, brief motivational enhancement techniques work in a variety 

of contexts, including emergency rooms, outpatient counseling centers, fraternity organizations, and with 

randomly selected high-risk college freshmen. Brief interventions are described in more detail below 

under “Treatment.” 

The research also suggests that in-person feedback and interpersonal interaction may not be essential 

to the success of brief motivational enhancement. One researcher provided computerized self-assessment 

and feedback with good results (Dimeff et al., 2000), and three other studies (Agostinelli et al., 1995; 

Walters, 2000; Walters et al., 1999) showed positive results with mailed feedback, although larger-scale 

studies of this approach are warranted. 

-14-
Cognitive-Behavioral Skills Training 

Cognitive-behavioral skills-training programs are a relatively new addition to the college drinking 

prevention repertoire. These programs teach skills to modify beliefs or behaviors associated with highrisk drinking, although many also incorporate information, values clarification, and/or normative 

reeducation components within the skills-teaching context (Garvin at al., 1990; Marcello et al., 1989). 

Cognitive-behavioral programs range from specific alcohol-focused skills training (including expectancy 

challenge procedures, blood alcohol discrimination training, or self-monitoring/self-assessment of alcohol 

use or problems) to general life skills training with little or no direct relationship to alcohol (such as 

stress-management training, time-management training, or general assertiveness skills) (Garvin et al., 

1990; Murphy et al., 1986; Rohsenow et al., 1985). 

Expectancy challenge programs show students that their expectations about how they and their peers 

will behave after drinking alcohol can affect that behavior. This strategy may include either direct 

experience, including the use of placebo beverages that students believe contain alcohol, or education on 

and discussion of expectancy issues. 

One study randomly assigned heavy-drinking male students to consume beverages in a social setting 

and participate in activities including a social or sexual component (Darkes and Goldman, 1993). The 

students then attempted to guess which participants (including themselves) had consumed alcohol based 

on their behavior. Performance on the task was no better than chance. In addition, participants received 

information about how expectations of alcohol’s effects can influence behavior and monitored 

expectancy-relevant events in their environment throughout the course of the 4-week study. The 

intervention comprised three 45-minute sessions. 

The Panel reviewed three studies, including the one just summarized (Darkes and Goldman, 1993, 

1998; Jones et al., 1995), that indicated that this technique may have considerable utility for decreasing 

alcohol use among college males. Of particular note is the finding that the greatest effects occurred 

among those who drank more heavily. Evidence suggests that the direct experience component may be 

important to success, but more research is needed to confirm it. More studies are also needed to replicate 

these findings on a larger scale and evaluate the utility of this approach with women. 

Another fairly simple cognitive-behavioral intervention asks students to document their current or 

anticipated alcohol consumption in writing or on the computer. In one study, students recorded their daily 

alcohol consumption for 7 weeks (Garvin et al., 1990), while another asked students to complete a diary 

anticipating alcohol consumption and problems for an upcoming spring break week (Cronin, 1996). The 

third asked students to assess their drinking via computer three times during their freshman year (Miller, 

1999). All three studies support the potential of this approach for controlling consumption and reducing 

negative consequences (Cronin, 1996; Garvin et al., 1990; Miller, 1999). However, due to methodological 

limitations, additional research is needed to confirm findings. 

Ineffective Approaches Used in Isolation 

For the past two decades, educational approaches have been most commonly used to combat high-risk 

college student drinking (Moskowitz, 1989; Ziemelis, 1998). These traditional approaches are based on 

the assumption that students primarily abuse alcohol because they are unaware of its health risks. The 

theory is that increasing knowledge about negative effects will lead to decreased use. However, there is 

very little evidence to suggest that knowledge deficits are related to high-risk alcohol use in this 

population or that a change in knowledge leads to a change in behavior (Moskowitz, 1989). 

Several outcome studies evaluating traditional informational programs with college students have 

been conducted in the past 15 years. Most found no effect on either alcohol use or negative consequences. 

-15-
Treatment

Although many of these outcome studies suffer from serious methodological limitations (Larimer and 

Cronce, 2002), a recent meta-analysis of the college alcohol prevention literature from 1983 to 1998 

concluded that typical education- and awareness-based programs (including values clarification 

approaches) produce, on average, only small effects on behavior (Maddock, 1999). These findings 

suggest that although education may be an essential component in skills training, brief motivational 

enhancement programs, and expectancy challenge, pursuing informational approaches in the absence of 

other integrated comprehensive programs is a poor use of resources on college campuses. 

Treatment 

Time-limited, patient-centered counseling strategies that focus on changing alcohol-related behavior 

have proven effective in treating college students with diagnosed alcohol problems. As with the 

prevention programs described previously, brief intervention techniques are also used and can be 

efficiently delivered in a variety of settings including student health clinics, counseling centers, and peer 

counseling programs. Easy to teach and easy to learn, most techniques can be effectively passed on in 1-

or 2-day training programs. 

Elements of Brief Intervention 

The clinical elements of brief treatment intervention include the following steps: 

1. Conduct an assessment: “Tell me about your drinking.” “What do you think about your 

drinking?” “What do your parents or friends think about your drinking?” “Have you had any 

problems related to your alcohol use?” “Have you ever been concerned about how much you 

drink?” 

2. Provide direct and clear feedback: “As your doctor/therapist, I am concerned about how much 

you drink and how it is affecting your health.” “The car accident/injury/emergency room visit is a 

direct result of your alcohol use.” 

3. Establish a treatment contract through negotiation and goal setting: “You need to reduce your 

drinking. What do you think about cutting down to three to four drinks, two to three times per 

week?” “I would like you to use these diary cards to keep track of your drinking over the next 

two weeks. We will review them at your next visit.” 

4. Apply behavioral modification techniques: “Here is a list of situations when college students 

drink and sometimes lose control of their drinking. Let’s talk about ways you can avoid these 

situations.” 

5. Ask patients to review a self-help booklet and complete a drinking diary: “I would like you to 

review this booklet and bring it with you at your next visit. It would be very helpful if you could 

complete some of the exercises in the book.” 

6. Set up a continuing care plan for reinforcement phone calls and clinic visits. “I would like you to 

schedule a followup appointment in one month so we can review your diary cards and I can 

answer any questions you might have. I will call you in two weeks. When is a good time to call?” 

In studies testing brief intervention, the number and duration of sessions varied by trial and setting. 

The classic brief intervention performed by a physician or nurse usually lasted for 5 to 10 minutes and 

was repeated one to three times over a 6- to 8-week period. Other trials that used therapists or 

psychologists as the interventionist usually had 30- to 60-minute counseling sessions for one to six visits. 

Trials in which therapists conducted the interventions used motivational interviewing techniques 

-16-
Promising Approaches for Increasing Student Recruitment and Retention Retention Retention in Prevention a evention a evention and

Treatment Programs

extensively. Some trials developed manuals or scripted workbooks. In others, the interventionist decided 

how to conduct the intervention based on a training program. Some studies used the FRAMES mnemonic 

as a guide for the intervention (Miller and Sanchez, 1994). 

Effects of Brief Intervention 

Brief intervention talk therapy delivered by primary care providers, nurses, counselors, and research 

staff can decrease alcohol use for at least 1 year in nondependent drinkers in primary care clinics, 

managed care settings, hospitals, and research settings (Bien et al., 1993; Fleming et al., 1997, 1999; 

Gentilello et al., 1999; Kahan et al., 1995; Marlatt et al., 1998; Ockene et al., 1999; WHO, 1996; Wilk et 

al., 1997). In trials with positive outcomes, reductions in alcohol use varied from 10 to 30 percent 

between the experimental and control groups. One trial followed patients for 48 months and found a 

sustained reduction in use (Fleming et al., 2000). 

The effect size for men and women is similar (Fleming et al., 1997; Manwell et al., 1998; Ockene et 

al., 1999; Wallace et al., 1988; WHO, 1996). The effect size for persons over the age of 18 is similar for 

all other age groups including older adults (Fleming et al., 1997, 1999; Marlatt et al., 1998; Monti et al., 

1999; Ockene et al., 1999; Wallace et al., 1988; WHO, 1996). Brief intervention appears to work in 

young adults and students under the age of 25 who are not alcohol dependent (Fleming et al., 2000; 

Marlatt et al., 1998). 

Brief intervention can also reduce health care utilization in the general population (Fleming et al., 

1997; Gentilello et al., 1999; Israel et al., 1996; Kristenson et al., 1983). Studies including Project TrEAT 

(Trial for Early Alcohol Treatment) found reductions in emergency room visits, hospital days, hospital 

readmissions, and physician office visits (Fleming et al., 1997; Gentilello et al., 1999; Israel et al., 1996; 

Kristenson et al., 1983). Brief intervention can also reduce alcohol-related harm. For example, a number 

of studies have found a reduction in blood levels of gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT), an index of liver 

damage (Israel et al., 1996; Kristenson et al., 1983; Nilssen, 1991; Wallace et al., 1988), sick days (Chick 

et al., 1985; Kristenson et al., 1983), drinking and driving (Fleming et al., 2000; Gentilello et al., 1999; 

Monti et al., 1999), and emergency room and trauma center injury admissions (Gentilello et al., 1999). 

Promising Approaches for Increasing Student Recruitment and Retention in Prevention and 

Treatment Programs 

Despite the advances made in developing and testing efficacious prevention approaches, many 

students do not participate in these programs. Those who need them most appear to be least likely to use 

them. In fact, one study found that 46.2 percent of male drinkers and 39.57 percent of female drinkers had 

no interest in participating in even a minimal intervention involving informational brochures and flyers 

(Black and Coster, 1996). 

Two approaches have been identified that may be effective in increasing student recruitment and 

retention: 

¢ Using social marketing techniques to construct and advertise programs (Black and Coster, 1996; 

Black and Smith, 1994; Gries et al., 1995). 

¢ Incorporating screening for and, in some cases, the intervention itself into standard practice at campus 

health centers and emergency rooms (Dimeff et al., 2000; Monti et al., 1999). 

