Experiences

Effective

Prevention

Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention 

Models on College Campuses Grants

in

The U.S. Department of Education’s
iv | Experiences in Effective Prevention
Experiences in Effective Prevention | i

William DeJong

 Boston University School of Public Health and Higher 

Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and 

Violence Prevention 

Jerry Anderson

Tom Colthurst

Laurie Davidson

Linda M. Langford

Virginia L. Mackay-Smith

Barbara Ryan

Helen Stubbs

 Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and 

Violence Prevention

A publication of the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug 

Abuse and Violence Prevention

Funded by the U.S. Department of Education

Experiences

Effective

Prevention

Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention 

Models on College Campuses Grants

in

The U.S. Department of Education’s
This publication was funded by the Offi ce of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education under contract number ED-04-CO-0137 with Education Development Center, Inc. The contracting 

offi cer’s representative was Richard Lucey, Jr. The content of this publication does not necessarily refl ect 

the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Education, nor does the mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. government. This publication also contains hyperlinks and 

URLs for information created and maintained by private organizations. This information is provided for the reader’s convenience. The U.S. Department of Education is not responsible for controlling or guaranteeing the accuracy, 

relevance, timeliness, or completeness of this outside information. Further, the inclusion of information or a hyperlink or URL does not refl ect the importance of the organization, nor is it intended to endorse any views expressed 

or products or services offered.

U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings

Secretary 

Offi ce of Safe and Drug-Free Schools

Deborah A. Price

Assistant Deputy Secretary

August 2007

This publication is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of 

Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention, 

Experiences in Effective Prevention: The U.S. Department of Education’s Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Models on College Campuses Grants, Washington, D.C., 2007.

To order copies of this publication,

write to: The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention

Education Development Center, Inc.

55 Chapel Street

Newton, MA 02458-1060

or call: 1-800-676-1730; TDD Relay-friendly, Dial 711

or fax: 617-928-1537

or e-mail: HigherEdCtr@edc.org

This publication and other resources are available on the Web site for the U.S. Department of Education’s Higher 

Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention: http://www.higheredcenter.org.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 

diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-260-9895 or 

202-205-8113.

iv | Experiences in Effective Prevention
Contents

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................vi 

Acknowledgments .........................................................................................................vii

Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................1

 Lessons From the Model Program Grants ................................................................................................................. 1

 Challenges of Program Replication ............................................................................................................................ 2

 Overview of the Report ............................................................................................................................................... 3

 References ....................................................................................................................................................................4

Chapter 2: Recent Advances in Campus-Based Prevention ...........................................5

 Scope of the Problem .................................................................................................................................................. 5

 Comprehensive Approach to Prevention ................................................................................................................... 7

 Prevention Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................................... 10

 Moving Forward ..........................................................................................................................................................11

 References .................................................................................................................................................................. 12

Chapter 3: An Overview of the 1999–2004 Model Program Grants ...........................15

 A Typology of Campus-Based Prevention Programs .............................................................................................. 16

 The 1999 Model Programs ........................................................................................................................................ 19

 The 2000 Model Programs ....................................................................................................................................... 21

 The 2001 Model Programs ........................................................................................................................................ 23

 The 2004 Model Programs ...................................................................................................................................... 25

 Overview of Model Program Activities ...................................................................................................................26

 References .................................................................................................................................................................. 32

Chapter 4: Lessons on Program Development .............................................................35

 1. Exercising Leadership ............................................................................................................................................ 35

 2. Building Coalitions ................................................................................................................................................ 40

 3. Choosing Evidence-Based Programs ................................................................................................................... 45

 References .................................................................................................................................................................. 51

Chapter 5: Lessons on Program Implementation .........................................................55

 1. Implementing Strategic Planning ......................................................................................................................... 55

 2. Conducting a Program Evaluation ........................................................................................................................62

 3. Working Toward Sustainability ............................................................................................................................. 65

 4. Taking the Long View ............................................................................................................................................68

 References ..................................................................................................................................................................69

Resources .......................................................................................................................73

Appendix 1: Site Visit Interview Protocol .....................................................................78

Appendix 2: Characteristics of 22 Institutions of Higher Education With U.S. 

Department of Education Model Programs (1999–2004) ......................................... 80

 Experiences in Effective Prevention | v
Figures

1. Typology Matrix of Program and Policy Options for Campus-Based Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse 

Prevention and Treatment ........................................................................................................................................... 18

2. Indicators of Constructive Mobilization and Engagement for AOD Abuse Prevention Coalitions ........................47

3. The Strategic Planning Process ................................................................................................................................... 58

4. Social Norms Marketing Campaign Logic Model ...................................................................................................... 61

vi | Experiences in Effective Prevention
Acknowledgments

This publication summarizes current thinking in the fi eld about the elements of effective campus-based alcohol 

and other drug (AOD) abuse prevention, based on the experiences of 22 grantee institutions funded from 1999 to 

2004 by the U.S. Department of Education’s Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Models on College Campuses Grants

program.

Several staff members of the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention led site visits to the grantee institutions: Jerry Anderson, Tom Colthurst, Laurie Davidson, Linda M. Langford, 

Virginia L. Mackay-Smith, Barbara Ryan, and Helen Stubbs.

Each staff member was accompanied on site by an outside expert on campus-based AOD abuse prevention. We 

thank these individuals both for the professionalism they brought to this work and for their several contributions 

to our thinking about important lessons learned:

 • Spencer Deakin, Frostburg State University

 • Paul Dexter, University of Southern Maine

 • Rick Gant, University of South Carolina 

 • Jennifer Haubenreiser, Montana State University—Bozeman

 • Mary Hill, formerly of West Texas A&M University

 • Becky Ireland, Maine Higher Education Alcohol Prevention Project

 • Patricia Ketcham, Oregon State University

 • Carla Lapelle, Marshall University

 • Sally Linowski, University of Massachusetts Amherst

 • Julie Manchester, Ohio Drug-Free Action Alliance

 • Sarah Mart, University of San Francisco

 • Rebecca Matusovich, Maine Offi ce of Substance Abuse

 • Kristy Miller, Louisiana State University—Baton Rouge

 • John Pryor, Dartmouth College

 • Riley Venable, Texas Southern University

 • Nancy Wahlig, University of California, San Diego

 • Beth Welbes, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

 • Katrin Wesner, University of North Carolina Wilmington

Brian Dietz of Ball State University, along with site visit experts Spencer Deakin, Mary Hill, and Katrin Wesner, reviewed an earlier draft and offered many helpful suggestions. Consultants Deb Walker of Northern State University 

in South Dakota and Evan Norris of the University of Wisconsin discussed with us and helped refi ne many of the 

ideas presented in this publication.

 Experiences in Effective Prevention | vii
viii | Experiences in Effective Prevention

Several other Higher Education Center staff members contributed to the publication as well. Laurie Davidson 

deserves special mention due to her yeoman’s work in coordinating the site visit project, planning the visits to the 

models grantees’ campuses, recruiting the expert site visitors, and designing the interview protocols. She was also 

a principal contributor in developing the concept and design of this book, which relies heavily on her vision. Beth 

DeRicco and Kellie Anderson served as internal reviewers. Anne McAuliffe managed the review and production 

process with her usual high level of organization and attention to detail. Sarah Carroll of Creative Services at Education Development Center, Inc., which operates the Higher Education Center on behalf of the U.S. Department of 

Education, helped develop the design and then executed the layout for this publication.

We extend particular acknowledgment to Deborah Price, William Modzeleski, and Charlotte Gillespie, senior leadership of the U.S. Department of Education’s Offi ce of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS), for their support of 

this grant program.

We also thank Richard Lucey, Jr., a program specialist in OSDFS and the contracting offi cer’s representative (COR) 

for the Higher Education Center contract, and Kimberly Light, an OSDFS program specialist who for many years 

guided the model programs selection and awards process, for their leadership and steadfast support for this 

effort and for their many contributions to our thinking about effective campus-based prevention. OSDFS’s Paul 

Kesner, Vera Messina, and Ruth Tringo also provided valuable ideas about what they hoped the publication would 

accomplish.

Finally, and most important, we are especially grateful to the project directors and key stakeholders at the institutions of higher education we visited for taking the time to brief us not only on what they were doing but also on 

how and why they were doing it. The work these campuses are undertaking is among the best in the nation, and 

we feel privileged to be able to tell their stories.
For underage youths, the prevention goal is 

to sustain abstinence from alcohol and other 

drugs. The prevention goal for adults can be 

moderate use, as with alcohol; restricted 

medical use, as with prescription drugs; or 

abstinence, as with illicit drugs. Prevention 

work that targets an entire population is 

called universal prevention. Selected prevention, or intervention, focuses on early detection and reduction of alcohol and other drug 

(AOD) problems 

among individual 

substance users, 

with the goal of 

preventing further 

misuse. Indicated 

prevention focuses 

on preventing the 

progression of 

AOD problems associated with established patterns 

of substance use 

or addiction.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Offi ce of Safe and DrugFree Schools (OSDFS) has worked for many years to improve 

the scientifi c basis and quality of work in campus-based alcohol 

and other drug (AOD) abuse prevention programs. Historically, 

program and policy development was guided largely by conventional wisdom, tradition, or rote imitation, and very little evaluation research was done to learn what worked best. In contrast, 

it is now standard practice to use strategies and tactics that 

are supported by theory, prior research, and informed program 

experience.1 

Lessons From the Model Program Grants

In response to ongoing concern about unacceptable levels of 

AOD use on campuses, in 1998 Congress authorized the Department to identify and promote effective prevention through a 

model grants program. In 1999, OSDFS launched an important 

component of the Department’s efforts to advance best practices, the Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Models on College 

Campuses Grants.3

The program’s goal is to move the fi eld toward more effective 

practice. Applying institutions are required to describe an innovative program or policy that was integrated into a comprehensive AOD abuse prevention effort, to provide evidence that the 

initiative was effective in reducing AOD-related problems, and to 

propose a work plan for encouraging replication of their efforts. 

Each grantee institution receives funding to maintain, improve, 

and further evaluate its efforts and to disseminate information 

to other campuses where the program might be replicated. 

A total of 22 institutions received awards under this initiative in 

1999, 2000, 2001, and 2004. Congress did not fund the program in 2002 or 2003. Additional institutions received awards in 

2005 and 2006; fi ndings from those two cohorts are not yet fully 

known. One grant was awarded in fi scal year 2007. Each campus 

has publicized its work in the usual ways—presenting at conferences, sponsoring workshops, and distributing brochures and 

other materials. The agenda for OSDFS’s annual National Meeting on Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention in 

Chapter 1: Introduction

According to the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans issued by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture 

and the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, moderate alcohol use 

means no more than one 

drink per day for women 

and two drinks per day for 

men.2

 Alcohol consumption should be avoided by 

individuals who cannot 

restrict their alcohol intake; 

women who may become 

pregnant, are pregnant, or 

are lactating; children and 

adolescents; individuals 

taking medications that 

can interact with alcohol; 

and those with specifi c 

medical conditions.

In a similar effort, the Center for Substance 

Abuse Prevention (CSAP), located in the 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration (SAMHSA), has assembled a National Registry of Evidencebased Programs and Practices (NREPP).4

Designated model programs include the 

Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention 

for College Students (BASICS) and the 

University of Arizona’s Challenging College 

Alcohol Abuse (CCAA).

 Experiences in Effective Prevention | 1
2 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

Higher Education includes a session for the newest grantees to present on their activities.

The primary purpose of this publication is to examine these model programs in order to discover broader 

lessons for AOD prevention practitioners and thereby move the fi eld toward more effective prevention. 

Our aim is not merely to describe the model programs 

but also to explore the general principles and processes 

by which the grantees successfully implemented their 

programs, policies, and interventions.

Under the direction of OSDFS, the U.S. Department 

of Education’s Higher Education Center for Alcohol 

and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention conducted site visits in March and April 2005 for 20 of the 

1999–2004 model programs. Center staff conducted 

a telephone interview with one campus where the model program is no longer in operation. One campus 

declined to participate. A Center staff member and an outside expert knowledgeable in campus AOD 

abuse prevention conducted each site visit, which featured structured interviews with the project director and key campus and community stakeholders.

The interview questions focused on how campuses implemented their programs, policies, and interventions. For example: What problems did they address, and how were they identifi ed? How were stakeholders engaged to address the problem? How did the project directors exercise leadership and what roles 

did specifi c stakeholders play during each project phase? How were goals set? How were the program 

elements chosen, and how did they complement other efforts already in place to create a comprehensive 

and well-integrated effort? What challenges did they face and how did they address them? What did it 

take to implement, evaluate, and sustain a successful program? Appendix 1 (see p. 78) presents the full 

set of questions asked of the campus-based project directors.

Challenges of Program Replication

A common misunderstanding about model program initiatives concerns the issue of replication. Policymakers, administrators, and funding agencies are sometimes disappointed to learn that prevention 

programs designated as models are not more quickly duplicated by other practitioners. Actually, this 

gap should not be surprising, and it should perhaps 

be welcomed.

The reason is simple: each campus faces a unique set of 

circumstances with distinctive problems, challenges, and 

opportunities. To be successful, a prevention program 

must be tailored to meet both the needs and available 

resources of a particular campus. Accordingly, the decision to replicate a model program is best made in the context of a thoughtful strategic planning process. 

Having chosen a model program, practitioners will want to replicate its core elements, but they will also 

The decision to replicate a 

model program is best made in 

the context of a thoughtful 

strategic planning process.

Although more is known than ever 

before about what works in campus 

AOD prevention, how administrators 

can translate this knowledge 

into practice most effectively is 

less clear.
want to modify it, sometimes dramatically, to meet the unique needs or requirements of their own campus. In the end, the way in which a successful strategy is implemented will differ from one site to another. 

This reality underscores the importance of examining the process by which successful prevention advocates approach the strategic planning process to develop, implement, and evaluate a comprehensive and 

well-integrated AOD abuse prevention program. During the interviews, staff also asked the project directors how they selected among evidence-based programs and how they adapted them to fi t their campus.

This publication is the product of that investigation.

Overview of the Report

There are several audiences that may fi nd this publication useful as they develop, implement, and evaluate their own campus-based prevention programs, policies, and interventions: (1) senior administrators 

who initiate, supervise, and support prevention program development efforts; (2) prevention program 

coordinators who have day-to-day responsibility for organizing and improving a comprehensive initiative; 

(3) campus task force and campus and community coalition members who contribute to the development 

process; and (4) management and staff in key campus departments and community agencies who will 

contribute their time and skills to the overall prevention effort. 

The remaining chapters are organized as follows:

Chapter 2, “Recent Advances in Campus-Based 

Prevention,” describes the scope of the campus AOD 

abuse problem based on recent survey data, outlines 

the U.S. Department of Education’s environmental 

management approach to prevention, and reviews 

the implications of recent research on effective 

prevention practice.

Chapter 3, “An Overview of the 1999–2004 Model 

Program Grants,” provides a brief description of each model program, introduces a typology for AOD programs and policies, and then categorizes the program activities according to that typology.

Both chapter 4 and chapter 5 highlight the key elements of strategic planning that contributed to the 

effectiveness of the 22 model programs. Chapter 4, “Lessons on Program Development,” describes key 

lessons learned from the model program grants on exercising leadership, building collaborations, and 

choosing evidence-based programs. Chapter 5, “Lessons on Program Implementation,” describes key lessons learned on implementing strategic planning, conducting an evaluation, and working toward sustainability. This section concludes with a refl ection on a fi nal lesson, the need to take the long view.

It should be noted that all 22 model programs are based at four-year institutions. Even so, administrators 

and staff based at two-year institutions will fi nd that the review of strategic planning elements 

will provide helpful guidance as they think about how to improve their own alcohol and other drug 

prevention efforts.

When readers learn about a model 

program and think they should try 

it on their campus, this publication 

can serve as an introduction to the 

key principles of effective program 

development that should guide 

their efforts.

Introduction | 3
4 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

The “Resources” section offers readers wishing to consult additional resource materials a list of key organizations, Web sites, and publications. Other supplemental resources are available on the Web site of the 

U.S. Department of Education’s Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence 

Prevention (http://www.higheredcenter.org), which frequently posts new materials.

This publication presents program and policy ideas for effective prevention, and readers will want to consider them carefully as they develop and refi ne their own prevention plans. Throughout, readers should 

also keep in mind that no model program can be brought into a new campus without careful consideration of how it should be adapted to fi t the needs of the campus, in conjunction with other aspects of the 

institution’s prevention efforts.

References

1. Langford, L., and DeJong, W. Strategic Planning for Prevention Professionals on Campus (Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence 

Prevention). In review.

2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans, 2005. Available at http://www.healthierus.gov/dietaryguidelines. (Accessed on June 21, 2006.)

3. U.S. Department of Education, Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Models on College Campuses. Available at http://

www.ed.gov/programs/dvpcollege/index.html. (Accessed on June 21, 2006.)

4. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

SAMHSA Model Programs. Available at http://www.modelprograms.samhsa.gov/model.htm. (Accessed on June 5, 

2007.)
 Experiences in Effective Prevention | 5

The model programs selected by the U.S. Department of Education were designated during a time of great innovation in campusbased prevention. Public awareness of the problem was heightened by the publication of several national surveys, which for the 

fi rst time defi ned the scope of the problem quantitatively and created news headlines. Inspired by the drunken driving prevention 

movement, with its focus on policy and enforcement approaches, 

college offi cials began to experiment with a broad set of environmental management strategies (see p. 7) to prevent underage 

and excessive alcohol consumption.1 And with guidance from 

the U.S. Department of Education’s Higher Education Center for 

Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention, several 

campus offi cials also began to build their campus and community 

infrastructure for effective strategic planning.

Scope of the Problem

Substance Use on Campus

Underage and excessive drinking by college students has long 

been recognized as a major problem in American higher education. Every responsibility held by academic leaders—protecting 

student health and safety, creating a vibrant learning environment with strong academic standards, maintaining good working 

relationships with the community, preserving the institution’s 

fi scal integrity, and building its reputation for excellence—is 

made more challenging by the culture of drinking that exists on 

many college and university campuses.4

How much do today’s students drink? National surveys typically 

have found that about two in fi ve U.S. undergraduates engage 

in heavy episodic drinking, which is usually defi ned as “having 

fi ve or more drinks in a row at least once in a two-week period.”9

About half of these heavy drinkers, or about one in fi ve students 

overall, reported drinking at this level three or more times within 

the previous two weeks.10

About 6 percent of undergraduates are alcohol-dependent.11

Alarmingly, one national survey found that the percentage of 

students at four-year institutions who said they drink “to get 

Chapter 2: Recent Advances in Campus-Based 

Prevention

In 1989, the Carnegie Foundation 

for the Advancement of Teaching2

reported that two-thirds of college 

and university presidents surveyed 

rated alcohol abuse a “moderate” 

or “major” problem on their campus. A Call to Action, a report issued 

in 2002 by the NIAAA’s Task Force 

on College Drinking, described abusive drinking by college students 

as “widespread, dangerous, and 

disruptive.”3

The best-known national survey, the Harvard 

School of Public Health College Alcohol Study 

(CAS), defi nes heavy drinking as “fi ve or 

more drinks 

in a row for 

men and four 

or more drinks 

in a row for 

women.”5 The 

most recent 

CAS found that 

49 percent 

of men and 

41 percent of 

women attending four-year 

colleges and 

universities reported drinking at these 

levels during 

the previous 

two weeks.6

The CAS researchers refer to 

this level of drinking as “binge 

drinking.” Critics have noted 

that this defi nition does not 

specify a time during which the 

alcohol is consumed “in a row,” 

nor does it take into account 

the drinker’s body weight.7 For 

this reason, NIAAA now defi nes 

“binge drinking” as a “pattern 

of drinking alcohol that brings 

blood alcohol concentration 

(BAC) to 0.08 percent or above. 

For the typical adult, this pattern corresponds to consuming 

5 or more drinks (male), or 4 or 

more drinks (female), in about 

2 hours.”8

CAS assessed over 14,000 students against 

diagnostic criteria for alcohol dependence, as defi ned by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of 

Mental Disorders-IV.12 Frequencies of dependence 

based in the criteria were as follows: symptoms 

of tolerance: 17 percent; drinking more or longer 

than initially planned: 15 percent; drinking despite 

physical or psychological problems: 8 percent; 

spending a lot of time on drinking-related activities: 7 percent; and symptoms of withdrawal: less 

than 2 percent.13
6 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

drunk” climbed from 40 percent in 1993 to 48 

percent in 2001.14

Underage drinking is a big part of the problem. 

Students under age 21 tend to drink on fewer 

occasions than their older peers, but they 

drink more per occasion and have more alcoholrelated problems than students of legal drinking age. Underage students also report that 

alcohol is easy to obtain, usually at little or 

no cost.15

Other drug use on campus is less frequent than 

abusive drinking but remains a signifi cant concern for administrators. In the year 2004, one-third of full-time college students used 

marijuana on at least one occasion; 19 percent used other illicit 

drugs.17 The most frequently used illicit drugs were narcotics other 

than heroin (8 percent); amphetamines, cocaine, and tranquilizers 

(7 percent each); hallucinogens (6 percent); Ritalin (5 percent); and 

barbiturates (4 percent). Several drugs featured in news accounts 

at the time were actually used by relatively few college students: 

methamphetamine, 3 percent; MDMA/ecstasy, 2 percent; crystal 

methamphetamine, 1 percent; LSD, 1 percent; and heroin, less than 

1 percent.18

The Toll of Student Drinking

Students’ use of alcohol causes signifi cant negative consequences, 

both on campus and in the surrounding community. 

More than 1,700 college students aged 18 to 24 died in 2001 from 

alcohol-related unintentional injuries. Nearly 80 percent of those 

deaths were associated with driving after drinking. That same year, 

over 31 percent of college students in this age group reported that 

they had driven under the infl uence of alcohol in the past year, up 

from 26 percent in 1998. Just over 10 percent of college students said 

they were injured because of drinking, and 8 percent had engaged in 

unprotected sexual intercourse because of their drinking.19

Students who drink heavily are less likely to succeed academically. 

Having a lower grade-point average is strongly associated with 

higher levels of alcohol consumption.21 Overall, about one-fourth 

of college students report academic problems caused by alcohol 

use, such as earning lower grades, doing poorly on exams or papers, 

“The relative scarcity of headlines about 

college drinking belies an important fact: 

the consequences of excessive college 

drinking are more widespread and destructive than most people realize.”

