A Guide for Preventing

Impaired Driving and

Underage Drinking

Robert Zimmerman

William DeJong, Ph.D.

A publication of the 

Higher Education Center for 

Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention

Funded by the U.S. Department of Education 

and the U.S. Department of Transportation,

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

SAFE

LANES

ON 

CAMPUS

A Guide for Preventing 

Impaired Driving and

Underage Drinking

SAFE

LANES

ON 

CAMPUS
ii

Safe Lanes on Campus

Layout and design by

Dorothy Geiser, Editing and

Design Services, EDC

This publication was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract

No. ED-99-CO-0094 with the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and

Other Drug Prevention at Education Development Center, Inc., in a joint

venture with the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA). Paul Kesner served as the contracting officer’s technical

representative (COTR) for the Department of Education and Ruth Esteban-Muir

served as COTR for NHTSA.The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Departments of Education or Transportation. No

official endorsement by the U.S. Departments of Education or Transportation of any

product, commodity, service, or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended

or should be inferred.

U.S. Department of Education

Rod Paige

Secretary

Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools

William Modzeleski

Associate Deputy Under Secretary

U.S. Department of Transportation

Norman Y. Mineta

Secretary

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Jeffrey W. Runge, M.D.

Administrator

2003

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, Office of Safe and Drug-Free

Schools, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, Safe

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

Washington, D.C., 2003.

To order copies of this publication, write to

The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention

Education Development Center, Inc.

55 Chapel Street

Newton, MA 02458-1060

(800) 676-1730

Fax: (617) 928-1537

HigherEdCtr@edc.org

This publication is also available on the following Web sites:

➤ Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osdfs/index.html

➤ Department of Education’s Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other

Drug Prevention at http://www.higheredcenter.org

➤ Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/
L

iii

Introduction....................................................................................................................................................1

Organization of the Guide....................................................................................................................................2

Part 1: Scope of the Problem................................................................................................................5

Part 2: Environmental Management—

Proven Prevention Practices........................................................................................................................7

A Typology of Campus and Community Interventions..................................................................................9

What Works? A Review of the Evidence..............................................................................................................11

Part 3: Prevention in Action................................................................................................................19

Area of Strategic Intervention Environmental Change......................................................................................21

Area of Strategic Intervention Knowledge, Attitudes,

and Behavioral Intentions........................................................................................................................................31

Area of Strategic Intervention Health Protection................................................................................................31

Area of Strategic Intervention Intervention and Treatment..............................................................................32

Part 4: Strategic Planning and Evaluation..........................................................................................35

Developing and Evaluating Prevention Policies and Programs..............................................................38

Meeting the Challenge........................................................................................................................................42

Part 5: Resources....................................................................................................................................43

CITED PROGRAMS................................................................................................................................................45

Area of Strategic Intervention Environmental Change......................................................................................45

Area of Strategic Intervention Knowledge, Attitudes,

and Behavioral Intentions........................................................................................................................................48

Area of Strategic Intervention Health Protection..............................................................................................48

Area of Strategic Intervention Intervention and Treatment..............................................................................48

Strategic Planning................................................................................................................................................49

PUBLICATIONS ......................................................................................................................................................49

RESOURCE ORGANIZATIONS................................................................................................................................52

References..................................................................................................................................................55

Contents

The 1990s saw rising concern

about heavy drinking at institutions of higher education and

the risks alcohol consumption poses to

student health, safety, and academic success.This manual is a response to requests from college and university

administrators for guidance in preventing

two of the most serious problems related

to student alcohol consumption: (1)

driving under the influence (DUI) and

(2) alcohol use by students under the

legal drinking age.

Awareness programs to inform students about the risks associated with

alcohol use are familiar on the higher

education scene. Experience has shown,

however, that the link between providing

basic information and reduced substance

use is tenuous.

1 The most promising

approach to preventing alcohol problems

on and around campus is a broad-based

and comprehensive effort to change the

physical, social, legal, and economic environment in which students make decisions about

drinking.

2 Accomplishing change of this

magnitude requires a new type of towngown partnership: a wide spectrum of

campus and community leaders dedicated to shaping an environment that helps

students make healthier choices.

3

The operative word is change.

Applying the prevention strategies introduced in this guide must start with a

commitment to change by the senior

administrators, faculty, and staff who are

the principal custodians of the nation’s

colleges and universities. Likewise, a 

similar commitment must be made by

students, many of whom recognize the

price they are paying by fostering or

acquiescing to a culture of high-risk

drinking.There must also be a commitment to change by community leaders

and law enforcement agencies, whose

actions influence both how much alcohol students consume and how they

behave while drinking.

Senior administrators, faculty, and

staff will see that their leadership is

essential for organizing and planning

prevention activities and for ensuring

that the hard work of addressing student

alcohol problems remains a high priority.

Abandonment of the doctrine of in loco

parentis, according to which campus officials used to think of themselves as surrogate parents to their students, has left

many school officials in doubt about

their responsibilities to monitor and

shape student conduct. Recent court

decisions have made clear that institutions of higher education have an 

obligation to take reasonable protective

measures to reduce hazards and risks in

the campus environment, although they

are not expected to control student conduct.4 The time is long past when senior

administrators could blithely disregard

the effect of alcohol on student life or

dismiss high-risk drinking as a “rite of

passage” or an insoluble problem.

Increasingly, academic leaders recognize

that they have a responsibility—and an

opportunity—to assemble a campus and

community prevention coalition, formu1

LIntroduction
late a strategic plan, guide its implementation, chart its progress, and assess its

effect on student alcohol problems.

Students will see that they can also

play a key part in making their college a

better school if they are willing to

assume a leadership role.Their challenge

is to rise above the deep-rooted and

often unquestioned mythology about

student drinking by representing the

often silent desire of the student majority for tougher policies to reduce alcohol’s negative effect on campus life.

Student participation is vital when

assessing aspects of the environment that

contribute to underage drinking and

DUI, and when planning and implementing prevention strategies to change

that environment—change that will safeguard students’ well-being, improve the

quality of the academic experience, and

enhance the school’s reputation.

Finally, community leaders, including those in law enforcement and the

business world, will see the need to

work cooperatively with campus officials

to address this problem. College and

university students are an integral part of

the community in which they live,

work, and study. Clearly, it is unfair and

shortsighted for neighborhood residents,

town officials, or other community leaders to expect campus administrators to

solve this problem alone.A community

problem requires a community solution.

Because campus administrators are under

intense pressure to reduce student alcohol problems, community leaders will

find this an opportune time to reach out

and offer to work in partnership.5

Safe Lanes on Campus describes a

variety of prevention strategies that campus and community prevention coalitions can consider as they develop a

strategic plan for combating underage

drinking and DUI, with a particular

emphasis on creating environmental

change.This analysis is grounded in a

summary of the research literature 

published in 2002 by the National

Institute on Alcohol Abuse and

Alcoholism (NIAAA), A Call to Action:

Changing the Culture of Drinking at U.S.

Colleges.6 With Safe Lanes on Campus in

hand, prevention planners can develop

and implement strategies appropriate to

their campus and community, based on

an assessment of the environmental factors that encourage alcohol problems

among local students and on the scientific evidence of what works.

Organization of

the Guide

Part 1 of the guide, Scope of the

Problem (p. 5), gives a review of the

scope of the problem, including recent

estimates of the number of alcohol-related deaths and injuries among college students each year.These data make clear

that underage drinking and DUI are

major problems facing U.S. colleges and

universities and deserve priority attention.

Part 2, Environmental Management—Proven Prevention Practices

(p. 7), describes a classification or typology of campus and community interventions, which can be used to structure a

review of current policies and programs

and to organize subsequent strategic

planning.The typology distinguishes five

areas of strategic intervention related to

what is called environmental management:

(1) alcohol-free options, (2) normative

environment, (3) alcohol availability, (4)

alcohol promotion, and (5) policy/law

enforcement.

This section also includes a summary of policy and program recommendations published by the NIAAA Task

Force on College Drinking. Based on

expert review of the scientific literature,

this summary underscores the value of

environmental change strategies and

points out those prevention tactics that

2

Safe Lanes on Campus
at present have the strongest evidence of

effectiveness. Knowledge of what works

to reduce college alcohol problems is

sparse. Even so, prevention research that

has examined the effect of policies and

programs aimed at the general population does provide ample guidance.

Part 3, Prevention in Action (p.

19), provides descriptions of policies and

programs currently being used throughout the United States to prevent underage drinking and DUI among college

students. Program contact information

can be found in the Resources section,

Part 5 (see below).

Part 4, Strategic Planning and

Evaluation (p. 35), begins with an

overview of campus and community

coalitions, which are the best vehicle for

developing effective environmental management strategies. Next, this section

outlines the basic elements of strategic

planning and evaluation that campus and

community coalitions should follow.

Coalitions should incorporate evaluation

as an integral part of program planning.

Evaluation provides information needed

to make midcourse corrections, but having an evaluator involved from the very

beginning also improves the planning

process itself.

Part 5, Resources (p. 43), provides

contact information for programs cited

in the guide, as well as a list of publications and organizations that might be

helpful sources of information.An

expanded and updated list of resources

can be found through the Web site

(http://www.higheredcenter.org) of the

U.S. Department of Education’s Higher

Education Center for Alcohol and Other

Drug Prevention.

3

Introduction

Several major reports have pointed

to the magnitude of alcohol problems among college and university

students. In 1989, a survey of college and

university presidents found that 67 percent rated alcohol misuse as a “moderate”

or “major” problem on their campus.7 In

2002, the NIAAA Task Force on College

Drinking characterized heavy drinking

by higher education students as “widespread, dangerous, and disruptive.”8

National surveys have found that

approximately two in five college students can be classified as heavy drinkers,

often defined as having five or more

drinks in a row at least once in the previous two weeks.9 One study estimated

that 31 percent of college students met

the criteria for a diagnosis of alcohol

abuse, while 6 percent could be classified

as alcohol-dependent, according to selfreported drinking behaviors.10

The damage caused by alcohol consumption—to the drinkers themselves,

to other individuals, and to institutions

of higher education—is substantial. By

one estimate, more than 1,400 students

aged 18 to 24 years enrolled in two- and

four-year colleges died in 1998 from

alcohol-related unintentional injuries.

Nearly 80 percent of these deaths were

due to motor vehicle crashes. In addition, approximately 500,000 college students in this age range suffered alcoholrelated unintentional injuries.11

According to a National College

Health Risk Behavior Survey by 

the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC), in 1998 more than

two million of the nation’s approximately

eight million college students drove

under the influence of alcohol, and more

than three million rode with a drinking

driver.12 The 2001 College Alcohol Study

(CAS) found that 30 percent of students

who drank said they had driven after

drinking during the previous 30 days.13

Research also shows that poor academic performance correlates strongly

with higher levels of alcohol consumption. One national survey reported that

students with an A average consumed an

average of 3.4 drinks per week, while Baverage students consumed 4.5 drinks,

C-average students 6.1 drinks, and Dor F-average students 9.8 drinks.14

College administrators report that many

of the large numbers of students who

drop out each year do so because drinking has interfered with their studies, a

problem that has both personal and institutional ramifications.15

Especially salient are the problems

students experience due to other students’ misuse of alcohol—for example,

interrupted study and sleep; having a

serious argument or quarrel; having

property damaged; being pushed, hit, or

assaulted; and being a victim of sexual

assault or acquaintance rape.16 In 1998,

more than 600,000 students were

assaulted by another student who had

been drinking, while more than 70,000

students were victims of alcohol-related

sexual assault or acquaintance rape.17

5

Scope of the Problem

PART 1

L
Drug-Free Schools

and Communities Act

The need for colleges and universities to apply effective

prevention measures is underscored by the Drug-Free

Schools and Communities Act

(DFSCA), which requires colleges and universities to

adopt and enforce policies

that include sanctions for illegal alcohol and other drug

use and to provide students

with appropriate information

and services to back up those

policies. A guide to meeting

the requirements of the

DFSCA is available from the

Higher Education Center for

Alcohol and Other Drug

Prevention.21

Underage drinking is a big part of

the problem.The 2001 CAS found that

two out of three underage students

reported drinking in the previous 30

days. Students under 21 tended to drink

on fewer occasions than their older

peers, but they drank more per occasion

and had more alcohol-related problems

than students of legal drinking age.

Underage students also reported that

alcohol is easy to obtain, usually at little

or no cost.18

At present, all 50 states maintain a

minimum legal drinking age of 21.The

effect of these laws, despite their imperfect enforcement, is clear.A recent literature review documented a clear inverse

relationship between the legal drinking

age and alcohol use, with consumption

decreasing as the legal age was raised.A

higher legal drinking age is also strongly

associated with decreased motor vehicle

crash rates. Surprisingly, very few

researchers have examined these associations for college students, but the handful of studies available has not found a

significant relationship between the minimum legal drinking age and alcohol

consumption or motor vehicle crash

rates.19 Additional research is needed to

gain a clearer picture of the effect of 

the age 21 limit on college students’

alcohol consumption.

The influence of the higher minimum drinking age is also apparent from

an analysis of alcohol-related fatal automobile crashes.While alcohol was

involved in 57 percent of U.S. vehicular

fatalities in 1982, the ratio today stands

at about 40 percent.The raising of the

legal drinking age to 21 throughout the

country is credited with significantly

reducing the death toll among younger

drivers.The National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that state laws establishing 21 as

the minimum legal drinking age have

saved more than 20,000 lives between

1975 and 2000 and will continue to save

1,000 lives each year.20

Preventing underage drinking and

DUI among college students requires a

large and sustained effort.Alcohol use

and its consequences are among the

most serious problems facing U.S. colleges and universities today. Clearly, the

goal is worth the effort.

Research on the effect of raising the

minimum legal drinking age also points

to a fruitful new direction for prevention

efforts: using institutional, community, state,

and federal policy and other programs to

change the environment in which students

make decisions about alcohol consumption.

Ultimately, an effective prevention program grounded in environmental management will enhance campus safety,

improve the quality of academic life, and

thereby help colleges and universities

fulfill their basic educational mission.

6

Safe Lanes on Campus
LA Typology of Campus and Community Interventions ......................................................9

What Works? A Review of the Evidence..................................................................................................11

Tier 1: Evidence of Effectiveness among College Students............................................................................12

Tier 2: Evidence of Success with General Populations..................................................................................12

Tier 3: Evidence of Promise ..............................................................................................................................15

Tier 4: Evidence of Ineffectiveness ....................................................................................................................15

Environmental Management—

Proven Prevention Practices

7

PART 2

Today’s college and university 

students live in a world with

confusing and contradictory

messages about alcohol.

➤ Those under 21 are told that the sale

of alcoholic beverages to minors is

unlawful, yet they find that neighborhood liquor stores often fail to

ask for proof-of-age identification.

➤ Underage students go to parties

where beer is flowing freely, but no

one questions their age before they

step up to the keg.

➤ Students are warned that alcohol can

affect their judgment and coordination and is in fact a drug, but advertising makes alcoholic beverages

seem as harmless as soft drinks.

➤ Students are told that driving after

drinking is risky, but they see partying students casually climb into cars

for a ride back to campus with a

drinking driver at the wheel.

➤ Students are urged to find entertainment and recreational opportunities

where alcohol is not part of the

scene, but such offerings are few and

far between.

Given such an environment, routine

warnings against underage drinking and

driving under the influence (DUI) 

will have only a limited effect on 

students’ behavior.

A prevention approach known as

environmental management is the foundation for a broad set of policies and programs to reduce underage drinking 

and DUI among college students.