-17-
Panel Recommendations: Wha ns: Wha ns: What Colleges and Universitie iversitie iversities Can Do Now

Panel Recommendations: What Researchers Can Do To Ad Do To Ad Do To Address Gaps in Knowledge

Panel Recommendations: What Colleges and Universities Can Do Now 

The Panel recommends that colleges and universities: 

¢ Use brief motivational interventions, such as providing feedback on students’ personal drinking 

behavior and negative consequences, comparing individual drinking habits to actual campus norms, 

and teaching drinking reduction skills. Strong evidence of effectiveness supports these relatively lowcost interventions. 

¢ Increase screening and outreach programs to identify students who could benefit from alcohol-related 

services. 

¢ Train those who regularly interact with students, such as resident advisors, coaches, peers, and 

faculty, to identify problems and link students with intervention services and/or provide brief 

motivational interventions. This allows colleges and universities to improve services without adding 

new staff. 

¢ Use educational interventions that provide new information such as describing alcohol-related 

programs and policies, informing students about drinking-and-driving laws, and explaining how to 

care for peers who show signs of alcohol poisoning. Use alcohol education in concert with other 

approaches, such as skills training or social norms. 

¢ Avoid using educational efforts focused primarily on facts about alcohol and associated harm as a 

sole programmatic response to student drinking. They have proven to be ineffective. 

¢ Be inclusive of varied student subpopulations. Determine and address the special needs of groups 

such as racial/ethnic minorities, women, athletes, Greeks, students of different ages, and gay and 

lesbian∗ students. 

Panel Recommendations: What Researchers Can Do To Address Gaps in Knowledge 

The Panel recommends that researchers address the following questions to fill key gaps in 

knowledge: 

¢ What are the campuswide effects of implementing individual- and group-focused interventions? 

¢ How well do these interventions work with different campus populations, including Greeks, incoming 

students, mandated students, adult children of alcoholics, athletes, students at various risk levels 

based on current alcohol practices, students living on and off campus, and members of different 

ethnic, religious, and cultural groups? 

¢ How effective are student-to-student interventions? 

¢ What are the most effective uses of computer-based technologies in college alcohol initiatives? 

¢ Should approaches be tailored to the needs and situations of underage students versus those age 21 

and older? 

¢ What are the most effective and cost-effective ways to conduct outreach for alcohol services? 

¢ What criteria are appropriate for diagnosing college student alcohol problems? Do they differ from 

the general population criteria used in currently available instruments? 

¢ How well do pilot programs work when taken to scale on different campuses? 

∗ Term used in broad sense; includes students who are bisexual, transgendered, and questioning as well as gay and lesbian. 

-18-
Comprehensive College-Community Interventions

Summary of Relevant Research

Community Trials Program

Comprehensive College-Community Interventions 

Comprehensive college-community interventions are multicomponent programs that colleges and 

communities conduct collaboratively in an effort to reduce high-risk drinking and its consequences. 

College students are not usually the sole focus of these programs, but components within the program 

target them specifically. Students also benefit from the broader, community-wide aspects of the program 

designed to reduce such behaviors as drinking and driving and sales to minors. 

Summary of Relevant Research 

A number of factors support the development of comprehensive college-community interventions to 

address college drinking problems. First, this approach reframes the issue as a community problem, not 

simply a college problem. It brings together the range of players needed to address the problem and sets 

the stage for cooperative action. Second, such efforts appear to offer a high-yield, low-cost approach for 

institutions. Some joint activities require few university resources but result in policy and enforcement 

reforms that alter the drinking environment. Third, such alliances can improve town-gown relationships 

overall, improving, for example, networking between student affairs offices and local police or other 

agencies related to student concerns and enhancing opportunities for faculty researchers to conduct 

needed studies. 

Comprehensive community interventions to reduce health problems typically involve several 

governmental agencies as well as private citizens and organizations. Most use multiple program strategies 

such as education programs, media advocacy, community organization and mobilization, and 

environmental policy changes or heightened enforcement of existing policies (Hingson and Howland, 

2002). 

Although there is no research evidence to support collaborations among colleges and universities and 

community groups aimed at college drinking (Hingson and Howland, 2002), community coalitions have 

had positive effects on reducing alcohol problems in the general population. In fact, efforts to date have 

had the greatest impact on youth, reinforcing the potential of campus-community coalitions to reduce 

college-age drinking problems. In addition, the National Academy of Sciences has recommended this 

approach for reducing alcohol-related health problems (IOM, 1989) based on its success in addressing 

other health issues. 

A number of comprehensive community efforts have been designed to reduce alcohol and other 

substance use among underaged youth, including college students, and adults (Chou et al., 1998; Hingson 

et al., 1996; Holder, 1997a,b; Holder and Treno, 1997; Pentz et al., 1989; Perry et al., 1996; Saltz and 

Stangletta, 1997; Wagenaar et al., 2000a,b). These interventions have resulted in reductions in underage 

alcohol use and alcohol-related problems, including drunk driving and alcohol-related motor vehicle 

fatalities. 

Community Trials Program 

The Community Trials Program (Grube, 1997; Holder et al., 1997a,b; 2000; Holder and Reynolds, 

1997; Holder and Treno, 1997; Reynolds et al., 1997; Saltz and Stangletta, 1997; Treno and Holder, 1997; 

Voas et al., 1997) was a 5-year initiative designed to reduce alcohol-involved injuries and death in three 

communities. The theoretical basis of this program was to alter individual behavior by changing the 

environmental, social, and structural contexts of alcohol use. 

-19-
Program Components 

The Community Trials Program had five mutually reinforcing components: 

1. Community mobilization addressed support for public policy interventions by increasing general 

awareness, knowledge, and concern about alcohol-related trauma. Program initiatives were 

jointly planned by project organizers and local residents and implemented by the residents. 

2. The responsible beverage service (RBS) component sought to reduce sales to intoxicated patrons 

and increase enforcement of local alcohol laws by working with restaurants, bar and hotel 

associations, beverage wholesalers, the Alcohol Beverage Control Commission, and local law 

enforcement. 

3. A component to decrease DWI offenses sought to increase the number of DWI arrests by a 

combination of special officer training, deployment of passive alcohol sensors, and the use of 

driving under the influence (DUI) checkpoints. News coverage publicized these activities. 

4. A component directed toward underage drinking sought to reduce alcohol sales to minors by 

enforcement of underage sales laws; training of sales clerks, owners, and managers to prevent 

sales of alcohol to minors; and advocacy to bring media attention to the issue of underage 

drinking. 

5. Local zoning and other municipal powers that determine alcohol outlet density were used to 

reduce availability of alcohol. 

Program Outcomes 

This multicomponent approach was tested in a quasi-experimental design in three matched pairs of 

communities and resulted in a 43 percent decline in alcohol-related assault admissions. Although not all 

measures indicated effects in the predicted direction, there was strong support for the efficacy of a 

coordinated, comprehensive community-based intervention to reduce high-risk alcohol consumption and 

alcohol-related trauma. 

Intermediate outcomes also indicated success, including decreases in alcohol outlet sales to underageappearing pseudopatrons without identification. Local regulations of alcohol outlets and public sites for 

drinking were changed in all three experimental communities. Changes in the Northern California 

intervention city were typical. The city council implemented a proposal to eliminate special land use 

conditions for alcohol outlets, adopted restrictions on the availability of alcohol in city parks, denied a 

new alcohol license, revoked a retailer’s conditional use permit because of liquor sales violations, and 

instituted a citywide ordinance requiring new owners of off- and onsite alcohol outlets to complete a 

responsible server course. In addition, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce voted to make its annual 

festival alcohol free. 

The DWI reduction component resulted in an increase in news coverage of DWI, additional police 

officer enforcement, greater use of Breathalyzer equipment, and increased public perceptions of risk of 

arrest for DWI. Alcohol-related crash involvement as measured by single vehicle night crashes declined 

10 to 11 percent more among program than comparison communities. 

-20-
Communities Mobilizing Mobilizing Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol

Massachusetts Saving Lives Program

Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol 

Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol (CMCA) was a 6-year project designed to test 

creative approaches to reduction of drinking by young people. The project was implemented in seven 

small to midsized communities in Minnesota and Wisconsin in 1993. Eight additional communities in the 

region served as a control group. CMCA emphasized environmental factors that affect the supply of 

alcohol to youth and used a community organization approach to achieve policy changes among local 

institutions. Adults and young people in each community identified and promoted a variety of issues 

designed to change the local environment in ways that made alcohol more difficult to obtain and made 

underage drinking less acceptable within the local culture (Wagenaar et al., 1999, 2000a,b). 

Program Objectives 

Specific objectives were to change community policies and procedures to reduce: 

¢ Access to alcohol by underage youth whether through retail sales to youth or purchase/provision by 

parents, other adults, or older youth; 

¢ Number and proportion of alcohol outlets selling to underage individuals; 

¢ Youth and adult support for or tolerance of underage purchase and consumption of alcohol; 

¢ Prevalence, quantity, and frequency of alcohol consumption among youths 15 to 20 years of age; and 

¢ Incidence of alcohol-related health and social problems among youths 15 to 20 years of age 

(Wagenaar and Perry, 1995). 

Program Outcomes 

Retailers in intervention communities increased age-identification checking and reduced sales to 

minors, especially in on-sale establishments. Young peopleages 18 to 20reduced their propensity to 

provide alcohol to other teens and were less likely to try to buy alcohol, drink in a bar, or consume 

alcohol. However, there were no effects on drinking by high school seniors (Wagenaar et al., 1999, 

2000a). 

From the perspective of this report, it is encouraging that the intervention had its greatest effects on 

college-age youth. Additional analyses of arrest and traffic crash data indicated that DUI violations 

declined in the intervention communities. Again, this effect was most marked for college-age youth and 

only approached significance for youth ages 15 to 17. There were no differences in arrests for disorderly 

conduct or traffic crashes for either age group. Collectively, findings from the CMCA project indicate that 

a community-organization approach to limiting youth access to alcohol can be effective for college-age 

youth, 18 to 20 years old (Wagenaar et al., 1999, 2000a,b). 

Massachusetts Saving Lives Program 

The Massachusetts Saving Lives Program (Hingson et al., 1996) also illustrates combinations of 

approaches that communities have used successfully to combat risky drinking and enhance public safety. 