—A Call to Action: Changing the Culture of 

Drinking at U.S. Colleges, p.1.16

One national survey reported that 

students with an A average consumed 

an average of 3.4 drinks per week, 

while B-average students consumed 

4.5 drinks, C-average students 

6.1 drinks, and D or F students 9.8 

drinks.20
missing class, and falling behind in their studies.22 College administrators state that large numbers of 

students drop out each year because drinking interfered with their studies.23

Alcohol abuse has profound consequences for the entire student body, not just for the drinkers themselves. In one national survey, students at four-year institutions reported several negative consequences 

caused by their peers’ alcohol consumption: 60 percent of the survey respondents had their study or 

sleep interrupted; 48 percent had to take care of an alcohol-impaired student; 29 percent were insulted 

or humiliated; 19 percent had a serious argument or quarrel; 15 percent had property damaged; and 9 

percent were pushed, hit, or assaulted.24 By current estimates, more than 600,000 students aged 18 to 

24 are hit or assaulted by another drinking student each year, while 97,000 are victims of alcohol-related 

sexual assault or date rape.25

Residents living near college and university campuses also experience negative consequences. People 

living within one mile of a campus are much more likely to report alcohol-related noise and disturbances, 

vandalism, public drunkenness, litter, and vomit or urination on their property than are those living farther away from the institution.26 These problems put an enormous strain on campus-community relations.

Comprehensive Approach to Prevention

Historically, campus offi cials have focused much of their prevention effort on three areas of strategic 

intervention: (1) changing people’s knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions regarding substance 

use (e.g., awareness programs, peer education); (2) protecting students from short-term consequences 

(“health protection” strategies, such as safe ride or designated driver programs); and (3) intervening 

with and treating students with substance use problems.27 This work, while vitally important, does little 

to change the campus and community environment in which students make decisions about substance 

use, thus leaving intact the conditions that drive the problem and virtually ensuring that it continues.

Spurred by concerns about student drinking, campus administrators have begun to embrace environmental management, a broader approach to prevention that focuses on environmental change, to reduce both 

the appeal and availability of alcohol and other drugs.28 The environmental management approach was 

endorsed by a recent National Academies report on underage drinking, which urged residential colleges 

and universities to “adopt comprehensive prevention approaches including environmental changes that 

limit underage access to alcohol.”29

 

Environmental Management

There are fi ve environmental management strategies, each of which focuses on a specifi c problem in 

typical college environments. Each strategy involves multiple program and policy options for administrators to consider.30

1. Offer and promote social, recreational, extracurricular, and public service options that do not include 

alcohol and other drugs. 

Substance use should not be the easiest and most readily available social and recreational option. Many 

campus administrators are now investing additional resources to create and promote substance-free 

Recent Advances in Campus-Based Prevention | 7
8 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

events and activities; provide greater fi nancial support to 

substance-free student clubs and organizations; open or expand a student center, gym, or other substance-free settings; 

and develop student service learning or volunteer activities. 

2. Create a social, academic, and residential environment 

that supports health-promoting norms. 

At every opportunity, campus offi cials must state clearly 

their fi rm expectations that students will not engage in illegal alcohol and other drug (AOD) use. Additional options 

for conveying health-promoting norms include modifying the 

academic schedule to increase the number of early morning 

and Friday classes, increasing academic standards so that 

students will need to spend additional time studying out 

of class, increasing faculty-student contact, and improving 

faculty-student mentoring.

Social norms marketing campaigns are designed to convey 

accurate information about student alcohol use in order to 

counter widespread misperceptions of campus drinking 

norms and thereby drive down consumption.31 Several colleges and universities have reported success using campuswide media campaigns, with student surveys revealing both 

more accurate perceptions of actual drinking behavior on 

campus and decreases in reported heavy episodic drinking.32

Randomized control trials to examine the effect of social 

norms marketing are currently under way. 

3. Limit the availability of alcohol and other drugs both on 

and off campus.

Campus offi cials can enforce policies that limit the times and 

places that alcohol is available to students on campus. Key 

strategies include prohibiting delivery or use of kegs or other 

common containers for alcohol, controlling or eliminating 

alcohol sales at sporting events, and disseminating and 

enforcing guidelines for all registered student parties. 

Community-based strategies include limiting both the 

number of alcohol outlets near campus and the days or 

hours of alcohol sales, eliminating low-cost promotions, 

requiring alcohol outlets to register keg rentals, prohibiting 

home delivery of alcohol purchases, and implementing 

responsible beverage service (RBS) training programs. 

RBS entails (1) checking age identifi cation 

of customers who appear under age 30, (2) 

identifying fake IDs and turning them over 

to police, (3) discouraging adults of legal age 

from attempting to buy alcohol for underage individuals, (4) identifying customers 

who are or may become intoxicated, and 

(5) refusing alcohol service to underage or 

intoxicated customers.33
Vigorous federal, state, and local enforcement efforts are already 

in place to reduce the supply of illicit drugs. Campus offi cials can 

work with law enforcement agencies to identify where students 

are getting illicit drugs and then take action by arresting and 

prosecuting dealers.

4. Restrict marketing and promotion of alcohol and other drugs.

Campus offi cials have wide latitude to restrict or ban alcohol 

advertising on campus and to limit the content of party or event 

announcements. Likewise, they can prohibit on-campus advertising of rave clubs and related events where club drug use may 

be encouraged or tolerated. Student party announcements that 

allude to illicit drug use can similarly be forbidden. Off-campus, 

campus and community offi cials can work together to eliminate 

alcohol promotions that offer low-priced drink specials or otherwise promote high-risk drinking.

5. Develop and enforce campus policies and enforce local, state, 

and federal laws.

Campus administrators should authorize and encourage 

campus police to work in partnership with local law enforcement agencies to uphold campus policies and applicable local, 

state, and federal laws. The campus should never be viewed as 

an enclave that protects students from the consequences of their 

illegal behavior. 

Statutes of particular concern to college students include laws 

that prohibit the distribution or possession of illegal drugs, alcohol possession by minors, providing alcohol to minors, alcoholimpaired driving, and neighborhood disturbances.

After reviewing the scientifi c literature, the National Institute 

on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) Task Force on College 

Drinking also recommended that campus and other local offi -

cials focus on restricting the density of alcohol retail outlets and 

increasing prices and excise taxes on alcoholic beverages.36

Research supports this environmental management approach. A 

recent evaluation of 10 campus and community coalitions found 

small but signifi cant decreases in student alcohol use and related 

problems at the fi ve campuses that implemented the greatest 

number of environmental change strategies, compared with 

control group campuses.37

Another recent study found that students attending college in 

By 1988, all 50 states had enacted a law mandating 21 as the minimum drinking age. While 

some college administrators have argued in 

favor of lowering the legal drinking age, the 

preponderance of evidence consistently shows 

that these laws have signifi cantly reduced alcohol consumption and the resultant deaths and 

injuries due to motor vehicle crashes involving 

young people under 21.34 

All 50 states have also passed “zero tolerance” laws that specify a lower per se

limit for drivers under age 21, typically .02 

percent BAC. The law’s deterrent effect 

is undermined, however, by the fact that 

most undergraduate students are unaware 

that a lower BAC limit applies to minors.35

Recent Advances in Campus-Based Prevention | 9
10 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

seven states each with four or more laws designed to reduce 

high-volume alcohol consumption reported a lower rate of heavy 

drinking (33 percent) than for students in other states (48 percent). Relevant state statutes included a .08 percent per se law; 

mandated keg registration; and restrictions on “happy hours,” 

beer sold in pitchers, open containers, and billboards and other 

types of alcohol advertising.38

Targeting Individual Students

While strongly reinforcing the view that college administrators 

should take an active role in monitoring and reshaping the environmental factors that affect student drinking, the NIAAA Task 

Force also noted the importance of targeting individual students 

who are identifi ed as problem, at-risk, or alcohol-dependent 

drinkers.39 Required here are strategies to engage these students 

in appropriate screening and intervention services.40

A program called BASICS (Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students), for example, uses two brief motivational interview sessions to give students feedback about their 

drinking and provide them with an opportunity to craft a plan for 

reducing their alcohol consumption.41 Researchers are investigating Web site–based screening tools with computerized feedback as a means of implementing this type of brief intervention 

program on a larger scale.42 

Prevention Infrastructure 

Moving forward with a comprehensive prevention agenda 

requires a layered infrastructure. On 

campus, there needs to be a permanent 

task force that represents several important constituencies, including key administrative staff, faculty, and students, and 

that reports directly to the president. 

To facilitate prevention work in the 

surrounding community, campus offi cials need to participate in a campus 

and community coalition. The coalition’s 

membership must be broad and include 

such groups as neighborhood residents, the business community, 

Basic to the success of any program to prevent alcohol and other drug abuse among 

college students is the need to ensure the 

widespread involvement of key stakeholders—

including students, faculty members, alumni, 

and community members—in the program’s design and implementation. 

A per se law specifi es that anyone driving 

with a BAC of a certain limit or higher is by 

defi nition alcohol-impaired. Per se means of, 

in, or by itself.
public health agencies, health care providers, faith-based institutions, law enforcement, and substance abuse treatment agencies. Both the NIAAA Task Force43 and the National Academies44

endorsed campus and community coalitions as the primary 

vehicle for pursuing this prevention agenda. 

Action at the state level, including the development and operation of multiple campus and community coalitions and the development of state-level policy, can be fostered through campus 

membership in a statewide association of academic prevention 

leaders.45 A study conducted in Illinois, Ohio, and Maine found 

that campuses working with their statewide initiative were more 

likely than other campuses to implement a campus task force, a 

campus and community coalition, and a strategic plan to address 

AOD abuse prevention. In turn, such campuses were signifi cantly 

more likely than campuses unaffi liated with a statewide initiative to implement or plan several environmental prevention 

programs and policies.47

The key to implementing successful programs and policies is a 

strategic planning process that builds on the collaborative foundation created by this layered infrastructure.48 A good planning 

process will result in a well-designed needs assessment that can 

provide baseline data for the evaluation; the selection of policies and programs with demonstrated effectiveness or a solid 

foundation in behavior change theory; precisely stated goals and 

objectives, which allow measurable outcomes to be specifi ed; 

a summary of the prevention initiative that links each program 

and policy to specifi c objectives; and the marshalling of adequate 

resources to ensure full implementation of the program plan.

Moving Forward

The foregoing summarized research about the most effective approaches to reducing student alcohol and other drug problems—

coupled with a growing understanding of coalition development 

and strategic planning principles—should give college and 

university offi cials great hope for the future. The U.S. Department of Education’s model programs provide many valuable lessons on the conditions that facilitate evidence-based prevention 

work. Following their lead, campus offi cials, working with their 

community counterparts, can make great strides in the quest to 

prevent AOD abuse on college campuses.

Campuses working with their statewide 

initiative were signifi cantly more likely than 

other campuses to implement the following 

programs and policies, which are consistent 

with the environmental management

approach:

• Increasing the number of alcohol-free 

residential units

• Expanding and promoting volunteer opportunities for students

• Requiring on-campus functions to be 

registered

• Educating sellers and servers about potential legal liability

• Instituting RBS training programs

• Requiring use of registered and trained 

alcohol servers

• Increasing disciplinary sanctions for 

alcohol- and other drug-related offenses

• Increasing police monitoring and patrols 

near on-campus parties

• Increasing police monitoring and patrols 

near off-campus parties 

Recent Advances in Campus-Based Prevention | 11

A strategic plan is a necessary early step in 

building an effective prevention program.46
12 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

References

1. DeJong, W. Alcohol and Other Drug Policies for Colleges and Universities: A Guide for Administrators (Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence 

Prevention). In review. 

2. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Campus Life: In Search of Community (Princeton, 

N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990).

3. Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institute on Alcohol 

Abuse and Alcoholism. A Call to Action: Changing the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges (Washington, D.C.: 

National Institutes of Health, 2002). Also available at http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov.

4. Ibid.

5. Wechsler, H.; Dowdall, G. W.; Davenport, A.; and Rimm, E. B. “A Gender-Specifi c Measure of Binge Drinking 

Among College Students.” American Journal of Public Health 85: 982–985, 1995.

6. Wechsler, H.; Lee, J. E.; Kuo, M.; Seibring, M.; Nelson, T. F.; 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: 203–217, 2002.

7. DeJong, W. “Finding Common Ground for Effective Campus-Based Prevention.” Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

15: 292–296, 2001.

8. DeJong, W. “By Any Other Name: NIAAA Redefi nes ‘Binge Drinking.’” The Social Norms Report 4(1): 1, 3, 5, 2004.

9. O’Malley, P. M., and Johnston, L. D. “Epidemiology of Alcohol and Other Drug Use Among American College 

Students.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplement no. 14: 23–39, 2002.

10. Wechsler et al., “Trends in College Binge Drinking.”

11. Knight, J. R.; Wechsler, H.; Kuo, M.; Seibring, M.; Weitzman, E. R.; and Schuckit, M. “Alcohol Abuse and 

Dependence among U.S. College Students.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63: 263–270, 2002.

12. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th Ed.) (Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric 

Association, 1994).

13. Knight et al., “Alcohol Abuse and Dependence.”

14. Wechsler et al., “Trends in College Binge Drinking.”

15. Wechsler, H.; Lee, J. E.; Nelson, T. F.; and Kuo, M. “Underage College Students’ Drinking Behavior, Access to 

Alcohol, and the Infl uence of Deterrence Policies: Findings from the Harvard School of Public Health College 

Alcohol Study.” Journal of American College Health 50: 223–236, 2002.

16. Task Force, A Call to Action.

17. Johnston, L. D.; O’Malley, P. M.; Bachman, J. G.; and Schulenberg, J. E. Monitoring the Future National Survey 

Results on Drug Use, 1975–2004. Volume II: College Students and Adults Ages 19–45 (NIH Publication No. 05-5728) 

(Bethesda, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2005).

18. Ibid.

19. Hingson, R. W.; Heeren, T.; Zakocs, R. C.; Kopstein, A.; and Wechsler, H. “Magnitude of Alcohol-Related Mortality 

and Morbidity Among U.S. College Students Ages 18–24.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63: 136–144, 2002.
20. Presley, C. A.; Meilman, P. W.; and Cashin, J. R. Alcohol and Drugs on American College Campuses: Use, Consequences, 

and Perceptions of the Campus Environment IV, 1992–94 (Carbondale, Ill.: Core Institute, Southern Illinois 

University, 1996).

21. Ibid.

22. Perkins, H. W. “Surveying the Damage: A Review of Research on Consequences of Alcohol Misuse in College 

Populations.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplement no. 14: 91–100, 2002.

23. Ibid.

24. Wechsler et al., “Trends in College Binge Drinking.”

25. Hingson et al., “Magnitude of Alcohol-Related Mortality and Morbidity.”

26. Wechsler, H.; Lee, J. E.; Hall, J.; Wagenaar, A. C.; and Lee, H. “Secondhand Effects of Student Alcohol Use 

Reported by Neighbors of Colleges: The Role of Alcohol Outlets.” Social Science & Medicine 55: 425–435, 2002.

27. DeJong, W., and Langford, L. M. “A Typology for Campus-Based Alcohol Prevention: Moving Toward 

Environmental Management Strategies.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplement no. 14: 140–147, 2002.

28. DeJong, W.; Vince-Whitman, C.; Colthurst, T.; Cretella, M.; Gilbreath, M.; Rosati, M.; and Zweig, K. Environmental 

Management: A Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Alcohol and Other Drug Use on College Campuses (Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1998); 

Zimmerman, R., and DeJong, W. Safe Lanes on Campus: A Guide for Preventing Impaired Driving and Underage 

Drinking (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug 

Prevention, 2003). These publications are available through the Higher Education Center’s Web site (http://

www.higheredcenter.org).

29. Bonnie, R. J., and O’Connell, M. E. (eds.) Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility (Washington, D.C.: 

National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, 2003).

30. Zimmerman, R., and DeJong, W. Safe Lanes on Campus: A Guide for Preventing Impaired Driving and Underage 

Drinking (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug 

Prevention, 2003). This publication is available through the Higher Education Center’s Web site (http://www.

higheredcenter.org).

31. Perkins, H. W.; Meilman, P. W.; Leichliter, J. S; Cashin, J. R.; and Presley, C. A. “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.

32. Perkins, H. W. (ed.) The Social Norms Approach to Preventing School and College Age Substance Abuse: A Handbook 

for Educators, Counselors, and Clinicians (San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass, 2003).

33. Saltz, R. F., and Stanghetta, P. “A Community-Wide Responsible Beverage Service Program in Three 

Communities: Early Findings.” Addiction 92, supplement no. 2: S237–S249, 1997; Toomey, T. L.; Wagenaar, A. C.; 

Gehan, J. P.; Kilian, G.; Murray, D. M.; and Perry, C. L. “Project ARM: Alcohol Risk Management to Prevent Sales to 

Underage and Intoxicated Patrons.” Health Education and Behavior 28:186–199, 2001.

34. Wagenaar, A. C., and Toomey, T. L. “Effects of Minimum Drinking Age Laws: Review and Analyses of the 

Literature from 1960 to 2000.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplement no. 14: 206–225, 2002.

35. DeJong, W.; Wood, M.; Dawson, L.; and Cohen, F. “RhodeMap to Safety: A University of Rhode Island Campaign to 

Reduce Off-Campus Alcohol Problems.” Prevention File: Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs 21(1): 14–17, 2006. This 

publication is available through the Higher Education Center’s Web site (http://www.higheredcenter.org).

36. Task Force, A Call to Action.

Recent Advances in Campus-Based Prevention | 13
14 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

37. Weitzman E. R.; Nelson, T. F.; Lee, H.; and Wechsler, H. “Reducing Drinking and Related Harms in College: 

Evaluation of the ‘A Matter of Degree’ Program.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 27: 187–196, 2004.

38. Nelson, T. F.; Naimi, T. S.; Brewer, R. D.; and Wechsler, H. “The State Sets the Rate: The Relationship of College 

Binge Drinking to State Binge Drinking Rates and Selected State Alcohol Control Policies.” American Journal of 

Public Health 95: 441–446, 2005.

39. Task Force, A Call to Action.

40. Larimer, M. E.; and Cronce, J. M. “Identifi cation, Prevention, and Treatment: A Review of Individual-Focused 

Strategies to Reduce Problematic Alcohol Consumption by College Students.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 

supplement no. 14: 148–163, 2002; Larimer, M. E.; Cronce, J. M.; Lee, C. M., and Kilmer, J. R. “Brief Intervention 

in College Settings.” Alcohol Health & Research World 28(2): 94–104, 2004/2005.

41. Baer, J. S.; Kivlahan, D. R.; Blume, A. W.; McKnight, P.; and Marlatt, G. A. “Brief Intervention for Heavy Drinking 

College Students: Four-Year Follow-Up and Natural History.” American Journal of Public Health 91: 1310–1316, 

2001.

42. Neighbors, C.; Larimer, M. E.; and Lewis, M. A. “Targeting Misperceptions of Descriptive Drinking Norms: 

Effi cacy of a Computer-Delivered Personalized Normative Feedback Intervention.” Journal of Consulting and 

Clinical Psychology 72: 434–447, 2004.

43. Task Force, A Call to Action.

44. Bonnie and O’Connell, Reducing Underage Drinking.

45. Zimmerman and DeJong, Safe Lanes.

46. Foster-Fishman, P. G.; Berkowitz, S. L.; Lounsbury, D. W.; Jacobson, S.; and Allen, N. A. “Building Collaborative 

Capacity in Community Coalitions: A Review and Integrative Framework.” American Journal of Community 

Psychology 29: 241–261, 2001; Task Force, A Call to Action.

47. Donahue Institute. Case Study Analysis of Statewide College Alcohol Prevention Initiatives (Amherst, Mass.: 

Donahue Institute, University of Massachusetts, 2004).

48. Langford, L., and DeJong, W. Strategic Planning for Prevention Professionals on Campus (Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence 

Prevention). In review.
 Experiences in Effective Prevention | 15

The 2005 designees were Gonzaga University, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, 

Loyola Marymount University, The Ohio 

State University, University of Arizona, 

University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and Virginia 

Commonwealth University. The 2006 

designees were George Mason University; 

Montclair State University; University at 

Albany, State University of New York; and 

University of Missouri-Columbia. The 2007 

designee was Michigan State University. 

Brief descriptions of all the model programs 

are posted on the Web site of the Higher 

Education Center for Alcohol and Other 

Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention 

(http://www.higheredcenter.org/grants/) 

and are included in the 2007 edition of 

the Center’s publication Alcohol and Other 

Drug Prevention on College Campuses: 

Model Programs.1

Prompted by growing public concern about AOD use on American 

college and university campuses, in 1998 Congress authorized 

the OSDFS to identify and promote effective campus-based prevention programs. The Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Models 

on College Campuses Grants initiative designated its fi rst group of 

model programs in 1999. By 2004, OSDFS had selected 22 institutions of higher education (IHEs) for this honor. Additional IHEs 

received awards in 2005, 2006, and 2007.

OSDFS designates model programs on the basis of a grant competition where all applications are peer-reviewed. Eligible applicants are IHEs that offer an associate or baccalaureate degree. 

The selected applicants describe a program or policy that has 

been in place for at least two academic years, plays a signifi cant 

role in developing and-or maintaining a safe and healthy campus 

environment, and can feasibly be replicated or adapted in other 

college communities. Applicants also provide evidence of their 

program or policy’s effectiveness in reducing AOD-related problems on campus using outcome-based performance indicators. 

The selected institutions receive grants to maintain, improve, 

and continue to evaluate their model program and to disseminate information to other colleges and universities to encourage 

replication. The project period is for up to 15 months.

A model program cannot be a stand-alone effort but rather must 

be integrated fully into a multifaceted and comprehensive prevention program. OSDFS emphasizes that while educational and 

individually focused prevention programs are necessary, they are 

insuffi cient by themselves to create signifi cant or long-lasting 

change.2

 Interventions are needed at multiple levels to target 

individual student drinkers, the student population as a whole, 

the college, and the surrounding community.3

OSDFS asks its peer reviewers to evaluate each application rigorously using several selection criteria, notably the following:

1. The quality of the needs assessment and how well it relates to 

the program’s goals and objectives.

2. The effectiveness with which the program is integrated into a 

comprehensive AOD abuse prevention effort.

Chapter 3: An Overview of the 1999–2004 Model 

Program Grants

OSDFS assembles a panel of independent experts from the fi eld to 

review and score the applications. 

Information about grant competitions, applications, and guidelines 

for the Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Models on College Campuses 

Grants initiative can be found on 

the OSDFS Web site at http://www.

ed.gov/programs/dvpcollege/index.

html.

Although the model programs must show 

evidence of program effectiveness, the 

U.S. Department of Education does not intend to imply that the selected institutions 

have AOD-related problems that are more 

or less pervasive than at other campuses.
3. The level of institutional commitment, leadership, and support 

for AOD abuse prevention efforts.

4. The clarity and strength of the institution’s AOD policies and 

the extent to which those policies are broadly disseminated 

and consistently enforced.

5. The extent to which students and employees are involved in 

the program design and implementation process.

6. The extent to which the institution has joined with community 

leaders to address AOD issues.

7. If applicable, the steps the institution is taking to limit 

alcoholic beverage sponsorship, advertising, and marketing 

on campus, as well as to establish or expand upon alcohol-free 

living arrangements for students.

8. If applicable, the scope of the institution’s efforts to change 

the culture of college drinking on its campus. 

Additional criteria are related to the quality of the evaluation 

methodology and the usefulness of the evaluation in assisting 

other campuses interested in implementing the program.

The IHEs selected under the Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention 

Models on College Campuses Grants initiative refl ect the state of 

the art in campus-based AOD abuse prevention programming. 