Environmental management rests on the

principle that the decisions young people make about alcohol use are shaped

by their environment, a complex of

physical, social, economic, and legal factors that affect alcohol’s appeal and availability.Accordingly, the most effective

and efficient way of reducing substance

use problems in the general population

is to change that environment.

A Typology of

Campus and

Community

Interventions

Prevention work in public health has

been guided by a social ecological framework,

which describes the following five levels

of influence on health-related behavior,

including college student drinking:

1. Intrapersonal (individual) factors 

2. Interpersonal (group) factors

3. Institutional factors 

4. Community factors 

5. State and federal public policy 

The U.S. Department of Education’s

Higher Education Center for Alcohol

and Other Drug Prevention has expanded this basic framework to create a full

classification or typology of campusbased prevention and treatment options.

9

Environmental

Management—Proven

Prevention Practices

PART 2

L
TABLE 1 Typology matrix for mapping campus and 

community prevention efforts 

Areas of Strategic 

Intervention 

Program and Policy Levels 

(Social Ecological Framework)

Individual Group Institution Community 

Public 

Policy 

Knowledge, Attitudes, 

Behavioral Intentions 

Environmental Change 

1. Alcohol-Free Options 

2. Normative 

Environment 

3. Alcohol Availability 

4. Alcohol Promotion 

5. Policy/Law 

Enforcement 

Health Protection 

Intervention and 

Treatment 

This framework can be used both to

provide a systematic review of current

efforts and to inform future strategic

planning.22

Table 1 below, called the “typology

matrix,” illustrates the framework by

showing the intersection of the levels of

influence with different kinds of prevention approaches.The columns across the

top of the matrix show the levels of

influence listed above (individual, group,

institution, community, and state and

federal public policy).The rows down

the side of the matrix show different

kinds of approaches, called “areas of

strategic intervention”:

1. Changing students’ knowledge,

beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral

intentions

2. Eliminating or modifying environmental factors that contribute to the

problem

3. Protecting students from the shortterm consequences of alcohol consumption (“health protection” or

“harm reduction” strategies)

4. Intervening with and treating students who are addicted to alcohol 

or otherwise show evidence of

problem drinking

The matrix makes it clear that the different areas of strategic intervention can

be pursued at several program and policy

levels of the social ecological framework.

Areas of strategic intervention can

be pursued at several program and policy

levels of the social ecological framework.

In the area of health protection, for

example, a local community could

decide to establish a “safe rides” program

so that students who have been drinking

will not have to drive to return home.

This community-level program could be

augmented by efforts at other levels.At

the group level, for example, fraternity

and sorority chapters might vote to

10

Safe Lanes on Campus
require members to pledge not to drink

and drive and instead to use the new

program.At the individual level, there

could be a campus-based media campaign that explains how to access the

new service.

Consider increased enforcement of

the minimum legal drinking age.At the

community level, local police could

increase the number of decoy (or

“sting”) operations at local bars and

restaurants to see if servers are checking

identification before serving alcohol.At

the institutional level, school officials

might require that trained bartenders be

hired to serve alcohol at on-campus

functions.At the group level, school

officials—as part of a party registration

procedure—might require student clubs

to submit a plan for preventing alcohol

service to underage students at planned

social events. Finally, at the individual

level, the orientation program for new

students could publicize these policies,

the greater level of enforcement, and the

legal consequences of underage drinking.

Historically, campus-based prevention efforts have relied primarily on student awareness and education programs

to address a mix of intrapersonal or individual factors, such as knowledge, beliefs,

attitudes, skills (e.g., how to refuse an

offer of alcohol), and behavioral intentions.Another mainstay of campus-based

prevention has been the peer education

program, which uses peer-to-peer communication to change student social

norms about alcohol use.The largest

such program is the BACCHUS and

GAMMA Peer Education Network. In

general, there is little evidence that these

types of educational programs, when used

alone, are successful in reducing alcohol

problems on campus; 23 however, when

used in combination with other prevention

programs, they can play an important role.

The prevention philosophy of environmental management hinges on a

broader focus on combined institutional,

community, and public policy factors.

The underlying premise of this approach

is that college students do not make

decisions about alcohol consumption in

isolation, but in an environmental context that encourages or discourages highrisk consumption.The Higher Education

Center urges college officials to take a

hand in constructing an environment,

both on campus and in the surrounding

community, that will help students make

healthier choices about drinking.

As shown in table 1, the Higher

Education Center has identified five

general types of environmental management strategies for effective prevention:

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

service options that do not include

alcohol and other drugs.

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

health-promoting norms.

3. Limit alcohol availability both on

and off campus.

4. Restrict marketing and promotion

of alcoholic beverages both on and

off campus.

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

Table 2 (pp. 16–18) shows that all five of

these categories involve a wide range of

possible program and policy options.

What Works?

A Review of the Evidence

Among these many options, which ones

work best? To answer that question, the

NIAAA Task Force on College Drinking

developed research-based recommendations to college and university presidents

for effective prevention. Its findings were

published in April 2002 in A Call to

Action: Changing the Culture of Drinking at

U.S. Colleges (see http://collegedrinking

prevention.gov).

11

Part 2 ❖ Environmental Management—Proven Prevention Practices
Informed by the best scientific evidence available, this report strongly reinforces the environmental management

approach. For prevention planners concerned about underage drinking and

DUI, the NIAAA Task Force’s list of

effective and promising approaches should

serve as the departure point for crafting a

comprehensive prevention program.

The NIAAA report organizes current programs and policies into four tiers

according to the quality of research evidence that is available at present.

TIER 1: EVIDENCE OF

EFFECTIVENESS AMONG

COLLEGE STUDENTS

Strategies included in tier 1 have two or

more research studies that prove their

effectiveness. Programs in this category

are limited to educational and intervention programs that target students who

are alcohol-dependent or problem

drinkers. For example, based on the

Alcohol Skills Training Program

(ASTP),24 the Brief Alcohol Screening

and Intervention for College Students

(BASICS) program uses two brief motivational interview sessions to give students feedback about their drinking level

and an opportunity to craft a plan for

reducing their alcohol consumption.

High-risk drinkers who participated in

the BASICS program significantly

reduced their drinking relative to control

group participants, a change that persisted even four years later.25

The ultimate challenge may be figuring out how to establish the tier 1

intervention programs on a scale big

enough to affect the behavior of large

numbers of students, not just a small

number of research participants. Using

trained professionals to conduct one-onone or small-group sessions, as was done

in the research studies, would be prohibitively expensive. One alternative might

be to use peer educators.Another alternative might be a Web-based screening

tool with computerized feedback and

guided development of an individualized

drinking reduction plan.

Research studies currently under

way will determine the feasibility and

effectiveness of these and other low-cost

options. Meanwhile, limited application

of these programs using one-on-one or

small-group procedures is clearly warranted for students who belong to highrisk social groups (e.g., fraternities and

sororities, athletics teams), are being disciplined for violating the school’s alcohol

policies, or have identified themselves as

alcohol-dependent or problem drinkers.

TIER 2: EVIDENCE OF SUCCESS

WITH GENERAL POPULATIONS

Several environmental change strategies

for reducing alcohol-related problems

that have not yet been tested with college students nevertheless have been

used successfully with the general population.These strategies, therefore, merit

serious consideration:

➤ Increased Enforcement of

Minimum Legal Drinking Age.

As noted, raising the minimum legal

drinking age has proved very effective, resulting in substantial decreases

in alcohol consumption and alcoholrelated motor vehicle crashes.This is

the case even though enforcement

of the “age 21” laws has been spotty.

Studies do show that increased

enforcement can substantially reduce

sales to minors.26 By extension, college and community officials should

seriously consider applying a variety

of measures to prevent underage

drinking, including cracking down

on fake IDs, eliminating home

delivery of alcohol, registering kegs,

and so forth.

12

Safe Lanes on Campus
➤ Implementation and

Enforcement of Other Laws 

to Reduce Alcohol-Impaired

Driving. The best available estimate

is that nearly 80 percent of alcoholrelated fatalities among college students are the result of automobile

crashes.27 To date, well over 40 states

and the District of Columbia have

enacted per se .08 percent blood

alcohol concentration (BAC) legislation. In those states that have not yet

done so, campus and community

officials should call for state laws

that will lower the legal per se limit

for adult drivers to .08 percent

BAC, set legal BAC limits for drivers under age 21 at .02 percent

BAC or lower, and permit administrative license revocation after DUI

arrests.28 Greater enforcement,

including the use of sobriety checkpoints and targeted patrols, is also

recommended.

➤ Restrictions on Alcohol Retail

Outlet Density. The density of

alcohol licenses or outlets is related

to alcohol consumption and 

alcohol-related problems, including

violence, other crime, and health

problems.29 One influential study

found that both underage and older

college students reported higher levels of alcohol consumption when

there were larger numbers of alcohol

outlets within one mile of campus.30

Additional research could test

whether zoning and licensing regu13

Part 2 ❖ Environmental Management—Proven Prevention Practices

A study reported in 2002 by the CDC confirms the value of strong state laws and policies directed against DUI, especially for drivers under the age of 21. Among the most significant tasks that a campus and community

coalition can undertake is to influence state

policymakers to pass more effective laws and

regulations.

Researchers made use of ratings of state

anti-DUI laws created by Mothers Against

Drunk Driving (MADD).34 MADD assigns

states a grade from A to D based on the

strength and comprehensiveness of their

efforts to reduce alcohol-impaired driving.

The MADD ratings for 2000 were compared

with responses to the CDC’s 1997 Behavioral

Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey.

The number of survey respondents who

acknowledged driving after drinking in the

previous 30 days was lowest in states with

the highest MADD ratings. Drivers in states

with D ratings were 60 percent more likely to

drive after drinking than those in states with

an A rating.

Factors considered in the MADD ratings

include (1) provisions of the DUI laws, (2)

sanctions and penalties for violating those

laws, (3) resources devoted to enforcement,

(4) alcohol licensing regulations and requirements (e.g., mandatory server training), (5)

prevention and education programs directed

at youth, (6) mandatory assessment and

treatment for alcohol problems, and (7) political leadership by the governor and state legislature on the issue of DUI.

No state received an unqualified A unless

it (1) had a .08 percent BAC per se law,

meaning that anyone with a BAC at that level

or higher is by definition impaired; (2) provided for automatic administrative revocation of

driver’s licenses after DUI arrests; and (3)

mandated the use of seat belts.35

Another CDC study rated the demonstrated effectiveness of five popular prevention

strategies for reducing alcohol-related motor

vehicle crashes. The study, published in 2001,

found strong evidence for the effectiveness of

.08 percent BAC per se laws, minimum drinking age laws, and sobriety checkpoints. It

found sufficient evidence for the effectiveness

of lower BAC limits for young and inexperienced drivers (“zero tolerance” laws) and

RBS training programs for servers of alcoholic

beverages.36

Strong State Laws and Policies Make a Difference
lations can be used to help reduce

alcohol-related problems, but the

strong correlation between outlet

density and alcohol problems suggests that this approach does have

merit.

➤ Increased Prices and Excise

Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages.

The effect of price on alcohol consumption is well documented. Studies

have shown that when the price of

alcohol goes up, many alcohol-related

problems, including fatal motor vehicle crashes, go down. Price variations

especially affect young people, even

those who are already heavy

drinkers.31 Price rises can be effected

through increases in alcohol excise

taxes.Another tactic is to work out

cooperative agreements with local

merchants to institute minimum 

pricing or to limit low-price drink

specials.32

➤ Responsible Beverage Service

(RBS) Policies. RBS involves several policies to reduce alcohol sales

to minors and intoxicated patrons 

at bars and restaurants, including

checking for proof-of-age identification, serving alcohol in smaller standard sizes, limiting the number of

servings per alcohol sale, restricting

sales of pitchers, promoting alcoholfree drinks and food, eliminating

14

Safe Lanes on Campus

Just as students typically overestimate how

much their fellow students drink, many of

them correspondingly underestimate how

much their peers support new policies and

stricter enforcement to reduce alcohol problems on campus.

The Social Norms Marketing Research

Project, based at Education Development

Center, Inc., in Newton, Massachusetts, asked

students at 18 colleges and universities how

they felt about each of a dozen alcohol policies, among them banning keg parties on

campus, using decoys to monitor sales to

minors, making all campus residences alcohol-free, restricting advertising that promotes

alcohol consumption at on-campus parties

and events, and imposing tougher disciplinary

sanctions for students who repeatedly violate

campus alcohol policies.

The proportion of students who personally supported each policy was consistently

higher than the proportion thinking that

other students felt that way. For example, 58

percent of students surveyed said they

favored prohibiting kegs on campus, whereas

only 26 percent said they believed there was

general student support for this measure.

While 77 percent were in favor of stricter disciplinary sanctions for students who repeatedly violate campus alcohol policies, only 46

percent believed that other students supported the idea.37

On a similar note, some campus administrators fear that parents of students will react

adversely to tough policies that threaten to

punish their children for violating college alcohol rules. Actually, in a survey conducted by the

American Medical Association (AMA), 80 percent of parents said they would feel more comfortable sending their child to a college with

strong policies or programs in place to deter

underage drinking and heavy alcohol use.

According to the survey, 93 percent of parents believe easy access to alcohol is a major

cause of heavy drinking by students, 80 percent believe that low prices for alcohol contribute to student drinking, and 79 percent

believe advertising and promotion by alcohol

companies add to the problem.

The survey was conducted as part of the

AMA’s A Matter of Degree program, which

encourages alliances between campus and

community organizations to reduce student

alcohol problems.38

The Silent Majority
last-call announcements, and cutting

off sales to patrons who might 

otherwise become intoxicated.

Studies suggest that such policies—

reinforced by training for both managers and staff and by compliance

monitoring—can reduce inappropriate alcohol sales significantly.33

TIER 3: EVIDENCE OF PROMISE

The NIAAA Task Force report identified

additional program and policy ideas that

make sense intuitively or seem theoretically sound but so far lack strong

research-based support.Table 2 (pp.16–18)

lists these ideas, along with additional

promising ideas inspired by the Higher

Education Center’s environmental management approach. Clearly, any tactics

that might serve to increase alcohol-free

options, change the normative environment, reduce alcohol availability, alter

alcohol marketing and promotion, or

increase the consistent enforcement of

policies deserve to be tried and evaluated.

TIER 4: EVIDENCE OF

INEFFECTIVENESS

The programs listed in this final category

consistently have been found to be ineffective when used in isolation. Whether

they might make an important contribution as part of a more comprehensive

prevention program has not yet been

demonstrated.

Basic awareness and education programs, although a major part of prevention work on most college campuses,

belong to this tier.Typical among these

efforts are orientation sessions for new

students; alcohol awareness weeks and

other special events; and curriculum

infusion, through which instructors

introduce alcohol-related facts and issues

into their regular academic courses.39

While college administrators have an

obligation to make sure that students

know the facts, such educational programs do not by themselves generally

lead to widespread or consistent 

behavior change.

A second problematic tactic is using

breath analysis tests to give students

feedback on their BAC levels so that

they can avoid impaired driving.

According to the NIAAA Task Force,

anecdotal reports suggest that some student drinkers will instead compete to

reach the highest BAC possible.

15

Part 2 ❖ Environmental Management—Proven Prevention Practices
TABLE 2 Strategic objectives and tactics focused on 

environmental change 

Note: Tactics can be classified according to the level of research evidence for their 

effectiveness, as suggested by the NIAAA Task Force on College Drinking:* 

Tier 1: evidence of effectiveness among college students 

Tier 2: evidence of success with general populations 

Tier 3: evidence of promise 

Tier 4: evidence of ineffectiveness 

The Task Force did not list any environmental change tactics under Tiers 1 or 4. 