Program Components 

To reduce drunk driving and speeding, communities introduced media campaigns, drunk driving 

checkpoints, business information programs, speeding and drunk driving awareness days, speed watch 

telephone hotlines, police training, high school peer-led education, Students Against Drunk Driving 

chapters, college prevention programs, alcohol-free prom nights, beer keg registration, and increased 

liquor outlet surveillance by police to reduce underage alcohol purchase. To increase pedestrian safety 

and safety belt use, program communities conducted media campaigns and police checkpoints, posted 

-21-
Other Comprehensive Co nsive Co nsive Community Interventions

Panel Recommendations: Wha ns: Wha ns: What Colleges and Universitie iversitie iversities Can Do Now

crosswalk signs warning motorists of fines for failure to yield to pedestrians, added crosswalk guards, and 

offered preschool education programs and training for hospital and prenatal staff. Coordinators engaged 

in numerous media advocacy activities designed to help local news outlets move beyond reporting only 

the specifics of motor vehicle crash injuries and deaths to explaining trends in local traffic safety 

problems and strategies communities were implementing to reduce traffic injury and death (Hingson et 

al., 1996). 

Program Outcomes 

During the 5 years of the program, the proportion of drivers under age 20 who reported driving after 

drinking in random-digit dial telephone surveys declined from 19 percent during the final year of the 

program to 9 percent in subsequent years. The proportion of vehicles observed speeding through use of 

radar from unmarked cars was cut in half, and safety belt use increased from 22 percent to 29 percent of 

motor vehicle occupants. Differences between intervention and comparison communities were 

statistically significant. Alcohol-related traffic deaths declined 42 percent more in Saving Lives cities 

relative to the rest of the State during the 5 years of the program as compared to the previous 5 years. This 

decline was also seen among 16- to 25-year-olds, many of whom may have been college students 

(Hingson et al., 1996). 

Other Comprehensive Community Interventions 

In addition to reducing underage alcohol consumption, drunk driving, and their consequences, 

comprehensive community interventions have also reduced smoking and risky sexual behaviors among 

adolescent and college-age populations (CDC, 1999; COMMIT Research Group, 1995; Forster et al., 

1998; Kegeles et al., 1998; Vincent, 1987). Research shows that combining environmental and 

institutional change with health education theory-based programs designed to change behavior and 

promote community ownership of programs enhances success (Hingson and Howland, 2002). Reviews of 

comprehensive programs (Wagenaar et al., 1999) have also identified important components of coalition 

development. They include: 

¢ Assessing community interests, 

¢ Building a core base of support in the community, 

¢ Expanding the base, 

¢ Developing a plan of action, 

¢ Implementing the plan, 

¢ Maintaining the effort and institutionalizing it, and 

¢ Evaluating and disseminating results. 

Panel Recommendations: What Colleges and Universities Can Do Now 

The Panel recommends that colleges and universities: 

¢ Create and/or participate in joint college-community interventions to reduce student drinking 

problems. Community coalitions have been effective in addressing alcohol and other health issues, 

although there has been no research on campus-community activities to reduce high-risk drinking and 

related problems. 

¢ Create a task force or coalition representing relevant constituencies on campus (including students) 

and in the community (including local businesses) to develop and monitor college drinking initiatives. 

-22-
Panel Reco Panel Reco Panel Recommendations: What Researchers archers archers Can Do To Fill Gap ill Gap ill Gaps in Knowledge

Managing Program Implementation Effectively

Summary of Relevant Research

¢ Plan coalition activities strategically, including setting measurable objectives, establishing target 

timelines, clearly defining member responsibilities, and collecting and evaluating data on both the 

process of working together and the results of the interaction. 

Panel Recommendations: What Researchers Can Do To Fill Gaps in Knowledge 

The Panel recommends that researchers address the following questions to fill key gaps in 

knowledge: 

¢ Are comprehensive college-community interventions to reduce high-risk college drinking effective? 

What is the most effective mix of policy and program elements? What are the assets and liabilities for 

colleges and communities? 

¢ Is it more effective to focus such efforts on drinking practices or on the health and social problems 

high-risk drinkers cause for themselves and others? 

¢ Where should decision-making responsibility be focused: in city government, the college and 

university, another group or institution, or a combination of players? 

¢ What are the best strategies for mobilizing and optimizing the effectiveness of campus-community 

coalitions? 

¢ Do effects of college-focused programs extend to others in the community? 

¢ What is the best way to enforce community alcohol-related ordinances? 

¢ How can the results of alcohol research be effectively disseminated to community audiences such as 

chiefs of police, parents, and legislators? 

¢ How effective are State-level coalitions that support individual campus-community collaborations? 

Managing Program Implementation Effectively 

Organizational factors, setting-specific issues, and the need to track program progress and evaluate 

results pose genuine challenges for campus-based programs. Addressing each, however, is essential to 

develop and sustain efforts that are relevant and effective. 

Summary of Relevant Research 

Sound program implementation is as important to success as using effective interventions. Although 

there is little research on approaches to college drinking program implementation, the organizational 

change literature provides a valid framework for addressing implementation issues (Mara, 2000). This 

construct highlights factors within the organizational environment that can either support or hinder 

college alcohol problem prevention or other change efforts, including leadership, strategy, structure, 

shared values, staff and skills, (management) style, and systems. Business and management research 

shows that comprehensively addressing all relevant factors and aligning them strategically to support a 

change is important to success (Carr et al., 1996). This emphasis on strategic change requires a careful, 

inclusive planning process and data collection and evaluation to monitor and improve programs and 

policies. 

-23-
Organizational Factors

Setting- Setting- Setting-Specific pecific pecific Issues

Evaluation

Organizational Factors 

A review commissioned by the Panel describes the recent experiences of college and university 

presidents in responding to organizational change and other implementation issues (Mara, 2000). It also 

includes insights from experts in organizational change. All agree that involving students in program 

development and implementation is important for success. Other key potential partners are college and 

university faculty members, who are in a unique position to identify and help students with alcoholrelated problems. Although faculty members have not typically been much involved in prevention, The 

Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention suggests eight ways that they could 

participate (Higher Education Center, 1998), including: 

1. Helping initiate and support the development of multifaceted prevention programs, 

2. Using alcohol-related campus incidents as teachable moments, 

3. Speaking out and fostering debate on alcohol-related issues, 

4. Incorporating alcohol issues into courses, 

5. Developing specific courses or projects on alcohol issues, 

6. Teaching related interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, 

7. Monitoring how they personally discuss alcohol issues and the examples they set socially, and 

8. Working on campus and joint campus-community coalitions. 

Setting-Specific Issues 

In addition to addressing organizational factors, program implementation also involves attending to 

the setting-specific issues that are unique to each college or university and working with diverse on- and 

off-campus constituencies. Some institutions may collaborate with their communities in developing and 

implementing programs. In Ohio, for example, campuses have been involved in a statewide initiative 

launched by Ohio Parents for Drug Free Youth. This effort developed a prevention infrastructure built 

around campus-community coalitions, increased the range of prevention activities on campus, and 

focused attention on comprehensive environmental approaches (Deucher et al., in press). 

Evaluation 

Evaluation is another critical aspect of program implementation (Saltz and DeJong, 2002), with 

benefits that include: 

¢ Increasing the likelihood of program effectiveness, 

¢ Enabling program improvement, 

¢ Encouraging a strategic approach rather than ad hoc activities, 

¢ Focusing the program on defined endpoints and objectives, 

¢ Optimizing the use of college or university resources, 

¢ Enhancing program credibility, and 

¢ Contributing to the overall knowledge base about what works in reducing high-risk drinking among 

college students. 

Despite evaluation’s value, researchers who reviewed college alcohol interventions implemented 

during the previous two decades identified only a handful of programs with any appreciable evaluation 

(Hingson et al., 1998). Nonetheless, college and university administrators, State boards, and legislatures 

-24-
Panel Recommendations: Wha ns: Wha ns: What Colleges and Universitie iversitie iversities Can Do Now

governing multiple campuses are in a particularly strong position to encourage the development of 

evaluation activities on their campuses (Saltz and DeJong, 2002) by: 

¢ Insisting that prevention planning be guided by clearly articulated goals, objectives, and activities, all 

informed by research; 

¢ Providing resources and incentives for systematically collecting data and conducting evaluation; and 

¢ Fostering a supportive atmosphere where evaluation is used as a learning tool, not as a weapon to 

threaten programs or positions. 

The paper on planning and evaluation commissioned by the Task Force provides step-by-step 

guidance for the integrated processes of program and evaluation planning (Saltz and DeJong, 2002). The 

authors provide examples that illustrate how both programs and evaluations are strengthened when 

programs are based on explicit theoretical frameworks with logic models that relate their strategies to 

measurable objectives. 

Panel Recommendations: What Colleges and Universities Can Do Now 

The Panel recommends that colleges and universities: 

¢ Be critical consumers of alcohol prevention strategies. Use programs with demonstrated 

effectiveness, such as those recommended in this report. 

¢ Take a strategic, outcome-driven approach to planning that reflects the campus situation and 

recognizes the need for the alignment of alcohol programs and policies with other aspects of 

institutional policy. Evaluate policies and programs and share the results with other colleges and 

universities. 

¢ Recognize that college student drinking prevention programs require a long-term (10- to15-year) 

commitment. Set realistic objectives for change that are based on institutional assessment and 

national experience. 

¢ Establish a system for collecting data regularly on alcohol consumption and related problems. Report 

information objectively on campus and in the community, and update progress regularly. 

¢ Adopt and integrate complementary approaches, rather than focusing only on one. For example, when 

combined, social norms and policy enforcement efforts can enhance each other. 

¢ Involve students in developing and implementing activities to reduce high-risk drinking. 

¢ Involve a broad base of campus and community groups in prevention efforts, and reward students and 

others for supporting these programs. 

¢ Use social marketing approaches to create and market programs to students. 

¢ Encourage presidents, administrators, and other campus leaders to communicate the message that 

reducing harmful alcohol use is an institutional priority. 

¢ Have alcohol prevention interventions in place before freshmen arrive in the fall and sponsor related 

activities frequently during the first weeks of the academic year. Train those who conduct prospective 

student tours and interviews to explain the institution’s alcohol policies and desired norms. 