This chapter introduces a typology for categorizing AOD programs and policies, presents a brief description of each model 

program designated between 1999 and 2004, and then applies 

the typology to provide an overview of the 22 model programs’ 

prevention activities.

A Typology of Campus-Based 

Prevention Programs

The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse 

and Violence Prevention has long urged academic administrators 

to expand their prevention work beyond traditional education 

and treatment programs by incorporating the environmental 

management strategies described above, that is, a restructuring 

of both the campus and community environment that can lead 

students to make safer, healthier, and legal choices about AOD 

use.4 To promote this shift, the Higher Education Center introduced a typology of campus-based prevention and treatment 

A typology is a classifi cation scheme for organizing objects or concepts into categories 

(“types”) that have characteristics or traits 

in common.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Offi ce 

of Safe and Drug-Free Schools promotes 

principles of effectiveness for prevention 

programs, as codifi ed in the No Child Left 

Behind Act of 2001. These principles can be 

summed up as follows:

• Conduct a needs assessment.

• Set measurable goals and objectives and 

design programs to meet those goals 

and objectives.

• Use programs with demonstrated or 

proven effectiveness.

• Evaluate the program to assess progress 

toward achieving the stated goals 

and objectives.

• Use the evaluation results to refi ne, improve, 

and strengthen the program and to refi ne 

the goals and objectives as appropriate.

Principles of Effectiveness 

for Prevention Programs

16 | Experiences in Effective Prevention
options that can be used to categorize existing efforts, identify 

missing program elements, and guide new strategic planning.5

The typology categories are characterized by two dimensions. 

The fi rst is a social ecological framework, with programs and policies classifi ed into one of fi ve levels: individual, group, institution, community, and state and federal public policy.6

The typology’s second dimension concerns four key areas of 

strategic intervention: (1) changing people’s knowledge, attitudes, 

skills, self-effi cacy, and behavioral intentions regarding alcohol consumption; (2) eliminating or modifying environmental 

factors that contribute to alcohol-related problems; (3) protecting students from the short-term consequences of alcohol use 

(“health protection” strategies); and (4) intervening with and 

treating students who show evidence of problem drinking or are 

diagnosed as alcoholics. These two dimensions can be represented as a matrix, as shown in fi gure 1 (see p. 18). 

Note that the typology gives particular emphasis to the following 

fi ve strategic areas of environmental management: 

1. Offer and promote social, recreational, extracurricular, and 

public service options that do not include alcohol.

2. Create a social, academic, and residential environment that 

supports health-promoting norms.

3. Limit alcohol availability both on and off campus.

4. Restrict marketing and promotion of alcoholic beverages both 

on and off campus.

5. Develop and enforce campus policies and enforce local, state, 

and federal laws.

This representation captures the idea that 

many areas of strategic intervention can be 

pursued at one or several levels of the social 

ecological model, and thus reminds planners to consider how programs or policies 

operating at one level can be strengthened 

by the addition of complementary efforts at 

other levels.

Because there are several program 

and policy options for addressing 

each strategic area, program developers have the fl exibility they need 

to tailor a program that best meets 

the needs of their campus. An extensive list of options, organized by the 

fi ve strategic areas of environmental 

management, is presented in Safe 

Lanes on Campus: A Guide for Preventing Impaired Driving and Underage 

Drinking.7

1999–2004 Model Program Grants | 17
18 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

FIGURE 1. Typology Matrix of Program and Policy Options for 

Campus-Based Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Prevention 

and Treatment

* In this context, the “public policy” component of the social ecological framework refers to state and federal policy.

The following sections include descriptions of all 22 model programs designated by the U.S. Department 

of Education’s Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Models on College Campuses Grants between 1999 and 

2004. Each model program is described as it was at the time of its award. Several of the model programs were given recognition for using a comprehensive approach that integrated both individually and 

environmentally focused strategies. When an institution received a model program grant for a specifi c 

activity, that activity was embedded within a more comprehensive effort; in such cases, only the model 

programs themselves are described here. To describe the institutional context for each model program, 

Appendix 2 (see p. 80) provides a chart with key characteristics of each designated IHE (e.g., Carnegie 

classifi cation, public vs. private governance, size of undergraduate population). The fi nal section of 

this chapter summarizes the model programs’ prevention activities using the Higher Education 

Center’s typology.
The 1999 Model Programs

Bowling Green State University (BGSU),

Bowling Green, Ohio

The BGSU Peer-Based Misperception Program is a social norms 

marketing program designed to reduce student drinking by correcting misperceptions of campus drinking norms. Program staff 

asked student focus groups to discuss the meaning of survey 

data showing that BGSU students overestimated how much 

their peers drank and to review potential educational messages. 

The resulting campaign (“I Don’t Drink as Much as You Think”) 

was launched using campus-based mass media. A companion 

program focused on small groups of high-risk students, including freshmen, athletes, and fraternity and sorority members. 

Each group’s members completed a survey about their own and 

other students’ drinking habits. At a second meeting, the group 

refl ected on the implications of the normative misperceptions 

revealed by the surveys.

Hobart and William Smith Colleges (HWS), Geneva, N.Y.

The HWS Alcohol Education Project features a wide-ranging 

social norms campaign designed to reduce students’ alcohol use 

by correcting their exaggerated misperceptions about how much 

their peers drink.10 Major activities include a campus poster and 

print advertising campaign, which features the use of HWSrelated “factoids” as screen savers on campus computer screens; 

an interdisciplinary course on the causes and consequences of 

alcohol abuse; and a faculty and student-teacher initiative for 

infusing AOD information into the academic curricula (see p. 24 

for the defi nition of “curriculum infusion”) and for community 

coalition building. The project also developed a Web site (http://

www.alcohol.hws.edu) that allows students to access campaign 

materials, supplemental research data, student-produced 

videos, and other prevention-related information.

University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz.

The University of Arizona’s Social Norms and Environmental 

Management Model Alcohol Prevention Program incorporates 

two broad strategies to reduce student alcohol abuse: (1) a social 

norms campaign designed to expose the difference between 

Research has shown that college students 

greatly overestimate the percentage of 

their peers who drink heavily.8 Prevention 

experts have expressed concern that these 

misperceptions, by creating a distorted view 

of subjective drinking norms, may drive up 

student alcohol consumption. Social norms 

programs use a variety of communication 

channels to convey accurate information 

about student drinking patterns, with the 

expectation that correcting misperceptions 

of subjective drinking norms will drive down 

alcohol consumption.9

1999–2004 Model Program Grants | 19
20 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

actual and perceived drinking norms, which relies primarily on 

newspaper advertising and posters; and (2) an environmental 

management approach to address alcohol-related problems by 

changing university policies and boosting enforcement.11 Key 

elements include consistent and visible enforcement of underage 

drinking policies at the start of each semester and rule changes 

to prohibit open parties, restrictions on alcohol service at parties 

and large events (e.g., homecoming), reduced alcohol access at 

athletic events, and the elimination of alcohol sponsorships 

on campus.12

The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa.

The goal of the LateNight—Penn State program is to curb 

high-risk drinking by providing a variety of free, alcohol-free, 

high-quality entertainment programs that meet the interests of 

the university’s diverse student body. Programs are held at the 

student union during prime social times—specifi cally, 9:00 p.m. 

to midnight on Thursdays and 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. on Friday 

and Saturday nights. Programming includes free movies, ballroom and swing dancing, live music, comedy, board games, 

video games, magic shows, and other live entertainment. 

LateNight encourages students to design and implement their 

own programs, both to broaden the range of student organizations involved in alcohol-free activities and to promote 

leadership development.

University of Northern Colorado (UNC), Greeley, Colo.

The UNC Underage Drinking Enforcement Program uses strict 

enforcement to discourage underage drinking. With the support 

of UNC’s Drug Prevention/Education Program, student violators 

are charged by campus and local police under a municipal ordinance and brought before a judge, who is known to take these 

violations seriously. Violators can expect to pay fi nes, attend 

education classes, and perform community service. Incoming 

students learn about the program during summer orientation. 

At the start of the school year, students living in residence halls 

receive door hangers that list local and state alcohol laws, UNC’s 

policies, and alcohol-free campus events. Police teams conduct 

saturation patrols early in the school year to stop private parties 

where alcohol is being served to minors.

Saturation patrols are intensive law enforcement efforts that target particular types 

of crime (e.g., impaired driving, underage 

drinking), usually with a focus on certain 

times and locations. Such patrols are usually 

intended as a “show of force” to deter future 

criminal activity.
Utah State University, Logan, Utah

The goal of the Judicial System Model is to reduce recidivism among students who violate the university’s 

AOD policies. Student violators can be referred to the program by campus administrators, faculty, staff, 

university police, and the city courts. The cornerstone of the program is a six-week peer education 

program that features AOD education, information about student drinking to counter misperceptions of 

campus drinking norms, self-assessment and self-monitoring exercises, and behavioral skills training. 

The peer facilitators receive ongoing training and supervision and sign an “ethics contract” limiting their 

alcohol intake to no more than three drinks per occasion, or zero if they are under age. Many of the facilitators are graduates of the program.

University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Mo.

The Alcohol Summit is a campus and community task force appointed by the university’s chancellor to 

address student AOD-related problems. Task force members include representatives of key campus 

departments, faculty, and student organizations in addition to the mayor, city police, deans of two local 

colleges, high school counselors, and local bar owners. The task force uses environmental management 

strategies to address conditions that facilitate AOD abuse. Key initiatives include revising and increasing 

enforcement of the university’s AOD policies; limiting access to alcohol; revising the campus judicial process; creating alcohol-free social events; implementing a social norms campaign; providing early intervention services; and training faculty, staff, and student leaders in conducting prevention programs.

The 2000 Model Programs

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, N.J.

A collaborative partnership of students, health care professionals, and communication researchers at 

Rutgers, RU Sure? is a multifaceted social norms campaign targeted at fi rst-year students.13 The campaign is designed to decrease heavy alcohol use by correcting students’ misperception of “dangerous 

drinking” as the campus drinking norm. Key elements include a campus-based media campaign (“The 

Top 10 Misperceptions at Rutgers”), a curriculum infusion program, an informational Web site, and a set 

of experiential peer education programs offered in fi rst-year residence halls (e.g., “RU Sure? Bingo”). 

Rutgers offi cials also participate in a community coalition focused on policy and enforcement initiatives 

to reduce illegal alcohol sales to minors.

Syracuse University, Syracuse, N.Y.

The Twelve-Point Plan for Substance Abuse Prevention and Health Enhancement is a multifaceted 

prevention effort involving work with state and local offi cials, a campus and community coalition (with 

representatives from other local colleges, health professionals, tavern owners, and neighborhood residents), and various university constituencies (faculty, staff, students, and parents). Achievements include 

revision of the university’s AOD policies; increasingly severe sanctions for AOD-related policy violations; 

restructuring of the university’s judicial system, with swifter adjudication and resource referral; 

1999–2004 Model Program Grants | 21
22 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

a parental notifi cation policy; a neighborhood patrol initiative to address underage drinking and other 

quality-of-life issues; and reports to local and state authorities about illegal sales of alcohol to minors 

and intoxicated patrons by licensed establishments.

University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, N.Y.

Based at the university’s counseling center, the Middle Earth Peer Assistance Program trains student 

volunteers to help other students by offering support, information about alcohol, and referral services 

for counseling and treatment. Trained in communication, problem-solving, and prevention skills, student 

volunteers are supervised by a professional director and a team of graduate student program coordinators. Middle Earth volunteers operate an anonymous hotline that receives over 1,600 calls per year. 

The program also fi elds an improvisational theater group to present an educational program to all new 

students during orientation. During the performance, audience members learn about the difference 

between actual and perceived drinking norms on campus and are prompted to generate solutions to confl icts involving alcohol and other drugs.

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.

The Comprehensive Alcohol and Other Drug Model Program is a multifaceted prevention program coordinated by the university’s Working Group on Alcohol Abuse (WGAA). A group of 15 students and seven 

administrators and faculty members developed extensive recommendations for addressing alcohol abuse 

at Penn and now oversees their implementation. Key program areas include improved alcohol health 

education; expanded opportunities for students to socialize without alcohol; a student-driven social 

norms marketing campaign; more consistent enforcement of university policies and local, state, and federal regulations; revised policies to restrict underage students’ access to alcohol; and an amnesty policy 

exempting students from university discipline if they seek medical attention for themselves or others due 

to alcohol-related causes.

Washington State University, Pullman, Wash.

Project Culture Change is a small-group intervention designed to drive down high-risk alcohol consumption by correcting misperceptions of campus drinking norms among the university’s fraternity and 

sorority members.14 Trained chapter presidents lead a 45-minute session, during which they compare 

estimates of campus and group drinking norms with actual consumption levels, based on previously collected survey data; explain the effect of normative misperceptions on the decisions students make about 

drinking; present student data on protective behaviors and what students do to have fun without alcohol; 

and guide a discussion about the data’s relevance to their own alcohol use.

Western Washington University, Bellingham, Wash.

WE CAN Works uses three strategies to change perceptions of student drinking norms.15 The fi rst is a 

mass media campaign that communicates accurate data on student drinking levels using campus news-
paper advertisements, posters, bulletin board displays, and radio advertisements. The second is an 

education program for heavy alcohol users who have violated campus policy, which compares their level 

of alcohol use with campus norms, encourages refl ection, and helps them consider options for moderating their drinking. The third is direct communication with campus and community opinion leaders with 

the goal of fostering positive perceptions of student behavior, so that students will be seen as part of the 

solution, not just as a source of community problems.

The 2001 Model Programs

Auburn University, Auburn University, Ala.

The Alcohol Problem Prevention Initiative, a program of Auburn’s Health Behavior Assessment Center, 

uses BASICS (Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students) to help students exhibiting 

alcohol-related problems.16 Students complete a questionnaire about their alcohol use. Meeting individually with a counselor, they receive informational feedback about how their drinking compares to the 

student body as a whole. This session then leads to a discussion about how they might benefi t by making 

changes in their drinking behavior. The university promotes BASICS through outreach efforts directed at 

residence hall assistants, fraternity and sorority members, and university health clinic staff. Students also 

learn about the program through radio and newspaper advertising and class presentations.

Boston College (BC), Chestnut Hill, Mass.

BC’s Alcohol and Drug Education Program is a multifaceted effort to change campus culture and reduce 

alcohol abuse. Key program elements include ongoing training for faculty, staff, and student leaders; a 

needs-based referral program for students who violate the college’s AOD policy; and environmental management strategies to reduce alcohol-related incidents in an on-campus housing area popular with BC seniors. The college’s alcohol policy includes guidelines for serving alcohol, a ban on the use of student fees 

to purchase alcohol for university-sponsored events both on and off campus, and a ban on the marketing 

and promotion of alcohol on campus.

Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pa.

Lehigh’s Project IMPACT (Involving Multiple Partners in Achieving a Cultural Transformation) is a campus and community coalition formed to address problems resulting from high-risk student drinking.17

Grounded in an environmental management approach, the project’s key initiatives include increasing 

the availability of substance-free housing; expanding the number and improving the quality of social, 

recreational, and residential options not involving alcohol consumption; revising the university’s alcohol 

policies to promote responsible beverage service (RBS) and reduce alcohol consumption; employing an 

alcohol server training program for local bar and tavern owners; using parental notifi cation when students violate the university’s alcohol policies; and implementing education and coordinated enforcement 

programs to reduce neighborhood disturbances caused by students living off campus.

1999–2004 Model Program Grants | 23
24 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

San Diego State University (SDSU), San Diego, Calif.

The Community-Collegiate Alcohol Prevention Partnership 

(C-CAPP) is a coalition of community leaders, state and local 

law enforcement offi cials, business representatives (including 

bar owners), prevention service providers, community group 

representatives, SDSU-based researchers, and students.18

The coalition’s focus is to change environmental conditions, 

both on campus and in the community, that affect student 

abuse of alcohol. Key program elements include a social norms 

marketing campaign; RBS training; reduced alcohol promotions 

and advertising on campus; policy development; and increased 

enforcement of driving under the infl uence (DUI) and underage 

drinking laws, especially at private parties. A signifi cant policy 

change was the elimination of low-priced drink specials at 

several high-risk bars and nightclubs frequented by 

SDSU students.

Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI), 

Albuquerque, N.M.

SIPI is a two-year institution whose students are tribal members 

from more than 100 Native American communities across the 

country. The Twelve Feathers Program is an experiential group 

counseling program for high-risk students aimed at reducing 

the number of students who withdraw from college due to AOD 

violations. The program features life skills training, adventurebased activities (e.g., rope climbing, river rafting), Native American arts and crafts, and ceremonies to increase awareness of 

tribal traditions and culture. All activities are designed to help 

students become more responsible for the choices they make 

and to seek help when necessary. SIPI has a “zero tolerance” 

policy for alcohol and other drugs on campus.

State University of New York at New Paltz, 

New Paltz, N.Y.

This program, A Comprehensive Model Utilizing Social Norms 

and Community Collaboration for Alcohol Prevention, uses a 

combination of strategies to reduce high-risk alcohol use and 

ensure student safety: programming for fi rst-year students, 

including educational theatrical skits, curriculum infusion, and 

a parent involvement program; alcohol-free campus activities 

Curriculum infusion is the integration of 

prevention-related content into other 

academic subject areas. Instructors can 

develop lesson plans to meet their primary 

course objectives while also supporting the 

institution’s prevention goals. A very broad 

range of courses can support prevention 

curricula, including anthropology, biology, 

chemistry, communications, criminology, 

economics, marketing, political science, 

psychology, and sociology.19
(e.g., coffee house, late movies, expanded gym hours); events to 

promote student interaction with faculty; a multimedia social 

norms marketing campaign; a community tavern owners’ agreement to reduce low-priced drink specials and deglamorize 

high-risk drinking; a risk management policy for fraternities 

and sororities; and stricter enforcement of campus policies, 

followed by parental notifi cation, education programming, 

and counseling referrals.

The 2004 Model Programs

Grand Valley State University, Allendale, Mich.

ALERT Labs (Alcohol Education Research and Training Laboratories) uses an environmental management approach targeted at 

fi rst-year students. Primary strategies include an outreach theater troupe and an alcohol education video for student orientation; peer mentors to help students with their transition into college; a parent involvement program; alcohol-free social options 

(e.g., museum visits, outdoor excursions, large parties); a social 

norms marketing campaign to correct misperceptions of campus 

drinking norms; substance-free residential housing; and a 12-

step program and recovery housing. Incoming students receive a 

newsletter about the program prior to enrollment. Project ALERT 

also sponsors an alcohol summit with a community coalition.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), 

Cambridge, Mass.

The MIT Screening and Brief Intervention Model offers fi rst-year 

students an opportunity to complete an online alcohol screening 

tool based on the screening questionnaire used in BASICS.20 Participation is voluntary. Students who complete the questionnaire 

receive an incentive in “Tech Cash,” which is usable in campus 

stores. Students who express concern about their alcohol use 

or whose answers indicate possible engagement in high-risk 

or problem drinking are offered two confi dential one-on-one 

sessions with a trained counselor from MIT Medical. Participation in these sessions is also voluntary. Students who attend 

both sessions receive an additional incentive in “Tech Cash.” 

MIT students are also identifi ed for participation in the program 

through disciplinary and medical referrals.

Recovery housing provides a chemical-free 

residence hall for students in recovery from 

alcohol or other drug abuse, in addition to a 

range of academic and counseling services.

1999–2004 Model Program Grants | 25
26 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill.

UChicago’s Noctis Sero (Late Night) Program offers orientation and residence hall trainings on AOD 

abuse prevention and risk reduction strategies; a peer health education program; alcohol-free programming to “promote a healthy nightlife,” especially on weekends (e.g., open skate nights, game nights); 

a social norms marketing campaign to communicate accurate information about campus AOD norms; 

alcohol server training; and open discussions about campus alcohol policies and their enforcement to 

increase student awareness of university rules and local and state laws. Many of the program’s activities 

are targeted at the university’s large population of graduate students. Program coordinators encourage 

active student participation in planning, staffi ng, and marketing Noctis Sero activities. 

Overview of Model Program Activities

From 1999 to 2004, a total of 22 model programs were selected under the U.S. Department of Education’s Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Models on College Campuses Grants program. Collectively the 22 

programs cover all of the main areas of strategic intervention listed in the Higher Education Center for 

Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention’s typology.21

Listed here are the key program elements for each of the model programs, organized by areas of strategic intervention (see fi g. 1, p. 18). Every designated program must be integrated fully into a comprehensive approach, but only the model programs themselves are refl ected in this list.

In 2002, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) published A Call to Action: 

Changing the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges,22 a summary of the scientifi c literature on programs, 

policies, and interventions designed to address college alcohol problems. The report organized programs 

and policies into four tiers according to the quality of research evidence that is presently available 

(pp. 16–24): 

• Tier 1 strategies have two or more research studies that demonstrate their effectiveness with college 

students.

• Tier 2 strategies “have been successful with similar populations” but have “not yet been comprehensively evaluated with college students” (p. 17).

• Tier 3 strategies “make sense intuitively, or have strong theoretical support” but “require more comprehensive evaluation” (p. 21).

• Tier 4 strategies have been shown to be ineffective when used in isolation.

Most of the tier 4 strategies are informational, knowledge-based, or values clarifi cation interventions. 

The NIAAA report notes that while these types of interventions may be ineffective when used in isolation, 

they “might make an important contribution as part of a multicomponent integrated set of programs and 

activities” (p. 24), in other words, as part of a comprehensive approach.