Tactics listed under Tier 2 are identified below. The remaining tactics can be 

classified under Tier 3, although the Task Force did not explicitly list all of them. 

ALCOHOL-FREE OPTIONS

Problem: Many students, especially at residential colleges, have few adult 

responsibilities and a great deal of unstructured free time, and there are too few 

social and recreational options. 

Strategic Objective: Offer and promote social, recreational, extracurricular, and 

public service options that do not include alcohol and other drugs. 

Tactics (examples): 

• Create new alcohol-free events. 

• Promote alcohol-free events and activities. 

• Create and publicize student service learning or volunteer activities. 

• Require community service work as part of the academic curriculum. 

• Open a student center, gym, or other alcohol-free settings. 

• Expand hours for student center, gym, or other alcohol-free settings. 

• Promote consumption of nonalcoholic beverages and food at events. 

• Provide greater financial support to student clubs and organizations that are 

substance-free. 

NORMATIVE ENVIRONMENT

Problem: Many people accept drinking and other drug use as a “normal” part of the 

college experience. 

Strategic Objective: Create a social, academic, and residential environment that 

supports health-promoting norms. 

Tactics (examples):

• Change college admissions procedures. 

• Increase academic standards. 

• Modify the academic schedule (e.g., increase the number of Friday classes). 

• Offer a greater number of substance-free residence halls. 

• Increase faculty-student contact. 

• Employ older, salaried resident assistants. 

• Create a social norms marketing campaign to correct student 

misperceptions of drinking norms. 

* 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). 

16

Safe Lanes on Campus
ALCOHOL AVAILABILITY

Problem: Alcohol is abundantly available to students and is inexpensive.

Strategic Objective: Limit alcohol availability both on and off campus. 

Tactics (examples): 

• Ban or restrict use of alcohol on campus. 

• Prohibit alcohol use in public places. 

• Prohibit delivery or use of kegs or other common containers on campus. 

• Prohibit tailgate parties. 

• Control or eliminate alcohol sales at sports events. 

• Disseminate guidelines for off-campus parties. 

• Install a responsible beverage service (RBS) program (Tier 2). 

9 Require use of registered and trained alcohol servers. 

9 Provide training programs for both servers and managers. 

9 Limit container size and number of servings per alcohol sales. 

9 Restrict sales of pitchers. 

9 Cut off sales to patrons who might otherwise become intoxicated. 

9 Eliminate last-call announcements. 

• Limit number and concentration of alcohol outlets near campus (Tier 2). 

• Increase costs of alcohol sales licenses. 

• Limit days or hours of alcohol sales. 

• Eliminate home delivery of alcohol purchases. 

• Require keg registration. 

• Increase state alcohol taxes (Tier 2). 

MARKETING AND PROMOTION OF ALCOHOL

Problem: Bars, restaurants, and liquor stores use aggressive promotions to target 

underage and other college drinkers. 

Strategic Objective: Restrict marketing and promotion of alcoholic beverages both 

on and off campus. 

Tactics (examples): 

On campus 

• Ban or restrict alcohol advertising. 

• Ban or restrict alcohol industry sponsorship of on-campus events. 

• Limit content of party or event announcements. 

Off campus 

• Ban or limit alcohol advertising in the vicinity of schools. 

• Ban alcohol promotions with special appeal to underage drinkers. 

• Ban alcohol promotions that show drinking in high-risk contexts. 

• Require pro-health messages to counterbalance alcohol advertising. 

• Institute cooperative agreement to institute minimum pricing (Tier 2). 

• Institute cooperative agreement to ban or restrict low-price drink specials 

(Tier 2). 

(Continued on next page) 

17

Part 2 ❖ Environmental Management—Proven Prevention Practices
POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND ENFORCEMENT

Problem: Campus policies and local, state, and federal laws are not enforced 

consistently. 

Strategic Objective: Develop and enforce campus policies and local, state, and 

federal laws. 

Tactics (examples): 

On Campus

• Revise campus alcohol and other drug (AOD) policies. 

• Disseminate campus AOD policies and publicize their enforcement. 

• Require on-campus functions to be registered. 

• Increase ID checks at on-campus functions. 

• Use decoy operations at campus pubs and on-campus functions. 

• Increase patrols near on-campus parties. 

• Increase disciplinary sanctions for violation of campus AOD policies. 

• Increase criminal prosecution of students for alcohol-related offenses. 

• Notify parents of rules violations. 

Off Campus

• Enforce minimum legal drinking age laws (Tier 2).

9 Increase ID checks at off-campus bars and liquor stores.

9 Use decoy operations at retail alcohol outlets.

9 Enforce seller penalties for sale of liquor minors. to

9 Enforce penalties for possessing fake ID.

• Increase patrols near off-campu parties. s

• Establish new DUI laws (Tier 2).

9 Set legal per se limit for adult drivers at .08% BAC.

9 Set legal limit for drivers under age 21 at .02% BAC or lower.

9 Establish administrative license revocation for alcohol-impaired 

driving.

• Increase enforcement of DUI laws.

9 Use targeted patrols.

9 Use sobriety checkpoints.

• Impose driver’s license penalties for minors violatin alcohol laws. g

• Change driver’s licensing procedures and formats.

• Pass ordinances to restrict open house assemblies a d noise level. n

• Educate sellers/servers about potential legal liability.

18

Safe Lanes on Campus
L

Prevention in Action

19

PART 3

Area of Strategic Intervention Environmental Change..................................................................21

Alcohol-Free Options: Offer and promote social, recreational, extracurricular,

and public service options that do not include alcohol and other drugs (AOD)................................................................21

■ Alcohol-Free Events....................................................................................................................................21

■ Volunteer Community Service..........................................................................................................................22

Normative Environment: Create a social, academic, and residential environment 

that supports health-promoting norms......................................................................................................................................22

■ Social Norms Marketing Campaigns........................................................................................................22

■ Focus on College’s Educational Mission ....................................................................................................22

Alcohol Availability: Limit alcohol availability both on and off campus................................................................................23

■ Responsible Beverage Service....................................................................................................................23

■ Closing Hours..............................................................................................................................................23

■ Laws That Confine Drinking..........................................................................................................................23 ■ Limiting the Density of Alcohol Outlets............................................................................................................23

■ Keg Registration..........................................................................................................................................23

■ Campus Policies to Restrict Alcohol Availability....................................................................................25

■ Policies for Fraternities, Sororities, and Other Campus Organizations ..............................................25

Marketing and Promotion of Alcohol: Restrict marketing and promotion of 

alcoholic beverages both on and off campus..................................................................................................................................25

■ Alcohol Advertising ..................................................................................................................................25 ■ Sponsorship of Sports Events....................................................................................................................26 ■ Comprehensive Ban on Alcohol Advertising ................................................................................................26

■ Price..............................................................................................................................................................26

■ Voluntary Marketing and Advertising Guidelines....................................................................................26

Policy Development and Law Enforcement: Develop and enforce campus policies and 

local, state, and federal laws......................................................................................................................................27

■ Campus Regulations......................................................................................................................................27

■ Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (DFSCA)..................................................................................27 ■ Parental Notification........................................................................................................................................28

■ Alcohol Policy Violations off Campus......................................................................................................28 ■ Orientation Programs ..............................................................................................................................28

■ State and Local Laws..................................................................................................................................29 ■ Selling to Minors....................................................................................................................................29

■ Underage Sellers..........................................................................................................................................29

■ Adults Providing Alcohol to Underage Drinkers....................................................................................29

■ Sobriety Checkpoints..................................................................................................................................30 ■ Fake IDs........................................................................................................................................................30

■ “Zero Tolerance” Laws..................................................................................................................................30

Area of Strategic Intervention Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions......................................................................................................................................31

■ Effects of Alcohol on Ability to Drive............................................................................................................31

Area of Strategic Intervention Health Protection..............................................................................31

■ Designated Driver Programs..........................................................................................................................31

■ Safe Rides Program..................................................................................................................................32

Area of Strategic Intervention Intervention and Treatment..........................................................32

■ Interactive Course..........................................................................................................................................32

■ One-on-One Intervention ..........................................................................................................................32

This section describes policies and

programs currently being used

throughout the United States to

prevent underage drinking and DUI

among college students. Program contact

information can be found in part 5,

Resources (p. 43).The descriptions are

organized according to the typology of

campus and community prevention

efforts developed by the Higher

Education Center for Alcohol and Other

Drug Prevention (see table 1).The following section describes four areas of

strategic intervention: (1) Environmental

Change; (2) Knowledge,Attitudes, and

Behavioral Intentions; (3) Health

Protection; and (4) Intervention and

Treatment.

Area of Strategic

Intervention

Environmental Change

ALCOHOL-FREE OPTIONS:

Offer and promote social, recreational, extracurricular, and public

service options that do not include

alcohol and other drugs (AOD).

Students seeking lively social contacts

should be able to choose between more

than either bars and nightclubs or alcohol-fueled parties.A comprehensive

effort to reduce underage drinking and

impaired driving should ensure that students, especially those under the legal

drinking age, have a choice of alcoholfree activities in a campus and community atmosphere that supports the 

decision to avoid drinking.

Alcohol-Free Events

Alcohol-free events might require more

advertising and promotion than those

relying on alcoholic beverages to help

draw attendance. Creating and promoting such activities is a challenge and

always runs the risk of failure, but a

number of successful campus-based programs can be used as models:

➤ A program called † WVUp All

Night at West Virginia University

has attracted up to 1,000 students on

weekend nights with free food,

comedy, bowling, live bands, and

other activities.

➤ An annual dance for students sponsored by Boston College’s alumni

association became notorious for

high-risk drinking and was canceled.

In response, the alumni association

† organized sports competitions and community service

projects, such as providing meals to

local food banks.

➤ Through a program called † PRIDE

(Promoting Responsible and

Informed Decisions through

Education), the University of

Redlands in California offers screenings of current hit movies, a coffee

and dessert bar, and weekly events

featuring comedians, musicians, and

other live entertainment.

21

Prevention in Action

PART 3

† Please refer to the Resources 

section for contact information.

L
Volunteer Community Service

Vacation periods are also a time of risk

for student drinking problems.Across

the nation, several campus organizations

are now in place to arrange for students

to do volunteer community service during spring break and other vacation

periods. Central Michigan University’s

† Alternative Breaks provides opportunities during vacation breaks and on

several weekends during the academic

year. † Alternative Weekends is a

similar program based at the University

of Michigan. Habitat for Humanity, an

organization that enlists volunteers to

help build houses in poverty-stricken

areas, saw a 15 percent rise in student

participation in its 2002 Collegiate

Challenge program.

NORMATIVE ENVIRONMENT:

Create a social, academic, and residential environment that supports

health-promoting norms.

Social Norms Marketing Campaigns

Social norms marketing campaigns are

designed to convey accurate information

to students about “peer drinking norms”

or the drinking habits of other students.

The idea is to undermine the wildly exaggerated views of student drinking that

many students hold and thereby reduce

the perceived pressure to drink alcohol in

order to fit in.40This approach has been

adapted to help dispel similar misperceptions about driving after drinking.

The University of Texas (UT) at

Austin developed its campaign after a

survey showed that seven out of 10 UT

students do not drive after drinking, and

that seven out of 10 UT students drink

no more than three drinks at a party, if

they drink at all.The † “7 out of 10”

message saturated the Austin campus

during the 2000–01 academic year,

appearing at orientation meetings for

first-year students, on posters, in newspaper ads, on radio and television, on a

Web site, and on stickers worn by many

staff and students.

† MOST of Us, a statewide campaign developed at Montana State

University (MSU), used posters, media

messages, and other information channels to get out the message that four out

of five 18 to 21 year olds on the MSU

campus do not drive after drinking.A

follow-up survey found that only about

16 percent of those who recalled the

MOST of Us message had driven after

drinking in the previous month, compared with 25 percent of those not

recalling any DUI prevention message.

Focus on College’s Educational

Mission

The normative environment is also

communicated by policies and practices

that either promote or undermine the

college’s educational mission. For example, some campus administrators have

discovered that the convenience and

popularity of scheduling all or most

classes early in the week creates a “threeday weekend.”The NIAAA Task Force

recommended reinstating Friday (and

perhaps even Saturday) classes and

exams as a means of reducing high-risk

drinking by students.41

Initial resistance among students may

diminish when voluntary activities once

scheduled for Fridays are moved to

Wednesdays and regular classes are

scheduled on Fridays.42 At Clark

University in Massachusetts, the faculty

voted to schedule more classes on

Fridays after a survey showed that there

were almost three times as many class

meetings on Mondays and Wednesdays

as on Fridays. Similarly,Wesleyan College

in Middletown, Connecticut, scheduled

more classes on Fridays after students

complained that there were too many

classes in the middle of the week.43

22

Safe Lanes on Campus

† Please refer to the Resources 

section for contact information.

Eyes on the Prize

Several chapters of the

Automobile Association of

America (AAA) and the U.S.

Department of Education’s

Higher Education Center for

Alcohol and Other Drug

Prevention cosponsor the

annual College and

University Drinking and

Driving Prevention

Awards Program. The program annually awards one

$5,000 grand prize and two

$1,000 prizes to colleges and

universities in a six-state

region (California, Hawaii,

Nevada, New Mexico, Texas,

and Utah) for their innovative activities to reduce

drinking and driving among

their students. Other AAA

chapters are considering

joining this recognition

effort, and it is hoped that it

might some day become

national in scope. Visit

http://www.higheredcenter.

org/grants/aaa/ for more

information.
ALCOHOL AVAILABILITY:

Limit alcohol availability both on

and off campus.

Responsible Beverage Service

RBS training for owners, managers, and

employees of off-campus alcohol outlets

is a key prevention tactic. RBS training

is a means of reducing underage drinking

and preventing intoxicated patrons from

leaving an establishment to drive a motor

vehicle.A special value of RBS training is

that it helps servers detect counterfeit proof-of-age documents and

teaches them how to refuse service in a

way that avoids confrontation.Typically,

RBS training also includes information

about how to recognize signs of intoxication and prevent alcohol misuse.

Asking DUI offenders where they

had their last drink before being arrested

may indicate that certain establishments

are routinely failing to cut off service to

intoxicated patrons or not making an

effort to keep them from driving while

impaired.A “last drink” survey at the

University of Delaware found that

between 45 and 50 percent of students

arrested for DUI had their last drink at a

bar or restaurant, whereas 30 percent had

their last drink at someone else’s home.44

Closing Hours

If bars close at 2:00 AM in one city or

county, drinkers might then go by car to

an adjacent city or county where bars stay

open until 3:00 AM.The risk this creates

prompted a new ordinance changing the

bar-closing hour in Union City, New

Jersey, from 3:00 AM to 2:00 AM to bring

it in line with closing times in surrounding towns. Obviously, earlier closing

hours also give bar patrons less time to

drink, thus reducing the risk of impairment before customers drive home.

Laws That Confine Drinking

Laws that confine drinking to licensed

premises and set aside designated areas

for alcohol sales and consumption at

public events help discourage irresponsible behavior and public disturbances by

students.45 Such laws also increase vendor

accountability by making it easier to

track which alcohol outlets are serving

underage drinkers or intoxicated persons.

Also worth considering is enactment of

alcohol bans at beaches, lakefronts, parks,

and other public places in order to keep

these locations safe for family recreation.

Limiting the Density of Alcohol

Outlets

Research has shown higher levels of both

underage and high-risk drinking when

there is a heavier concentration of alcohol

outlets near campus.46 Although alcohol

licensing might be a responsibility of state

government, local communities can still

use zoning powers to control the density

of neighborhood alcohol outlets and to

require that licensees engage in responsible business practices.