¢ Help move the field forward. Be willing to participate in alcohol-related research programs, for 

example, or to become a State or national policy advocate on college drinking issues. 

-25-
Panel Reco Panel Reco Panel Reco Panel Recommendations: What Researchers archers archers archers Can Do To Fill Gap ill Gap ill Gap ill Gaps in Knowledge

The Panel recommends that researchers address the following questions to fill key gaps in 

knowledge: 

¢ What planning structure or process is most effective in developing campus alcohol policies and 

programs? 

¢ What is the relative effectiveness of different accountability structures for managing college alcohol 

programs? 

¢ What are the costs and effects of alcohol prevention interventions including campus-based and 

comprehensive campus-community efforts? How can programs be made more cost-effective? 

¢ Which alcohol policies and programs most benefit the college and university in terms of student 

recruitment, student quality and academic performance, student diversity, student retention, faculty 

behaviors, fundraising, and alumni relations? 

¢ What are the most effective strategies for involving presidents, administrators, faculty, students, other 

staff, and boards of directors in alcohol prevention programs? 

¢ Is it effective to make prospective students aware of alcohol policies during the marketing or 

admissions process? 

¢ What are the most effective ways of engaging, optimizing, and maintaining the involvement of 

different student subgroups, including ethnic and racial minorities? 

¢ How can higher education and secondary education work together on alcohol issues, including the 

transition from high school to college? 

-26-
References

Agostinelli G, Brown JM, Miller WR. Effects of normative feedback on consumption among heavydrinking college students. Journal of Drug Education 25(1):31–40, 1995. 

Anderson BK, Larimer ME, Lydum AR, Turner AP. Prevention of alcohol problems in college Greek 

systems. Poster presented at the conference for the American Psychological Association, January 

1998. 

Anderson D, Gadaleto A. Results of the 2000 College Alcohol Survey: Comparison with 1997 results and 

baseline year. 2001. Available from authors. 

Aubrey LL. Motivational interviewing with adolescents presenting for outpatient substance abuse 

treatment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 1998. 

Baer JS, Carney MM. Biases in the perceptions of the consequences of alcohol use among college 

students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 54:54–60, 1993. 

Baer JS, Stacy A, Larimer M. Biases in the perception of drinking norms among college students. Journal 

of Studies on Alcohol 52:580–586, 1991. 

Bangert-Drowns RL. The effects of school-based substance abuse education—a meta-analysis. Drug 

Education 18:243–264, 1988. 

Barnett LA, Far JM, Mauss AL, Miller JA. Changing perceptions of peer norms as a drinking reduction 

program for college students. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 41(2):39–62, 1996. 

Berkowitz AD. From reactive to proactive prevention: promoting an ecology of health on campus. In: 

Rivers PC, Shore ER (eds), Substance Abuse on Campus: A Handbook for College and University 

Personnel. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1997. 

Bien TH, Miller WR, Tonigan JS. Brief interventions for alcohol problems: a review. Addiction 88:315– 

335, 1993. 

Black DR, Coster DC. Interest in a stepped approach model (SAM): Identification of recruitment 

strategies for university alcohol programs. Health Education Quarterly 23(1):98–114, 1996. 

Black DR, Smith MA. Reducing alcohol consumption among university students: Recruitment and 

program design strategies based on social marketing theory. Health Education Research 9:375–384, 

1994. 

Carr D, Hard K, Trahant W. Managing the Change Process. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996. 

CDC Research Group. Community level HIV intervention in 5 cities. Final outcome data from the CDC 

AIDS Community Demonstration Projects. American Journal of Public Health 89(3):336–345, 1999. 

Chaloupka FJ, Wechsler H. Binge drinking in college: the impact of price, availability, and alcohol 

control policies. Contemporary Economic Policy 14:112–124, 1996. 

Chick J, Lloyd G, Crombie E. Counseling problem drinkers in medical wards: A controlled study. British 

Medical Journal of Clinical Research Education 290(6473):965–967, 1985. 

Chou CP, Montgomery S, Pentz M, Rohrbach L, Johnson A, Flay B, MacKinnon D. Effects of a 

community based prevention program on decreasing drug use in high risk adolescents. American 

Journal of Public Health 88(6):944–948, 1998. 

Clements KW, Selvanathan S. The economic determinants of alcohol consumption. Australian Journal of 

Agricultural Economics 35:209–231, 1991. 

-27-
Coate D, Grossman M. Effects of alcoholic beverage prices and legal drinking ages on youth alcohol use. 

Journal of Law and Economics 31:145–171, 1988. 

COMMIT Research Group. Cohort results from a 4-year community intervention. American Journal of 

Public Health 85(2):183–191, 1995. 

Cook PJ, Moore MJ. Violence reduction through restrictions on alcohol availability. Alcohol Health & 

Research World 17:151–156, 1993. 

Cook PJ, Tauchen G. The effect of liquor taxes on heavy drinking. Bell Journal of Economics 13:379– 

390, 1982. 

Cronin C. Harm reduction of alcohol-use related problems among college students. Substance Use and 

Misuse 31:2029–2037, 1996. 

D’Amico EJ, Fromme K. Implementation of the risk skills training program: A brief intervention 

targeting adolescent participation in risk behaviors. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 7(1):101–117, 

2000. 

Darkes J, Goldman MS. Expectancy challenge and drinking reduction: experimental evidence for a 

meditational process. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61:344–353, 1993. 

Darkes J, Goldman MS. Expectancy challenge and drinking reduction: Process and structure in the 

alcohol expectancy network. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 6(1):64–76, 1998. 

DeJong W. The role of mass media campaigns in reducing high-risk drinking among college students. 

Journal of Studies on Alcohol Supplement 14:182–192, 2002. 

DeJong W, Langford LA. Typology for campus-based alcohol prevention: Moving toward environmental 

management strategies. Journal of Studies on Alcohol Supplement 14:140–147, 2002. 

DeJong W, Linkenbach J. Telling it like it is: Using social norms marketing campaigns to reduce student 

drinking. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin 32(4):11–16, 1999. 

DeJong W, Russell A. MADD’s position on alcohol advertising: A response to Marshall and Oleson. 

Journal of Public Health Policy 16:238–245, 1995. 

DeJong W, Vince-Whitman C, Colthurst T, Cretella M, Gilbreath M, Rosati M, Zweig K. Environmental 

Management: A Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Alcohol and Other Drug Use on College 

Campuses. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, The Higher Education Center for 

Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1998. 

De Moira ACP, Duffy JC. Changes in licensing law in England and Wales and alcohol-related mortality. 

Addiction Research 3:151–164, 1995. 

Deucher RM, Block C, Harmon PN, Swisher R, Peters C, DeJong W. A statewide initiative to prevent 

high-risk drinking on Ohio campuses: An environmental management case study. Journal of 

American College Health, in press. 

Dimeff LA, Baer JS, Kivlahan DR, Marlatt GA. Brief alcohol screening and intervention for college 

students (BASICS). Substance Abuse 21(4):283–285, 2000. 

Duffy JC, Pinot de Moira AC. Changes in licensing law in England and Wales and indicators of alcoholrelated problems. Addiction Research 4:245–271, 1996. 

Edwards G, Anderson P, Babor TF, Casswell S, Ferrence R, Geisbrecht N, Godfrey C, Holder HD, 

Lemmens P, Makela K, Midanik LT, Norstrom T, Osterberg E, Romelsjo A, Room R, Simpura J, 

Skog OJ. Alcohol Policy and the Public Good. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. 

-28-
Evans JM, Kelly RF. Self-regulation in the alcohol industry: A review of industry efforts to avoid 

promoting alcohol to underage consumers. Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission, 1999. 

Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations 7:117–140, 1954. 

Flay B. Selling the Smokeless Society. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association, 1987. 

Fleming MF, Barry KL, Manwell LB, Johnson K, London R. Brief physician advice for problem alcohol 

drinkers. A randomized controlled trial in community-based primary care practices. Journal of the 

American Medical Association 277:1039–1045, 1997. 

Fleming MF, Manwell LB, Barry KL, Adams W, Mundt M, Stauffacher E. Brief physician advice for 

older adult problem alcohol drinkers: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Family Practice 

48(5):378–384, 1999. 

Fleming MF, Mundt MP, French MT, Manwell LB, Stauffacher EA, Barry KL. Benefit-cost analysis of 

brief physician advice with problem drinkers in primary care settings. Medical Care 38(1):7–18, 

2000. 

Forster J, Murray D, Wolfson M, Blaine T, Wagenaar A, Hennrikens D. The effects of community 

policies to reduce youth access to tobacco. American Journal of Public Health 88(8):1193–1198, 

1998. 

Gao XM, Wailes EJ, Cramer GL. A micro econometric model analysis of US consumer demand for 

alcoholic beverages. Applied Economics 27:59–69, 1995. 

Garvin RB, Alcorn JD, Faulkner KK. Behavioral strategies for alcohol abuse prevention with high risk 

college males. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 36:23–34, 1990. 

Gentilello LM, Rivara FP, Donovan DM, et al. Alcohol interventions in a trauma center as a means of 

reducing the risk of injury recurrence. Annals of Surgery 230(4):437–480, 1999. 

Gliksman L, Rush B. Alcohol availability, alcohol consumption and alcohol related damage. II: The role 

of sociodemographic factors. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 47:11–18, 1986. 

Godfrey C. Can tax be used to minimise harm? A health economist’s perspective. In: Plant M, Single E, 

Stockwell T (eds), Alcohol: Minimising the Harm. London: Free Association Books, 1997. 

Goel R, Morey M. The interdependence of cigarette and liquor demand. Southern Economic Journal 

62(2):441–459, 1995. 

Goldman L, Glantz S. Evaluation of antismoking advertising campaigns. Journal of the American 

Medical Association 279(10):772–777, 1998. 

Gries JA, Black DR, Coster DC. Recruitment to a university alcohol program: Evaluation of social 

marketing theory and stepped approach model. Preventive Medicine 24:348–356, 1995. 

Grube J. Alcohol portrayals and alcohol advertising on television: Content and effects on children and 

adolescents. Alcohol Health & Research World 17(1):61–66, 1993. 