While organized according to the typology, each of the model program elements listed below is also 

classifi ed according to the NIAAA report’s tier system. Many of the model programs incorporated several 

program and policy elements and are therefore listed multiple times. It should be noted that the tier 

classifi cation for each program element is based on published studies that evaluate that particular 

element alone and excludes studies of multicomponent programs.
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions

Alcohol education (tier 4)

 • Grand Valley State University (2004)

 • University of Chicago (2004)

 • University of Pennsylvania (2000)

Theater group (tier 4)

 • Grand Valley State University (2004)

 • State University of New York at New Paltz (2001)

 • University at Albany, State University of New York (2000)

Peer mentors (tier 3)

 • Grand Valley State University (2004)

Curriculum infusion (tier 4)

 • State University of New York at New Paltz (2001)

Parent involvement program (tier 3)

 • Grand Valley State University (2004)

 • State University of New York at New Paltz (2001)

Alcohol-Free Options 

 Entertainment and recreational programs (tier 3)

 • Grand Valley State University (2004)

 • Lehigh University (2001)

 • The Pennsylvania State University (1999)

 • State University of New York at New Paltz (2001)

 • University of Chicago (2004)

 • University of Missouri-Columbia (1999)

 • University of Pennsylvania (2000)

Normative Environment 

Social norms marketing campaigns (tier 3)

 Mass media (tier 3)

 • Bowling Green State University (1999)

 • Grand Valley State University (2004)

 • Hobart and William Smith Colleges (1999)

 • Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey (2000)

 • San Diego State University (2001)

Environmental Change

1999–2004 Model Program Grants | 27
28 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

 • State University of New York at New Paltz (2001)

 • University of Arizona (1999)

 • University of Chicago (2004)

 • University of Missouri-Columbia (1999)

 • University of Pennsylvania (2000)

 • Western Washington University (2000)

 Small-group workshops (tier 3)

 • Bowling Green State University (1999)

 • Washington State University (2000)

 Curriculum infusion (tier 3)

 • Hobart and William Smith Colleges (1999)

 • Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey (2000)

 Peer education (tier 3)

 • Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey (2000)

 Community-focused campaign (tier 3)

 • Western Washington University (2000)

Substance-free housing (tier 3)

 • Grand Valley State University (2004)

 • Lehigh University (2001)

 • San Diego State University (2001) 

Increased faculty-student contact (tier 3)

 • State University of New York at New Paltz (2001)

Alcohol Availability 

Revised campus AOD policies/general (tier 3)

 • Lehigh University (2001)

 • San Diego State University (2001)

 • Syracuse University (2000)

Campus policies restricting alcohol access by minors (tier 2)

 • Boston College (2001)

 - Alcohol service guidelines

 • Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey (2000)

 • University of Arizona (1999)

 - Ban on open parties

 - Alcohol service guidelines

 - Restricted alcohol access at athletics events

 • University of Missouri-Columbia (1999)

Environmental Change (continued)
 • University of Pennsylvania (2000)

Ban on use of student fees to purchase alcohol (tier 3)

 • Boston College (2001)

Alcohol server training (tier 2)

 • Lehigh University (2001)

 • San Diego State University (2001)

 • University of Chicago (2004)

Ban on low-priced drink specials (tier 2)

 • San Diego State University (2001)

 • State University of New York at New Paltz (2001)

Alcohol Promotion 

Ban on campus alcohol sponsorships (tier 3)

 • University of Arizona (1999)

Banned or restricted alcohol promotions and advertising on campus (tier 3)

 • Boston College (2001)

 • San Diego State University (2001)

Policy/Law Enforcement 

Enforcement

Stricter enforcement (tier 2)

 • San Diego State University (2001)

 • State University of New York at New Paltz (2001)

 • University of Missouri-Columbia (1999)

 • University of Pennsylvania (2000)

 Targeted enforcement (tier 2)

 • Boston College (2001)

 • Lehigh University (2001)

 • Syracuse University (2000)

 • University of Northern Colorado (1999)

 DUI enforcement (tier 2)

 • San Diego State University (2001)

 Visible enforcement at the start of each semester (tier 3)

 • University of Arizona (1999)

 Reports to authorities about illegal alcohol sales (tier 3)

 • Syracuse University (2000)

Environmental Change (continued)

1999–2004 Model Program Grants | 29
30 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

Risk management program for fraternities and sororities (tier 3)

 • State University of New York at New Paltz (2001)

Amnesty policy to promote seeking of medical care (tier 3)

 • University of Pennsylvania (2000)

Health Protection

Environmental Change (continued)

Judicial process

 Revised campus judicial process (tier 3)

 • Syracuse University (2000)

 • University of Missouri-Columbia (1999)

 Prosecution of underage drinkers under a municipal ordinance (tier 3)

 • University of Northern Colorado (1999)

Sanctions

 Parental notifi cation (tier 3)

 • Lehigh University (2001)

 • State University of New York at New Paltz (2001)

 • Syracuse University (2000)

 Progressive sanctions (tier 3)

 • Syracuse University (2000)

Intervention and Treatment

Emergency hotline (tier 3)

 • University at Albany, State University of New York (2000)

Early intervention services (tier 3)

 • University of Missouri-Columbia (1999)

Brief motivational interviews (tier 1)

 • Auburn University (2001)

 • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2004)
Intervention and Treatment (continued)

Disciplinary referrals 

 Brief motivational interviews (tier 1)

 • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2004)

 • Western Washington University (2000)

 Counseling referral (tier 3)

 • Boston College (2001)

 • State University of New York at New Paltz (2001)

Education program (tier 4)

 • State University of New York at New Paltz (2001)

Peer education program (tier 4)

 • Utah State University (1999)

Experiential group counseling program (tier 4) 

 • Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute

Twelve-step program (tier 3)

 • Grand Valley State University (2004)

Recovery housing (tier 3)

 • Grand Valley State University (2004)

The model programs incorporated a wide range of programs and policies, with many of the campuses 

applying tactics focused on several different strategic areas. The area of strategic intervention receiving 

the greatest emphasis was environmental change. The three most common environmental management 

strategies focused on the normative environment, alcohol availability, and policy and law enforcement, 

which includes stricter enforcement, revised judicial processes, and new sanctioning options. The most 

frequently applied tactic was a social norms marketing campaign. It should be noted, however, that the 

vast majority of the designated institutions used this tactic in conjunction with several other approaches 

and not in isolation. Another common area of strategic intervention was intervention and treatment. 

Within this area, the largest number of campuses increased their options for disciplinary referrals. The 

area receiving the least emphasis was health protection.

The model programs used program elements from all four tiers of the NIAAA report’s classifi cation 

system. Tier 1 strategies have two or more research studies that demonstrate their effectiveness with 

college students. Three model programs used a tier 1 strategy: brief motivational interviews. Tier 2 strategies are known to be successful with similar populations, but their effect on college students has not 

been evaluated. Several of the model programs employed tier 2 strategies, including campus policies to 

restrict alcohol access by minors, alcohol server training, a ban on low-priced drink specials, and stricter 

policy and law enforcement. 

Most of the model programs used a variety of tier 3 strategies, which can be considered promising, but 

require more evaluation. Several programs also included tier 4 strategies (informational, knowledge1999–2004 Model Program Grants | 31
32 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

based, or values clarifi cation interventions), which have been shown to be ineffective when used in 

isolation. As noted, however, the NIAAA report notes that such interventions might still be an important 

aspect of a comprehensive approach. In fact, most of the model programs that used tier 4 strategies 

included many additional prevention strategies.

All 22 model programs showed evidence that their initiative was effective in reducing AOD-related problems, but most of the programs included multiple components, making it impossible to determine which 

of the individual program elements were most responsible for those reductions. This is typical of college 

and university prevention programs and contributes to so many prevention strategies being classifi ed in 

tier 3. 

As noted, the NIAAA tier classifi cation for each program element is based on published studies that 

evaluate that particular element alone and excludes studies of multicomponent programs. Researchers 

interested in studying the effect of individual strategies should look fi rst at the program components 

used by these innovative model programs.

References

1. Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention on College Campuses: Model Programs (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention, 2007). This 

publication is available through the Higher Education Center’s Web site (http://www.higheredcenter.org).

2. Larimer, M. E.; and Cronce, J. M. “Identifi cation, Prevention, and Treatment: A Review of Individual-Focused 

Strategies to Reduce Problematic Alcohol Consumption by College Students.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol,

supplement no. 14: 148–163, 2002.

3. Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institute on Alcohol 

Abuse and Alcoholism. A Call to Action: Changing the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges (Washington, D.C.: 

National Institutes of Health, 2002).

4. DeJong, W. Alcohol and Other Drug Policies for Colleges and Universities: A Guide for Administrators (Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence 

Prevention). In review; DeJong, W.; Vince-Whitman, C.; Colthurst, T.; Cretella, M.; Gilbreath, M.; Rosati, M.; and 

Zweig, K. Environmental Management: A Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Alcohol and Other Drug Use on College 

Campuses (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other 

Drug Prevention, 1998). This publication is available through the Higher Education Center’s Web site (http://

www.higheredcenter.org).

5. DeJong, W., and Langford, L. M. “A Typology for Campus-Based Alcohol Prevention: Moving Toward 

Environmental Management Strategies.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplement no. 14: 140–147, 2002.

6. Stokols, D. “Translating Social Ecological Theory into Guidelines for Community Health Promotion.” American 

Journal of Health Promotion 10: 282–298, 1996.

7. Zimmerman, R., and DeJong, W. Safe Lanes on Campus: A Guide for Preventing Impaired Driving and Underage 

Drinking (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug 

Prevention, 2003). This publication is available through the Higher Education Center’s Web site (http://www.

higheredcenter.org).
8. Perkins, H. W.; Meilman, P. W.; Leichliter, J. S.; Cashin, J. R.; and Presley, C. A. “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.

9. Perkins, H. W. (ed.) The Social Norms Approach to Preventing School and College Age Substance Abuse: A Handbook 

for Educators, Counselors, and Clinicians (San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass, 2003).

10. Perkins, H. W., and Craig, D. W. A Multifaceted Social Norms Approach to Reduce High-Risk Drinking: Lessons from 

Hobart and William Smith Colleges (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for 

Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 2002). This publication is available through the Higher Education Center’s 

Web site (http://www.higheredcenter.org).

11. Johannessen, K.; Collins, C.; Mills-Novoa, B.; and Glider, P. A Practical Guide to Alcohol Abuse Prevention: A Campus 

Case Study in Implementing Social Norms and Environmental Management Approaches (Tucson, Ariz.: Campus 

Health Service, The University of Arizona, 1999). This publication is available through the Higher Education 

Center’s Web site (http://www.higheredcenter.org).

12. Johannessen K.; Glider P.; Collins, C.; Hueston, H.; and DeJong, W. “Preventing Alcohol-Related Problems at the 

University of Arizona’s Homecoming: An Environmental Management Case Study.” American Journal of Drug and 

Alcohol Abuse 27: 587–597, 2001.

13. Lederman, L. C.; and Stewart, L. P. Changing the Culture of College Drinking: A Socially Situated Health 

Communication Campaign (Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press, 2005).

14. Far, J. M., and Miller, J. A. “The Small Groups Norms-Challenging Model: Social Norms Interventions with 

Targeted High-Risk Groups.” In: H. W. Perkins (ed.), The Social Norms Approach to Preventing School and College 

Age Substance Abuse: A Handbook for Educators, Counselors, and Clinicians (San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass, 

2003).

15. Fabiano, P. M. “Applying the Social Norms Model to Universal and Indicated Alcohol Interventions at Western 

Washington University.” In: H. W. Perkins (ed.), The Social Norms Approach to Preventing School and College Age 

Substance Abuse: A Handbook for Educators, Counselors, and Clinicians (San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass, 2003).

16. Marlatt, G. A.; Baer, J. S.; Kivlahan, D. R.; Dimeff, L. A.; Larimer, M. E.; Quigley, L. A.; Somers, J. M.; and Williams, 

E. “Screening and Brief Intervention for High-Risk College Student Drinkers: Results from a 2-year Follow-Up 

Assessment.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 66: 604–615, 1998.

17. Smeaton, J. W.; Eadline, M. C.; Egolf, B.; and DeJong, W. “Lehigh University’s Project IMPACT: An Environmental 

Management Case Study.” Journal of Drug Education and Awareness 1: 59–75, 2003. This publication is available 

through the Higher Education Center’s Web site (http://www.higheredcenter.org).

18. “Communities and Campuses Coming Together for Prevention: Collaboration in San Diego.” Prevention File: 

Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs 16(2): 25, 2001. This publication is available through the Higher Education 

Center’s Web site (http://www.higheredcenter.org).

19. Ryan, B. E., and DeJong, W. Making the Link: Faculty and Prevention (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1998). This publication is available 

through the Higher Education Center’s Web site (http://www.higheredcenter.org).

20. Marlatt et al., “Screening and Brief Interventions.”

21. DeJong and Langford, “A Typology.”

22. Task Force, A Call to Action.

1999–2004 Model Program Grants | 33

 Experiences in Effective Prevention | 35

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s 

Community How To Guide on Coalition 

Building lists several leadership qualities that 

a prevention coordinator should have.3

 See 

also the guidebook’s appendix, “Attributes 

of a Good Coordinator.” 

The 22 model programs selected from 1999 to 2004 under the 

Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Models on College Campuses 

Grants program refl ect the state of the art in campus-based prevention. College and university administrators should consider 

these programs as a source of ideas for their own alcohol and 

other drug (AOD) abuse prevention programming, ideas that can 

then be adapted and refi ned to meet the needs of their campuses. In addition to these ideas, administrators can benefi t from 

the lessons the directors of these model programs offer on what 

it takes to implement, evaluate, and sustain a comprehensive 

and effective prevention effort. 

These lessons, focused on the principles and processes by which 

the grantees successfully implemented their programs, were the 

primary focus of the site visit and telephone interviews conducted with the program directors and key stakeholders at the 

21 grantee institutions. This chapter reviews general principles 

gleaned from the grantees’ experiences related to program development: (1) exercising leadership, (2) building collaborations, 

and (3) choosing evidence-based programs. 

1. Exercising Leadership

Strong leadership is vital to effective prevention.1 On every 

model program campus, the knowledge and skill of the AOD prevention coordinator were widely recognized as the single most 

important contributors to a program’s success.

Attributes of Effective Leadership

As change agents, effective leaders in AOD abuse prevention 

exhibit remarkably similar personal qualities and behaviors.2 The 

following are among the attributes needed for effective leadership on campus.

Vision. An effective leader will be able to articulate a clear image 

of a better future for the institution,4 which is tied to its primary 

academic mission, is consistent with the community’s values, 

and builds on the positive foundation already in place. A strongly 

worded vision statement can create a unifi ed sense of purpose5

and help motivate campus and community groups to create synergy among their various programs and policies.

Chapter 4: Lessons on Program Development 

35
36 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

Connectedness. Leaders are more effective when they can draw 

upon and build alliances with an extensive network of contacts, 

including leaders of key departments, organizations, and associations; representatives of important constituencies; and content 

experts. Working collaboratively in a coalition with a wide diversity of people is a sign of strong leadership.6

Organizational Skills. Competent leaders have 

proven administrative skills: they can set agendas, run 

effi cient meetings, organize action teams, delegate 

responsibility, acknowledge and appreciate good 

work, and hold people accountable. They must accomplish all of this while also promoting equal status 

among members of the working group. 

Strategic Planning Skills. Campus-based AOD abuse 

prevention depends on a high-quality strategic planning process. Able leaders know how to guide this 

process: frame the problem, identify key points 

of leverage, outline goals and objectives, develop task plans, 

and garner resources. At the same time, strong leaders can 

depart from their original plans to take advantage of 

unexpected opportunities.

Communication Skills. Successful leaders have access to the 

media and know how to build and use other communication 

channels to reach key audiences. They also know how to construct effective arguments to build momentum for change and 

widespread support for new programs and policies. In addition, 

they know how to create mechanisms for constant communication and information sharing among team members.

Political Skills. Effective leaders demonstrate a high level of 

political knowledge and ability. Specifi cally, they are able to 

(1) encourage collaboration in the name of shared goals, (2) 

be responsive to the institutional and personal incentives that 

shape other people’s priorities, (3) anticipate and neutralize 

opposition, (4) fi nd creative ways to overcome obstacles, and (5) 

resolve confl ict by negotiating “win-win” solutions.

Personal Traits. Being an advocate for change requires optimism 

and energy. The leader must convince members that their 

collaboration will produce desired outcomes, create positive expectations for their work together, educate members about the 

issues involved, and guide members in taking on coalition tasks.8

The “spirit of cooperation” forged when 

coalitions are fi rst formed may be the most 

important reason they become cohesive and 

effective.7

Especially in cases where multiple 

strategies are being used and a wide 

range of stakeholders are participating, the leader’s skills must go beyond 

education and program development 

to include community organizing, coalition building, and advocacy.
In these ways the leader creates a climate of optimism that sustains members’ commitment.9

Personal courage and steadfastness are also required. Successful 

leaders assert themselves confi dently, looking for opportunities 

to move their agenda forward. This behavior will invite opposition and sometimes even personal attacks, so having a “thick 

skin” is helpful, but even more critical is knowing how to marshal 

evidence, frame counterarguments, and build additional alliances to address criticism.

Leadership in Action

Despite their variety of titles and operating at different levels of 

college administration, the 22 model program directors in large 

measure shared this set of leadership attributes. 

Consider Kim Dude at the University of Missouri-Columbia, a 

longtime leader of that university’s AOD abuse prevention program. Dude helped organize the members of a campus and community coalition into action teams to address specifi c aspects of 

the university’s prevention plan. For example, one team—representing bar owners, neighborhood associations, residential life, 

student affairs, and campus and community police—focused 

on enforcement issues. Each action team followed a structured 

agenda to ensure that participants would derive real benefi ts 

from being involved.

Going beyond simple information sharing, Dude began by encouraging coalition members to raise issues and challenges 

they faced that members from other parts of the university or 

community might be able to help solve. The resolution of these 

problems was widely viewed as an important early “win” for the 

coalition, providing momentum to accomplish the work ahead. 

When asked why they kept coming to the coalition meetings, 

members confi rmed that the information they learned helped 

them do their own jobs well. Over time, they said, the value of 

these meetings had not diminished.

Most of the 22 program directors came to the role already possessing many of the skills they needed, but they also continued 

to expand their knowledge and skills by participating in national conferences and advanced training, keeping up with the 

research literature, visiting other campuses to learn about best 

Lessons on Program Development | 37
38 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

practices, and participating in or leading statewide college AOD 

abuse prevention initiatives in their states. Because they have 

continued to develop their skills, many of these program directors have been selected to conduct trainings about AOD abuse 

prevention and consult with individual campuses or groups 

of campuses.

To exercise leadership effectively, AOD abuse prevention coordinators must be able to devote a substantial portion of their time 

to this work, undistracted by other duties.11 Job descriptions for 

this position should itemize both the prevention perspective and 

leadership skills required. One of the model program institutions, the University of Chicago, relied for many years on a clinician in the counseling center to oversee student AOD education. 

By 2001, administrators saw the need for a more comprehensive 

prevention program and created the position of health education specialist within health services. Kelley Carameli, who holds 

a master’s degree in community health, was hired to fi ll the 

position. Carameli transformed the program, according to one 

campus offi cial. Her knowledge of evidence-based prevention 

strategies, her experience in program design, her understanding 

of what the campus was ready to undertake, and her presentation and relationship-building skills all contributed to helping 

the university shift to a broader range of prevention strategies.

Sharing Responsibility

Successful campus and community coalitions often involve more 

than one person in a leadership role. The coalition can benefi t from having multiple leaders who have different skill sets, 

“understand and appreciate different perspectives, are able to 

bridge diverse constituency groups, and are comfortable sharing ideas, resources, and power.”13 Shared leadership also means 

that the loss of one leader will not bring the program to a halt.

For example, at another grantee institution, San Diego State 

University, researcher and faculty member John Clapp and 

community organizer Marian Novak combined their 

skills to lead a six-campus effort in the San Diego 

area. Clapp brought a background in research, data 

management, strategic planning, and evaluation to 

the effort, while Novak developed relationships with 

key stakeholders at the city, county, and state levels 

The task of addressing health 

problems in a community must be 

seen as everyone’s job, not just 

the responsibility of the leader.

One study of 35 community-based prevention initiatives found that coalitions led by coordinators 

with a greater number of paid hours produced 

higher-quality strategic plans.10

A model job description for director of the Safety, 

Environment, and Education (SEE) Center at the 

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, identifi es 

several duties that refl ect important leadership 

qualities:

• Establish and maintain a coordinated, strategic 

partnership between key campus and community stakeholders. 

• Train working group members in areas related 

to environmental management, best practices in 

prevention, and community building.

• Research, develop, and submit grants to support 

offi ce operations and programming incentives. 

• Direct and coordinate working groups to ensure 

that strategies are data driven, clearly defi ned, 

and based on best practices research. 

• Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness and 

infl uence of the activities of the project and its 

work groups.

• Disseminate information on the work and 

progress of the program at local, regional, and 

national meetings and conferences.

• Develop, manage, and monitor all budgets and 

accounts pertaining to these areas, including 

federal and state grants. 

Listed personal qualities include excellent interpersonal and communication skills and a demonstrated ability to work effectively with multiple 

and culturally diverse constituencies.12

Because the tenure of many coalition leaders 

is relatively short, the leadership team continually needs to identify and foster a cadre of 

emerging leaders.14
and organized and maintained an active and effective coalition 

with 60 members.

Even where there is clear central leadership, sharing responsibility among team members is essential. A climate of mutual 

support is in evidence at the University of Northern Colorado, 

where AOD abuse prevention is seen as everyone’s job. Many of 

the team members grew up in Greeley, where the university is 

located, and have worked together on this issue over time. Both 

a high level of collaboration and a signifi cant degree of shared 

responsibility, built on mutual respect and trust, are deeply 

embedded in the professional culture. They help each other 

out, even if the task at hand is outside their normal duties. One 

member remarked, “We consider ourselves to be part of each 

other’s staffs.”

Building on Presidential Support

A program director’s ability to exercise leadership depends to a 

great extent on whether the president and other senior administrators actively support comprehensive AOD abuse prevention 

and the coalition process. The Presidents Leadership Group, 

formed in 1997 by the Center for College Health and Safety 

at Education Development Center, Inc., Newton, Mass., urged 

higher education presidents to make prevention both a personal 

and institutional priority.16

Not surprisingly, strong support from the president and the top 

student affairs administrator was an important factor for success 

on many of the model program campuses. The program at the 

State University of New York at New Paltz, for example, grew out 

of a set of recommendations made by a presidential commission. 

Similarly, a special committee at the University of Pennsylvania 

pushed hard for a new, full-time, senior administrative position 

to oversee the institution’s growing prevention efforts.

At Syracuse University, increased rates of alcohol-related misconduct and the university’s growing “party school” image 

prompted the chancellor to appoint a Commission on Substance 

Abuse Prevention in 1999. This led directly to development of the 

Substance Abuse Prevention and Health Enhancement (SAPHE) 

program and its Twelve Point Plan, which became the basis for 

Syracuse’s model program designation.

In a widely disseminated report to academic 

leaders, the Presidents Leadership Group 

(PLG) stated that college presidents should 

“use every opportunity to help keep the 

issue of student alcohol abuse at the top of 

the school’s agenda...” (p. 19).15 The PLG’s 

recommendations (p.18):

• Be Vocal. College presidents should 

openly and publicly acknowledge that 

alcohol and other drug abuse problems 

exist and then reach out to campus, community, and state-level groups to develop 

and implement a comprehensive strategy 

for prevention.

• Be Visible. College presidents should take 

an active stand on 

alcohol and other 

drug issues, convey 

clear expectations 

and standards, 

and serve as a role 

model to other 

senior administrators, faculty, 

and students.

• Be Visionary. College presidents should 

make alcohol and other drug abuse prevention a priority in their strategic plan for 

the school.

Some presidents may be reluctant to admit that 

their school has AOD problems or may worry 

that an ambitious prevention program will attract unfavorable publicity. Coalition leaders can 

motivate presidential support by (1) presenting 

needs assessment data on the AOD problem; (2) 

describing the steps being taken by other college presidents, 

especially at peer 

institutions; (3) 

emphasizing the 

public relations 

advantages of 

being proactive; 

(4) outlining how 

an advanced 

prevention effort, 

implemented 

to be consistent with best 

practices, can 

help reduce the 

institution’s legal 

liability; and (5) 

highlighting how 

strong prevention programs attract high-achieving students who want assurances that the 

school is addressing high-risk drinking.