The city of Newark, Delaware, acted

to reduce the density of bars in the

vicinity of the University of Delaware by

placing deed restrictions prohibiting the

sale of alcohol on three properties. In

Lincoln, Nebraska, the University of

Nebraska worked for passage of an ordinance banning “bottle clubs” that provide drink mixers to patrons who bring

their own alcohol.

Keg Registration

At least 13 states and the District of

Columbia now have keg registration

laws.The merchant records the buyer's

name, address, telephone number, and

driver’s license number. If police confiscate a keg being used to supply underage drinkers, they can easily trace the

purchaser and impose sanctions.

23

Part 3 ❖ Prevention in Action
24

Safe Lanes on Campus

A Community Covenant

The College Bar Task Force in San Diego is on

the front line in the battle against alcoholimpaired driving. Its focus is the beach areas

of San Diego—miles from most of the large

campuses, but popular with students who

more than likely come and go there by car.

The task force’s mission is to get bar and

restaurant operators who cater to students

to subscribe to a †“community

covenant” pledging them to pursue business policies that will minimize such problems as underage drinking and DUI.

Working with the San Diego Food and

Beverage Association and the California

Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control,

the task force arranges free classes in RBS

for owners, managers, bartenders, waiters,

and other servers who come in regular contact with students. The servers learn to detect

fake IDs, recognize when customers are

becoming intoxicated, encourage patrons to

eat as well as drink, and promote the use of

designated drivers among groups of students. Doormen who check IDs also receive

training in how to identify counterfeit documents. With the rise of “club drugs” as a

new substance abuse problem, bar employees are also receiving training in ways to

spot the presence of illegal drugs.

The task force focuses not only on what

happens in the bars but also on the low-price

drink specials and other lures commonly featured in bar advertising and promotion. One

aim is to persuade bars not to compete with

one another by cutting drink prices, says

Marian Novak, director of San Diego’s

Collegiate-Community Alcohol Prevention

Partnership (C-CAPP). Price specials tend to

increase alcohol consumption and thus produce more drinkers at risk for impaired driving and other problems.

C-CAPP has a full menu of prevention

activities aimed at reducing underage and

other high-risk drinking among the 140,000

college students attending the San Diego

area’s nine colleges and universities. Grants

from the U.S. Department of Education and

the NIAAA have helped underwrite this

work. The coalition includes campus administrators, students, representatives of campus

police, local police departments, the

California Department of Alcoholic Beverage

Control, representatives of alcohol retailers

and bars and restaurants, and prevention

advocates from community agencies concerned with alcohol issues.

The coalition considers itself to be a prevention “system” rather than a program. It

looks at alcohol problems in terms of several

“subsystems,” including advertising and promotion of alcohol, social norms influencing

drinking behavior of students, policies and

regulations, retail sales and availability, and

drinking in high-risk contexts like tailgate

and other student parties.

A Safe and Responsible Party Task Force

has developed a close relationship with the

San Diego Police Department to carry out a

program for quelling noisy parties in neighborhoods around campuses. The program

uses a city antinoise ordinance to ban partying at private residences that have generated

two or more police visits within a month. The

program does not attempt to deal with partying at fraternity and sorority houses.

Instead, these organizations are urged to

invite nondrinking student monitors to their

parties to prevent underage drinking and discourage driving after drinking.

In another activity, Associated Students, a

San Diego State University organization, is

providing free rides home to partying students who have been drinking at bars in the

beach areas. An airport shuttle service under

contract to Associated Students keeps three

vans available between 11:00 PM and 3:00

AM on Friday and Saturday nights to pick up

students who have been drinking and take

† Please refer to the Resources them home.

section for contact information.
The effectiveness of keg registration has

been challenged by the alcohol industry,

which argues that the law merely

induces party organizers to buy beer in

six-packs or cases instead of kegs. Even if

that is the case, this in itself might be a

net benefit, as beer purchased in cans

and bottles is more expensive than beer

purchased by the keg, a factor that could

drive down consumption.

Campus Policies to Restrict Alcohol

Availability

On campus, an institutional policy that

permits the sale and consumption of

alcoholic beverages by persons of legal

drinking age should include provisions

to help prevent underage drinking.

Facilities where alcohol is sold—a faculty lounge, student union, or pub—

should be required to adhere to the

strictest possible RBS code, not only

refusing to serve minors and intoxicated

patrons but also refraining from any

price reductions or promotions that

encourage the choice of alcoholic over

nonalcoholic beverages.

Many campuses specify times and

places where alcohol cannot be consumed, such as substance-free residence

halls or residence halls for students under

21.An alcohol-free policy can also be

extended to all public areas of the campus,

athletics facilities, parking lots, fraternity

and sorority recruiting functions, and any

social events where a significant number

of those in attendance are under age.

Policies for Fraternities, Sororities,

and Other Campus Organizations 

Alcohol policies that affect fraternities,

sororities, and other campus organizations should be adopted and enforced as

part of an environmental prevention

program. Now that fraternities and

sororities increasingly face civil lawsuits

connected with alcohol use, many campus chapters and their national offices

have become potential sources of support for effective policies.Their active

role in supporting these policies can

range from requiring RBS training for

alcohol servers at social events to outright bans on alcohol whenever events

might attract persons under age 21.A

rule requiring social events to be registered and approved by college administrators can help ensure that organizers

know the school’s policies. Sanctions

against organizations can include temporary or permanent suspension, which

would then preclude them from recruiting new members or otherwise participating in campus life.

❖❖❖

The set of events covered by a

restrictive alcohol policy should be

clearly specified.The University of Tulsa

makes its alcohol policy sweeping in its

application:“The Alcohol Policy shall

apply to every function or event, including but not limited to receptions, banquets, dinners, picnics, or any outdoor

event, social event, and campuswide

activity sponsored by organizations or

individuals associated with the

University of Tulsa. In addition, other

off-campus University of Tulsa events

that imply or express university affiliation are bound by this policy.”47

MARKETING AND PROMOTION

OF ALCOHOL:

Restrict marketing and promotion 

of alcoholic beverages both on and

off campus.

Alcohol Advertising

The National Commission on DrugFree Schools has called for a prohibition

of all alcohol advertising in campus

newspapers, at sports stadiums, and at all

campus events.48 One justification is that

alcohol marketing often targets youth

and young adults without distinguishing

between minors and those of legal

drinking age, even though more than

25

Part 3 ❖ Prevention in Action

Chief to Chief

According to the Lincoln StarJournal, Police Chief Tom

Casady of Lincoln, Nebraska,

fired off a scolding letter to the

police chief in a Florida beach

resort after ads in the University

of Nebraska campus paper suggested that underage drinking

and drunkenness would be tolerated at the resort during

spring break. The police chief in

Florida responded that he too

was upset about the implications of the advertising, and he

assured Chief Casady that the

laws would be enforced regardless of what the ads implied.

The Lincoln chief has been

a supporter of tough enforcement of underage drinking laws

in Lincoln as a member of the

†NU Directions campus

and community coalition, which

pursues a number of strategies

aimed at reducing alcohol-related problems among students.

Chief Casady has complained

about ads in homegrown publications, too, chastising several

local bars for promotions that

seem to encourage high-risk

drinking.

The efforts of Chief Casady

and the NU Directions coalition

appear to be paying off. Their

city had the lowest rate of alcohol-related motor vehicle deaths

among the 97 largest cities in

the country, according to a study

released in 2001 by The Robert

Wood Johnson Foundation.49 The

University of Nebraska has also

reported lower rates of heavy

drinking among its students, in

contrast with national trends

reported in the 2001 College

Alcohol Study.50
half the students on many campuses are

under 21. Moreover, such advertising

frequently associates alcohol consumption with tasks that require skilled and

quick reactions, including operation 

of motor vehicles. Independent publications cannot be compelled to eliminate

alcohol advertising, but a prevention

coalition should still seek voluntary

agreements with them to restrict the

advertising’s content.

Sponsorship of Sports Events

Sponsorship of sports events by alcohol

manufacturers reinforces the mistaken

idea that drinking goes with activities

requiring physical agility and coordination, including operating a motor vehicle. Campuses such as Fresno State

University, the University of Minnesota,

the University of Kentucky, and the

University of North Carolina at Chapel

Hill have successfully diminished their

dependence on alcohol advertising for

intercollegiate athletics, either removing

promotional displays from arenas or

shifting to other corporate sponsors for

television and radio broadcasts.

Comprehensive Ban on Alcohol

Advertising

A comprehensive ban on alcohol advertising and promotion should also exclude

use of college logos, insignia, or mascots

by alcohol manufacturers and prohibit

their sponsorship of educational programs and fraternity and sorority events.

In addition, these companies should be

prohibited from placing sales or promotional representatives on campus.51

Some institutions might resist a policy banning or otherwise restricting alcohol advertising and promotion because

campus publications, athletics departments, or other extracurricular programs

have become dependent on advertising

income from the alcohol industry.To

gain acceptance of a ban, campus administrators should ensure that educational,

sporting, cultural, and prevention-oriented

activities are adequately funded without

the industry’s money. Other potential

sources of support include special contributions by alumni, paid advertising by

other types of businesses (e.g., soft drink

distributors, restaurants, sportswear 

companies), and higher student fees.52

Price

College students, like other consumers,

are sensitive to price in making decisions

about drinking. Researchers at the

University of Arkansas found that students agreed they would drink more

when “all you can drink” specials were

available.The study found that high-risk

drinkers were more likely than others to

drink more when prices were lower.

Urging bars and restaurants to avoid

price specials as an advertising lure is an

important prevention tactic.53

Voluntary Marketing and

Advertising Guidelines

Led by the Albany, New York, mayor’s

office and officials from the University at

Albany, State University of New York

(SUNY), the city Committee on

University and Community Relations

worked with the Empire State Restaurant

and Tavern Association to persuade owners of bars and restaurants in off-campus

student neighborhoods to subscribe to

the following † voluntary marketing

and advertising guidelines:54

➤ Include a statement asking patrons

to be respectful of neighborhood

residents and to behave responsibly

and in a civil manner when leaving

the establishment.

➤ Eliminate low-price drink promotions, which encourage high rates of

alcohol consumption.

➤ Emphasize the legal necessity of

being 21 years of age or older, with

a valid form of identification, to

obtain alcohol.

26

Safe Lanes on Campus

† Please refer to the Resources 

section for contact information.
➤ Avoid language or illustrations that

promote irresponsible alcohol 

consumption.

➤ Promote nonalcoholic beverages and

food specials to the same extent as

alcoholic beverage specials.

Establishments that agree to this

advertising code are allowed to display a

Cooperating Tavern logo in their ads.

The committee monitors publications to

assure compliance and works with tavern

owners to revise ads that do not comply.

Since the program’s inception, hotline

complaints about students’ off-campus

conduct have dropped dramatically.

Officials at SUNY New Paltz have

also worked with local police and business leaders to promulgate a Tavern

Owner’s Agreement, with the following

additional features:

➤ The campus newspaper will accept

advertising only from establishments

whose owners signed the agreement.

➤ A copolicing arrangement between

SUNY campus police and the New

Paltz police calls for collaborative

problem solving, including policing

of off-campus parties where underage drinking may occur.

The number of low-price drink specials

advertised by local bars has dropped

sharply since the inception of the Tavern

Owner’s Agreement.

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND LAW

ENFORCEMENT:

Develop and enforce campus policies

and local, state, and federal laws.

Campus Regulations

Campus alcohol policies should be reviewed periodically to ensure that they

are comprehensive, clearly written, consistently enforced, and include appropriate sanctions for violations.The policies

must be specific and detailed so that all

concerned understand precisely what is

expected of them.Various policy options

and suggestions for wording can be

found in Setting and Improving Policies for

Reducing Alcohol and Other Drug Problems

on Campus:A Guide for Administrators (see

Resources, p. 43).

A participatory process will build

greater support for new policies. Senior

administrators should seek the participation of diverse campus constituencies in

this process, including faculty, staff, campus police, alumni, students, and parents.

Community activists, such as representatives from MADD or Students Against

Destructive Decisions (SADD), can provide community input for campus policy

development.

Drug-Free Schools and Communities

Act (DFSCA)

The DFSCA specifies important content

for an institution’s alcohol policies.The

act requires institutions of higher education to maintain a written policy that sets

forth standards of conduct clearly prohibiting the unlawful possession, use, or

distribution of alcohol or illicit drugs on

school property or as part of any school

activity.The policy must also make clear

that certain sanctions apply to student

acts committed under the influence, such

as public disturbances, endangerment to

self or others, or property damage.

According to the DFSCA, the policy

must include a clear statement that the

institution will impose sanctions up to

expulsion or termination of employment

and referral for prosecution for violations of its standards of conduct.55

Additional sanctions for violations might

include mandatory attendance at a prevention education program, loss of privileges, community service, fines, or eviction from college-owned or collegecontrolled housing.The University of

Kentucky’s alcohol policy, for example,

provides that an athlete convicted of

DUI will be suspended from competi27

Part 3 ❖ Prevention in Action
tion for a year and will be on probation

while at the university.

Parental Notification

A survey of judicial affairs officers at 189

institutions in January 2000 by researchers

at Bowling Green State University found

that 59 percent had parental notification

policies in effect, while 25 percent were

actively considering adopting such a policy. Some institutions reported lower rates

of recidivism after they began notifying

parents of violations.56

The University of Missouri at

Columbia in 2001 adopted a two-step

process for parental notification. First, an

information packet is sent to underage

students and their parents urging them

to discuss drinking and other drug use.

The materials explain that unless parents

choose otherwise, they will be notified

when the student commits an alcohol or

other drug violation.With 13,600 packets mailed before the 2001–02 academic

year, only 121 parents chose not to be

notified. During the year, the university

sent 48 letters informing parents that

their underage children had committed

violations. More than half of the violations were for DUI.57

Alcohol Policy Violations off Campus 

The jurisdiction of campus prevention

policies should be carefully defined, generally including all college property as

well as events controlled by or associated

with the institution, including offcampus events.

The extent to which policies cover

off-campus behavior should reflect community norms.Town-gown agreements

sometimes provide for local police to

notify campus authorities when a student is arrested or ticketed for an alcohol-related offense. Several colleges and

universities have specified that an incident occurring off campus will still be

considered a violation of the student

conduct code.

Orientation Programs

The National Resource Center for the

First-Year Experience® and Students in

Transition estimates that as many as

2,000 U.S. institutions of higher education offer a comprehensive orientation

program that includes familiarizing new

students with the school’s alcohol and

other drug policies and with substancefree activities both on and off campus.

Campus officials must also take steps

to ensure that students—especially new

students—are familiar with the policies,

including sanctions. Potential civil liability should be discussed as well. For example, party hosts should be informed that

they might be held legally responsible

for having provided alcohol to a minor

if underage guests are found to be

drinking, and that they might be liable

for any physical harm caused by an

underage guest who was drinking.

At SUNY New Paltz the student

handbook, † Campus Regulations and

Judicial Procedures, is distributed to both

students and parents to clarify policies

and sanctions concerning alcohol.An

orientation program—called Where’s 

the Party?—reviews the university’s

expectations for student conduct.

The Collegiate-Community Alcohol

Prevention Partnership in San Diego distributes door-hangers in campus neighborhoods to explain laws and penalties

for providing alcohol to minors and local

ordinances regarding noisy parties.

The Underage Drinking Enforcement

Program at the University of Northern

Colorado in Greeley offers † “Stop,

Look, and Listen,” a two-hour presentation on alcohol laws and policies, for students and parents attending summer orientation. During the academic year the

program requires underage students who

are ticketed for alcohol-related offenses

(either on or off campus) to attend a sixhour seminar on alcohol issues.