Grube J. Preventing sales of alcohol to minors: Results from a community trial. Addiction 92(Suppl 

2):S251–S260, 1997. 

Gruenewald PJ, Ponicki WR, Holder HD. The relationship of outlet densities to alcohol consumption: A 

time series cross-sectional analysis. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research 17:38–47, 1993. 

Haines MP. A Social Norms Approach to Preventing Binge Drinking at Colleges and Universities. 

Newton, MA: The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1996. 

Haines MP. Social norms in a wellness model for health promotion in higher education. Wellness 

Management 14(4):1–10, 1998. 

-29-
Haines MP, Spear SF. Changing the perception of the norm: A strategy to decrease binge drinking among 

college students. Journal of American College Health 24(3):134–140, 1996. 

Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention. Survey of American College Campuses, 

Newton, MA: The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1998. 

Hingson R, Berson J, Dowley K. Review of research on interventions to reduce college drinking and 

related health and social problems. In: Plant M, Single E, Stockwell T (eds), Alcohol: Minimising the 

Harm. London: Free Association Books, 1998. 

Hingson R, Heeren T, Winter M. Lower legal blood alcohol limits for young drivers. Public Health 

Reports 109:738–744, 1994. 

Hingson R, Heeren T, Winter M. Effects of recent 0.08% legal blood alcohol limits on fatal crash 

involvement. Injury Prevention 2000 6:109–114, 2000. 

Hingson R, Heeren T, Zakocs R, Kopstein A, Wechsler H. Magnitude of alcohol-related morbidity, 

mortality, and alcohol dependence among U.S. college students age 18–24. Journal of Studies on 

Alcohol 63(2):136–144, 2002. 

Hingson R, Howland J. Comprehensive community intervention to promote health: Implications for 

college age drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol Supplement 14: 2226–2240, 2002. 

Hingson R, McGovern T, Howland J, Hereen T, Winter M, Zakocs R. Reducing alcohol-impaired driving 

in Massachusetts: The Saving Lives Program. American Journal of Public Health 86:791–797, 1996. 

Holder HD, Gruenewald PJ, Ponicki WR, Treno AJ, Grube JW, Saltz RF, Voas RB, Reynolds R, Davis J, 

Sanchez L, Gaumont G, Roeper P. Effect of community-based interventions on high-risk drinking 

and alcohol-related injuries. Journal of the American Medical Association 284(18):2341–2347, 2000. 

Holder H, Reynolds R. Applications of local policy to prevent alcohol problems: Experiences from a 

community trial. Addiction 92(Suppl 2):S285–S292, 1997. 

Holder H, Saltz R, Grube J, Treno A, Reynolds R, Voas R. Summing up: Lessons from a comprehensive 

community prevention trial. Addiction 92(Suppl 2):S293–S302, 1997a. 

Holder H, Saltz RF, Grube JW, Voas RB, Gruenewald PJ, Treno AJ. A community trial to reduce alcohol 

involved accidental injury and death: Overview. Addiction 92(Suppl 2):S155–S172, 1997b. 

Holder H, Treno A. Media advocacy in community prevention: News as a means to advance policy 

change. Addiction 92(Suppl 2):S189–S200, 1997. 

Hu TW, Sung HY, Keeler TE. Reducing cigarette consumption in California: Tobacco taxes vs. an antismoking media campaign. American Journal of Public Health 85(9):1218–1222, 1995. 

Institute of Medicine. Prevention and Treatment of Alcohol Problems: Research Opportunities. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989. 

Israel Y, Hollander O, Sanchez-Craig M, Booker S, Miller V, Gingrich R, Rankin JG. Screening for 

problem drinking and counseling by the primary care physician-nurse team. Alcoholism, Clinical and 

Experimental Research 20:1443–1450, 1996. 

Johannessen K, Collins C, Mills-Novoa B, Glider P. A Practical Guide to Alcohol Abuse Prevention: A 

Campus Case Study in Implementing Social Norms and Environmental Management Approaches. 

Tucson, AZ: Campus Health Service, University of Arizona, 1999. 

Jones LM, Silvia LY, Richman CL. Increased awareness and self-challenge of alcohol expectancies. 

Substance Abuse 16(2):77–85, 1995. 

-30-
Kahan M, Wilson L, Becker L. Effectiveness of physician-based interventions with problem drinkers: A 

review. Canadian Medical Association Journal 152:851–859, 1995. 

Kegeles S, Hayes R, Coates T. The M Powerment project: A community level prevention intervention for 

young gay men. American Journal of Public Health 96(8):1129–1136, 1998. 

Kenkel DS. Prohibition versus taxation: Reconsidering the legal drinking age. Contemporary Policy 

Issues July:48–57, 1993. 

King RF. The politics of denial: the use of funding penalties as an implementation device for social 

policy. Policy Science 20:307–337, 1987. 

Kreitman N. Alcohol consumption and the preventive paradox. British Journal of Addiction 81:353–363, 

1986. 

Kristenson H, Ohlin H, Hulten-Nosslin MB, Trell E, Hood B. Identification and intervention of heavy 

drinking in middle-aged men: Results and follow-up of 24–60 months of long-term study with 

randomized controls. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research 7(2):203–209, 1983. 

Larimer M, Cronce J Identification, prevention and treatment: A review of individual-focused strategies 

to reduce problematic alcohol consumption by college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 

Supplement 14: 148–163, 2002. 

Lemmons PH. Individual risk and population distribution of alcohol consumption. In: Holder HD, 

Edwards G (eds), Alcohol and Public Policy: Evidence and Issues. New York: Oxford University 

Press, 1995. 

Leung SF, Phelps CE. My kingdom for a drink . . . ? A review of estimates of the price sensitivity of 

demand for alcoholic beverages. In: Hilton ME, Bloss G (eds), Economics and the Prevention of 

Alcohol-Related Problems. Research Monograph No. 25. Rockville, MD: National Institute on 

Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 1993, pp. 1–31. 

Ligon J, Thyer BA. The effects of a Sunday liquor sales ban on DUI arrests. Journal of Alcohol and Drug 

Education 38:33–40, 1993. 

Lo CC. Gender differences in collegiate alcohol abuse. Journal of Drug Issues 25(4):817–836, 1995. 

Maddock JE. Statistical power and effect size in the field of health psychology. Unpublished doctoral 

dissertation, 1999. 

Manning WG, Blumberg L, Moulton LH. The demand for alcohol: The differential response to price. 

Journal of Health Education 14:123–148, 1995. 

Manwell LB, Fleming MF, Johnson K, Barry KL. Tobacco, alcohol, and drug use in a primary care 

sample: 90 day prevalence and associated factors. Journal of Addictive Diseases 17(1):67–81, 1998. 

Mara JR. The view from the president’s office: The leadership of change. Paper prepared for the Panel on 

Prevention and Treatment, National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National 

Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Bethesda, MD, 2000. 

Marcello RJ, Danish SJ, Stolberg AL. An evaluation of strategies developed to prevent substance abuse 

among student-athletes. Sport Psychologist 3:196–211, 1989. 

Marlatt GA, Baer JS, Kivlahan DR, Dimeff LA, Larimer ME, Quigley LA, Somers JM, Williams E. 

Screening and brief intervention for high-risk college student drinkers: Results from a two-year 

follow-up assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 66:604–615, 1998. 

Marlatt GA, Baer JS, Larimer M. Preventing alcohol abuse in college students: A harm reduction 

approach. In: Boyd GM, Howard J, Zucker RA (eds), Alcohol Problems Among Adolescents: Current 

Directions in Prevention Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995. 

-31-
Meilman PW, Presley CA, Cashin JR. The sober social life at the historically Black colleges. Journal of 

Blacks in Higher Education 9:98–100, 1995. 

Miller ET. Preventing alcohol abuse and alcohol-related negative consequences among freshman college 

students: using emerging computer technology to deliver and evaluate the effectiveness of brief 

intervention efforts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, 1999. 

Miller WR, Sanchez VC. Motivating young adults for treatment and lifestyle change. In: Howard GS, 

Nathan PE (eds), Alcohol Use and Misuse by Young Adults. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre 

Dame Press, 1994. 

Miller WR, Zweben A, DiClemente CC, Rychatarik. Motivational Enhancement Therapy Manual: A 

Clinical Research Guide for Therapists Treating Individuals With Alcohol Abuse and Dependence. 

DHHS Publication No. (ADM)92-1894. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 

Alcoholism, 1992. 

Monti PM, Colby SM, Barnett NP, Spirito A, Rohsenow DJ, Myers M, Wollard R, Lewander W. Brief 

intervention for harm reduction with alcohol-positive older adolescents in a hospital emergency 

department. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 67:989–994, 1999. 

Moskowitz JM. The primary prevention of alcohol problems: a critical review of the research literature. 

Journal of Studies on Alcohol 50:54–88, 1989. 

Murphy TJ, Pagano RR, Marlatt GA. Lifestyle modification with heavy alcohol drinkers: Effects of 

aerobic exercise and meditation. Addictive Behavior 11:175–186, 1986. 

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Ninth Special Report to the U.S. Congress on 

Alcohol and Health (Pub. No. 97–4017). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, National Institutes of Health, 1997. 

Newcomb TM, Wilson EK. College Peer Groups. Chicago: Aldine Publishing, 1966. 

Nilssen O. The Tromso study: Identification of and a controlled intervention on a population of earlystage risk drinkers. Preventive Medicine 20:518–528, 1991. 

Northridge DB, McMurray J, Lawson AAH. Association between liberalization of Scotland’s liquor 

licensing laws and admissions for self poisoning in West Fife. British Medical Journal 293:1466– 

1468, 1986. 

Ockene JK, Adams A, Hurley TG, Wheeler EV, Hebert JR. Brief physician- and nurse practitionerdelivered counseling for high risk drinkers: Does it work? Archives of Internal Medicine 

159(18):2198–2205, 1999. 

Ornstein S, Hanssens D. Alcohol control laws and the consumption of distilled spirits and beer. Journal of 

Consumer Research 12:200–213, 1985. 

Österberg E. Do alcohol prices affect consumption and related problems? In: Holder H, Edwards G (eds), 

Alcohol and Public Policy: Evidence and Issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, pp. 145– 

163. 