Prevention can be regarded as a true priority for 

a particular campus only 

when the job descriptions 

for key senior administrators and the annual 

budget indicate that AOD 

issues are at the top of the 

institution’s agenda.

Surveys conducted at 32 

four-year institutions of 

higher education (IHEs) 

found majority student 

support at every campus for 

stricter disciplinary sanctions 

for alcohol-related violence. 

Majority support was found 

at more than half of the 

schools for two additional 

policy proposals: (1) applying 

stricter penalties for the use 

of false IDs to purchase alcohol illegally, and (2) prohibiting kegs on campus.17 

Lessons on Program Development | 39
40 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

An institution’s top administrators need to stay informed and 

involved. Capitalizing on the freedom that her tenured faculty 

position allowed her, as well as the relationships she had developed as dean of social sciences, Nancy Harper of Grand Valley 

State University (GVSU) leveraged signifi cant campus support 

for a stepped-up prevention effort. In part because of her ongoing access to the president, faculty, and senior administrators, 

she was able to build the program very quickly and maintain 

support for it. Harper was also well connected with national 

leaders in the campus AOD abuse prevention fi eld, and she 

consulted with them extensively in developing and implementing 

the GVSU program.

2. Building Coalitions

The mobilization of a community coalition—a group of key 

stakeholders who represent diverse organizations and constituencies and agree to work together to achieve a common 

goal18—has long been recognized as a key element of successful 

AOD abuse prevention.20 More recently, a published evaluation 

of campus and community coalitions affi liated with the A Matter 

of Degree initiative showed that such coalitions can work effectively to implement environmental management strategies and 

reduce heavy drinking, driving after drinking, and other alcoholrelated problems.21

A coalition’s defi ning action is to guide the design and execution of targeted initiatives. The role that coalitions play in actual 

implementation varies considerably, however: 

Some are directly involved in putting the programs and policies into operation, while 

others act as catalysts in identifying community needs, selecting or designing initiatives, 

and mobilizing community support for 

these efforts.22

Coalitions make it possible for a group of 

individuals to come together to bring about 

desired changes that the individual members could not achieve independently.23 Thus, a fundamental 

characteristic of effective prevention leadership is the ability to 

build and manage an effective campus and community coalition. 

Where a community prevention coalition already exists, college 

Many individuals and organizations have 

the expertise, access, and commitment 

required to reduce problem drinking on 

campus. Coalitions are an effective way to 

draw upon the contributions each participant can make.

Funding agencies and community activists 

favor broad-based community partnerships, 

due to their ability to represent and engage 

disparate constituencies, mobilize talent 

and resources, develop and implement 

interventions that operate at multiple levels, 

and foster community ownership and 

institutionalization.19

Syracuse University’s participation in a campus-community coalition has led to the elimination of city block party permits, enforcement 

sweeps (“Operation Prevent”) to crack down on 

fake IDs, and other initiatives.
and university offi cials should be invited to participate. Where 

no coalition is in place, higher education offi cials should join with 

community partners to start a coalition and set its agenda. 

The 22 model program directors all agreed that collaboration 

with key stakeholders was critical to their success. However, the 

extent and nature of their cooperative efforts vary widely, with 

some arrangements more formally structured than others. (For 

the sake of simplicity, each of these arrangements will be referred to as a “coalition.”) Whatever the case, the program directors saw building the professional relationships required to make 

this work possible as one of their most critical responsibilities.

Selecting and Recruiting Coalition Members

Securing broad representation is critical to a coalition’s success; 

membership should include individuals from key campus departments, organizations, and associations as well as representatives of important constituencies and various experts. A diverse, 

talented, and motivated membership is a coalition’s most important asset.27 Possible choices for coalition membership include 

the following:

• Campus leaders: senior administrators, faculty and staff, students, campus police chief

• Business representatives: liquor store owners, bar and restaurant owners, apartment owners

• Local government leaders: elected offi cials, public health 

director, community development and zoning offi cials

• Local law enforcement offi cials: municipal police chief, alcohol beverage control (ABC) offi cials

• Prevention and treatment experts: AOD treatment directors, 

community-based prevention leaders (e.g., MADD representative), community-based traffi c safety leaders

• Other community leaders: neighborhood coalition leaders, 

faith-based organization leaders, local news media representatives, parents

For a coalition to be successful, this diverse group of individuals must endorse its missions, goals, and objectives, including a 

shared belief in the benefi ts of an environmental 

Several arrangements are possible, with 

varying demands on the parties involved 

in terms of organizational commitment, 

resource sharing, and interdependency.24

Networking, the most informal level, is an 

exchange of information for the mutual 

benefi t of the parties. Coordinating is 

similar to networking but implies some 

degree of synchronization. Cooperating 

involves a higher 

level of mutual 

assistance. Collaborating represents a 

shared commitment 

to achieve a distinct 

mission. Coalitions

generally fall into 

this category. 

Students can make several contributions to a 

coalition:28 (1) provide background information 

on the problem, contributory factors, and local 

conditions; (2) interpret student survey data, 

offering suggestions and giving feedback on 

policies and programs being considered; (3) 

conduct student focus groups to pretest prevention messages and information materials; 

and (4) advise on how to present the prevention 

program to students so that they will understand the need for it and offer their support. 

In some cases an AOD 

abuse prevention 

coordinator will reach 

out to individual stakeholders to implement 

specifi c programs and 

policies rather than 

undertake broader 

systems change. This 

effort does not require 

a coalition, but rather 

a series of one-on-one 

exchanges between 

the coordinator and 

each stakeholder. Once 

the desired outcomes 

are achieved, the 

collaboration may not 

need to continue.25

What makes a true coalition different from 

other kinds of joint 

efforts is the degree 

to which members 

collaborate, not just 

on their own behalf 

or on behalf of the 

organization or agency 

they represent, but 

also on behalf of the 

coalition’s mission.26 

Lessons on Program Development | 41
42 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

management approach to preventing alcohol-related problems, 

both on campus and in the community.

It is essential to have an action-oriented group focused on a 

shared vision, not an assemblage of people who simply want to 

consult or learn about the problem. Membership selection should 

also be guided by the work style, skill sets, political clout, networking contacts, public credibility, and other assets that individuals might bring to the group. 

Members should be motivated to participate by either institutional or personal self-interest, yet willing to give the coalition 

control over some of their efforts. They must be able to 

work together effectively, with shared decision making, 

even if they represent competing interests, and they 

must be able to make a long-term commitment to participating in and sustaining the coalition.

Recruiting and then nurturing a productive coalition 

requires the AOD abuse prevention coordinator to invest 

considerable time and effort in relationship building. 

Pat Fabiano at Western Washington University calls this 

process “having one hundred cups of coffee,” referring 

to the many opportunities she takes to sit down and talk 

and listen with prospective partners. When recruiting new members, the coordinator should explain the purpose of the coalition, 

describe what the potential recruits could do to help, and outline 

how they would benefi t from participating, all while conveying a 

sense of excitement about what the coalition can accomplish.

Building an Effective Team

Program directors of the model programs described several 

early steps that an AOD abuse prevention coordinator can take 

to develop a sense of group identity and unifi ed purpose among 

coalition members:

• Give the coalition a title that captures both the scope and 

importance of its work.

• Establish ground rules that allow members to express their 

positions openly, but without rancor or fi nger-pointing.

• Identify and address any preconceptions or assumptions that 

individual members might have about student AOD problems.

A coalition’s efforts will have limited success 

if it neglects to address students’ AOD use 

off campus. Community leaders need to be 

involved in order to change alcohol promotion targeted to youths and to encourage 

stricter enforcement of underage drinking 

laws. Local residents will be angry if alcohol 

use restrictions on campus shift abusive 

drinking from the campus to the community.

Trying to recruit coalition members 

by telling them that preventing 

AOD abuse is the right thing to do is 

usually ineffective. Instead, identify a specifi c way in which participating will address their concerns 

or interests.
• Work with the group to develop a common understanding of 

the nature, scope, and consequences of the problems.

• Acknowledge that turf issues are an inherent aspect of collaborative work and can be resolved over time.

• Encourage members to seek common ground.

• Provide continuing opportunities for members to get to know 

each other.

Developing a cohesive and functioning team can take time. It 

is not unusual for early meetings to be dominated by members 

who want to vent their anger over long-standing problems. 

The coordinator’s challenge is to help coalition members move 

beyond their frustration to see that they share the same goals, 

are equally committed to the coalition process, and together can 

make things better.

The coordinator also must remember that it is unrealistic to 

require coalition members to do a lot of work or to participate in 

every coalition activity. Indeed, some members whose membership in the coalition is mandatory may resist participating actively, at least at fi rst.

Given this reality, many coalitions form subcommittees (also 

called “work groups” or “action teams”) to oversee activities 

that require focused time and specialization—for example, campus alcohol policy, substance-free events, alcohol access, neighborhood problems, law enforcement, fundraising, and media 

relations. A subcommittee structure gives coalition members an 

opportunity to provide input on the issues that interest or affect 

them most, while helping the coalition work more effi ciently. Every coalition member should be encouraged to become actively 

involved in at least one subcommitee.

For the sake of coalition unity, it is useful to involve the members 

in a few early activities in which everyone can play at least some 

part—for example, contributing to a problem analysis; establishing strategic priorities; brainstorming program and policy ideas; 

talking to members of coalitions in other campus communities; 

and identifying local, state, or national contacts. Opportunities for broadly shared work can be found at every stage of the 

coalition’s work.

Coalition members may need help in persuading their own constituents to support 

the coalition’s mission or activities.

Lessons on Program Development | 43
44 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

Team unity can also be enhanced by selecting early objectives 

that can be easy “wins,” demonstrating to group members 

and others that the coalition can create change. With each accomplishment, it is important for the coalition to celebrate its 

achievements and to recognize individual participants for their 

part in the group’s success.

Sustaining the Coalition

The model program directors made clear that the work of nurturing and sustaining a coalition is an ongoing process. This effort has paid off on several of the campuses, where many of the 

coalition members describe the working climate as collegial and 

cooperative, with some calling attention to how much they enjoy 

working together.

The AOD abuse prevention coordinator should monitor the 

coalition’s vitality using several indicators of constructive mobilization and engagement,29 as listed in fi gure 2 (see p. 47). Instruments are also available to assess the members’ views of how 

well the collaboration is functioning.30

Maintaining a smoothly functioning and productive coalition over 

time depends on preserving a “task-focused social climate.”31

The model program directors identifi ed several strategies to 

help maintain coalition members’ interest in the group and its 

work:

• Review the coalition’s mission periodically to make sure its 

action plans are still on target.

• Run effi cient and productive meetings.

• Recruit new members who can match the evolving needs of 

the coalition and bring new ideas and energy to the group.

• Continue to expand connections with community agencies 

and groups.32

• Stagger membership terms so that there is always a core of 

experienced members.

• Continue to replenish funding, so that new prevention 

initiatives will not have to end with the termination of 

current outside funding.

Linda Lederman, the model program director at Rutgers University, described a longstanding collaboration on her campus as 

“mutual back scratching”: “Our continuing 

partnership grows out of a real commitment 

. . . and our enjoyment in working together. 

For something like this to succeed, everyone 

has to see how working with others advances their own objectives.”

Running effi cient and productive meetings is 

critical to maintaining a coalition’s focus and 

sustaining active membership over time. Below 

are meeting tips suggested by the 22 model 

program directors and other leaders in campusbased AOD abuse prevention: 

• Announce the agenda two weeks in advance of 

the meeting date.

• Vary the location of the meeting.

• Announce in advance that food will be served. 

• Send a reminder a few days before the meeting 

date or call key members.

• Start and end the meeting on time.

• Make sure all participants and the facilitator 

can see and hear one another.

• Keep the meeting on task.

• Set a tone that invites everyone to participate.

• Review, publicize, and celebrate progress.

• Review decisions and long-term plans.

• Identify achievable steps that can take place 

before the next meeting.

• Set the date and preliminary agenda for the 

next meeting while people are still engaged.

• Keep the meeting to no more than 90 minutes.

• Encourage people to stay after the meeting to 

network with one another.

• Within a week, send a summary of decisions 

made and future plans.

• Work between meetings to help resolve any 

confl icts that arose during the meeting.
• Keep demands on members simple and realistic.

• Continue to publicize coalition victories and to give frequent 

recognition to coalition members.

• Encourage members to regard and use the coalition as a resource that can help them do their own jobs more effectively.

Sustaining a coalition also depends on the AOD abuse prevention coordinator’s efforts to improve its capacity to effect change 

through focused collaboration.33 In one study, coalition members’ 

assessments of how much their knowledge and skills had increased correlated positively with community leaders’ ratings of 

coalition effectiveness.34 Key capacities include knowing how to 

build positive internal and external relationships; how to engage 

members in work tasks; and how to select, develop, and implement effective programs and policies.35 It is equally critical for 

the coordinator to train and mentor future coalition leaders.

3. Choosing Evidence-Based Programs

Guidebooks for effective AOD abuse prevention often state 

how important it is for coalitions to choose programs based on 

evidence of effectiveness, referred to as “evidence-based programs.” This advice seems simple enough. After all, other things 

being equal, a prevention coalition will naturally want to use 

approaches that well-executed evaluation research has shown to 

be effective. In practice, however, matters are not that simple.36

One complicating factor is that program developers out to sell 

or otherwise promote their approaches will use adjectives like 

“effective,” “proven,” “model,” “science-based,” or “evidencebased” fairly indiscriminately, almost without regard to the 

actual quality of the research evidence. 

Further confusion is created by the label “promising.” This label 

is intended to suggest that although rigorously designed evaluations are lacking, encouraging pilot studies have been done, 

or the program or policy in question is consistent with behavior change theory or that the program or policy makes logical 

sense.37 In practice, however, some program directors treat such 

programs as if they have been fully evaluated.

While practitioners, in seeking suitable programs for their campuses, may come across programs identifi ed as evidence-based, 

Accept that while several core members 

may always attend meetings and participate 

in planning activities, some members—although always invited to attend—may not 

participate until the group is addressing one 

of their priority issues.

Lessons on Program Development | 45
46 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

that designation does not necessarily mean that the program 

evaluations actually meet rigorous scientifi c standards. 

One reason this is the case is the lack of consensus about what 

those standards should be. All experts recognize that a randomized control trial, with groups randomly assigned to treatment 

and control conditions, is the ideal evaluation design.38 Unfortunately, it is not always possible to do a randomized control trial. 

Thus, the debate centers on how evaluations that fall short of 

that ideal should be regarded. 

At one extreme, some researchers insist on a fully randomized 

control trial and deem any quasi-experimental evaluation (using 

a research design without random assignment to experimental 

conditions) to be without value, undeserving of publication or 

consideration. Although some research designs are unquestionably better than others, top-of-the-line evaluations can be 

extremely expensive and are therefore rare. Given that, taking 

the stance that less-than-ideal studies must be disregarded does 

a disservice to the many practitioners who face diffi cult choices 

about which AOD abuse prevention programs to choose.

At the other extreme, some researchers are content to rely on a 

single group pretest-posttest design, in which data are collected 

both before and after the program is implemented but there is 

no nonintervention control group. This research design is weak 

because there are many potential explanations for the observed 

changes, most of which are unrelated to the intervention.39 A 

program or policy evaluated using this design might reasonably 

be designated as “promising,” but not “evidence-based.” Nevertheless, several programs are being widely replicated on the 

basis of such information.

In between these two poles of a fully randomized control trial 

design and a simple pretest-posttest design is the vast middle 

ground occupied by researchers who employ quasi-experimental 

designs with both treatment and control groups, but without 

random assignment to groups. There are several such designs, 

with varying strengths and weaknesses. Thus, practitioners who 

have not been trained in research methods may fi nd it diffi cult to 

assess the quality of such research, given its variety and the several potentially confounding factors that have to be considered.

It is important to remember that even with 

the best research designs, evaluators can 

speak in terms of probabilities only, not 

certainties. When evaluators declare that a 

fi nding is statistically signifi cant, they are, by 

defi nition, admitting the possibility of error.

The purpose of more advanced research designs—involving data collection at nonintervention sites—is to increase confi dence that 

any outcome changes that coincide with the 

program can actually be attributed to it.
Reviews of the Literature

With so much confusion about which programs can be counted as “evidence-based,” how can practitioners sort out which programs and policies to try? Despite their imperfections, reviews of the literature 

prepared by consensus panels or individual content experts offer practitioners the best guidance on 

which programs deserve replication. 

Presently, the best overall review of campus-based prevention is the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse 

and Alcoholism (NIAAA) Task Force on College Drinking’s report, A Call to Action: Changing the Culture of 

Drinking at U.S. Colleges, which summarizes the research literature on successful prevention strategies.41

The Task Force’s report also includes a list of the specifi c prevention strategies for which there is 

the strongest research evidence of effectiveness. Key strategies with evidence of success include 

the following:

Sense of Community

Active members of the coalition share the 

following characteristics:

• They share a sense of connectedness and 

mutual dependence.

• They profess common beliefs about the 

nature and causes of the AOD problem and 

the community values that will guide their 

prevention efforts.

• They come together to bond and network.

• They accept mutual responsibility for sustaining or enhancing the quality of their interrelationships. 

Mobilization Capacity

• The coalition is formalized and guided by 

sustained leadership.

• Coalition members have incentives to 

participate.

• The coalition has behind-the-scenes support.

• Participants have the organizational know–

how to mobilize the coalition.

• Active members communicate with one 

another and the media to share information.

Readiness for Focused Action

• Active members are oriented toward highperformance team functioning.

• The coalition has a specifi c set of goals and a 

feasible plan of action and timeline.

• Participation in the prevention effort is 

broad–based and includes those most affected by the proposed changes.

• Active members have the capability and 

access to necessary resources to implement 

the plan.

• Participants have a passion for immediate 

action. 

FIGURE 2. Indicators of Constructive Mobilization and 

Engagement for AOD Abuse Prevention Coalitions

Adapted from Effective Community Mobilization: Lessons from Experience, Implementation Guide.40

Lessons on Program Development | 47
48 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

Strategies that target individual drinkers (tier 1):

• Programs that combine cognitive-behavioral skills 

training, norms clarifi cation, and motivational 

enhancement interventions

• Brief motivational enhancement interventions

• Alcohol-expectancy challenge

Strategies that target the general population, including 

college students (tier 2):

• Increased enforcement of minimum drinking-age laws

• Implementation, increased publicity, and enforcement of other 

laws to reduce alcohol-impaired driving

• Restrictions on alcohol retail outlet density

• Increased prices and excise taxes on alcoholic beverages

• Responsible beverage service (RBS) policies in social and commercial settings

As discussed in chapter 3, tier 1 strategies have two or more 

research studies that demonstrate their effectiveness with college students, while tier 2 strategies “have been successful with 

similar populations” but have “not yet been comprehensively 

evaluated with college students.”45

Three caveats regarding this list of strategies should be noted. 

First, a true experiment to study individually focused interventions, with random assignment at the student level, is far less 

costly to implement than a true experiment to study environmental management interventions, with random assignment at 

the institutional, community, or state level. In fact, at the time of 

the NIAAA Task Force’s review, no randomized control trials of 

student-focused environmental prevention strategies had been 

conducted. As a result, only individually focused interventions 

could be categorized as tier 1, though their effi cacy as part of a 

campuswide program has not been tested.

Second, the NIAAA report describes the tier 2 strategies at 

a fairly general level rather than providing specifi city. For example, which laws to reduce alcohol-impaired driving should be 

implemented? How should they be enforced? How should these 

The Alcohol Skills Training Program (ASTP), 

for example, focuses on specifi c skills 

for moderating drinking and coping with 

high-risk situations (cognitive-behavioral 

training); presents accurate information 

on the percentage of students who drink 

heavily (norms clarifi cation); and provides 

nonjudgmental feedback on personal drinking behavior in comparison with current 

norms, as well as information on the negative consequences of excessive consumption 

(motivational enhancement).42

Alcohol expectancy challenge is an 

experiential method designed to 

show drinkers that the positive effects they attribute to alcohol (e.g., 

sociability, sexual attractiveness) 

are due to their expectations and 

not the alcohol itself.43 One method 

is to convince students that they are 

drinking alcohol when they are not 

and then have them refl ect on how 

they felt and acted without actually 

consuming any alcohol.

Alcohol outlet density is the number of alcohol retail outlets within a certain distance 

of campus (e.g., three miles) per 1,000 

students enrolled. High outlet density is 

strongly associated with alcohol problems 

in the community.44

See chapter 2, p. 8, for a 

description of RBS.
laws and their enforcement be publicized? Practitioners will 

need to consult with colleagues at other institutions or review 

the literature themselves to get the specifi c guidance they need.

Third, it is to be expected that some programs and policies will 

be implemented despite their lack of demonstrated effectiveness in the research literature. For example, unproven education 

and awareness programs may be implemented because they can 

play a role in mobilizing students or other key constituencies. 

Other programs may complement a proven strategy. For instance, if RBS policies are being implemented in local alcohol 

outlets—a tier 2 strategy—it makes strategic sense to train 

fraternity and sorority leaders to host a party that follows 

RBS principles.

A critical function of consensus panel reports is to help AOD 

abuse prevention coordinators decide which current programs 

and policies should be discontinued due to a lack of supportive 

research evidence. The NIAAA Task Force report, for example, 

highlights the fact that evaluation research showed “informational, knowledge-based, or values clarifi cation interventions,” 

when used alone, to be ineffective in reducing student drinking 

and alcohol-related problems.46

Individual campuses can make similar determinations based on 

their own program assessments. Several of the model program 

directors, when interviewed about their prevention efforts, 

talked about letting go of things that weren’t working. The State 

University of New York at New Paltz, for example, dropped its 

peer education program, while the University of Pennsylvania 

discontinued its observation of Alcohol Awareness Week and the 

Century Council’s Alcohol 101 awareness education program.

As published reviews of the literature become outdated, it will 

be important for AOD abuse prevention coordinators to keep up 

with new research fi ndings. The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention assembles 

annotated literature on its Web site annually, with a focus on 

established and reputable academic journals that publish sound 

research (http://www.higheredcenter.org/ta/lit-review).

When reading individual studies, it is important to keep in mind 

that a sign of higher-quality evaluation studies is that they use 

comparison groups or otherwise control for nonprogram factors 

that are likely to affect results. If surveys are used, the sample 

Alcohol 101 is an interactive CD-ROM produced by the Century Council, a nonprofi t 

organization dedicated to combating 

alcohol-impaired driving and underage 

drinking, funded by a consortium of U.S.-

based alcohol distillers.47

Lessons on Program Development | 49
50 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

should be representative of the student population, and the 

response rate should be high (at least 50 percent). Also, fi ndings 

have greater credibility when they provide evidence of sustained 

change over time and successful replications at other sites.

Adaptation and Innovation

While AOD abuse prevention coordinators will want to draw 

upon evidence-based programs and policies, they should avoid 

following those models rigidly and without regard for local 

context. While it is critical to replicate the “core elements” of 

the intervention, it is always necessary to adapt to some degree 

to be appropriate to the nature of the institution and its student 

body, the characteristics of the local community, the nature and 

scope of existing efforts, and the types of resources that are 

available. Finding the right balance is a challenge. Thus, even 

when following an evidence-based model, it is important for 

the prevention team to evaluate the new program, looking at 

both process and outcome measures (see chapter 5, “Lessons 

on Program Implementation”).