28

Safe Lanes on Campus

† Please refer to the Resources 

section for contact information.
State and Local Laws

Campus and community coalitions

should also work to ensure that prevailing state and local laws and regulations

are enforced and that proposals for

tougher laws receive vocal support from

the community.

Selling to Minors

Youth in Action teams organized by

local MADD chapters have enlisted

underage high school and college students to serve as “decoys” for police

patrols that monitor whether alcohol

outlets are selling to minors. Most

enforcement agencies have strict guidelines for such operations to ensure that

they are fair to the alcohol licensees, for

example, testing retail clerks only with

would-be purchasers who have a youthful appearance and are carrying identification showing that they are indeed

under age.

In Hawaii, a decoy operation testing

295 stores found that 39 percent were

willing to sell alcohol to a minor.After a

year of random testing, the number had

declined to 19 percent. In Iowa City,

home of the University of Iowa, police

reported a 30 percent decline in DUI

arrests involving underage drivers after

the introduction of a decoy program

testing compliance with the law at the

city’s 50 bars.58 Successful use of decoys

in the community suggests that the same

tactic could be used to test adherence to

the law at on-campus pubs and events

where alcohol is served.

The Century Council’s Cops in

Shops® program uses law enforcement

officers posing as retail clerks to deter

attempts by underage customers to buy

alcohol.The tactic has been used with

some success in outlets that are considered popular sources of alcohol for

underage drinkers, but its actual effect

on illegal sales has not been measured.

Some enforcement agencies avoid it

because of the amount of time and energy required to address each violation.A

participating officer can monitor only

one or two stores in an evening, whereas

the same officer running a decoy program can test a dozen or more establishments for compliance in the same length

of time.

Underage Sellers

The age at which young people can

legally sell and serve alcohol ranges from

16 to 21 and varies from state to state.

California, for example, allows 18 year

olds to sell alcohol if they are under

“continuous supervision” by someone

over 21. Some state laws differentiate

between those who serve alcohol and

those who merely sell packaged alcoholic beverages over the counter in retail

establishments.

Underage sellers have greater difficulty than those over 21 refusing sales to

underage buyers.They are more likely to

misjudge the customer’s age, make

exceptions for friends and acquaintances,

and respond to peer pressure. Even so,

efforts to pass state laws that prohibit

underage sellers may encounter resistance from the business community

because of the effect such legislation

would have on employment policies.

Adults Providing Alcohol to

Underage Drinkers

Tougher state laws can also help discourage adults from providing alcohol to

underage drinkers. In Minnesota, a

recent law makes it a felony to have provided alcohol to a minor who suffers

serious injury or death as a result, while

another new law allows persons harmed

by an underage drinker to sue any adults

who provided alcohol to that person.

Says an advocate of these recent

Minnesota laws:“Our message is, selling

or giving alcohol to kids is wrong and

will get you in a world of trouble.”59

29

Part 3 ❖ Prevention in Action

Keeping Up with 

the Law

All states make it illegal to

sell or provide alcohol to persons under age 21 and to

intoxicated persons, but the

way the laws are interpreted

and applied varies from state

to state. Generally, the laws

provide for criminal penalties

such as fines or administrative remedies, including forfeiture of alcohol licenses. Civil

court decisions in different

states have led to variations

in legal liability for cases in

which alcohol service can be

linked to death, injury, or

property damage. College and

university administrators

should work with legal counsel to keep careful watch on

new legislation and case law

in their state and to assess

their implications for the

school’s AOD policies.
“Shoulder-tap” enforcement programs use underage decoys to discourage

adult purchases of alcohol on behalf of

minors.The term derives from the

image of minors approaching adults outside an alcohol retail outlet, tapping

them on the shoulder, and asking them

to purchase alcohol on the minors’

behalf. Retailers are often willing to help

with shoulder-tap programs because laws

in many states hold them responsible for

such activities in the immediate vicinity

of their establishments.

Sobriety Checkpoints

Sobriety checkpoints are an important

tool for DUI enforcement.A police officer detecting evidence of alcohol use by

a driver can ask the driver to take a

breath test to establish BAC. In many

states, refusal to take the test leads to

immediate driver’s license suspension.

The value of sobriety checkpoints

goes beyond apprehending drunken drivers. In fact, relatively few drivers are

arrested at checkpoints.Yet with appropriate publicity, the checkpoints can have

a significant dampening effect on

impaired driving.The knowledge that

police may be conducting checkpoints

can be a deterrent to those who might

otherwise decide to drive after drinking.60

The Colorado State Patrol (CSP)

works closely with city, county, and campus police forces during high-risk periods. In 2001, the CSP took note of the

rising rate of alcohol use at Halloween

parties. In response, more than 500

police and sheriff’s officers throughout

the state were assigned to checkpoints

and other DUI enforcement measures

during the Halloween party season.

Colorado members of the BACCHUS

and GAMMA Peer Education Network

helped spread the word about the

† Halloween crackdown in order to

enhance its deterrent effect and to

encourage partying students to use designated drivers or alternative transportation.

Fake IDs

Laws covering fake IDs vary from state

to state, as do policies and programs for

their enforcement. Police departments

and other enforcement agencies can

conduct workshops for alcohol licensees

to teach them how to spot counterfeit

or altered IDs, usually driver’s licenses. In

Boston, fake IDs are confiscated by

servers and retailers and turned over to

police, who fax copies to college and

university officials for whatever action

they choose to take.At Boston College,

for example, the consequences include a

$100 fine and suspension of eligibility

for campus housing until the student

reaches age 21. In addition to these

sanctions, the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts suspends the offender’s

driver’s license for six months.

“Zero Tolerance” Laws

All states have adopted “zero tolerance”

laws that set a lower (.00 to .02 percent)

BAC limit for drivers under age 21.

These laws have been credited with

reducing alcohol-related automobile

crashes among young people by 20 percent.61 Research shows that the deterrent

effect of such laws is magnified through

public awareness.62 Information about

“zero tolerance” laws should be included

in all alcohol education programs and

orientation sessions for first-year students.

Young people taking part in

MADD’s Youth in Action program have

helped draw the attention of police

departments to the importance of

enforcing “zero tolerance” laws.63 Police

in some states have maintained that the

laws, as written, make them difficult to

enforce. In this case, a campus and community coalition can seek legislative

changes to correct the problem.

30

Safe Lanes on Campus

† Please refer to the Resources 

section for contact information.
Spring Break

Underage drinking and other

alcohol problems during

spring break have led authorities in many resort areas to

step up enforcement when

students flood their communities. The strain on local

enforcement agencies may be

such that they will need to

seek special funding from the

state government to cover the

expense of enhanced patrols.

In Texas, a state grant allowed

the Texas Alcoholic Beverage

Commission to assign 36

agents to join local law

enforcement officers in

patrolling beach areas near

Brownsville and on South

Padre Island during the 2002

spring break.

Other resort communities

are trying to discourage the

flood of vacationing students.

In 2002, the influx of 150,000

students who converged on

Daytona Beach, Florida, during spring break led to “fistfights, underage drinking,

trashed hotel rooms, and

police-supervised evictions,”

according to local press

reports. Under pressure from

the Volusia County Council,

the Daytona region’s spring

break advertising budget for

the following year was cut in

half (from $125,000 to

$62,500); the goal of this

down-sized campaign is to

draw in more family-oriented

tourists.64

Campus and community coalitions

working on enforcement of zero tolerance and other traffic safety measures

may find valuable assistance from the

Governors Highway Safety Association.

More information about this nationwide

program is available at its Web site 

(statehighwaysafety.org).

Area of Strategic

Intervention

Knowledge, Attitudes,

and Behavioral Intentions

Effects of Alcohol on Ability to Drive

Students should make decisions about

drinking based on fact rather than myth.

For example, each semester Colorado

State University (CSU) presents

†Rights, Responsibilities, and

Ramifications, a workshop that tells students about the effects of alcohol on their

reflexes and ability to drive, discusses what

is likely to happen if they are caught driving under the influence, and explains their

legal rights.Also included is a description

of Colorado’s “zero tolerance” law for

underage drinking drivers.A CSU police

officer and the university’s director of legal

services present the workshop.

The workshop features a demonstration of how alcohol can affect a wouldbe driver. Under police supervision, a

resident assistant who is over 21 drinks

to the point of impairment—a point

that comes sooner than most students

would expect. Students at the workshop

are also invited to use goggles that simulate impaired vision and then ride tricycles through an obstacle course to get an

idea of what driving after drinking can

be like. By the time they leave, students

not only know a lot more about driving

after drinking but have also received

information about campus resources that

can help them with alcohol problems.

Area of Strategic

Intervention

Health Protection

Designated Driver Programs

Since 1993, NHTSA and the Center for

Substance Abuse Prevention have recommended designated driver programs

as a means for drinkers of legal age to

avoid driving after drinking.With this

strategy, a group going out to a social

event where alcohol is to be consumed

selects one person to abstain and be

responsible for driving.An important

aspect of designated driver programs is

that publicity about them reminds the

public that it is irresponsible to drive

after drinking.65

Designated driver programs have

flourished in spite of reservations by

some prevention advocates, who worry

that the programs may encourage highrisk drinking by the designated driver’s

passengers. In fact, a 1993 survey of

more than 17,000 U.S. college students

established that designated driver programs have a net beneficial effect.

Among drinkers, 1,908 students who

could be classified as heavy drinkers

reported not drinking heavily the last

time they served as a designated driver.

At the same time, only 1,031 students

who normally would not be classified as

heavy drinkers reported drinking heavily

the last time they rode with a designated

driver.The study’s authors note, however, that the exact contribution of this

strategy to reducing motor vehicle

crashes still needs to be determined.66

Some designated driver programs are

based on working relationships with bars

and restaurants popular with students.

31

Part 3 ❖ Prevention in Action

† Please refer to the Resources 

section for contact information.
32

Safe Lanes on Campus

† Please refer to the Resources 

section for contact information.

“We Want You to

Turn 22 . . . ”

Many colleges and universities must cope with a recent

tradition among some students calling for a night of

heavy drinking to celebrate a

21st birthday, when purchasing alcohol becomes legal.

Georgetown University’s

Health Education Services

sends students turning 21 a

birthday card with the message, “We want you to turn

22 . . . celebrate responsibly.”

Cal Poly, Pomona, came up

with a variation on the same

theme: a program reminding

birthday celebrants that their

21st birthday “does not equal

21 drinks.”

The establishment agrees to provide free

beverages such as coffee or soft drinks to

the designated driver and in return

receives free publicity.A program at the

University of New Mexico,

† Designated Drivers Do It for

Friends, uses free movie passes and other

rewards to enlist designated drivers.The

program also has persuaded many local

bars and restaurants to provide free nonalcoholic drinks and waive cover charges

for the nondrinking driver.

Safe Rides Program

Designated driver programs work when

drinkers are part of a group. For drinkers

who would otherwise be driving home

alone or riding with an impaired driver,

an alternative is a “safe rides” program

that provides safe and sober transportation.The ride home is provided free or at

a reduced rate.A student-managed program called † CARPOOL at Texas

A&M University offers rides home to

students on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday

nights between 10:00 PM and 3:00 AM.

The program uses rented cars and enlists

and trains students as volunteer drivers.

The $200,000 budget is covered by fundraising events and donations from sources

in the community.

Area of Strategic

Intervention

Intervention and

Treatment

A new study recommends that colleges

and universities implement strategies to

identify and screen high-risk student

drinkers and to ensure that treatment is

readily available for those who are diagnosed with alcohol disorders.The study,

based on questionnaires filled out by

14,000 students at 119 four-year U.S.

colleges, indicated that 31 percent of

students meet the clinical criteria for

misuse of alcohol, while 6 percent meet

the criteria for alcohol dependency.67

Interactive Course

The University of New Mexico (UNM)

developed the Alcohol Awareness and

Education program for students adjudicated for first-time alcohol infractions.

The UNM course is a † three-hour,

interactive session facilitated by a

trained graduate student and an undergraduate assistant.The course emphasizes

decision-making, risk reduction, and

moderation in alcohol use rather than

abstinence.

One-on-One Intervention

A program at Auburn University in

Alabama calls for † one-on-one

intervention with students who violate

an alcohol policy or are having other

alcohol-related problems.The program

provides a motivational interview conducted by a doctoral student in clinical

psychology.The approach is neither

punitive nor confrontational, but instead

seeks to encourage a self-appraisal of the

student’s drinking habits and a full consideration of whether and how to make

lifestyle changes.

❖❖❖

While informative, this review of

current prevention policies and programs

cannot be translated into a simple formula to follow. Members of a campus

and community coalition can learn from

what others have tried, but ultimately

they must devise, through trial and error,

a tailored approach that fits the needs of

their own community.This means,

therefore, that each coalition will need

to have a feedback and evaluation mechanism in place to monitor its prevention

efforts, verify that they are being fully

implemented as planned, and ensure that

they are actually working well to reduce

alcohol-related problems.
33

Part 3 ❖ Prevention in Action

† Please refer to the Resources 

section for contact information.

Reshaping the Campus and Community Environment at

UC Santa Barbara—†Case Study of a Comprehensive Approach

The University of California, Santa Barbara

(UCSB), was one of the first universities in

the nation to recognize alcohol use as a serious issue for students when it introduced an

alcohol awareness program in 1980. In the

1990s, UCSB was also in the forefront in

adopting an environmental management

approach for AOD prevention efforts and in

targeting DUI in particular.

UCSB has 17,000 undergraduate and

2,000 graduate students. Many of them drive

regularly to the nearby city of Santa Barbara

for the music, dancing, and alcohol outlets to

be found there, creating obvious risks for

alcohol-impaired driving. Those who stay

closer to the campus—in the adjacent community of Isla Vista—are also at risk for

injury due to alcohol. Because bicycles are

the favorite mode of short-trip transportation

in and around Isla Vista, UCSB’s prevention

program targets both DUI and BUI (bicycling

under the influence).

Grants from the California Office of

Traffic Safety helped cover the start-up costs

for a set of prevention initiatives that ultimately evolved into a comprehensive program involving students, staff, faculty, administrators, and the Isla Vista community. UCSB

received an award from the Automobile Club

of Southern California for its concerted effort

to reduce driving after drinking and other

high-risk use of alcohol.

Before the students return each fall, a

steering committee called the AOD

Workgroup formulates a strategic plan for

the coming year, based on a review of the

prior year’s prevention activities and what

has been learned about their strengths and

weaknesses. The committee, representing university departments and organizations

responsible for prevention work, meets

biweekly throughout the academic year to

monitor programs and revise strategies as

necessary. Once each quarter, a larger campus and community coalition and the Isla

Vista Ad Hoc Task Force on Community

Standards come together to discuss the recommendations and strategies proposed by

the AOD Workgroup.

UCSB’s current program includes a range

of activities, outlined below.

AREA OF STRATEGIC INTERVENTION:

Environmental Change

Alcohol-Free Options: Weekly alcohol-free

social activities are offered for students

through on- and off-campus residence halls,

sports clubs, and a recreation center. The

Office of Student Life hosts student focus

groups to plan and organize new activities

that reflect current interests and popular

tastes and can compete with entertainment

and recreational activities where alcohol 

is available.

Normative Environment: UCSB students, like students at other colleges and universities, typically overestimate the amount

of drinking that is “normal” in the campus

population.68 To correct this misperception,

the university’s social norms marketing campaign uses posters, cups, key chains, and

media advertising to convey accurate information about current drinking levels.

Alcohol Availability: UCSB’s

Substance Abuse Policy Implementation

Guidelines require training for all servers of

alcoholic beverages at campus events.