Parker B. Exploring life themes and myths in alcohol advertisements through a meaning-based model of 

advertising experiences. Journal of Advertising 27:97–112, 1998. 

Pentz M, Dwyer J, MacKinnon D, Flay B, Hansen W, Wang E, Johnson A. A multi community trial for 

primary prevention of adolescent drug abuse. Journal of the American Medical Association 

261(22):3259–3265, 1989. 

Perkins HW. Religious traditions, parents, and peers as determinants of alcohol and drug use among 

college students. Review of Religious Research 27(1):15–31, 1986. 

-32-
Perkins HW. College student misperceptions of alcohol and other drug norms among peers: Exploring 

causes, consequences, and implications for prevention programs. In: Designing Alcohol and Other 

Drug Prevention Programs in Higher Education. Newton, MA: The Higher Education Center for 

Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1997. 

Perkins HW. Social norms and the prevention of alcohol misuse in collegiate contexts. Journal of Studies 

on Alcohol Supplement 14:164–172, 2002. 

Perkins HW, Berkowitz AD. Perceiving the community norms of alcohol use among students: Some 

research implications for campus alcohol education programming. International Journal of the 

Addictions 21(9/10):961–976, 1986. 

Perkins HW, Berkowitz AD. Collegiate COAs and alcohol abuse: Problem drinking in relation to 

assessments of parent and grandparent alcoholism. Journal of Counseling and Development 

69(3):237–240, 1991. 

Perkins HW, Meilman PW, Leichliter JS, Cashin JS, Presley CA. Misperceptions of the norms for the 

frequency of alcohol and other drug use on college campuses. Journal of American College Health 

47:253–258, 1999. 

Perry CL, Kelder SH. Prevention. In: Langenbucher JW (ed), Review of Addictions: Research and 

Treatment, Vol. 2. New York: Pergamon Press, 1992, pp. 453–472. 

Perry CL, Williams CL, Veblen-Mortenson S, Toomey TL, Komro KA, Anstine PS, McGovern P, 

Finnegan JR, Forster JL, Wagenaar AC, Wolfson M. Project Northland: Outcomes of a communitywide alcohol use prevention program during early adolescence. American Journal of Public Health 

86:956–965, 1996. 

Presley CA, Meilman PW, Cashin MA. Alcohol and Drugs on American College Campuses. Volume IV: 

1992–1994. Carbondale, IL: The Core Institute, Southern Illinois University, 1996. 

Presley CA, Meilman PW, Lyerla R. Alcohol and Drugs on American College Campuses. Carbondale, IL: 

The Core Institute, Southern Illinois University, 1995. 

Reynolds R, Holder H, Gruenewald P. Community prevention and alcohol retail sales. Addiction 

92(Suppl 2):S261–S272, 1997. 

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. RWJF programs tackle underage and binge drinking. Advances 1. 

Princeton, NJ: RWJF, 1999. 

Robinson SE, Roth SL, Gloria AM, Keim J. Influence of substance abuse education on undergraduates’ 

knowledge, attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 39:123–130, 1993. 

Rohsenow DJ, Smith RE, Johnson S. Stress management training as a prevention program for heavy 

social drinkers: cognitions, affect, drinking, and individual differences. Addictive Behaviors 10:45– 

54, 1985. 

Ruhm CJ. Alcohol policies and highway vehicle fatalities. Journal of Health Economics 15:435–454, 

1996. 

Rundall TG, Bruvold WH. A meta-analysis of school-based smoking and alcohol use prevention 

programs. Health Education Quarterly 15:317–334, 1988. 

Ryan BE, DeJong W. Making the Link: Faculty and Prevention. Newton, MA: The Higher Education 

Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1998. 

Saffer H. Alcohol advertising bans and alcohol abuse: An international perspective. Journal of Health 

Economics 10:65–79, 1991. 

-33-
Saffer H. Alcohol advertising and motor vehicle fatalities. Review of Economic Statistics 79(3):431–442, 

1997. 

Saffer H. Alcohol advertising and youth. Journal of Studies on Alcohol Supplement 14:173–181, 2002. 

Saltz R, DeJong W. Reducing Alcohol Problems on Campus: A Planning and Evaluation Guide. Paper 

prepared for the Panel on Prevention and Treatment, National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse 

and Alcoholism, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Bethesda, MD, 2002. 

Saltz R, Stangletta P. A community wide responsible beverage service program in these communities: 

early findings. Addiction 92(Suppl 2):251–260, 1997. 

Saunders B. Alcohol and other drugs: The prevention paradoxes. Community Health Studies 13:150–155, 

1959. 

Scribner RA, MacKinnon DP, Dwyer JH. Risk of assaultive violence and alcohol availability in Los 

Angeles County. American Journal of Public Health 85:335–340, 1995. 

Sherif M. Experiments on norm formation. In: Hollander EP, Hunt RG (eds), Classic Contributions to 

Social Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1972. 

Shults RA, Elder RW, Sleet DA, Nichos JS, Alao MO, Carande-Kulis VG, Zaza S, Sosin DM, Thompson 

RS, and the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Reviews of evidence regarding 

interventions to reduce alcohol-impaired driving, American Journal of Preventive Medicine 21:66– 

88, 2001. 

Smith DI. Comparison of patrons of hotels with early opening and standard hours. International Journal 

of the Addictions 21:155–163, 1986. 

Smith DI. Effect on traffic accidents of introducing Sunday alcohol sales in Brisbane, Australia. 

International Journal of the Addictions 23:1091–1099, 1988. 

Stitt BG, Giacopassi DJ. Alcohol availability and alcohol-related crime. Criminal Justice Review 17:268– 

279, 1992. 

Stokols D. Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. 

American Journal of Health Promotion 10:282–298, 1996. 

Sutton M, Godfrey CA. Grouped data regression approach to estimating economic and social influences 

on individual drinking behavior. Health Economics 4:237–247, 1995. 

Tobler N. Drug prevention programs can work: Research findings. Journal of Addictive Diseases 11:1– 

28, 1992. 

Toomey TL, Jones-Webb RJ, Wagenaar AC. Policy—alcohol. Annual Review of Addictions Research and 

Treatment 3:279–292, 1993. 

Toomey TL, Wagenaar AC. Environmental policies to reduce college drinking: Options and research 

findings. Journal of Studies on Alcohol Supplement 14:193–205, 2002. 

Treno A, Holder H. Community mobilization: evaluation of an environmental approach to local action. 

Addiction 92(Suppl 2):S173–S188, 1997. 

Vincent M. Reducing adolescent pregnancy through school and community based education. Journal of 

the American Medical Association 257(24):3382–3386, 1987. 

Voas R, Holder H, Gruenewald P. The effects of drinking and driving intervention on alcohol involved 

traffic crashes within a comprehensive community trial. Addiction 92(Suppl 2):S221–S236, 1997. 

Voas RB, Tippetts AS, Fell J. The relationship of alcohol safety laws to drinking drivers in fatal crashes. 

Accident Analysis and Prevention 32:483–492, 2000. 

-34-
Wagenaar A, Gehan J, Jones-Webb R, Toomey T, Forster J. Communities mobilizing for change lessons 

and results from a 15 community randomized trial. Journal of Community Psychology 27(3):315–326, 

1999. 

Wagenaar AC, Murray DM, Gehan JP, Wolfson M, Forster JL, Toomey TL, Perry CL, Jones-Webb R. 

Communities mobilizing for change on alcohol: outcomes from a randomized community trial. 

Journal of Studies on Alcohol 61(1):85–94, 2000a. 

Wagenaar AC, Murray DM, Toomey TL. Communities mobilizing for change on alcohol (CMCA): 

Effects of a randomized trial on arrests and traffic crashes. Addiction 95(2):209–217, 2000b. 

Wagenaar AC, O’Malley PM, LaFond C. Lowered legal blood alcohol limits for young drivers: Effects 

on drinking, driving, and driving-after-drinking behaviors in 30 states. American Journal of Public 

Health 91:801–804, 2001. 

Wagenaar AC, Perry CL. Community strategies for the reduction of youth drinking: Theory and 

application. In: Boyd GM, Howard J, Zucker RA (eds), Alcohol Problems Among Adolescents: 

Current Directions in Prevention Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995, 

pp. 197–223. 

Wagenaar AC, Toomey TL. Alcohol policy and intervention research: issues and research needs. 

Presented at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Extramural Scientific Advisory 

Board Meeting on Prevention. Washington, DC, October 21–22, 1998. 

Wagenaar A, Toomey T. Effects of minimum drinking age laws: Review and analyses of the literature 

from 1960 to 2000. Journal of Studies on Alcohol Supplement 14:206–225, 2002. 

Wallace P, Cutler S, Haines A. Randomised controlled trial of general practitioner intervention in patients 

with excessive alcohol consumptions. British Medical Journal 297(10):663–668, 1988. 

Walters ST. In praise of feedback: Notes on an effective intervention for heavy drinking college students. 

Journal of American College Health 48(5):235–238, 2000. 

Walters ST, Martin JE, Norto J. A controlled trial of two feedback-based interventions for heavy drinking 

college students. Poster session at annual meeting of Research Society on Alcoholism, Santa Barbara, 

CA, June 1999. 

Warner KE. Cigarette smoking in the 1970s: The impact of the antismoking campaign on consumption. 

Science 211:729–731, 1981. 

Wechsler H, Dowdall G, Maenner G, Gledhill-Hoyt J, Lee H. Changes in binge drinking and related 

problems among American college students between 1993 and 1997: Results of the Harvard School 

of Public Health College Alcohol Study. Journal of American College Health 47:57–68, 1998. 

Wechsler H, Lee JE, Kuo M, Lee H. College binge drinking in the 1990s: A continuing problem. Results 

of the Harvard School of Public Health 1999 College Alcohol Study. Journal of American College 

Health 48:199–210, 2000. 

Wechsler H, Lee JE, Kuo M, Seibring M, Nelson TF, Lee H. Trends in college binge drinking during a 

period of increased prevention efforts: Findings from 4 Harvard School of Public Health College 

Alcohol Study Surveys: 1993–2001. Journal of American College Health 50(5):203–217, 2002. 

Whole College Catalog About Drinking. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 

Alcoholism, 1976. 