Another consideration is the continuing need for innovation. 

Without new experiments the fi eld will never advance. At the 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the program director was impressed by a long-term evaluation of BASICS (Brief 

Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students), a brief 

motivational interviewing program.48 Going beyond the research, 

MIT, like many other institutions, began to use BASICS in conjunction with its disciplinary systems. As a result, a growing body 

of literature suggests that brief motivational interviewing can 

also be effective under these conditions. 

An AOD abuse prevention coordinator must show leadership by demonstrating a familiarity with best 

practices identifi ed in the research 

literature, yet also avoid being perceived as insensitive to community 

needs and preferences.
References

1. Butterfoss, F. D.; Goodman R. M.; and Wandersman, A. “Community Coalitions for Prevention and Health 

Promotion.” Health Education Research 8: 315–330, 1993; Lasker, R. D., and Weiss, E. S. “Broadening Participation 

in Community Problem Solving: A Multidisciplinary Model to Support Collaborative Practice and Research.” 

Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 80: 14–60, 2003.

2. Butterfoss, Goodman, and Wandersman, “Community Coalitions”; U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. 

Achieving Outcomes: A Practitioner’s Guide to Effective Prevention. Available at http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/

ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1a/79/c0.pdf. (Accessed on July 23, 2007.)

3. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffi c Safety Administration. Community How To 

Guide on Coalition Building (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 2001). This publication is 

available online at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/Community%20Guides%20HTML/Book1_

CoalitionBldg.html. (Accessed on July 5, 2007.)

4. Foster-Fishman, P. G.; Berkowitz, S. L.; Lounsbury, D. W.; Jacobson, S.; and Allen, N. A. “Building Collaborative 

Capacity in Community Coalitions: A Review and Integrative Framework.” American Journal of Community 

Psychology 29: 241–261, 2001.

5. Butterfoss, Goodman, and Wandersman, “Community Coalitions.”

6. Lasker, R. D.; and Weiss, E. S. “Broadening Participation in Community Problem Solving: A Multidisciplinary 

Model to Support Collaborative Practice and Research.” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York 

Academy of Medicine 80: 14–60, 2003.

7. Florin, P.; Mitchell, R. E.; and Stevenson, J. A Process and Implementation Evaluation of the Rhode Island Substance 

Abuse Prevention Act. Report submitted to the Rhode Island Division of Mental Health and the Rhode Island 

General Assembly, 1989.

8. Butterfoss, Goodman, and Wandersman, “Community Coalitions.”

9. Florin, Mitchell, and Stevenson, A Process and Implementation Evaluation.

10. Florin, P.; Mitchell, R.; Stevenson, J.; and Klein, I. “Predicting Intermediate Outcomes for Prevention Coalitions: A 

Developmental Perspective.” Evaluation Program Planning 23: 341–346, 2000.

11. U.S. Department of Transportation, Community How To Guide.

12. The full job description can be found on the Higher Education Center’s Web site at http://www.higheredcenter.

org/jobs/archives/0410.html#041006. (Accessed on July 5, 2007.)

13. Lasker and Weiss, “Broadening Participation.”

14. Foster-Fishman et al., “Building Collaborative Capacity.”

15. Presidents Leadership Group. Be Vocal, Be Visible, Be Visionary: Recommendations for College and University 

Presidents on Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention (Newton, Mass.: Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other 

Drug Prevention, 1997). This publication is available through the Higher Education Center’s Web site (http://

www.higheredcenter.org).

16. Ibid.

17. DeJong W.; Towvim, L. G.; and Schneider, S. K. “Support for Alcohol Control Policies and Enforcement Strategies 

Among U.S. College Students at 4-Year Institutions.” Journal of American College Health, in press, 2007.

Lessons on Program Development | 51
52 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

18. Butterfoss, Goodman, and Wandersman, “Community Coalitions.”

19. Mitchell, R.; Florin, P.; and Stevenson, J. F. “Supporting Community-Based Prevention and Health Promotion 

Initiatives: Developing Effective Technical Assistance Systems.” Health Education and Behavior 29: 620–639, 

2002.

20. Hingson, R. W., and Howland, J. “Comprehensive Community Interventions to Promote Health: Implications for 

College-Age Drinking Problems.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplement no. 14: 226–240, 2002.

21. Weitzman E. R.; Nelson, T. F.; Lee, H.; and Wechsler, H. “Reducing Drinking and Related Harms in College: 

Evaluation of the ‘A Matter of Degree’ Program.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 27: 187–196, 2004.

22. Foster-Fishman et al., “Building Collaborative Capacity.”

23. Florin et al., “Predicting Intermediate Outcomes.”

24. Chinman, M.; Imm, P.; and Wandersman, A. Getting to Outcomes 2004: Promoting Accountability Through Methods 

and Tools for Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation (Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND, 2004).

25. Stevenson, J. F., and Mitchell, R. E. “Community-Level Collaboration for Substance Abuse Prevention.” Journal of 

Primary Prevention 23: 371–404, 2003.

26. Butterfoss, Goodman, and Wandersman, “Community Coalitions.”

27. Ibid.

28. Zimmerman, R., and DeJong, W. Safe Lanes on Campus: A Guide for Preventing Impaired Driving and Underage 

Drinking (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug 

Prevention, 2003). This publication is available through the Higher Education Center’s Web site (http://www.

higheredcenter.org).

29. Effective Community Mobilization: Lessons from Experience, Implementation Guide (Washington, D.C.: Department 

of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for 

Substance Abuse Prevention, 1997).

30. Granner, M. L., and Sharpe, P. A. “Evaluating Community Coalition Characteristics and Functioning: A Summary 

of Measurement Tools.” Health Education Research 19: 514–532, 2004.

31. Florin et al., “Predicting Intermediate Outcomes.”

32. Effective Community Mobilization.

33. Stevenson and Mitchell, “Community-Level Collaborations.”

34. Florin et al., “Predicting Intermediate Outcomes.”

35. Foster-Fishman et al., “Building Collaborative Capacity.”

36. Mitchell, Florin, and Stevenson, “Support Community-Based Prevention.”

37. Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institute on Alcohol 

Abuse and Alcoholism. A Call to Action: Changing the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges (Washington, D.C.: 

National Institutes of Health, 2002).

38. DeJong, W., and Langford, L. M. Evaluating Environmental Management Approaches to Alcohol and Other Drug 

Abuse Prevention (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and 

Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention, 2006). This publication is available through the Higher Education 

Center’s Web site (http://www.higheredcenter.org).
39. Ibid.

40. Effective Community Mobilization.

41. Task Force, A Call to Action.

42. Ibid; Larimer, M. E., and Cronce, J. M. “Identifi cation, Prevention, and Treatment: A Review of IndividualFocused Strategies to Reduce Problematic Alcohol Consumption by College Students.” Journal of Studies on 

Alcohol, supplement no. 14: 148–163, 2002.

43. Ibid.

44. Task Force, A Call to Action.

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid.

47. Information about the Century Council’s programs can be found at the organization’s Web site (http://www.

centurycouncil.org). (Accessed on September 1, 2006.)

48. Marlatt, G. A.; Baer, J. S.; Kivlahan, D. R.; Dimeff, L. A.; Larimer, M. E.; Quigley, L. A.; Somers, J. M.; and Williams, 

E. “Screening and Brief Intervention for High-Risk College Student Drinkers: Results from a 2-year Follow-Up 

Assessment.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 66: 604–615, 1998.

Lessons on Program Development | 53

This chapter continues a review of lessons learned from the 22 model programs selected from 1999 to 

2004 under the Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Models on College Campuses Grants program, with a focus on four essential aspects of effective prevention work: (1) implementing strategic planning, (2) conducting a program evaluation, (3) working toward program sustainability, and (4) taking the long view. 

All four aspects are necessary to achieve long-term improvements in student AOD abuse prevention. If 

well-designed evaluations are not conducted, the prevention planning group cannot learn from experience and advance the quality of its programs and policies. If efforts are not made early to plan the maintenance and growth of prevention activities, priorities will shift, and the scope and quality of that work 

will gradually deteriorate. Finally, if campus offi cials do not take a long view, frustration with the pace of 

change will build, and they may slip into the fatalistic—and incorrect—view that campus AOD problems 

are intractable.

1. Implementing Strategic Planning

With the stakes so high, and with public scrutiny as great as it is, AOD abuse prevention coordinators are 

under great pressure to produce results quickly. This 

pressure can be especially severe on campuses that 

have seen a student die or suffer severe injuries due to 

AOD abuse, when both institutional and public demands 

to do something about the problem reach their peak.

In such situations there is a strong temptation to put 

new programs and policies in place quickly, sometimes 

before the nature of the problem is fully understood or 

before goals and objectives have been clearly stated. 

Practitioners may rush to replicate programs and 

policies being tried at other campuses, even when not 

enough information is available to know if the programs 

and policies are a good match for the campus or can 

actually produce favorable outcomes.1

The research literature suggests that AOD abuse prevention programs are most effective when they are 

designed to achieve realistic goals, have clear and focused objectives, are comprehensive in scope, and 

are adapted to fi t the specifi c community and social context.2 Matching that standard requires participation in a strategic planning and evaluation process. 

Figure 3 (see p. 58) lists fi ve essential steps in strategic planning. This process is presented as a step-bystep procedure, but it is common to review and rework earlier steps as a strategic plan evolves. The fi rst 

four steps are described below. The fi nal step, evaluation, is considered in a subsequent section, “Conducting a Program Evaluation.”

Chapter 5: Lessons on Program Implementation

Strategic planning is an ongoing 

and structured effort to shape and 

guide a prevention initiative. Without careful planning, an institution 

may end up with a collection of programs and policies that are unconnected to specifi c objectives, seem 

disjointed, and may even work at 

cross-purposes. 

 Experiences in Effective Prevention | 55
56 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

Conduct a Problem Analysis

An essential fi rst step is to generate a list of priorities that the 

prevention program will address, based on a thorough analysis of 

the problem. As noted in the previous chapter, an early challenge 

for working coalitions is to develop a common understanding of 

the nature, extent, and causes of alcohol-related problems in the 

campus community. 

Key sources of information include student surveys 

and archival data kept by campus and local police, 

judicial affairs, residential life, health services, 

community hospitals, and other departments and 

agencies. Planners will also want to interview key 

stakeholders (e.g., senior administrators, elected 

offi cials, law enforcement offi cials) and conduct 

fi eld observations to deepen their knowledge. 

At Bowling Green State University, for example, faculty members 

investigated where students cited for alcohol-related violations 

had consumed their last drink before being apprehended. This 

information made clear that unlicensed settings—private 

homes and residence halls—were the most prevalent places 

where these students drank heavily. Hobart and William Smith 

Colleges keeps track of liquor law violations, property damage, 

and other indicators to track the progress of the institution’s 

alcohol prevention efforts.

Problem analysis should go beyond individual-level factors 

associated with high-risk drinking to consider key environmental factors, such as: too few substance-free extracurricular and 

recreational options, mixed messages regarding campus drinking 

norms, the availability of low-cost or free alcohol, inappropriate 

alcohol promotions directed at students, and weak alcohol policy 

and law enforcement.4

This early assessment should also be broadened to assemble 

information on assets in the community—current AOD programs 

and policies, potential allies, content and skill experts, and other 

resources. Gathering this information can help ensure that the 

new prevention initiative takes advantage of available assets 

and opportunities.

The planning group should prepare a full report of its fi ndings 

to establish a rational basis for the strategic plan and to 

motivate action.

This step is frequently called a “needs 

assessment,” but the term “problem analysis” 

is more focused and more accurate.

The problem analysis will reveal not 

only the nature and scope of the 

problem but also the broader social, 

economic, and physical contexts that 

might shape both the problem and 

the range of appropriate strategies 

that might be adopted to reduce it.3
Establish Long-Term Goals and Objectives

The next step is to decide on the primary changes in student 

behavior or other outcomes that the prevention initiative should 

achieve. There are several factors to consider. Should the focus 

be on high-risk drinking, including underage consumption, or 

on reducing negative consequences due to drinking? Should the 

focus be on illicit drugs or on prescription medications? Should 

efforts to reduce alcohol use be accompanied by strategies such 

as a safe rides program? Should the strategic plan focus only on 

on-campus issues or also take off-campus considerations into 

account? The goals should be precisely written so that there is 

no ambiguity about their meaning and their achievement can be 

observed and measured readily.

Next, a list of measurable objectives can be developed, each 

linked to a specifi c long-term goal. These objectives will emerge 

from the problem analysis, which will have considered the times, 

places, and circumstances of the institution’s alcohol-related 

problems. For example, on a campus surrounded by several 

alcohol retail outlets, a specifi c objective might be to decrease 

the percentage of underage students who report buying 

alcohol illegally.

Consult Research, Program Experience, and Theory to 

Identify Potential Strategies

Primary consideration must be given to using programs and 

policies that are supported by well-executed evaluation 

research. As noted in the section “Choosing Evidence-Based 

Programs” (p. 45), consensus panel reports, published reviews 

of the literature, and annotated bibliographies are available for 

consultation. See “Resources” (p. 73) for a list of organizations 

that archive these types of sources. For more specifi c guidance, 

and to keep up with the literature, planners will also need to 

review individual studies.

“[S]tating that ‘alcohol consumption’ will be reduced is too imprecise. Instead, a specifi c goal 

might be to decrease the number of separate 

occasions on which students consume alcohol per month, or to decrease the percentage 

of students who report having three or more 

drinks the last time they consumed alcohol. 

In some cases, it will be important to specify 

the time and place where the changes will be 

observed.”5

With relatively few college–specifi c intervention studies, it will be essential to consult 

studies on community–based programs with 

similar goals. Many of the approaches studied may be transferable to campus settings.

Lessons on Program Implementation | 57
58 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

Networking with AOD abuse prevention coordinators and other professional colleagues is also recommended, as they can offer new ideas, outline specifi c implementation guidelines, and issue warnings 

about various pitfalls. Use caution in adopting an intervention that has not been well evaluated.

If suitable evaluated programs and policies cannot be identifi ed, the planning group can draw on behavior change theory or other theoretical frameworks to develop and evaluate new interventions. For example, two theories inspired the development of social norms marketing campaigns at several of the model 

program sites: Social cognitive theory, whereby people learn new behaviors by observing models and then 

perform those behaviors in anticipation of desired rewards;6

 and the theory of planned behavior, whereby 

normative information helps shape the behavior choices people make.7 Such campaigns are designed to 

convey accurate information about student drinking norms, present positive role models who abstain or 

drink moderately, and convey the social rewards students can expect if they too make these choices.8

In other cases, planners can develop new intervention ideas through logical analysis. For example, if 

campus police reports reveal a spike in alcohol-related problems just before classes start for the term, 

campus and town offi cials could consider several approaches, including allowing fewer days for students 

to move into residence halls, expanding substance-free recreational options, and increasing police presence at the beginning of the academic year. 

This review of program and policy options can be facilitated by the use of a typology matrix developed 

by the U.S. Department of Education’s Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and 

Violence Prevention (see fi g. 1 on p. 18). The matrix is a useful tool for categorizing existing efforts, 

FIGURE 3. The Strategic Planning Process

1. Conduct a problem analysis.

 • Gather data on the nature and scope of the problem.

 • Examine existing resources and assets.

 • Analyze and summarize the information to clarify needs and opportunities.

2. Establish long-term goals and objectives.

3. Consult research, program experience, and theory to identify potential strategies.

4. Create a strategic plan.

 • Choose the strategies that seem most likely to produce the desired outcomes.

 • Translate the selected strategies into specifi c activities.

 • Create a “logic model” that describes the intervention components and explains how they are 

expected to work.

 • Create a work plan. 

5. Execute an iterative evaluation plan.

 • Monitor implementation of the work plan.

 • Evaluate programs and policies.

 • Use the fi ndings to guide improvements.
identifying missing program elements, and guiding new strategic 

planning.9

Each area of strategic intervention involves a menu of program, 

policy, and services options, many of which can operate at different levels of the social ecological model. Consider the environmental change objective of increasing enforcement of the 

minimum drinking age 21 laws. This effort could be organized 

primarily at the community level, with targeted police patrols at 

local alcohol retailers. At the institutional level, retailers could 

be trained and provided with special equipment to detect fake 

IDs. Resident assistants could be provided stronger support for 

writing up residence hall infractions. Campus administrators 

could adopt a policy that applies college disciplinary procedures 

to off-campus student misconduct. At the group level, campus 

offi cials might require party hosts to apply RBS principles to prevent alcohol service to underage students. At the individual level, 

a campus media campaign could publicize these new programs 

and policies, together with any stepped-up enforcement actions.

Create a Strategic Plan

With the background work completed, the planning group is 

ready to assemble a strategic plan, tied to the long-term goals 

and objectives just outlined. There are several key points for the 

planning group to consider:

• A plan must be comprehensive, involving multiple programs 

and policies.11

• The heart of the plan should be environmental management, 

with a focus on addressing the campus and community conditions that give rise to alcohol-related problems.12

• Interventions are more effective when prevention efforts are 

implemented at multiple levels of the social ecological model 

(see fi g. 1 on p. 18) and reinforce one another.14

• Prevention efforts can be enhanced by implementing complementary efforts in other categories of the typology matrix (see 

fi g. 1 on p. 18).

• There should be a sequence of activities that naturally build 

from one to the next.

Menus of intervention options are presented in Safe Lanes on Campus: A Guide for 

Preventing Impaired Driving and Underage 

Drinking.10 

With a focus on alcohol, the strategic plan 

should incorporate enforcement of the 

state’s age 21 law (i.e., the minimum drinking age law).

Health educators and counselors 

who run traditional education and 

treatment programs will be pushing uphill when the campus and 

community environments continue 

to facilitate or even encourage 

high-risk drinking behaviors.

No one should expect to fi nd a single 

program, even if it is evidence-based, 

that will solve the campus AOD abuse 

problem. Substance use, like any healthrelated behavior, is affected by multiple 

infl uences, including individual, interpersonal (group), institutional, community, 

and societal factors.13

Lessons on Program Implementation | 59
60 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

• It is useful to start with a simple, achievable objective to get an 

early “win” and develop momentum for other efforts.

• Compromises may be necessary due to staff inexperience, the 

unavailability of supportive infrastructure and systems, and 

campus and local politics.

• It may be helpful to identify a concept or theme to organize or 

unify the initiative.

The strategic plan can be enhanced by developing a logic model, 

a diagram that makes explicit the chain of events that is expected to lead from the intervention activities to the achievement of 

short-term, intermediate, and long-term goals.16 Figure 4 (see 

p. 61) presents a hypothetical example for a social norms marketing campaign. When the logic model is complete, it represents 

the group’s commonsense understanding of how the program 

activities will lead to the desired outcomes. The logic model also 

drives the evaluation plan.

Once it has selected the intervention strategies, the planning 

group will develop a work plan. This involves settling on a set of 

specifi c activities, each with a precisely worded task objective. 

For example, if a chosen strategy is to increase publicity about 

DUI enforcement, the work plan should itemize exactly 

which media channels will be used, when, and for what 

types of messages. The work plan should also itemize a 

list of necessary resources, including staff, lines of decision-making authority, and a timeline for development 

and implementation.

The logic model is best created after a 

tentative selection of program activities but 

prior to their execution. Constructing a logic 

model can help to do the following:

• Identify areas of uncertainty, confusion, 

or disagreement among members of the 

planning group.

• Expose any false assumptions that need to 

be addressed.

• Ensure that all program activities and 

policies can be linked logically to specifi c 

objectives.

• Serve as an educational and communications tool.

• Help track changes in the intervention or in 

its implementation.

• Guide the process and outcome evaluation.

Working with a logic model allows corrections to be made on paper well before the 

program is in the fi eld.15

If a prevention plan is not coherently tied to specifi c outcomes, it 

may have little effect even if it uses 

a broad array of strategies.17
Lessons on Program Implementation | 61

FIGURE 4. Social Norms Marketing Campaign Logic Model

Source: This logic model was developed by W. DeJong, Boston University School of Public Health and the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention, 2004.
62 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

2. Conducting a Program Evaluation

Senior campus and community offi cials will want to see evaluation data showing that the prevention 

efforts are a worthwhile endeavor deserving of continued support. Any program that is not evaluated is 

vulnerable to budget cuts.

There are three basic types of evaluation. A process evaluation documents how the prevention work is 

being implemented and gauges the fi delity of that work against what was originally planned. An outcome 

evaluation looks at whether each program and policy is accomplishing its short-term and intermediate 

objectives. An impact or summative evaluation examines whether the overall prevention effort is reducing 

student AOD use and its consequences.

Most of the 22 model programs used evaluation as a management tool. With evaluation plans in place, 

the program directors and their colleagues could assess whether a particular program or policy was 

working as intended and then decide whether it should continue or be expanded, revised, or terminated. 

As noted above, evaluation is an essential part of strategic planning, since research fi ndings are used 

to guide plans for midcourse improvements. Effective strategic planning, then, is a cyclical process 

(for instance, see fi g. 4 on p. 61). 

Evaluations are most useful when they are planned at the same time as the prevention effort itself, rather 

than after the fact. This approach ensures that the evaluation design is crafted to fi t the program’s goals, 

objectives, and activities; that the short-term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes are clearly specifi ed; and that the resources needed to conduct a proper evaluation are in place in advance. Planning the 

prevention effort and its evaluation simultaneously helps the planning group see evaluation as a management tool, rather than as a drain on program resources or an external threat to the program. 

Having an evaluator assigned to the planning group early on will facilitate this perspective.18 Specifi cally, 

the evaluator can help ensure that (1) the needs assessment provides baseline (pre-intervention) data 

for the evaluation; (2) the intervention plan features 

programs and policies that are either evidence-based 

or grounded in theory; (3) the achievement of goals 

and objectives can be measured; (4) each program and 

policy can be linked to specifi c objectives; and (5) there 

are suffi cient resources to fulfi ll the plan. 

The previous section highlights the value of creating a 

logic model to facilitate strategic planning. The logic 

model diagram lists the program’s key components and 

then shows the chain of expected events, moving from 

specifi c programs and policies to intermediate and longterm outcomes. Developing a logic model is also necessary for evaluation planning. When a research team is 

brought in to evaluate an ongoing program, its fi rst step should be to work with the staff to create a logic 

model that describes the program.

When college and university administrators feel pressured to do something now about alcohol and other 

drug problems on campus, they may 

scrimp on evaluation planning in 

favor of putting a new prevention 

initiative in place as soon as possible. In the long run, this will hurt 

the program.
A well-crafted logic model will make clear exactly what needs 

to be measured: (1) the resources and activities that constitute 

the intervention (process evaluation), (2) intermediate objectives (outcome evaluation), and (3) long-term goals (impact or 

summative evaluation). A comprehensive evaluation enables 

researchers either to establish that the planned activities contributed directly to achieving the intervention’s objectives or to 

diagnose why a particular intervention did not work as planned.