Through the Isla Vista Responsible Landlord

program, the university works with landlords

in the area to help them establish and implement policies that will reduce disorderly partying and other problems resulting from their

tenants’ alcohol use. The university also

works with the district office of the California

Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to

maintain a moratorium on issuing new alcohol outlet licenses in Isla Vista.

Policy Development and Law

Enforcement: Law enforcement officers

from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s

Department, the California Highway Patrol,

and the UCSB campus police jointly patrol
34

Safe Lanes on Campus

the Isla Vista community, adhering to a policy

of zero tolerance for alcohol violations. The

university applies its campus policies covering alcohol use to several large, privately

owned student residence halls in Isla Vista to

maintain consistency in sanctions for violations. Managers of the residence halls welcomed the extension of university authority

to their tenants as a means of reinforcing

their own rules of behavior.

AREA OF STRATEGIC INTERVENTION:

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavioral

Intentions

UCSB health educators produced “Drinking

Stories,” a video that recounts how AOD

affected the lives of four typical UCSB students. The video is shown to stimulate discussions in workshops with students considered

at high risk for alcohol problems, including

first-year students and members of fraternities and sororities.

Sociology Department courses—“Drugs

and Stress,” “Substance Abuse,” and

“Community Health”—include lectures and

assignments related to alcohol risks and DUI.

Department faculty teamed up with colleagues from the Dramatic Art Department to

teach a “Reader’s Theater” class that trains

students to perform skits and facilitate discussions with first-year students about AOD

use, including driving after drinking and BUI.

AREA OF STRATEGIC INTERVENTION:

Intervention and Treatment

Individual counseling and support groups are

offered through the Career Services and

Student Health and Counseling offices,

including programs for DUI offenders under

court mandate to participate. Staff members

who work with large numbers of students,

such as coaches and residence hall monitors,

receive “gatekeeper training” so that they

can assess and refer students who appear to

need counseling. Similarly, parents of students are offered workshops to help them

recognize and intervene if their child exhibits

signs of AOD-related problems. The emergency room at a hospital near campus reports

students involved in alcohol-related cases to

the student health service for follow-up.

In its annual Core Survey, UCSB has found

that rates of heavy, episodic drinking have

not changed significantly in the last decade.

Even so, there is substantial evidence that the

program is changing student behavior. The

number of students who say they have ever

driven after drinking declined from 36 percent

in 1992 to 24 percent in 2001. The percentage reporting some form of misconduct that

got them into trouble with the police or other

disciplinary action declined from 56 percent

in 1992 to 41 percent in 2001.

Case Study of a Comprehensive Approach (continued)
L

35

PART 4

Developing and Evaluating Prevention Policies and Programs................................38

1. Conduct a Risk Assessment..............................................................................................................................39

2. Identify Specific Goals and Objectives....................................................................................................................39

3. Review the Evaluation Research on Policy and Program Options..........................................................39

4. Outline How the Intervention Will Work..............................................................................................39

5. Create and Execute a Data Collection Plan....................................................................................................40

❖❖❖

Meeting the Challenge..................................................................................................................................42

Strategic Planning and Evaluation

Community mobilization, involving a coalition of civic and 

governmental officials, is widely 

recognized as a key to the successful 

prevention of alcohol and other drug

problems.69 Recently formed campus

and community coalitions have been

inspired by several community-based

interventions to reduce alcohol-related

problems among youth and the general

adult population.

The Community Prevention Trial

(CPT), for example, was implemented in

three small towns in California and

South Carolina.70 Community coalitions

were formed to drive several major environmental change strategies: RBS training; zoning restrictions to reduce alcohol

outlet density; stricter enforcement of

underage drinking laws; and enhanced

DUI enforcement, which included police

officer training, additional officer

enforcement hours, monthly sobriety

checkpoints, and use of passive alcohol

sensors. Results included the following:71

➤ Increased adoption of RBS policies

➤ Reduced alcohol sales to minors

➤ A 6 percent decline in self-reported

alcohol consumption

➤ A 51 percent decline in self-reported

driving after drinking

➤ A 6 percent drop in single-vehicle

nighttime crashes (a proxy measure

for alcohol-related motor vehicle

crashes)

➤ Fewer drivers with measured BACs

of .05 percent or higher

➤ A 43 percent decline in assault

injuries reported by emergency

departments

For many years, community-based

prevention coalitions have made changes

in state, local, and institutional policy a

priority. Part of what is happening today

is that campus officials are beginning to

think about a similar set of prevention

strategies.Where a community prevention coalition already exists, college officials should be invited to join.Where no

coalition is in place, higher education

officials, especially college and university

presidents, can take the lead with community partners to form the coalition

and move it toward an environmental

management approach to prevention.

The planning committee or task

force charged with organizing a campus

and community coalition should seek the

broad participation of campus and community leaders. 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

officials, public health director,

community development and 

zoning officials

➤ Local law enforcement officials:

municipal police chief, alcohol 

beverage control (ABC) officials

37

Strategic Planning 

and Evaluation

PART 4

L
➤ Prevention and treatment experts:

AOD treatment directors, community-based prevention leaders (e.g.,

MADD representative), communitybased traffic safety leaders

➤ Other community leaders: neighborhood coalition leaders, faith-based

organization leaders, local news

media representatives

Potentially conflicting viewpoints

among the coalition members can be

reconciled when all segments of the

community work together and eventually agree on the need to take action to

reduce the incidence of underage drinking and alcohol-impaired driving, not

just among college students but among

all young people in the community.

As the campus and community coalition begins its strategic planning work, it

should embrace intervention development

and evaluation as an iterative process, in

which evaluation findings help to inform

midcourse corrections and alterations.72

This approach requires prevention planners to consider evaluation from the

beginning, not as an afterthought.

Developing 

and Evaluating

Prevention Policies

and Programs

The process for developing and evaluating prevention policies and programs can

be divided into five basic stages: (1) conduct a risk assessment, (2) identify specific

goals and objectives, (3) review the evaluation research on policy and program

options, (4) outline how the intervention

will work, and (5) create and execute a

data collection plan. Basic considerations

for each stage are described below.A

fuller description of these steps can be

found at the Web site of the U.S.

Department of Education’s Higher

Education Center for Alcohol and Other

Drug Prevention (http://www.highered

center.org/eval).

38

Safe Lanes on Campus

Two Enforcement Systems

Working out a collaborative relationship

between campus-based and community law

enforcement agencies is vital if there is to be

a comprehensive and coordinated effort to

address underage drinking and DUI in the

community. Meeting this challenge requires

careful negotiation, open communication,

and an understanding of agency differences

in their approach to enforcement. This can

come about more easily when law enforcement officials fully understand the organizational pressures and cultural context in which

the other agency operates.

In Ames, Iowa, the 30 officers of the Iowa

State University campus police collaborate

closely with the 50 officers of the Ames

Police Department. Charles Cychosz, who

served on the faculty and staff of the university before becoming an administrator in the

Police Department, notes that both enforcement agencies are represented on the campus and community alcohol task force, which

meets once a month. One result is that campus and city police sometimes † operate

joint enforcement teams to check for

fake IDs at the city’s bars.

For more on the issue of campus and

community law enforcement collaboration,

see Law Enforcement and Higher Education:

Finding Common Ground to Address Underage

Drinking on Campus, published in 2001 by the

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

† Please refer to the Resources 

section for contact information.
1. CONDUCT A RISK

ASSESSMENT

Conducting a risk assessment is an essential first step in understanding the problem and identifying the factors that

might be supporting or encouraging

underage drinking and DUI.The College

Alcohol Risk Assessment Guide 73 provides a

step-by-step procedure and several worksheets for conducting such an assessment.

Depending on the time and resources

available, the assessment can range from

focus groups, one-on-one interviews,

and a tour of entertainment spots on

weekend nights to conducting student

surveys and analyzing data on DUI

arrests, emergency room visits, and other

alcohol-related incidents on campus and

in the surrounding community.The

typology of campus and community prevention efforts presented in table 1, combined with the list of strategic objectives

and intervention tactics presented in

table 2, can be used to generate a list of

assessment issues and questions.

2. IDENTIFY SPECIFIC GOALS

AND OBJECTIVES

Program planners should take sufficient

time to specify their precise goals and

objectives.This guide focuses on reducing underage drinking and DUI, but

that still leaves open several other possible goals. Should campuses try to prevent underage drinking? Eliminate all

student drinking? Limit excessive consumption? Reduce alcohol-related

behavior problems? Protect students

from harm? Significantly, having an evaluator be part of the planning process

will help the planning group develop

clear and specific goals and objectives.

Caution should be used in stating

that a prevention intervention program’s

goal is to eliminate underage drinking.

Upholding the law is an appropriate

goal. But with the widespread use of

alcohol among underage college students, a bold declaration of this intent

may badly undermine support among

those administrators, faculty, and students

who deplore the “age 21” laws. In many

cases the coalition might be on surer

footing politically—and therefore have a

greater chance of success—if it were to

focus on addressing alcohol-related

problems in the community, especially

DUI. Such an approach would likely

produce a list of policy and program

objectives not very different from what

would emerge from a narrower focus on

alcohol consumption—for example,

cracking down on the manufacture and

use of fake IDs, checking compliance at

retail alcohol outlets, eliminating home

delivery of alcohol, increasing alcohol

excise taxes, eliminating low-price drink

specials, and installing RBS programs.

3. REVIEW THE EVALUATION

RESEARCH ON POLICY AND

PROGRAM OPTIONS

The next step is to review policy and program options that might be applied to

achieve the outlined goals and objectives.

A review of available research, plus consultations with other prevention specialists,

will suggest a set of programmatic options

that can be adopted.As noted in part 2,

Environmental Management—Proven

Prevention Practices (p. 7), the NIAAA

Task Force on College Drinking identified

several effective and promising approaches

in its report A Call to Action: Changing the

Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges.

Additional information describing selected

policies and programs can be found in part

3, Prevention in Action (p. 19).

4. OUTLINE HOW THE

INTERVENTION WILL WORK

The next planning step is to outline the

chain of events that will lead from each

policy or program to its specific and

measurable objective, and from there to

its ultimate goal. Describing this chain of

39

Part 4 ❖ Strategic Planning and Evaluation
events is often called building the logic

model for the intervention. In essence, the

logic model clarifies the intervening steps

that are projected to lead from specific

activities to specific outcomes. For the

evaluation, data can be collected to document progress at each step.With this

information in hand, evaluators can diagnose what went wrong if a program or

policy fails to meet its ultimate objective.

5. CREATE AND EXECUTE A

DATA COLLECTION PLAN

Self-report surveys are a primary data

source for policy and program evaluations, especially if the goal is to reduce

consumption or alcohol-related problem

behaviors. Several alternative survey

instruments can be used as sources of

questions.74 Surveys should be administered at a time that reflects typical

drinking patterns. Surveys conducted

shortly after the start of the school year,

after traditional social events (e.g.,

homecoming), or close to midterms or

final exams will not provide representative data. Hence, most national student

drinking surveys are conducted in the

early part of the spring semester before

spring break.

Most important, the sample of students asked to participate in the survey

must be drawn at random. It may be

tempting to administer the survey in

classrooms, but this will not result in a

sample that is truly representative of all

students.There must also be a set of procedures in place to boost the response

rate.Achieving a response rate of 70 percent or more for student surveys is

extremely difficult. More typical are rates

between 50 and 60 percent.

40

Safe Lanes on Campus

Going Statewide

More than 40 states are working with the

Higher Education Center for Alcohol and

Other Drug Prevention to explore the benefits

of having their institutions of higher education adopt unified policies and strategies to

combat underage drinking and impaired driving. These statewide initiatives call for

unprecedented levels of cooperation among

state and local agencies and college and 

university systems.

The Ohio College Initiative to Reduce

High Risk Drinking brings together more than

40 public and private institutions in a shared

effort to change the college and community

environment surrounding alcohol use. The

president of each institution has made a commitment to address high-risk drinking and to

“encourage and support the collaboration of

† campus and community in approaching this issue.”

The California State University (CSU) 

system has entered into a † formal partnership with six state agencies to develop

coordinated policies and programs aimed at

reducing alcohol problems among the

388,000 students at 23 CSU campuses

throughout the state. A memorandum of

understanding setting up the partnership was

signed by the CSU chancellor and representatives of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage

Control, Department of Alcohol and Drug

Programs, California Highway Patrol,

Department of Motor Vehicles, Office of Traffic

Safety, and the Secretary of Business,

Transportation, and Housing.

The California partnership commits both

the state university system and the state

agencies to work cooperatively on prevention,

jointly collecting and sharing data; develop

joint alcohol education, enforcement, training,

and prevention programs for campus and

community leaders; cooperate on a legislative

agenda; and participate in an annual conference on alcohol issues. Underage drinking

and DUI prevention figures prominently in

plans for the California initiative.

† Please refer to the Resources 

section for contact information.
Colleges and universities should

also put in place a system for recording

alcohol-related incidents involving students. Especially important are incident-reporting forms used by the campus police, which should require officers to indicate whether a student

being investigated, cited, or detained has

been using alcohol. A direct BAC reading using a “passive” breathalyzer, which

analyzes exhaled air in front of the

mouth, is the best means of assessment.

Absent that, the officers can be asked to

make a judgment about alcohol

involvement.

Ideas regarding evaluation can also

be found in NHTSA’s booklet The Art 

of Appropriate Evaluation:A Guide for

Highway Safety Program Managers.75 In

addition, the U.S. Department of

Education’s Higher Education Center

for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention

maintains an evaluator database as well 

as other evaluation resources, including 

a guide on how to work with an 

outside evaluator.76

41

Part 4 ❖ Strategic Planning and Evaluation

Getting MADD

MADD, which has more than 600 affiliates

across the country, states that its mission is

to “stop drunk driving, support the victims of

this violent crime, and prevent underage

drinking.” In pursuit of that mission, local

MADD affiliates are urged to participate in

campus and community coalitions to assist

with planning and implementing prevention

strategies to combat underage drinking and

DUI. In 2001, the organization launched a

program to create on-campus MADD chapters led by students (UMADD).

These efforts are in line with a report by

MADD’s College Commission, which offered

the following recommendations:

■ Work with researchers and practitioners

to set a national standard for college

alcohol policies.

■ Assess institutions of higher education on

the basis of their alcohol policies and

offer that assessment to parents and 

students as a guide in selecting colleges

and universities.

■ Involve college students in prevention

activities through policy summits, advocacy training programs, and student-led 

college chapters of MADD.

■ Support campus and community coalitions in their efforts to reduce underage

and heavy drinking.

■ Create a campaign to support and 

promote campus alcohol policies.

More information about MADD and its

campus initiatives can be obtained at

MADD’s Web site: http://www.madd.org.
that many students begin drinking in high

school, so that by their college years it is

too late to do anything about it. Others

think that bearing down on enforcement

of the minimum legal drinking age simply

will not deter young people from seeking

out other opportunities to obtain alcohol.

Some have even argued that cooperating

with enforcement agencies regarding students’ off-campus behavior is inappropriate for an educational institution.

A successful prevention program must

recognize the ambivalence felt by many

adults toward underage drinking. Even

law enforcement agencies might resist

giving priority to underage drinking on

the grounds that their limited resources

can better be devoted to crime problems

they regard as more serious—even though

underage drinking is a factor in many

community problems that townspeople do

take very seriously.

In response, campus and community

leaders must remind people that underage

drinking and DUI are serious problems

affecting the entire community, not just

the drinkers themselves.They need to

highlight the fact that colleges and universities have a legal duty to take reasonable

protective measures to reduce hazards and

risks in the campus environment.78They

should cite research evaluations showing

the positive effect of the increased minimum legal drinking age and other policies

and programs that can change the environmental context in which young people

make decisions about drinking.