Wilk AI, Jensen NM, Havighurst TC. Meta-analysis of randomized control trials addressing brief 

interventions in heavy alcohol drinkers. Journal of General Internal Medicine 12(5):274–283, 1997. 

-35-
Papers Commissioned for the Panel on Prevention and Treatment

World Health Organization Brief Intervention Study Group. A cross-national trial of brief interventions 

with heavy drinkers. American Journal of Public Health 86(7):948–955, 1996. 

Zador P, Land A, Fields M, et al. Fatal crash involvement and laws against alcohol impaired driving. 

Journal of Public Health Policy 10:467–485, 1989. 

Ziemelis A. Drug prevention in higher education: Efforts, evidence, and promising directions. Paper 

presented at The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Center Associates 

Annual Meeting, January 1998. 

Papers Commissioned for the Panel on Prevention and Treatment 

A Typology for Campus-Based Alcohol Prevention: Moving toward Environmental Management 

Strategies 

William DeJong, Ph.D., Professor, Boston University School of Education’s Higher Education Center 

for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, and Linda Langford, Sc.D., Associate Director of Evaluation 

and Assessment, U.S. Department of Education’s Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other 

Drug Prevention 

Identification, Prevention, and Treatment: A Review of Individual-Focused Strategies to Reduce 

Problematic Alcohol Consumption by College Students 

Mary Larimer, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Adjunct Assistant 

Professor of Psychology, Associate Director, Addictive Behaviors Research Center, University of 

Washington, and Jessica M. Cronce, B.S., Research Coordinator, Addictive Behaviors Research 

Center, Department of Psychology, University of Washington 

Social Norms and the Prevention of Alcohol Misuse in Collegiate Contexts 

H. Wesley Perkins, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, 

Hobart and William Smith Colleges 

Alcohol Advertising and Youth 

Henry Saffer, Ph.D., Professor of Economics, Kean University, and Research Associate, National 

Bureau of Economic Research 

The Role of Mass Media Campaigns in Reducing High-Risk Drinking among College Students 

William DeJong, Ph.D., Professor, Boston University School of Public Health, and Director, U.S. 

Department of Education’s Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention 

Environmental Policies to Reduce College Drinking: Options and Research Findings 

Traci L. Toomey, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, School of Public Health, Division of Epidemiology, 

University of Minnesota, and Alexander C. Wagenaar, Ph.D., Professor and Director, Alcohol 

Epidemiology Program, School of Public Health, Division of Epidemiology, University of Minnesota 

Effects of Minimum Drinking Age Laws: Review and Analyses of the Literature from 1960 to 2000 

Alexander C. Wagenaar, Ph.D., Professor and Director, Alcohol Epidemiology Program, School of 

Public Health, Division of Epidemiology, University of Minnesota, and Traci I. Toomey, Ph.D., 

Assistant Professor, School of Public Health, Division of Epidemiology, University of Minnesota 

Compresenhensive Community Interentions to Promote Health: Implications for College-Age 

Drinking Problems 

Ralph Hingson, Sc.D., Professor and Chair, Social and Behavioral Sciences Department, Boston 

University School of Public Health, and Jonathan Howland, Ph.D., M.P.H., Professor and Chair, 

Social and Behavioral Sciences Department, Boston University School of Public Health 

-36-
Joint Panel Papers

The Role of Evaluation in Prevention of College Student Drinking Problems 

Robert F. Saltz, Ph.D., Associate Director and Senior Research Scientist, Prevention Research Center, 

Berkeley, CA 

View from the President’s Office: The Leadership of Change 

Joy R. Mara, M.A., Mara Communications 

Joint Panel Papers 

The Student Perspective on Alcohol Abuse 

Peggy Eastman, Author and Journalist 

Magnitude of Alcohol-Related Mortality and Morbidity among U.S. College Students Ages 18–24 

Ralph Hingson, Sc.D., Professor and Chair, Social and Behavioral Sciences Department, Boston 

University School of Public Health; Timothy Heeren, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Biostatistics 

Department, Boston University School of Public Health; Ronda Zakocs, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, 

Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health; Andrea 

Kopsteain, Ph.D., Chief Program Evaluation Branch, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; and Henry Wechsler, Ph.D., Lecturer 

and Director of College Alcohol Studies, Department of Health and Social Behavior, Harvard School 

of Public Health 

-37-
Appendix 1

Additional Panel Recommendations

Appendix 1

Additional Panel Recommendations
APPENDIX 1

ADDITIONAL PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations to NIAAA and Other Potential Program Funders

Recommendations to Other Interested National Organizations

APPENDIX 1

ADDITIONAL PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations to NIAAA and Other Potential Program Funders 

¢ Provide direction for the research field through initiatives and publications. 

¢ Consider new initiatives, mechanisms, and procedures to encourage and support needed research that 

may not conform to a typical National Institutes of Health investigator-initiated research format. 

¢ Provide technical assistance, remove barriers, and offer incentives to facilitate college and university 

participation in alcohol research studies. 

¢ Increase collaboration with other Federal agencies for joint funding in this field. 

¢ Invest resources in developing a model alcohol-related data collection system for campuses 

nationwide. Maintain a permanent database of this information. 

¢ Work with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to include data indicators needed to 

quantify college alcohol problems in accident reports. Indicators include whether subjects are enrolled 

in college, where, and at what level. 

¢ Conduct an annual press briefing to highlight progress made and resources needed to continue 

addressing college alcohol issues. 

¢ Open dialogue and seek partnerships with national organizations to fulfill the recommendations of 

this report. Such groups include other Federal agencies, States, the national Interfraternity Council 

and Pan-Hellenic Council, boards of individual Greek organizations, national student organizations, 

industry, athletic conferences, high schools, and groups representing college and university 

presidents, boards of trustees, and administrators. Give such a coalition a reason to interact, such as 

working together to develop the model for national data collection. 

¢ Create and disseminate short publications to various campus audiences (including students) that 

synthesize current research findings and identify what the college community can do about the 

problem. 

Recommendations to Other Interested National Organizations 

¢ Provide venues (e.g., at annual meetings) for researchers to share information on this issue. 

¢ Encourage colleges and universities to enact policies and programs that research deems effective. 

¢ Help educate the press about campus alcohol issues, including actual levels of college drinking and 

the progress being made in reducing high-risk behaviors and their consequences. 

¢ Consider ways in which existing jobs and organizational elements could be reconceptualized to 

include a focus on college alcohol issues. 

-41-
Recommendations toRes earchers:InformationGapsand Research

Needs

Promoting Healthy Behaviors Through Individual- and Group-Focused Approaches

Creating an Environment That Discourages High-Risk Drinking

Recommendations to Researchers: Information Gaps and Research 

Needs 

Promoting Healthy Behaviors Through Individual- and Group-Focused Approaches 

¢ What are the most effective individual-focused approaches for institutions of different sizes and 

types, with different student populations, and different ethnic and age mixes among students? 

¢ What are the most important components in individual-focused interventions and what mediates 

efficacy? 

¢ What are the most effective ways to increase referrals to campus intervention programs (e.g., use of 

peers or campus judicial and enforcement processes; media strategies; routine screening; mandated 

referrals; training to increase referrals by faculty, staff, and students)? 

¢ Is it effective to train students to help peers prevent or reduce high-risk drinking? 

Creating an Environment That Discourages High-Risk Drinking 

Overall 

¢ What are the most effective environmental approaches for different types of institutions? 

¢ What is the effect of combining different policies and combining environmental strategies with 

individual-focused strategies? What is the best sequence for implementing the elements of a 

combined approach? What balance among interventions produces the best outcomes? 

¢ How can campuses best balance their policy orientation with regard to enforcement of underage 

drinking laws and promotion of responsible drinking? 

¢ Which alcohol policies are most effective in reducing alcohol-related problems? For which outcomes 

and populations are these policies effective? 

¢ What are the most effective ways to educate faculty members and involve them in campus alcohol 

prevention efforts? 

Social Norms 

¢ How accurate are an individual’s perceptions of alcohol norms for different types of referent groups 

such as close friends, people in the same living or social unit or the general student body? How do 

these perceptions affect an individual’s alcohol-related norms? 

¢ How do social norms affect a student’s view of “problem” drinking? 

¢ Does publicizing actual rates of drinking on campus and consequences of hazardous drinking affect 

norms and consumption? 

¢ Which strategies are most effective in reducing misperceptions about student drinking norms (e.g., 

print media, curriculum infusion, electronic media, and interpersonal workshops)? 

¢ What are faculty norms and perceptions related to drinking among themselves and among students? 

How do faculty drinking patterns affect student behaviors? 

¢ What are alumni norms related to student drinking? Do alumni have any influence on student norms 

or the norms of other campus groups? 

-42-
Managing Program Implementation Effectively

¢ Are social norms interventions more effective on some types of campuses than others? Does type of 

social environment (e.g., a cohesive student body, social leadership roles by certain groups, 

predominantly minority campuses, expensive private schools, commuter schools) influence the 

effectiveness of social norms approaches? 

¢ Does a school’s reputation as a “top party school” affect norms and behavior? 

Minimum Legal Drinking Age

¢ Does MLDA affect alcohol consumption and related problems in college student populations?

¢ How is MLDA enforced on and around campuses? 

¢ What barriers hinder increasing enforcement on campus? 

¢ How does increased MLDA enforcement affect various negative consequences of high-risk college 

student drinking? 

Media Approaches 

¢ How do various media strategies affect college student knowledge, attitudes, and behavior with 

respect to high-risk drinking? 

¢ Is counteradvertising effective in influencing college student norms or behaviors? 

¢ Which media work best for alcohol-related counter advertising aimed at affecting the college student 

population? 

¢ Do campuswide advertising bans contribute to reducing alcohol problems? 

¢ Are media advocacy campaigns effective for college audiences? Are they effective in enhancing other 

environmental efforts? 

Managing Program Implementation Effectively 

¢ What factors make policies and strategies more effective (e.g., enforcement, media coverage, the 

methods used to develop and implement policies, thoroughness of implementation, institutional 

characteristics)? 

¢ What is the most effective role for students to play in formulating and implementing policies and 

programs? Are alcohol policies more effective if they are designed with student input or by 

administrators alone? Does this vary by type of policy? 