The next step is to develop process measures that can be used 

to document the nature, extent, and quality of program implementation. Common types of process measures 

include resources (staff, volunteers, and funds)

or numbers of people or groups being served or 

materials distributed or similar measures of activity 

levels. Process measures can also be used to assess the formation and operation of a campus and 

community coalition. Key milestones include establishing a core leadership team and a subcommittee 

structure; developing rules of governance; recruiting members; conducting a needs assessment, 

including a scan of the campus and community 

environment; identifying research-based program 

and policy options; and outlining a strategic plan.19

Outcome measures can be divided into two categories: (1) intermediate behavioral outcomes and (2) changes in the structure or 

functioning of the campus and community environment. 

The program’s logic model will list intermediate behavioral 

outcomes that are necessary for achieving desired long-term 

outcomes. For example, for a safe rides program, intermediate 

outcomes might include on-premise alcohol retailers promoting the program through advertising and waitstaff reminders. 

Long-term behavioral outcomes usually focus on students, especially AOD use and AOD-related consequences. With a safe rides 

program, a long-term outcome would be for students to call the 

service to arrange a ride to avoid driving after drinking. The best 

method for assessing student behaviors is a survey administered 

to a random sample of students selected from the registrar’s list, 

with steps taken to produce high response rates.23 AOD-related 

consequences can be assessed through student surveys or archival records kept by campus and community offi cials (e.g., health 

records, police records).

Coalitions assessed only by the 

quality of their deliberative process, rather than by the success of 

the programs and interventions they 

implement and the effects of their 

efforts, may not be accomplishing 

anything of value. 

For an intervention designed to reduce disturbances due to off-campus student parties, 

process measures might include the number 

of off-campus student residences receiving a 

pamphlet about applicable town ordinances; the 

number of extra police patrols used on weekend 

nights in student-dominated neighborhoods; and 

the number and reach of campus newspaper ads, 

fl iers, e-mails, and other media efforts used to 

inform students about those increased enforcement efforts. 

Web–based surveys, with participants recruited 

by e-mail, are now the method of choice due 

to their lower costs and the ease and speed of 

administration. Existing 

survey instruments can 

be examined for questions to include.20

Guidance on how large a sample to 

draw can be found in Methods for 

Assessing Student Use of Alcohol and 

Other Drugs.21

Researchers prefer response rates of 70 

percent or higher, but recent national studies 

have typically reached rates between 50 

and 60 percent.22

The Higher Education 

Center for Alcohol and 

Other Drug Abuse and 

Violence Prevention maintains a searchable database of surveys and other 

evaluation instruments 

(http://www.higheredcenter.org/instruments).

Lessons on Program Implementation | 63
64 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

Environmental outcomes concern changes in the campus and 

community environment, which are then expected to result in 

long-term changes in student AOD use. Environmental changes 

can be gauged through surveys, interviews, or focus groups with 

students or other campus constituencies—for example, perceptions of responsible beverage service (RBS) practices at local 

alcohol outlets—and archival records. Outcome measures should 

be chosen that correspond to the particular interventions being 

employed and the specifi c environmental changes that are outlined in the logic model. Examples include the following:

• Alcohol-free options

 1. Student self-report: number of substance-free events 

attended.

 2. Archival record: daily sales receipts at an on-campus 

coffee house.

• Normative environment

 1. Student self-report: number of faculty-student contacts 

outside of class. 

 2. Archival record: number of students enrolling in early morning and Friday classes.

• Alcohol availability

 1. Student self-report: perceived ease or diffi culty of acquiring 

alcohol when under age. 

 2. Archival record: average retail price for a six-pack of beer.

• Alcohol marketing and promotion

 1. Student self-report: attendance at events with alcohol 

industry sponsorship. 

 2. Archival record: number of alcohol advertisements appearing in sports venues.

• Policy development and enforcement

 1. Student self-report: perceived risk of police being called to 

house parties in response to neighborhood complaints. 

 2. Archival record: number of fake IDs confi scated by local 

alcohol retailers.

To improve the quality of archival records, the evaluation team 

will usually need to work with campus and community agencies 

to develop or refi ne data collection forms and other record-keeping procedures.

Once the process and outcome measures are selected, the research design needs to be considered. A research design is the 

The Higher Education Center publication Evaluating Environmental Management Approaches to 

Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Prevention provides 

additional examples of appropriate measures, 

which are organized by environmental management strategy.24
basic structure of the evaluation, which outlines when and where 

data will be collected to study the intervention. 

The simplest design has a treatment group but no control group 

(i.e., a comparison group that does not receive the intervention), 

with data collection both before and after the intervention is 

launched (single group pretest-posttest design). Observed changes 

may be due to the intervention, but there may be many competing explanations as well.

The research design is strengthened by adding a control group, 

which makes it possible to rule out many competing explanations for pretest-to-posttest changes in the treatment group. 

The most common such design does not involve random assignment to the two groups (nonequivalent comparison group design). 

A more advanced design does involve random assignment (true 

experiment or randomized trial).

A well-designed evaluation will document how a prevention 

initiative was implemented and assess its intermediate and 

long-term outcomes. With these fi ndings in hand, the planning 

group can develop plans for strengthening or improving that effort. In some cases it will be discovered that a program or policy 

was not implemented as planned, or that too few resources were 

invested in it. Or it may be that too few students knew about the 

initiative for it to be effective. In other cases, the evaluation will 

show that an entirely new approach is needed.

Embracing evaluation as a management tool is especially important in an academic environment, where the collection, 

assessment, and interpretation of evidence are highly valued 

activities. The next section highlights another reason to spend 

time and resources on evaluation: there are many competing 

demands on college budgets, and senior administrators will want 

to know that an initiative works, or that evaluation is being used 

to improve it, before they commit the institution to a long-term 

investment of resources.26

3. Working Toward Sustainability

College and university administrators are very concerned about 

student AOD problems,27 and they recognize their legal duty to 

take steps to provide a safe and drug-free campus.28 Even so, 

staff coordinators responsible for AOD abuse prevention often 

The purpose of more advanced 

research designs—involving data 

collection for a nonintervention control 

group—is to rule out 

competing explanations, thus increasing 

confi dence that any 

outcome changes 

that coincide with the 

program can actually be attributed to it. 

Using an advanced design is less important if the strategies 

being used are already known to be 

effective, if not with college students 

then with the general population, e.g., 

higher alcohol prices or increased 

enforcement of the minimum drinking age law.

Finding Out What Works 

and Why: A Guide to Evaluating College Prevention 

Programs and Policies describes research designs 

and the types of competing explanations they can 

help rule out.25

An evaluation of a campus- or community-wide 

strategy can involve a control group only when 

one or more comparison sites are available. Often, 

however, there are not enough comparable sites, 

other interventions exist at those sites, or funding 

is inadequate. The alternative in such cases is to 

examine how changes observed at the treatment 

site compare with statewide or national changes, 

if such data are available.

Lessons on Program Implementation | 65
66 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

say that building and sustaining senior administrative and fi nancial support is the toughest challenge they face. The 22 model 

programs have faced this challenge as well.

To meet this challenge, the inevitable starting point is to implement a prevention initiative that deserves to be institutionalized. That means having goals and objectives 

that can be linked to a larger set of issues that the 

college community cares about, developing a longrange plan, selecting evidence-based programs and 

policies, and conducting an evaluation to hold the 

program accountable and to guide quality improvement 

efforts. Importantly, the 22 model programs also serve 

to illuminate other steps that can be taken to work toward 

program sustainability.

Better prevention initiatives emerge from collaboration, both 

on and off campus. Collaboration facilitates institutionalization 

as well. Most critically, having invested collaborators creates a 

critical mass of strong support for the initiative. If various campus and community offi cials have fi rsthand experience with it, 

they will be more likely to urge the administration to preserve it. 

When an AOD abuse prevention coalition is being assembled, the 

program director should recruit members who have professional 

or personal ties to the president and other senior administrators 

and who can advocate on the coalition’s behalf.

In addition, a collaborative program will feature cosponsored activities, which can stretch the resources 

assigned directly to AOD abuse prevention. Senior 

administrators are then more likely to see the college’s 

investment in AOD abuse prevention not as a standalone activity, but as a cost-effective way of leveraging 

a comprehensive effort. The program director should 

also recruit members whose agency, offi ce, or department has staff resources or funds that can be channeled into 

prevention-related work while also serving to meet their own 

work objectives.

Collaboration with local leaders and community representatives 

also represents a public statement about the college’s commitment to address problems in the larger community caused by 

student AOD use. Putting this in place will make it far more 

diffi cult for senior administrators to withdraw their support for 

the program at a later time, since doing so may sour campusThe challenge of creating a new prevention program is diffi cult enough, 

but sustaining support for the program over time once a start-up grant 

has ended can be even harder.29

The best time to think about 

how to get a program institutionalized is at the beginning of the planning process, 

before the program begins.30

The institution’s paramount concern is the fulfi llment of its academic mission. Within that context, 

issues of concern include student retention and 

success, student health (or “wellness”), campus 

security, and fi scal management.

Helping other groups meet their institutional 

needs will sometimes mean including program 

elements that are of lesser priority (e.g., education and awareness activities). Such steps must 

be undertaken cautiously. They may be the price 

of getting a group on board, but having the AOD 

abuse prevention staff bogged down in too many 

of these activities could be counterproductive. 
community relations and create other problems for the college. 

Likewise, senior administrators will be less likely to end or cut 

an AOD abuse prevention initiative if its leaders are actively 

involved in a regional or statewide consortium, especially if 

that group has political ties to a state agency or 

other government offi cials with infl uence over 

the college.31

Generating favorable publicity about the initiative is another means of building support.32

A high-profi le awareness event is one way to do 

this,33 especially if senior administrators can be 

invited to participate or attend. Visibility can 

also be raised through Web sites, posters, paid 

advertising, commentaries, and other media activities. The prevention coordinator can become 

a source of accurate information for campus 

news outlets through holding press briefi ngs, 

sending out news releases, and setting up interviews with local experts.34 The AOD abuse prevention coordinator may need 

clearance from a top-level administrator to release information 

about the program or be expected to work with the college’s 

press offi ce. Finally, senior administrators and other members of 

the campus community should receive regular and easy-to-read 

reports highlighting both the program’s accomplishments and 

any favorable publicity or public recognition it receives.

Developing additional resources as part of the long-range 

planning process is critical to a program’s long-term continuation. This is necessary even when senior administrators are 

committed to continuing the program, since they are unlikely 

to provide all of the funding the program could use. Potential 

sources of funding or in-kind contributions include student fees, 

disciplinary fi nes, alumni donations, business donations, and 

grants from corporations or foundations. Grant-writing guidelines can be found in Building Long-Term Support for Alcohol and 

Other Drug Programs.

35

Auburn University, for example, once charged students $40 for 

the BASICS program utilized by its Health Behavior Assessment 

Center. With its model program grant, and then with “concession 

grants” from vending machine companies and the intercollegiate 

athletics program, Auburn no longer charges for this service. 

Many of the most effective techniques for AOD 

abuse prevention—e.g., being active in local 

community efforts to control alcohol availability, 

reducing disturbances caused by off-campus 

parties, and fi ghting alcohol-impaired driving—do 

not take large fi nancial resources, but require only 

that the prevention staff make that work a priority.

When a program is initiated through a 

new grant, the planning group should 

see the grant as part of a long-range 

plan, so that the money is used not 

just to fund the program temporarily 

but to help make the long-term plan 

a reality. 

It is helpful to associate the program 

with a department or center that 

can provide additional credibility and 

standing in the college community. 

The RU Sure? program at Rutgers, 

(see p. 21) for example, was led 

by a senior faculty member in 

the university’s communications 

department, which served to broaden 

faculty support for the program.

Lessons on Program Implementation | 67
68 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

The program also benefi ts from an ongoing graduate assistantship supported by the Department 

of Psychology. 

Many college administrators question whether to accept donations from the alcohol industry, believing 

that it might compromise their credibility with students or restrict the range of prevention options they 

can consider. If a college or university does agree to receive alcohol industry monies, limits should be 

set on what say the donor has in how those monies are used, what types of prevention messages are 

disseminated, and on how the donor presents that relationship to the public. Moreover, the planning 

group should work hard to diversify its funding base to ensure its prevention work is not vulnerable to 

industry pressure.

Finally, long-term program continuity requires planning ahead for changes in the prevention coalition’s 

leadership. Allowing an initiative to become too dependent on the vision, energy, and skill of a single 

individual is shortsighted. On a continuing basis, the planning group should identify and train volunteers 

and staff who can assume positions of leadership in the coalition.36 The University of Arizona clearly benefi ted from the foresight of program director Koreen Johannessen, who built an effective project team 

that could carry on the university’s environmental management work and its social norms marketing 

campaign after her retirement.

4. Taking the Long View

The model program directors emphasized that changing the culture of student drinking and other drug 

use will take time. There are no quick fi xes, no silver bullets, no magic formulas to follow—just a lot of 

hard work. The problems have a complex etiology, with a mix of contributory psychological, interpersonal, and environmental factors, and it will take a sustained effort to combat them.

Prevention programs must evolve to respond to evaluation fi ndings, adapt to changing conditions, and 

take advantage of new opportunities. Learning from other prevention experts is essential. Project staff 

need ongoing training and technical assistance support in planning, program implementation, and evaluation in order for their efforts to be successful and become institutionalized.37

There will be setbacks. The pace of change may be slow. There are so many factors, many beyond the 

control of campus and community offi cials, that infl uence AOD use—for example, changes in alcohol 

taxes, new alcohol products, and greater availability of low-cost illicit drugs.

Some program critics may claim that the problem is intractable, that if students are intent on drinking, 

then nothing can be done to stop them. There may be calls on campus to accept underage drinking as a 

fact of life, or even to lower the minimum drinking age. As the model program directors responded, however, AOD program directors need to have faith in their vision. Change takes time, and only by imparting 

a deep confi dence in that vision can they inspire others to follow it over the long haul. 
References

1. Saltz, R. F., and DeJong, W. (2002). Reducing Alcohol Problems on Campus: A Guide to Planning and Evaluation

(Rockville, Md.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 

Alcoholism, 2002).

2. Foster-Fishman, P. G.; Berkowitz, S. L.; Lounsbury, D. W.; Jacobson, S.; and Allen, N. A. “Building Collaborative 

Capacity in Community Coalitions: A Review and Integrative Framework.” American Journal of Community

Psychology 29: 241–261, 2001.

3. Saltz and DeJong, Reducing Alcohol Problems.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute. Theory at a Glance: A Guide for Health 

Promotion Practice. Available at http://www.nci.nih.gov/PDF/481f5d53-63df-41bc-bfaf-5aa48ee1da4d/TAAG3.

pdf. (Accessed on June 18, 2006.)

7. Ibid.

8. Perkins, H. W. (ed.) The Social Norms Approach to Preventing School and College Age Substance Abuse: A Handbook 

for Educators, Counselors, and Clinicians (San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass, 2003).

9. DeJong, W., and Langford, L. M. “A Typology for Campus-Based Alcohol Prevention: Moving Toward 

Environmental Management Strategies.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplement no. 14: 140–147, 2002.

10. Zimmerman, R., and DeJong, W. Safe Lanes on Campus: A Guide for Preventing Impaired Driving and Underage 

Drinking (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug 

Prevention, 2003). This publication is available through the Higher Education Center’s Web site (http://www.

higheredcenter.org).

11. Wandersman, A., and Florin, P. “Community Interventions and Effective Prevention.” American Psychologist 58: 

441–448, 2003.

12. Zimmerman and DeJong, Safe Lanes; DeJong, W.; Vince-Whitman, C.; Colthurst, T.; Cretella, M.; Gilbreath, M.; 

Rosati, M.; and Zweig, K. Environmental Management: A Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Alcohol and Other 

Drug Use on College Campuses (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for 

Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1998). These publications are available through the Higher Education 

Center’s Web site (http://www.higheredcenter.org).

13. Stokols, D. “Translating Social Ecological Theory into Guidelines for Community Health Promotion.” American 

Journal of Health Promotion 10: 282–298, 1996.

14. Ibid; Butterfoss, F. D., Goodman R. M.; and Wandersman, A. “Community Coalitions for Prevention and Health 

Promotion.” Health Education Research 8: 315–330, 1993.

15. Saltz and DeJong, Reducing Alcohol Problems.

16. Ibid; Langford, L., and DeJong, W. Strategic Planning for Prevention Professionals on Campus (Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence 

Prevention). In review.

Lessons on Program Implementation | 69
70 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

17. Florin, P.; Mitchell, R.; Stevenson, J.; and Klein, I. “Predicting Intermediate Outcomes for Prevention Coalitions: A 

Developmental Perspective.” Evaluation Program Planning 23: 341–346, 2000.

18. Langford, L. M., and DeJong, W. How to Select a Program Evaluator (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 2001). This publication is available 

through the Higher Education Center’s Web site (http://www.higheredcenter.org).

19. DeJong, W., and Langford, L. M. Evaluating Environmental Management Approaches to Alcohol and Other Drug 

Abuse Prevention (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and 

Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention, 2006). This publication is available through the Higher Education 

Center’s Web site (http://www.higheredcenter.org).

20. Presley, C.; Austin, S. B.; and Jacobs, J. Selecting the Right Tool: A Compendium of Alcohol and Other Drug Assessment 

and Evaluation Instruments for Use in Higher Education (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher 

Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1998). This publication is available through the Higher 

Education Center’s Web site (http://www.higheredcenter.org).

21. DeJong, W. Methods for Assessing Student Use of Alcohol and Other Drugs (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention). In review.

22. DeJong, W.; Schneider, S. K.; Towvim, L. G.; Murphy, M. J.; Doerr, E. E.; Simonsen, N. R.; Mason, K. E.; and Scribner, 

R. A. “A Multisite Randomized Trial of Social Norms Marketing Campaigns to Reduce College Student Drinking.” 

Journal of Studies on Alcohol 67: 868–879, 2006; Wechsler, H.; Lee, J. E.; Kuo, M.; Seibring, M.; Nelson, T. F.; 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: 203–

217, 2002.

23. DeJong and Langford, Evaluating Environmental Management.

24. Ibid.

25. Dowdall, G.; DeJong, W.; and Austin, S. B. Finding Out What Works and Why: A Guide to Evaluating College 

Prevention Programs and Policies (Washington, D.C.: Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug 

Prevention, 2002). This publication is available through the Higher Education Center’s Web site at http://www.

higheredcenter.org/eval/manual.

26. DeJong, W., and Davidson, L. Building Long-Term Support for Alcohol and Other Drug Programs (Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 2000). This 

publication is available through the Higher Education Center’s Web site (http://www.higheredcenter.org).

27. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Campus Life: In Search of Community (Princeton, 

N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990).

28. Lake, P. “Law as Prevention.” Prevention File: Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs 18(2): 5–7, 2003. This publication 

is available through the Higher Education Center’s Web site (http://www.higheredcenter.org).

29. DeJong and Davidson, Building Long-Term Support.

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid.
Lessons on Program Implementation | 71

32. Wandersman and Florin, “Community Interventions.”

33. DeJong and Davidson, Building Long-Term Support; Wallack, L.; Woodruff, K.; Dorfman, L. E.; and Diaz, I. News for 

a Change: An Advocate’s Guide to Working with the Media (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1999).

34. Wallack, L.; Woodruff, K.; Dorfman, L. E.; and Diaz, I. News for a Change: An Advocate’s Guide to Working with the 

Media (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1999).

35. DeJong and Davidson, Building Long-Term Support.

36. Foster-Fishman, P. G.; Berkowitz, S. L.; Lounsbury, D. W.; Jacobson, S.; and Allen, N. A. “Building Collaborative 

Capacity in Community Coalitions: A Review and Integrative Framework.” American Journal of Community 

Psychology 29: 241–261, 2001.

37. Butterfoss, Goodman, and Wandersman, “Community Coalitions.”

Experiences in Effective Prevention | 73

Offi ce of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS)

U.S. Department of Education

http://www.ed.gov/osdfs

OSDFS supports efforts to create safe schools, respond to crises, prevent alcohol and other drug abuse, 

ensure the health and well-being of students, and teach students good citizenship and character. The 

agency provides fi nancial assistance through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements for drug abuse 

and violence prevention activities and activities that promote the health and well-being of students in 

elementary and secondary schools and institutions of higher education. OSDFS participates in the development of Department program policy and legislative proposals and in overall administration policies related to drug abuse and violence prevention. It also participates with other federal agencies in the 

development of a national research agenda for such prevention.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Higher Education Center 

for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention

http://www.higheredcenter.org; 1-800-676-1730; TDD Relay-friendly, Dial 711

Established by the U.S. Department of Education in 1993, the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and 

Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention is the Department’s primary provider of services in alcohol 

and other drug abuse and violence prevention in higher education founded upon state-of-the-art knowledge and research-based strategies. In this capacity, the Higher Education Center acts as a catalyst to advance collaborative campus and community teams across the nation. The Higher Education Center offers 

an integrated array of services to help campuses and communities come together to identify problems; 

assess needs; and plan, implement, and evaluate alcohol and other drug abuse and violence prevention 

programs. Services include training; technical assistance; publications (free and available on the Higher 

Education Center’s Web site); support for the Network Addressing Collegiate Alcohol and Other Drug Issues; and evaluation activities.

Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA)

http://www.cadca.org

CADCA is a membership organization for local coalitions that offers materials and technical assistance 

for developing prevention programs and policy initiatives. CADCA offers an online newsletter, extensive 

publications on coalition-related prevention work, and other resources.

Resources
74 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

Join Together

http://www.jointogether.org

A project of the Boston University School of Public Health, Join Together serves as a resource for communities working to reduce substance abuse. Join Together offers a daily news service and a Web site with 

extensive information on a variety of topics related to substance abuse. 

National Highway Traffi c Safety Administration (NHTSA)

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov

Established under the U.S. Department of Transportation by the Highway Safety Act of 1970, NHTSA is 

responsible for reducing deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes. In 

2001 NHTSA published a series on community-based programs for underage drinking prevention, titled 

Community How To Guide On . . . (Publication No. DOT HS 809 209). There are individual units on Coalition 

Building, Needs Assessment and Strategic Planning, Evaluation, Prevention and Education, Enforcement, Public 

Policy, Media Relations, Self-Suffi ciency, and Resources.

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)

http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov

NIAAA supports and conducts biomedical and behavioral research on the causes, consequences, treatment, and prevention of alcoholism and alcohol-related problems. In 2002 NIAAA published A Call to Action: Changing the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges, which summarizes the research literature on preventing alcohol abuse among students and presents program and policy recommendations from NIAAA’s Task 

Force on College Drinking. The NIAAA Web site features fact sheets, brochures, planning guides, and other 

practitioner-oriented materials.

National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and 

Practices (NREPP)

http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) was created as a services 

agency to focus attention, programs, and funding on improving the lives of people with or at risk for 

mental and substance abuse disorders. SAMHSA has developed a searchable database of scientifi cally 

tested interventions for the prevention and treatment of mental and substance use disorders.