Most of all, town and gown leaders

need to dedicate themselves to working

on this problem over the long term.There

is no quick fix, but over time a persistent

and multifaceted effort can succeed in

changing the culture of drinking, building

a safer and healthier campus and community environment, and maximizing the

opportunity for all students to achieve

their potential.

Meeting the

Challenge

This guide cites numerous examples of

how U.S. colleges and universities, in partnership with their communities, have

approached the issues of underage drinking and DUI. Obviously, there is no onesize-fits-all formula for this type of prevention work.The environmental management strategies outlined here have had

good results where they have been implemented, but each campus and community

environment is different, shaped by its own

blend of history, tradition, politics, economics, and other influences.What is

important, therefore, is that prevention

planners use the research literature to

identify potentially useful policies and programs but then evaluate how well these

efforts can work on their own campus.77

Campus and community leaders must

be prepared to overcome indifference, if

not outright hostility, toward certain prevention efforts. Many faculty, staff, and

students over the age of 21 drink alcohol

in ways that incur little risk to themselves

or others and therefore may object to

policies that limit their own access to

alcohol in the name of preventing underage drinking and impaired driving.

Students in their late teens are often

reluctant to accept restrictions on their

behavior that appear to be coming from

adult authorities. Many regard alcohol as a

helpful social lubricant and are quick to

reject what they hear about the risks associated with drinking. Still other students,

as well as faculty and staff, might argue

that hard drinking by students, even those

who are under age, is a part of longstanding campus traditions or that being

introduced to alcohol is a “rite of passage”

from adolescence to adulthood.

Even those who sympathize with

prevention goals might be doubtful that

anything can be done. Skeptics may argue

42

Safe Lanes on Campus
L

43

PART 5

Resources

CITED PROGRAMS..........................................................................................................................................................45

Area of Strategic Intervention Environmental Change..................................................................45

Alcohol-Free Options: Offer and promote alcohol-free social, recreational,

extracurricular, and public service options that do not include alcohol and other drugs..................................................45 ■ Alcohol-Free Events......................................................................................................................................45 ■ Volunteer Community Service..................................................................................................................46

Normative Environment: Create a social, academic, and residential environment 

that supports health-promoting norms ..........................................................................................................................46 ■ Social Norms Marketing Campaigns......................................................................................................46

Alcohol Availability: Limit alcohol availability both on and off campus............................................................................46

■ A Community Covenant..............................................................................................................................46

Marketing and Promotion of Alcohol: Restrict marketing and promotion of 

alcoholic beverages both on and off campus ........................................................................................................................47 ■ Alcohol Advertising....................................................................................................................................47 ■ Voluntary Marketing and Advertising Guidelines......................................................................................47

Policy Development and Law Enforcement: Develop and enforce campus policies and 

local, state, and federal laws ..........................................................................................................................47

■ Orientation Programs................................................................................................................................47 ■ Sobriety Checkpoints......................................................................................................................................47 ■ Two Enforcement Systems....................................................................................................................47

Area of Strategic Intervention Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions............48

■ Effects of Alcohol on Ability to Drive......................................................................................................48

Area of Strategic Intervention Health Protection..................................................................................48

■ Designated Driver Programs......................................................................................................................48 ■ Safe Rides Program......................................................................................................................................48

Area of Strategic Intervention Intervention and Treatment........................................................48

■ Interactive Course....................................................................................................................................48 ■ One-on-One Intervention..............................................................................................................................48 ■ Case Study of a Comprehensive Approach................................................................................................49

Strategic Planning............................................................................................................................................49

Going Statewide: Develop a statewide or regional prevention initiative to develop and

support new campus and community coalitions ................................................................................................................49 ■ Formal Partnerships........................................................................................................................................49

PUBLICATIONS..................................................................................................................................................................49

From the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration................49

From the U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education

Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention ............................................................................................50

From the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes 

of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism ..................................................................51

From the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention....................51

RESOURCE ORGANIZATIONS......................................................................................................................................52

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)................................................................................52

Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS)....................................................................................................52

The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention..........................................................52

Automobile Club of Southern California............................................................................................................53

BACCHUS and GAMMA Peer Education Network ..............................................................................................53

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)..........................................................................................................53

National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information (NCADI)..............................................................54

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)............................................................................54

The Network: Addressing Collegiate Alcohol and Other Drug Issues..............................................................54

The resources listed here include a selection of the programs cited in the

guide, publications, and resource organizations. No official endorsement by

the U.S. Departments of Education or Transportation of any product, commodity, service, or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be

inferred.To identify additional resources, contact the U.S. Department of Education’s

Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention (see below for

complete contact information).

CITED PROGRAMS

The following section provides contact information for the college-based programs

(in order of appearance) described in part 3, Prevention in Action.The programs are

organized according to the typology matrix for mapping campus and community

prevention efforts (see table 1, p.10) and cross-referenced to their description in the

main text.

Area of Strategic Intervention

Environmental Change

ALCOHOL-FREE OPTIONS:

Offer and promote alcohol-free social, recreational, extracurricular, and

public service options that do not include alcohol and other drugs.

Alcohol-Free Events

† WVUp All Night, West Virginia University, Office of Student Affairs,

Morgantown,WV 26506. (304) 293-5811.A social and recreational program that

provides free food and entertainment to students as an alternative to the weekend

bar scene (p. 21).

† Boston College, Office of the Dean for Student Development, 140

Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467. (617) 552-3470.A community service program and sports competition designed to replace an annual

dance notorious for high-risk drinking (p. 21).

45

Resources

PART 5

L
† PRIDE (Promoting Responsible and Informed Decisions through

Education), University of Redlands, Student Services, P.O. Box 3080, Redlands,

CA 92373-0999. (909) 335-4079.An ambitious social and recreational program

that features a weekly schedule of alcohol-free events, including live entertainment and hit movies (p. 21).

Volunteer Community Service

† Alternative Breaks, Central Michigan University,Volunteer Center, Mount

Pleasant, MI 48859. (989) 774-7685.A community service program that organizes groups of students for off-site, community-based volunteer work during holiday breaks (p. 22).

† Alternative Weekends, University of Michigan, Center for Community Service

and Learning,Ann Arbor, MI 48109. (734) 936-2437.A community service program that organizes groups of students for local, community-based volunteer

work on weekends (p. 22).

NORMATIVE ENVIRONMENT:

Create a social, academic, and residential environment that supports

health-promoting norms.

Social Norms Marketing Campaigns

† 7 out of 10, University of Texas, Longhorns Against Drunk Driving, Student

Health Center,Austin,TX 78712. (512) 475-8465.A social norms marketing

campaign based on a student survey showing that 7 out of 10 UT students don’t

drink and drive.The 7 out of 10 Web site is at http://www.socialnorm.org/

texasaustin.html (p. 22).

† MOST of Us, Montana Social Norms Project, Montana State University,

Department of Health and Human Development, Bozeman, MT 59717. (406)

994-7873.A social norms marketing project based on a random sample survey

indicating that four out of five 18 to 21 year olds in Montana don’t drink and

drive (p. 22).

ALCOHOL AVAILABILITY:

Limit alcohol availability both on and off campus.

A Community Covenant

† San Diego State Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, San Diego State

University, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182-1931. (619) 594-6859.

A “community covenant” by which bar and restaurant operators catering to

students pledge to pursue several policies to minimize underage drinking and

driving under the influence (p. 24).

46

Safe Lanes on Campus
MARKETING AND PROMOTION OF ALCOHOL:

Restrict marketing and promotion of alcoholic beverages both on and 

off campus.

Alcohol Advertising

† NU Directions, University of Nebraska, Student Involvement, Lincoln, NE

68588. (402) 472-2454.A campus and community coalition, funded by The

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, emphasizing enforcement of underage drinking laws and restrictions on alcohol advertising and promotion (p. 25).

Voluntary Marketing and Advertising Guidelines

† University at Albany, State University of New York, Coordinator for Alcohol and

Drug Prevention, 1400 Washington Avenue,Albany, NY 12222. (518) 442-5800.

A joint university-community committee that works with owners of bars and

restaurants in off-campus student neighborhoods to implement a voluntary set

of guidelines to reform alcohol advertising and promotion (p. 26).

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND LAW ENFORCEMENT:

Develop and enforce campus policies and local, state, and federal laws.

Orientation Programs

† State University of New York, University of New Paltz, Division of Student

Affairs, 75 S. Manheim Boulevard, New Paltz, NY 12561. (845) 257-3261.A

handbook, Campus Regulations and Judicial Procedures, distributed to both parents and students that explains campus policies and state and local laws regarding

alcohol use and what disciplinary actions can result for violations (p. 28).

† University of Northern Colorado, Student Activities, 501 20th Street, Greeley,

CO 80639. (970) 351-2245.A summer orientation for new students and parents,

which includes “Stop, Look, and Listen,” a two-hour presentation on alcohol

laws and policies (p. 28).

Sobriety Checkpoints

† The BACCHUS and GAMMA Peer Education Network, BACCHUS and

GAMMA, P.O. Box 100430, Denver, CO 80250-0430. (303) 871-0901.A collaborative effort with the Colorado State Patrol to crack down on DUI during

Colorado’s “Halloween Heatwave” (p. 30).

Two Enforcement Systems

† Ames Police Department,Ames, IA 50011. (515) 239-5311. Contact: Charles

Cychosz, Support Services Manager. A joint enforcement program in which

campus police officers join city police on random patrols to bars in the city to

check drinkers’ IDs (p.38).

47

Part 5 ❖ Resources
Area of Strategic Intervention

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions 

Effects of Alcohol on Ability to Drive

† Colorado State University, Center for Drug and Alcohol Education, Fort Collins,

CO 80523. (970) 491-0262. Rights, Responsibilities, and Ramifications, a 

workshop that informs students about alcohol’s effect on their reflexes and driving ability and what is likely to happen if they are caught driving under the

influence (p. 31).

Area of Strategic Intervention

Health Protection

Designated Driver Programs

† University of New Mexico, Campus Office of Substance Abuse Prevention,

Albuquerque, NM 87131. (505) 277-2795.A program called Designated

Drivers Do It for Friends uses free movie passes and other rewards to enlist

designated drivers (p. 32).

Safe Rides Program

† CARPOOL,Texas A & M University, College Station,TX 77843. (979) 693-

9905.A student-managed program, which provides rides home to students on

Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights between 10:00 PM and 3:00 AM (p. 32).

Area of Strategic Intervention

Intervention and Treatment

Interactive Course

† University of New Mexico, Campus Office of Substance Abuse Prevention,

Albuquerque, NM 87131. (505) 277-2795.A three-hour course, emphasizing

decision making, risk reduction, and moderation in alcohol use rather than abstinence, for students who violate the university’s alcohol policies (p. 32).

One-on-One Intervention

† Auburn University, Health Behavior Assessment Center,Auburn,AL 36849. (334)

844-4889.A brief, one-on-one motivational interview for students who violate the school’s alcohol policies or have other alcohol-related problems (p. 32).

48

Safe Lanes on Campus
Case Study of a Comprehensive Approach

† University of California, Santa Barbara,Alcohol and Other Drug Program,

Student Health Service Building 588, Santa Barbara, CA 93106. (805) 893-2263.

A comprehensive approach that includes environmental change as well as intervention and treatment (pp. 33–34).

Strategic Planning

GOING STATEWIDE:

Develop a statewide or regional prevention initiative to develop and 

support new campus and community coalitions.

Formal Partnerships

† Ohio College Initiative to Reduce High Risk Drinking, Ohio Parents for Drug

Free Youth, 6185 Huntley Road, Suite P, Columbus, OH 43229-1094. (614) 540-

9985.A statewide initiative that brings together campus and community

coalitions representing more than 40 public and private institutions of higher

education in Ohio (p. 40).

† California State University (CSU) Partnership, Office of the Chancellor, 401

Golden Shore, Long Beach, CA 90802-4210. (562) 951-4000.A formal partnership with six state agencies to develop coordinated policies and programs

aimed at reducing alcohol problems among students at 23 CSU campuses (p. 40).

PUBLICATIONS

The publications listed here can provide additional information on underage drinking and DUI prevention, environmental management approaches, coalition building,

strategic planning, evaluation, and other subjects covered in this guide.

FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Alcohol and Highway Safety 2001:A Review of the State of Knowledge (Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 2001).Available only at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/

research/AlcoholHighway/index.htm.

“Alcohol Poisoning” [Fact Sheet] (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1998).

“Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention in the Medical Setting” [Kit]

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 2002).

49

Part 5 ❖ Resources
The Art of Appropriate Evaluation:A Guide for Highway Safety Program Managers

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 1999).

Balmforth, D. National Survey of Drinking and Driving,Attitudes and Behavior

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 1997).

“Card Tricks: How to Spot Fake ID Cards” (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1992).Available on

1/2 inch VHS Video [item 2A0107], with accompanying brochure [item 2P0908].

Community How-to Guides on Underage Drinking Prevention (Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2001).

Designated Driver/Safe Ride Program: Community Action Guide (Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2002).

“Designated Driver/Safe Ride Program: Community Action Guide” [CD-ROM]

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 2001).

The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2000 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department

of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2002).Available

only at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/economic/EconImpact2000/.

A How-to Guide for Victim Impact Panels (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2001).

State of Knowledge of Alcohol-Impaired Driving: Research on Repeat DWI Offenders

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 2000).

“Traffic Safety Facts 2001” [Fact Sheet] (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2001).

FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, HIGHER EDUCATION

CENTER FOR ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUG PREVENTION

DeJong,W. Preventing Alcohol-Related Problems on Campus: Impaired Driving

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for

Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, reprinted 1998).

DeJong,W., and Langenbahn, S. Setting and Improving Policies for Reducing Alcohol and

Other Drug Problems on Campus:A Guide for Administrators (Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug

Prevention, reprinted 1997).

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).

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/EDC, 1997).

50

Safe Lanes on Campus
Ryan, B. E.; Colthurst,T.; and Segars, L. College Alcohol Risk Assessment Guide:

Environmental Approaches to Prevention (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention,

revised 1997).

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).

FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON

ALCOHOL ABUSE AND ALCOHOLISM

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

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health,Task

Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002).

Goldman, M. S.; Boyd, G. M.; and Faden,V. (Eds.).“College Drinking,What It Is, and

What to Do about It:A Review of the State of the Science.” Journal of Studies on

Alcohol, supplement no. 14, March 2002.

Saltz, R. F.; and DeJong,W. Reducing Alcohol Problems on Campus:A Guide to Planning

and Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

National Institutes of Health,Task Force of the National Advisory Council on

Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002).

FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF JUVENILE

JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

Costs of Underage Drinking (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Pacific Institute for Research and

Evaluation, 1999).

A Guide for Enforcing Impaired Driving Laws for Youth (Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Pacific

Institute for Research and Evaluation, 2000).

Law Enforcement and Higher Education: Finding Common Ground to Address Underage

Drinking on Campus (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, 2001).

A Practical Guide to Preventing and Dispersing Underage Drinking Parties (Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, 2000).

Regulatory Strategies for Preventing Youth Access to Alcohol: Best Practices (Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, undated).

Strategies to Reduce Underage Alcohol Use:Typology and Brief Overview (Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, 1999).

51

Part 5 ❖ Resources
RESOURCE ORGANIZATIONS

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

400 7th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20590

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/

(888) 327-4236

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.The agency investigates safety defects in motor

vehicles; sets and enforces fuel economy standards; helps states and local communities

reduce the threat of drunken drivers; promotes the use of seat belts, child safety seats,

and air bags; investigates odometer fraud; establishes and enforces vehicle antitheft

regulations; and provides consumer information on motor vehicle safety topics.