-43-
Appendix 2

Typology: A Theoretical Fr tical Fr tical Framework

for Alcohol Prevention I evention I evention Initiatives itiatives itiatives

Appendix 2

Typology: A Theoretical Framework

for Alcohol Prevention Initiatives
APPENDIX 2

TYPOLOGY: A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR

ALCOHOL PREVENTION INITIATIVES

APPENDIX 2

TYPOLOGY: A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR

ALCOHOL PREVENTION INITIATIVES

The U.S. Department of Education’s Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention 

has developed a typology for classifying activities and policies designed to affect college drinking at 

various levels (DeJong et al., 1998). The classification schema includes four types of strategic 

intervention: (1) changing people’s knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions regarding alcohol 

consumption; (2) eliminating or modifying environmental factors that contribute to the problem; (3) 

protecting students from the short-term consequences of alcohol consumption (“health protection” or 

“harm reduction” strategies); and (4) intervening with and treating students who are addicted to alcohol or 

otherwise show evidence of problem drinking. The representation in Table 1 captures the idea that many 

areas of strategic intervention can be pursued at multiple levels. 

_____________________________________________ 

Table 1. Typology Matrix for Mapping Campus and Community Prevention Efforts 

Areas of Strategic Intervention Individual Group Institution Community Policy 

Knowledge, Attitudes, 

Behavioral Intentions 

Educational/Awareness 

Cognitive/Behavioral 

Motivational Enhancement 

Environmental Change 

Activity Options 

Normative Environment 

Alcohol Availability 

Policy/Law Enforcement 

Alcohol Promotion 

Health Protection 

Intervention/Treatment 

Adapted from: DeJong and Langford, 2002 

In addition, research in the general population shows that using multiple interventions aimed at 

various levels increases the likelihood of long-term reductions in alcohol use and alcohol-related 

problems (Bangert-Drowns, 1988; Moskowitz, 1989; Rundall and Bruvold, 1988; Tobler, 1992; Perry and 

Kelder, 1992). Table 1 shows the important interrelationships among alcohol strategies. A broad-based 

approach reflects the finding from general population studies that risk for alcohol problems is a 

continuum, and targeting only alcohol-dependent individuals or those who have had problems in the past 

is not sufficient. In fact, the majority of alcohol-related deaths, disability, and damage is attributable to 

moderate drinkers who engage in occasional risky drinking, not those who are dependent on alcohol 

(Kreitman, 1986; Lemmons, 1995; Saunders, 1959). 

-47-
Selected E Selected E Selected Examples of Complementary Interventio terventio terventions

Subcategories of Environmental Change

Selected Examples of Complementary Interventions 

Three examples illustrate how interventions from various parts of the typology can be combined to 

reinforce and complement one another (DeJong and Langford, 2002). 

1. Targeting knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions at both the individual and group 

levels. At the individual level such activities may work to increase student awareness of alcoholrelated problems, change individual attitudes and beliefs, and foster each student’s determination to 

avoid high-risk drinking and to intervene to protect other students whose alcohol use has put them in 

danger. Typical activities may include educational efforts during freshman orientation, alcohol 

awareness weeks and other special events, and curriculum infusion, where faculty members introduce 

alcohol-related facts and issues into regular academic courses (Ryan and DeJong, 1998). By 

comparison, when this type of strategic intervention focuses on the group, it often uses peer-to-peer 

communication. The largest such program, the BACCHUS/GAMMA Peer Education Network, trains 

volunteer student leaders to implement a variety of awareness and educational programs and to serve 

as role models for other students to emulate. 

2. Sponsoring a health protection initiative at the community, group, and individual levels. A local 

community could decide to establish a “safe rides” program. At the group level, fraternity and 

sorority chapters could vote to require members to sign a pledge not to drink and drive and to use the 

safe rides program instead. At the individual level, a campus-based media campaign (environmental 

strategy) could encourage individual students to use the new service. 

3. Conducting a policy enforcement intervention at the State, community, college, group, and 

individual levels. Increasing the observance and enforcement of the minimum drinking age law 

might involve action at the State level, such as the Alcohol Control Commission increasing the 

number of decoy (or “sting”) operations at local bars and restaurants. At the community level, local 

police could implement a protocol for notifying college officials of all alcohol-related incidents 

involving students. At the college itself, the campus pub could require that all alcohol servers 

complete a training course in responsible beverage service. At the group level, the college might 

require that residential groups and special event planners provide adequate controls to prevent alcohol 

service to underage students. Finally, at the individual level, a media campaign could publicize these 

new policies, the stepped-up enforcement efforts, and the consequences of violating the law. 

Subcategories of Environmental Change 

The Center’s typology also divides the environmental change category into five subcategories of 

strategic interventions: (1) offer and promote social, recreational, extracurricular, and public service 

options that do not include alcohol and other drugs; (2) create a social, academic, and residential 

environment that supports health-promoting norms; (3) limit alcohol availability both on and off campus; 

(4) develop and enforce campus policies and local, State, and Federal laws; and (5) restrict marketing and 

promotion of alcoholic beverages both on and off campus. 

Each of these subcategories involves a wide range of possible strategic interventions. For example, a 

social norms campaign, which operates primarily at the group level, could be enhanced by an alcohol 

screening program that gives individualized feedback to students on their drinking compared to other 

students on campus (Marlatt et al., 1998). Or community leaders might foster the creation of new 

businesses that can provide alcohol-free recreational options for students. Simultaneously, college 

officials might work with local school boards to plan and conduct complementary social norms activities 

in secondary schools. 

-48-
Appendix 3

Responses to Arguments

Against the Minimum Legal Drinking Age

Appendix 3

Responses to Arguments

Against the Minimum Legal Drinking Age
APPENDIX 3

RESPONSES TO ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE

MINIMUM LEGAL DRINKING AGE

APPENDIX 3

RESPONSES TO ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE

MINIMUM LEGAL DRINKING AGE

Despite an abundance of research demonstrating the effectiveness of the age 21 MLDA in 

reducing youth drinking and alcohol-related problems, a few States are again considering 

lowering their legal age limits for drinking. Many issues and arguments heard decades ago are 

resurfacing, and many are similar to arguments college administrators hear against campus 

policies to discourage high-risk alcohol use. Following is a summary of possible responses to 

these arguments, suggested in the research review on MLDA commissioned by the Panel 

(Wagenaar and Toomey, 2002). 

Issue: “Establishing a legal drinking age of 21 is unconstitutional age discrimination.”

Response: This question has been treated in detail in two court cases, one in Michigan, the other

in Louisiana. In both instances, the courts upheld the constitutionality of the laws, based in part

on the demonstrated value of age 21 laws in preventing traffic crashes.

Issue: “If I’m old enough to go to war, I should be old enough to drink.”

Response: Many rights have different ages of initiation. A person can obtain a hunting license at

age 12, driver’s license at age 16, vote and serve in the military at 18, serve in the U.S. House of

Representatives at age 25 and in the U.S. Senate at age 30, and run for President at age 35. Other

rights that are regulated include the sale and use of tobacco and legal consent for sexual

intercourse and marriage. The minimum age for initiation is based on the specific behaviors

involved and must take into account the dangers and benefits of that behavior at a given age. The

age 21 policy for alcohol takes into account the fact that underage drinking is related to numerous

serious health problems, including injuries and death resulting from car crashes, suicide,

homicide, assault, drowning, and recreational injuries. In fact, the leading cause of death among

teens is car crashes, and alcohol is involved in approximately a third of these deaths.

Issue: “Europeans let their teens drink from an early age, yet they don’t have the alcohol-related

problems we do. What we need are fewer restrictions, not more.”

Response: The idea that Europeans do not have alcohol-related problems is a myth. European

youth may be at less risk of traffic crashes since youth drive less frequently in Europe than in the

United States. However, European countries have similar or higher rates of other alcohol-related

problems compared to those in the United States.

Issue: “Lower rates of alcohol-related crashes among 19- to 20-year-olds aren’t related to the age

21 policy, but rather they’re related to increased drinking-driving education efforts, tougher

enforcement, and tougher drunk-driving penalties.”

Response: When the age 21 restriction was initiated, alcohol-involved highway crashes declined

immediately (i.e., starting the next month) among the 18- to 20-year-old population. Careful

research has shown the decline was not due to DUI enforcement and tougher DUI penalties, but is

a direct result of the legal drinking age. Studies have also shown that education alone is not

effective in reducing youth drinking. Achieving long-term reductions in youth drinking problems

requires an environmental change so that alcohol is less accessible to teens.

-51-
Issue: “Making it illegal to drink until 21 just increases the desire for the ‘forbidden fruit.’ Then,

when students turn 21, they’ll drink even more.”

Response: Actually, the opposite is true. Early legal access to alcohol is associated with higher

rates of drinking as an adult.

Issue: “Who will pay for enforcement of these laws? The age 21 law is too expensive.”

Response: We already pay large portions of our tax dollars for problems resulting from alcohol.

For example, in Minnesota, cities use approximately one-third of their police budgets to deal with

alcohol-related problems; the U.S. pays more than $10 billion annually just for the costs

associated with drunk driving. The higher drinking age saves money by resulting in fewer

alcohol-related health problems, fewer alcohol-related injuries, and less vandalism.

Issue: “We drank when we were young and we grew out of it. It’s just a phase that all students go

through.”

Response: Unfortunately, many teens will not “grow out of it.” Studies indicate that youth who

start drinking before they are 21 are more likely to drink heavily later in life. Those who do not

drink until age 21 tend to drink less as adults. Teens who drink are also more likely to try other

illegal drugs and to become victims of crime. If teen drinking is accepted as normal behavior,

youth will continue to experience car crashes, other injuries, early unprotected sex, and other

problems commonly associated with drinking.

Issue: “If students can’t get alcohol, they’ll just switch to other, perhaps even more dangerous,

drugs.”

Response: Research shows that the opposite is true; teens who drink and/or smoke are more

likely to move on to use other drugs. Preventing youth from using alcohol and tobacco reduces

the chance that they will try other illegal drugs. Moreover, when the drinking age was raised to

21, and teen drinking declined, there was no evidence of a compensatory increase in other drug

use.

-52-