The Network Addressing Collegiate Alcohol and Other Drug Issues

http://www.thenetwork.ws

The Network Addressing Collegiate Alcohol and Other Drug Issues (Network) is a national consortium of 

colleges and universities formed to promote healthy campus environments by addressing issues related to 
Resources | 75

alcohol and other drugs. Developed in 1987 by the U.S. Department of Education, the Network comprises 

member institutions that voluntarily agree to work toward a set of standards aimed at reducing AOD 

problems at colleges and universities. It has close to 1,600 members nationwide. 

Publications 

Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention on College Campuses: Model Programs (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention, 2007).

Bonnie, R. J., and O’Connell, M. E. (eds.) Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility (Washington, D.C.: 

National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, 2003).

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Campus Life: In Search of Community (Princeton, N.J.: 

Princeton University Press, 1990).

Chinman, M.; Imm, P.; and Wandersman, A. Getting to Outcomes 2004: Promoting Accountability Through Methods and 

Tools for Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation (Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND, 2004).

DeJong, W. Alcohol and Other Drug Policies for Colleges and Universities: A Guide for Administrators (Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence 

Prevention). In review. 

DeJong, W. Methods for Assessing Student Use of Alcohol and Other Drugs (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention). In review.

DeJong, W., and Davidson, L. Building Long-Term Support for Alcohol and Other Drug Programs (Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 2000). 

DeJong, W., and Langford, L. M. Evaluating Environmental Management Approaches to Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse 

Prevention (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug 

Abuse and Violence Prevention, 2006). 

DeJong, W.; Vince-Whitman, C.; Colthurst, T.; Cretella, M.; Gilbreath, M.; Rosati, M.; and Zweig, K. Environmental 

Management: A Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Alcohol and Other Drug Use on College Campuses (Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1998).

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th Ed.) (Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 

1994).

Dowdall, G.; DeJong, W.; and Austin, S. B. Finding Out What Works and Why: A Guide to Evaluating College Prevention 

Programs and Policies (Washington, D.C.: Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 2002). 

Effective Community Mobilization: Lessons from Experience, Implementation Guide (Washington, D.C.: Department of 

Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance 

Abuse Prevention, 1997).

Johannessen, K.; Collins, C.; Mills-Novoa, B.; and Glider, P. A Practical Guide to Alcohol Abuse Prevention: A Campus Case 

Study in Implementing Social Norms and Environmental Management Approaches (Tucson, Ariz.: Campus Health Service, 

The University of Arizona, 1999). 

Johnston, L. D.; O’Malley, P. M.; Bachman, J. G.; and Schulenberg, J. E. Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on 

Drug Use, 1975–2004. Volume II: College Students and Adults Ages 19–45 (NIH Publication No. 05-5728) (Bethesda, 

Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2005).
76 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

Langford, L. M., and DeJong, W. How to Select a Program Evaluator (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 

Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 2001). 

Langford, L., and DeJong, W. Strategic Planning for Prevention Professionals on Campus (Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention). 

In review.

Lederman, L. C.; and Stewart, L. P. Changing the Culture of College Drinking: A Socially Situated Health Communication 

Campaign (Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press, 2005).

Perkins, H. W. (ed.) The Social Norms Approach to Preventing School and College Age Substance Abuse: A Handbook for 

Educators, Counselors, and Clinicians (San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass, 2003).

Perkins, H. W., and Craig, D. W. A Multifaceted Social Norms Approach to Reduce High-Risk Drinking: Lessons from Hobart 

and William Smith Colleges (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and 

Other Drug Prevention, 2002). 

Presidents Leadership Group. Be Vocal, Be Visible, Be Visionary: Recommendations for College and University Presidents 

on Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention (Newton, Mass.: Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 

1997). 

Presley, C.; Austin, S. B.; and Jacobs, J. Selecting the Right Tool: A Compendium of Alcohol and Other Drug Assessment and 

Evaluation Instruments for Use in Higher Education (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education 

Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1998). 

Presley, C. A.; Meilman, P. W.; and Cashin, J. R. Alcohol and Drugs on American College Campuses: Use, Consequences, and 

Perceptions of the Campus Environment IV, 1992–94 (Carbondale, Ill.: Core Institute, Southern Illinois University, 1996).

Ryan, B. E., and DeJong, W. Making the Link: Faculty and Prevention (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 

Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1998). 

Saltz, R. F., and DeJong, W. (2002). Reducing Alcohol Problems on Campus: A Guide to Planning and Evaluation (Rockville, 

Md.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002).

Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 

Alcoholism. A Call to Action: Changing the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges (Washington, D.C.: National Institutes of 

Health, 2002).

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute. Theory at a Glance: A Guide for Health 

Promotion Practice 2nd edition (Rockville, Md.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of 

Health, 2005).

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center 

for Substance Abuse Prevention. Achieving Outcomes: A Practitioner’s Guide to Effective Prevention (Rockville, Md.: 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [DHHS/PHS], 

2002).

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. Dietary Guidelines for Americans

(Rockville, Md.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2005). 

U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffi c Safety Administration. Community How To Guide on 

Coalition Building (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 2001). 
Resources | 77

Wallack, L.; Woodruff, K.; Dorfman, L. E.; and Diaz, I. News for a Change: An Advocate’s Guide to Working with the Media

(Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1999).

Williams, J.; Chaloupka, F. J.; and Wechsler, H. NBER Working Paper No. 8702: Higher Alcohol Prices and Student Drinking

(Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2002).

Zimmerman, R., and DeJong, W. Safe Lanes on Campus: A Guide for Preventing Impaired Driving and Underage Drinking

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 

2003). 
78 | Experiences in Effective Prevention

Appendix 1: Site Visit Interview Protocol

The site visit teams used two structured interview protocols: one detailed set of questions for campus 

project directors (reproduced below) and a shorter list of queries for key campus and community team 

members and stakeholders (see p.79). Going beyond the protocols, the site visit teams also asked extensive follow-up questions to elicit more detailed information about principles and processes essential to 

effective program development, implementation, and institutionalization.

Interview Protocol: Campus Project Director

1. How long has this program been in place? How long have you been directing the program? How does 

this responsibility relate to your job on campus?

2. What was(were) the problem(s) the project was designed to address? How did you know that was a 

problem(s)? What was the process you engaged in to identify the problem(s)? How long did it take?

3. Who were your other stakeholders? How were they involved—at the beginning, during the planning 

process, in implementation?

4. What strategies had been tried in the past to address the problem(s)? Was there a point at which the 

campus decided to change course? If so, what caused that change to take place?

5. Once you had identifi ed a problem (or set of problems) you wanted to address, what was the process 

you engaged in to set goals? From your perspective, how did that process go? How did you develop 

agreement among stakeholders as to the goals?

6. Please describe the process you used to choose specifi c programs, policies, and tactics to achieve 

your goals. What process did you use to come to agreement on what activities to engage in and who 

would do what? What were the barriers, if any, to moving forward? Did you obtain assistance from any 

outside consultants or organizations in identifying your goals or designing your approach?

7. What do you think were the particular strengths your campus had going into the implementation of 

your program?

8. Once you had chosen your strategies, how was your implementation plan developed? 

9. What were some of the tactics you used in implementing your program? Development of campus task 

force or campus and community coalition? Presidential or senior administrator leadership? Faculty 

and-or student involvement? Education to raise awareness of the problem(s)? Other communication 

tactics?

10. Do you think that community organizing played a role in the project, either on or off campus? If so, 

how did you gain the campus and-or community support and involvement that you needed? 

11. Did you work, or are you working, with an evaluator who helped design the plan and an evaluation 

plan? If so, how did that process go?
Appendix I: Interview Protocol | 79

12. How are you evaluating the effectiveness of the program or approach? What quantitative and qualitative data do you collect?

13. Have you made any adjustments to the program or your approach as a result of evaluation data?

14. What is the current status of the program or effort? If it still is in place, to what would you attribute 

its sustainability?

15. Has being identifi ed as a model program brought other opportunities for recognition or resources to 

build on your efforts?

16. From your perspective, what has made the greatest contribution to implementation of your program?

17. What have been the greatest barriers or challenges to the program’s implementation?

18. To your knowledge, have any other institutions of higher education (IHEs) attempted to replicate your 

program? If so, which IHEs, and what were the outcomes (if known)?

19. What lessons would you like to share with other campuses about to embark on a similar process or 

implement a similar program? 

20. Have you experienced a high volume of contacts from the fi eld as a result of your status as a model 

program? If so, were you equipped to provide information and technical assistance?

Interview Protocol: Team Member/Key Stakeholder

1. Tell us about the program, from your perspective. 

 • How did it come about? Who started it? 

 • Who took the lead? 

 • Who were the other key players? 

 • How/why did you get involved?

 • What is your current role?

2. How well is the program (or this stakeholder’s portion of it) working?

3. What is the current status of the program or effort? If it still is in place, to what would you attribute 

its sustainability?

4. From your perspective what has made the greatest contribution to implementation of this program?

5. What have been the greatest barriers or challenges to program implementation?

6. What lessons would you want to share with other campuses that embark on a similar process or 

implement a similar program? 
80 | Experiences in Effective Prevention Name of Institution General Campus Characteristics Campus Characteristics Linked to Alcohol Use

Governance

Carnegie

 cation Classifi

Setting

Undergraduate

Population

Percent 

Undergraduate

Percent in On –

Campus Housing

Percent of 

Applicants 

Admitted

Percent Male

Average Age FullTime Students

Percent Caucasian/

White (nonHispanic/Latino)

Percent Fraternity 

Members

Percent Sorority 

Members

Percent Male 

Varsity Athletes

Percent Female 

Varsity Athletes

Intercollegiate 

Athletics Division

State Beer Tax 

$/gallon

Alcohol Permitted 

for Students of Age

Retention, First to 

Second Year

Auburn University PUB DRE SMT 19,251 83% 15% 78% 52% 20 89% 18% 34% 2% 2% I/F=IA .53 No 84%Boston College IND DRE SUB 8,851 65% 78% 31% 48% n/a2 77% n/a n/a 8% 8% I/F=IA .11 Yes 95%

Bowling Green State University

PUB DRI SMT 15,481 84% 44% 90% 44% 21 90% 8% 11% 3% 2% I/F=IA .18 Yes 74%

Grand Valley State University

PUB MI SMT 17,807 83% 29% 73% 40% 21 89% 4% 3% 4% 2% II .20 Yes 78%

Hobart and William Smith Colleges

IND B/LA SMT 1,873 100% 90% 62% 45% 19 88% 17% n/a 30% 20% III/L=I .11 Yes 84%

Lehigh University IND DRE SUB 4,679 70% 66% 40% 60% 20 85% 33% 43% n/a n/a I/

F=IAA

.08 Yes 93%

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

IND DRE URB 4,112 40% 94% 16% 58% 20 44% 12% 7% 25% 24% III+ .11 Yes 98%

Pennsylvania State University, Univ. Park

PUB DRE SMT 35,002 84% 37% 55% 53% 20 85% 13% 10% 2% 2% I/F=I-A .08 No 91%

Rutgers University, New Brunswick/Piscataway

PUB DRE SMT 27,365 77% 45% 54% 48% 21 60% 5% 5% n/a n/a I/F=I-A .12 Yes 89%

San Diego State University

PUB DRI URB 27,345 82% 11% 50% 42% 22 56% 7% 6% 2% 2% I-F=I-A .20 Yes 82%

Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute

3 TRIB 723 100% 41.1% 0% .41

State University of New York at New Paltz

PUB MI SMT 6,292 80% 49% 34% 36% 20 77% 3% 2% n/a n/a III .11 Yes 84%

Appendix 2: Characteristics

Syracuse University IND DRE URB 10,840 67% 73% 62% 44% 20 81% 12% 16% n/a n/a I/F=IA .11 No 91%

1 of 22 Institutions of Higher Education 

With U.S. Department of Education Model Programs (1999–2004)
 Appendix 2: Characteristics of 22 Institutions | 81

Name of Institution

Governance

Carnegie

 cation Classifi

Setting

Undergraduate

Population

Percent 

Undergraduate

Percent in On– 

Campus Housing

Percent of 

Applicants 

Admitted

Percent Male

Average Age FullTime Students

Percent Caucasian/

White (nonHispanic/Latino)

Percent Fraternity 

Members

Percent Sorority 

Members

Percent Male 

Varsity Athletes

Percent Female 

Varsity Athletes

Intercollegiate 

Athletics Division

State Beer Tax 

$/gallon

Alcohol Permitted 

for Students of Age

Retention, First to 

Second Year

University at Albany, State University of New York

PUB DRE SUB 11,796 69% 58% 56% 50% 20 77% 4% 4% 3% 2% I .11 Yes 84%

University of Arizona, Tucson

PUB DRE URB 28,482 77% 18% 85% 47% 21 71% 7% 11% 1% 1% I/F=IA .16 No 77%

University of Chicago IND DRE URB 4,355 31% 66% 40% 49% 20 64% 5% 3% 2% 2% III .185 Yes n/aUniversity of MissouriColumbia PUB DRE SMT 20,441 76% 42% 89% 48% 20 88% 20% 25% 2% 1% I/F=IA .06 No 84%University of Northern Colorado, Greeley

PUB DRI SUB 10,664 81% 29% 71% 38% 21 85% 6% 4% 5% 3% II .08 Yes 70%

University of Pennsylvania

IND DRE URB 9,836 52% 63% 20% 50% 20 60% 23% 16% 5% 3% I/F=IAA .08 Yes 97%

Utah State University, Logan

PUB DRE URB 13,958 85% n/a 94% 51% 22 93% 2% 2% 2% 1% I/F=IA .41 No 69%

Washington State University

PUB DRE RUR 18,746 83% 44% 78% 47% 22 84% 15% 15% 2% 2% I/F=IA .261 Yes 84%

Western Washington University

PUB MI SMT 12,477 90% 30% 76% 43% 21 85% 0% 0% n/a n/a II .261 Yes 84%

Notes 1. All characteristics are described below, with abbreviations explained. 2. The designation n/a in this chart means not available. 3. Blank cells in Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute mean not available from the cited sources.Sources • Peterson’s Four-Year Colleges 2005 (Lawrenceville, N.J.: Thompson Peterson’s Publishing Co., 2004)• America’s Best Colleges 2005 by U.S. News and World Report, premium online edition. Information about the current edition can be found at http://www.

usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/rankindex_brief.php. (Accessed on July 6, 2007. Note that payment is required for access to the premium online edition.)
82 | Experiences in Effective Prevention General Campus Characteristics The following characteristics are useful for matching like institutions, but epidemiological research has not shown them to be related to rates of heavy alcohol use among college and university students. Governance This column indicates whether the institution is owned and operated by a public entity (PUB), most likely a state government, or by a private corporation (IND). Source: Peterson’s. 

Carnegie Classifi cationSince 1973 the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching has developed a typology of accredited, degree-granting institutions of higher education (IHEs) in the United States. The 2000 classifi cation system was used to categorize the 22 designated grantee institutions:• BLA: Baccalaureate Colleges—Liberal Arts. These institutions are primarily undergraduate colleges with major emphasis on baccalaureate programs. 

During the period studied, they awarded at least half of their baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts fi elds.

• DRE: Doctoral/Research Universities—Extensive. These institutions typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs, and they are committed 

to graduate education through the doctorate. During the period studied, they awarded 50 or more doctoral degrees per year across at least 15 

disciplines.

• DRI: Doctoral/Research Universities—Intensive. These institutions typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs, and they are committed to 

graduate education through the doctorate. During the period studied, they awarded at least 10 doctoral degrees per year across three or more disciplines, or at least 20 doctoral degrees per year overall.

• MI: Master’s Colleges and Universities I. These institutions typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs, and they are committed to 

graduate education through the master’s degree. During the period studied, they awarded 40 or more master’s degrees per year across three or more disciplines.

• TRIB: Tribal Colleges and Universities. These colleges are, with few exceptions, tribally controlled and located on reservations. They are all members 

of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium.

Note that the typology was substantially revised in 2005. Source: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifi cations. (Accessed on July 6, 2007.)
Setting

The IHEs are classifi ed as rural (RUR), small town (SMT), suburban (SUB), or urban (URB). Source: Peterson’s.Undergraduate PopulationThis is the total enrollment in courses of study leading to associate or bachelor’s degrees. Source: Peterson’s.Percent UndergraduateThis is the percentage of all students who are enrolled in courses leading to associate or bachelor’s degrees. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cool. (Accessed on July 6, 2007.)Percent in On-Campus HousingThis is the percentage of all students who reside in on-campus housing. Source: America’s Best Colleges.Percent of Applicants AdmittedThe percentage of undergraduate students admitted is a common measure of selectivity. Source: Peterson’s.Campus Characteristics Linked to Alcohol UseThe following characteristics are associated with higher rates of heavy drinking among college students.Percent MaleThis is the percentage of undergraduate students who are male. Source: America’s Best Colleges. Males are more likely than females to engage in heavy alcohol use.1 Campuses with a higher percentage of females had lower rates of binge drinking.2

Appendix 2: Characteristics of 22 Institutions | 83
84 | Experiences in Effective Prevention Average Age of Full-Time Students This is the average age in years of full-time undergraduate students. Source: America’s Best Colleges. One national study found that underage students drink alcohol less frequently but are more likely to drink heavily when they do drink.3 Percent Caucasian/White (Non-Hispanic/Latino) This is the percentage of undergraduate students who are Caucasian/white, but not Hispanic/Latino. Source: America’s Best Colleges. White students are more likely than students who are not white to engage in heavy alcohol use.4 Campuses with a higher percentage of students who are not white have 

lower binge drinking rates.5

Percent Fraternity Members and Percent Sorority MembersThis is the percentage of male and female undergraduates who are members of fraternities and sororities respectively. Source: America’s Best Colleges.Membership in these organizations is a signifi cant risk factor for heavy drinking,6 especially among men.7 Rates of heavy alcohol consumption are highest 

at institutions with a fraternity and sorority system.8 One of the strongest predictors of heavy drinking in college is residence in a fraternity or sorority.9

Percent Male Varsity Athletes and Percent Female Varsity AthletesThis is the percentage of male and female undergraduates who are members of intercollegiate athletics teams. Source: America’s Best Colleges. Compared with nonathletes, students involved in college athletics are more likely to engage in heavy drinking. 10Intercollegiate Athletics DivisionThe National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is organized into divisions, as defi ned by number of sports fi elded, fi nancial aid awards, and attendance. The percentage of undergraduate students who identify themselves as sports fans is associated with drinking rates and alcohol-related problems.11 Source: Peterson’s.

Division I has three subdivisions—A, AA, and AAA—for football (F). Some institutions compete in one division for some sports and another division for 

others. For example, Hobart and William Smith Colleges fi elds a division I lacrosse (L) team, while the Massachusetts Institute of Technology competes mainly at division III (III+). Fuller descriptions of these divisions can be found online at http://www.ncaa.org/about/div_criteria.html. (Accessed on August 30, 2006.)
Appendix 2: Characteristics of 22 Institutions | 85

State Beer Tax ($/gallon)This is the beer excise tax for the state in which the IHE is located, expressed in terms of dollars per gallon. Alcohol consumption is inversely related to the cost of alcohol, 12 and price increases are an effective means of reducing excessive drinking by young adults. 13 Source: Current tax information can be 

found at the Web site for the Federation of Tax Administrators: http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/beer.html. (Accessed on July 6, 2007.) 

Alcohol Permitted for Students of Legal AgeThis indicates whether an IHE allows students who are 21 or older to possess alcohol. Source: America’s Best Colleges. One study found that students at colleges that ban possession of alcohol are less likely to be heavy drinkers and more likely to abstain. This is a correlational study, however, and a causeeffect relationship cannot be assumed; students who are light drinkers or abstainers may be more likely to select IHEs with a ban.14Retention, First to Second YearThis is the percentage of fi rst-year undergraduates who return to school for their second year. Source: Peterson’s. High alcohol consumption is associated 

with lower GPA due to fewer hours spent studying.15

References1. Wechsler, H.; Lee, J. E.; Kuo, M.; Seibring, M.; Nelson, T. F.; 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: 203–217, 2002.

2. Wechsler, H., and Kuo, M. “Watering Down the Drinks: The Moderating Effect of College Demographics on Alcohol Use of High-Risk Groups.” American Journal of 

Public Health 93: 1929–1933, 2003.

3. Wechsler, H.; Lee, J. E.; Nelson, T. F.; and Kuo, M. “Underage College Students’ Drinking Behavior, Access to Alcohol, and the Infl uence of Deterrence Policies: Findings 

from the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study.” Journal of American College Health 50: 223–236, 2002.

4. Wechsler et al., “Trends in College Binge Drinking.”5. Wechsler and Kuo, “Watering Down the Drinks.”6. O’Malley, P. M., and Johnston, L. D. “Epidemiology of Alcohol and Other Drug Use Among American College Students.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplement no. 14: 

23–39, 2002.
7. Bartholow, B. D.; Sher, K. J.; and Krull, J. L. “Changes in Heavy Drinking over the Third Decade of Life as a Function of Collegiate Fraternity and Sorority Involvement: 

A Prospective, Multilevel Analysis.” Health Psychology 22: 616–626, 2003.

8. Presley, C. A.; Meilman, P. W.; and Leichliter, J. S. “College Factors That Infl uence Drinking.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplement no. 14: 82–90, 2002.

9. Wechsler, H.; Dowdall, G. W.; Davenport, A.; and Castillo, S. “Correlates of College Student Binge Drinking.” American Journal of Public Health 85: 921–926, 1995.10. Wechsler, H. W.; Davenport, A.; Dowdall, G. W.; Grossman, S.; and Zanakos, S. “Binge Drinking, Tobacco, and Illicit Drug Use and Involvement in College Athletics.” 

Journal of American College Health 45: 195–200, 1997.

11. Nelson, T. F. and Wechsler, H. “School Spirits: Alcohol and Collegiate Sports Fans.” Addictive Behaviors 28: 1–11, 2003.

12. Nelson, T. F.; Naimi, T. S.; Brewer, R. D.; Wechsler, H. “The State Sets the Rate: The Relationship of College Binge Drinking to State Binge Drinking Rates and Selected 

State Alcohol Control Policies.” American Journal of Public Health 95: 441–446, 2005.

13. Williams, J.; Chaloupka, F. J.; and Wechsler, H. NBER Working Paper No. 8702: Higher Alcohol Prices and Student Drinking (Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic 

Research, 2002).

14. Wechsler, H.; Lee, J. E.; Gledhill-Hoyt, J.; and Nelson, T. F. “Alcohol Use and Problems at Colleges Banning Alcohol: Results of a National Survey.” Journal of Studies on 

Alcohol 62: 133–141, 2001.

15. Williams, J.; Powell, L. M.; and Wechsler, H. “Does Alcohol Consumption Reduce Human Capital Accumulation? Evidence from the College Alcohol Study.” Applied 

Economics 35: 1227–1237, 2003. 

86 | Experiences in Effective Prevention
i
88 | Experiences in Effective Prevention
 Experiences in Effective Prevention | 89