NHTSA also conducts research on driver behavior and traffic safety to develop the

most efficient and effective means of bringing about safety improvements.

Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS)

U.S. Department of Education

400 Maryland Ave, SW

Washington, DC 20202-6123

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osdfs/index.html

(202) 260-3954

OSDFS supports efforts to create safe schools, respond to crises, prevent alcohol and

other drug abuse, ensure the health and well-being of students, teach students good

citizenship and character, and provide national leadership on issues and programs in 

correctional education.The agency provides financial assistance 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 Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention

Education Development Center, Inc.

55 Chapel Street

Newton, MA 02458-1060

http://www.higheredcenter.org

(800) 676-1730

Established by the U.S. Department of Education in 1993, the Higher Education

Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention is the nation’s primary resource center for alcohol, other drug, and violence prevention at U.S. colleges and universities.

In addition to providing leadership in defining the nation’s college prevention agenda, the Center acts as a catalyst to advance collaborative campus and community

teams across the nation.The 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 prevention programs. Services

include training; technical assistance; publications; support for The Network:

Addressing Collegiate Alcohol and Other Drug Issues; and evaluation activities.The

Center’s publications are free and can be downloaded from its Web site.

52

Safe Lanes on Campus
Automobile Club of Southern California

2601 S. Figueroa Street

Los Angeles, CA 90007

http://www.aaa-calif.com

(213) 741-3686

The Automobile Club of Southern California organized the College and University

Drinking and Driving Prevention Awards Program in 1997. It is now run jointly by several chapters of the American Automobile Association (AAA) and the U.S. Department

of Education’s Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention.The

program’s goal is to identify and disseminate innovative and effective approaches to

reduce drinking and driving on campus and prevent AOD use that can result in

impaired driving. Since its inception, the program has presented 22 awards to schools in

a six-state region (California, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico,Texas, and Utah).

BACCHUS and GAMMA Peer Education Network

P.O. Box 100430

Denver, C0 80250-0430

http://www.bacchusgamma.org

(303) 871-0901

BACCHUS (Boosting Alcohol Consciousness Concerning the Health of University

Students) and GAMMA (Greeks Advocating Mature Management of Alcohol) is an

international association of college- and university-based peer education programs

focusing on alcohol abuse prevention, sexual assault prevention, and other student

health issues.The group provides training, technical assistance, educational materials,

and national and regional forums to support campus peer educators and offers specialized materials for use with fraternity and sorority chapters. BACCHUS and

GAMMA has more than 700 campus chapters and 25,000 active members around

the country.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)

National Headquarters

511 East John Carpenter Freeway

Suite 700

Irvine,TX 75062

http://www.madd.org

(800) GET-MADD (438-6233) 

MADD’s mission is to stop drunken driving, support the victims of this violent

crime, and prevent underage drinking.A grassroots organization, MADD has more

than 600 chapters nationwide. MADD’s program to prevent underage drinking and

DUI includes improving enforcement of the minimum legal drinking age, adopting

tougher alcohol advertising standards, encouraging enforcement, and increasing

awareness of the law. MADD has several programs and resources designed to help get

youth, including college students, involved in creating change in their communities.

53

Part 5 ❖ Resources
National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information (NCADI)

11426-28 Rockville Pike, Suite 200

Rockville, MD 20852

http://www.health.org/

(800) 729-6686

NCADI is the information service of the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention

(CSAP), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services. NCADI is the world’s largest resource

clearinghouse for current information and materials concerning substance abuse.

NCADI distributes publications and other materials on substance abuse from various

federal government agencies (e.g., study reports, surveys, guides, videos), many of

which are free of charge.

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)

6000 Executive Boulevard,Willco Building 

Bethesda, MD 20892-7003

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/

(301) 496-4000

NIAAA supports and conducts biomedical and behavioral research on the causes,

consequences, treatment, and prevention of alcoholism and alcohol-related problems.

In 2002, NIAAA’s Task Force on College Drinking published the first National

Institutes of Health report on college drinking, A Call to Action: Changing the Culture

of Drinking at U.S. Colleges. The report reveals new findings on the extent and nature

of the problem, reviews the current research literature, and provides guidance to college presidents, administrators, and other policymakers on effective programs and

policies. NIAAA offers a Web site on college drinking prevention: http://www.

collegedrinkingprevention.gov/.

The Network: Addressing Collegiate Alcohol and Other Drug Issues

c/o The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention

Education Development Center, Inc.

55 Chapel Street

Newton, MA 02458-1060

http://www.thenetwork.ws/

The Network (formerly known as the Network of Colleges and Universities

Committed to the Elimination of Drug and Alcohol Abuse) is a national consortium

of colleges and universities formed to promote healthy campus environments by

addressing the issues of alcohol, other drugs, and violence. Begun in 1987 by the U.S.

Department of Education,The Network comprises member institutions that voluntarily agree to adhere to a set of standards aimed at reducing AOD problems at colleges and universities. It has close to 1,500 members nationwide.The Network develops collaborative alcohol and other drug prevention efforts among colleges and universities through electronic information exchange, printed materials, and sponsorship

of national, regional, and state activities and conferences.

54

Safe Lanes on Campus
55

LReferences

1 Larimer, M. E., and Cronce, J. M.“Identification, 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.

2 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).

3 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.

4 Bickel, R. D., and Lake, P. F. The Rights and Responsibilities of the Modern University:Who

Assumes the Risks of College Life? (Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press, 1999).

5 DeJong,W., and Epstein J. C. Strategizer 34:Working in Partnership with Local Colleges and

Universities (Alexandria,Va.: Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, 2000).

6Task 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).

7 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/EDC, 1997).

8Task 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).

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 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.

11 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).

12 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.

13 Wechsler, H.; Lee, J. E.; Kuo, M; Seibring, M; Nelson,T. F.; and 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.

14 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 Vol. IV,

1992–94 (Carbondale, Ill.: Core Institute, Southern Illinois University, 1996).

15 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.

16 Ibid.

17 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.

18 Wechsler, H.; Lee, J. E.; Nelson,T. F.; and Kuo, M.“Underage College Students’

Drinking Behavior,Access to Alcohol, and the Influence of Deterrence Policies:

Findings from the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study.” Journal

of American College Health 50: 223–236, 2002.

19 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.

20 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Alcohol and Highway

Safety 2001:A Review of the State of Knowledge (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department

of Transportation, NHTSA, 2001).

21 Pittayathikhun,T.; Ku, R.; Rigby, D.; Mattsson, M.; and DeJong,W. Complying with the

Drug-Free Schools and Campuses Regulations [34 CFR Part 86]: A Guide for University

and College Administrators (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher

Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1997).

22 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.

23 Larimer, M. E., and Cronce, J. M.“Identification, 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.

24 Baer, J. S.; Marlatt, G.A.; Kivlahan, D. R.; Fromme, K.; Larimer, M.; and Williams, E.

“An Experimental Test of Three Methods of Alcohol Risk Reduction with Young

Adults.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 60: 974–979, 1992.

25 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.

56

Safe Lanes on Campus
26 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.

27 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.

28 DeJong,W., and Hingson, R.“Strategies to Reduce Driving under the Influence of

Alcohol.” Annual Review of Public Health 19: 359–378, 1998.

29 Toomey,T. L., and Wagenaar,A. C.“Environmental Policies to Reduce College

Drinking: Options and Research Findings.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplement

no. 14: 193–205, 2002.

30 Chaloupka, F. J., and Wechsler, H.“Binge Drinking in College:The Impact of Price,

Availability, and Alcohol Control Policies.” Contemporary Economic Policy 14: 112–124,

1996.

31 Toomey,T. L., and Wagenaar,A. C.“Environmental Policies to Reduce College

Drinking: Options and Research Findings.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplement

no. 14: 193–205, 2002.

32 Gebhardt,T. L.; Kaphingst, K.; and DeJong,W.“A Campus-Community Coalition to

Control Alcohol-Related Problems off Campus.” Journal of American College Health

28: 211–215, 2000.

33 Saltz, R. F.“The Roles of Bars and Restaurants in Preventing Alcohol-Impaired

Driving:An Evaluation of Server Intervention. Evaluation in Health Professions 10:

5–27, 1987.

34 Russell,A.;Voas, R. B.; DeJong,W.; and Chaloupka, M.“MADD Rates the States:A

Media Advocacy Event to Advance the Agenda against Alcohol-Impaired Driving.”

Public Health Reports 110: 240–245, 1995.

35 Shults, R.A.; Sleet, D.A.; Elder, R.W.; Ryan, G.W.; and Sehgal, M.“Association

between State-Level Drinking and Driving Countermeasures and Self-Reported

Alcohol-Impaired Driving.” Injury Prevention 8: 106–110, 2002.

36 Shults, R.A.; Elder, R.W.; Sleet, D.A.; Nichols J. L.;Alao, M.A.; Carande-Kulis,V. G.;

Zaza, S.; Sosin, D. M.;Thompson, R. S.; and Task Force on Community Preventive

Services.“Reviews of Evidence Regarding Interventions to Reduce Alcohol-Impaired

Driving.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 21(4S): 66–88, 2001.

37 “New Study Results Demonstrate Strong Student Support for Alcohol Prevention

Policies” (press release). Newton, Mass.: Education Development Center, February

28, 2001.

38 “What Do Parents Think about College Drinking?” Prevention File:Alcohol,Tobacco

and Other Drugs 16: 4, Fall 2001.

39 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).

40 Perkins, H.W.“College Student Misperceptions of Alcohol and Other Drug Norms

among Peers: Exploring Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Prevention

Programs.” In U.S. Department of Education, Designing Alcohol and Other Drug

Prevention Programs in Higher Education: Bringing Theory into Practice (Washington, D.C.:

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

Drug Prevention, 1997).

57

References
41 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).

42 DeJong,W., and Winsten, J.“The Use of Designated Drivers by U.S. College

Students:A National Study.” Journal of American College Health 47: 151–156, 1999.

43 “Some Colleges Call an End to Fridays off,” Boston Globe, May 3, 2002.

44 “Alcohol Ingrained in Local Social Culture,” Newark Post, January 8, 2002.

45 Toomey,T. L., and Wagenaar,A. C.“Environmental Policies to Reduce College

Drinking: Options and Research Findings.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplement

no. 14: 193–205, 2002.

46 Chaloupka, F. J., and Wechsler, H.“Binge Drinking in College:The Impact of Price,

Availability, and Alcohol Control Policies.” Contemporary Economic Policy 14: 112–124,

1996.

47 DeJong,W., and Langenbahn, S. Setting and Improving Policies for Reducing Alcohol and

Other Drug Problems on Campus:A Guide for Administrators (Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug

Prevention, 1995, reprinted 1997).

48 National Commission for Drug-Free Schools. Toward a Drug-Free Generation

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1990).

49 Cohen, D.A.; Mason, K.; and Scribner, R.“The Population Consumption Model,

Alcohol Control Practices, and Alcohol-Related Traffic Fatalities.” Preventive Medicine

34: 187–197, 2002.

50 Wechsler, H.; Lee, J. E.; Kuo, M; Seibring, M; Nelson,T. F.; and 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.

51 Ryan, B. E., and Mosher, J. F. Progress Report:Alcohol Promotion on Campus (San

Rafael, Calif.: Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug

Problems, 1991).

52 DeJong,W., and Davidson, L. Building Long-Term Support for Alcohol and Other Drug

Prevention Programs (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher

Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 2000).

53 Gardner,A.“Don’t Drink and Drive? Binge Kids Don’t Care.” HealthScout, February

6, 2002.

54 Gebhardt,T. L.; Kaphingst, K.; and DeJong,W.“A Campus-Community Coalition to

Control Alcohol-Related Problems off Campus.” Journal of American College Health

28: 211–215, 2000.

55 Pittayathikhun,T.; Ku, R.; Rigby, D.; Mattsson, M.; and DeJong,W. Complying with

the Drug-Free Schools and Campuses Regulations [34 CFR Part 86]:A Guide for

University and College Administrators (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,

Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1997).

56 Zweig, K. L., and Thompson, J. Prevention Update: Parental Notification (Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and

Other Drug Prevention, 2001).

58

Safe Lanes on Campus
57 “Misdeeds Prompt MU Letters: Campus Issues Data on Parental Notification.”

Columbia (Mo.) Daily Tribune, August 4, 2002.

58 “Alcohol Arrests Climb: OWIs Decline as Other Citations Rise,” Iowa City PressCitizen, July 22, 2002.

59 Minnesota Institute of Public Health.“Effective Response to College Drinking

Exists” (press release, http://www.jointogether.org/y/0,2521,266187,00.html),

February 23, 2001.

60 DeJong,W., and Hingson, R.“Strategies to Reduce Driving under the Influence of

Alcohol.” Annual Review of Public Health 19: 359–378, 1998.

61 Ibid.

62 Balmforth, D. National Survey of Drinking and Driving,Attitudes and Behavior

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 1997).

63 Stewart, K. A Guide for Enforcing Impaired Driving Laws for Youth (Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, 2000).

64 “Ax Falls on Spring-Break Cash,” Orlando Sentinel, July 12, 2002.

65 Winsten, J.A., and DeJong,W.“The Designated Driver Campaign.” In Rice R. E.,

and Atkin, C. K. (eds.), Public Communication Campaigns, 3d ed. (Thousand Oaks,

Calif.: Sage, 2000), pp. 290–294.

66 DeJong,W., and Winsten, J.“The Use of Designated Drivers by U.S. College

Students:A National Study.” Journal of American College Health 47: 151–156, 1999.

67 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.

68 Perkins, H.W.“Social Norms and the Prevention of Alcohol Misuse in Collegiate

Contexts.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplement no. 14: 164–172, 2002.

69 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.

70 Holder, H. D.; Saltz, R. F.; Grube, J.W.;Treno,A. J.; Reynolds, R. I.;Voas, R. B.; and

Gruenewald, P. J.“Summing Up: Lessons from a Comprehensive Community

Prevention Trial.” Addiction 92, supplement 2: S293–S301, 1997.

71 Holder, H. D.; Gruenewald, P. J.; Ponicki,W. R.;Treno,A. J.; Grube, J.W.; Saltz, R. F.;

Voas, R. B.; Reynolds, R.; Davis, J.; Sanchez, L.; Gaumont, G.; and Roeper, P.“Effect

of Community-Based Interventions on High-Risk Drinking and Alcohol-Related

Injuries.” Journal of the American Medical Association 284: 2341–2347, 2000.

72 Saltz, R., and DeJong,W. 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).

73 Ryan, B. E.; Colthurst,T.; and Segars, L. College Alcohol Risk Assessment Guide:

Environmental Approaches to Prevention (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention,

revised 1997).

59

References
74 Presley, C.A.;Austin, B. S.; 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).

75 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).The Art of Appropriate

Evaluation:A Guide for Highway Safety Program Managers (Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Transportation, NHTSA, 1999).

76 For the evaluator database and other evaluation resources, visit http://www.highered

center.org/eval; for the guide, see Langford, L. M., and DeJong,W. Prevention Update:

How to Select a Program Evaluator (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,

Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 2001).

77 Saltz, R., and DeJong,W. 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).

78 Bickel, R. D., and Lake, P. F. The Rights and Responsibilities of the Modern University:Who

Assumes the Risks of College Life? (Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press, 1999).

60

Safe Lanes on Campus
U.S. Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

People Saving People

www.nhtsa.dot.gov

Office of Safe and

Drug-Free Schools