Drug Prevention in Higher Education: Common Characteristics of Successful Programs

file:///C|/Users/mames/Desktop/test/lps110655/drug_prevent.html[9/23/2014 11:15:44 AM]

ONDCP Seal

Prevention

Strategies

Principles

Research

Programs

Resources

Drug-Free

 Workplace

Policy

Drug Prevention in Higher Education: Common

Characteristics of Successful Programs

Andris Ziemelis, Ed.D.

University of Wisconsin-La Crosse

This study, which was part of a six-year inductive analysis of drug

prevention programs at 490 colleges and universities nationwide, identified

and replicated common characteristics of most successful programs. Such

characteristics, which are embedded in programmatic themes and theme

elements, have particular relevance for drug prevention programming and

prevention model development.

Background

Three analysis grants from the Fund for the Improvement of PostSecondary Education (FIPSE) supported this study and the following

analysis-related activities: (a) development of a reliable system for

classifying drug prevention program activities using prevention themes and

theme elements; (b) using the above system to content-analyze program

activities from five cohorts of FIPSE-sponsored Institution-Wide Programs;

and (c) assessing the statistical relationships between program activities

during grant sponsorship and program outcomes reported after. The

findings reported in this paper represent the part of this project that

assessed relationships between prevention themes, theme elements, and

indicators of program viability and success after the grant period.

Specifically, theme data from the 1990 through 1993 Cohorts (321

programs), and theme element data from the 1992 Cohort (81 programs),

were correlated with three post-sponsorship outcomes. These outcomes

included: (a) program continuation status (scope), (b) program

institutionalization, and (c) program effectiveness in preventing alcohol and

other drug abuse by students, as reported by program personnel. The

most salient findings from these analyses are summarized below.

Project Findings

Environmental Change. The more successful prevention programs

emphasize environmental change both in philosophy and practice. They

recognize importance of campus physical, social/cultural, and regulatory

environments as influences on student attitudes and actions regarding

substance use, and they work at creating campus environments that

discourage substance use and advocate more healthy lifestyles. Many of

the approaches discussed in the sections that follow underlie both

environmental change and program success.

Proactive Alternatives. While trying to discourage and deglamorize AOD

use, the more successful programs concomitantly offer students proactive

healthy alternatives to involvement with alcohol or other drugs. Such

alternatives usually take the form of recreational or educational activities.
Drug Prevention in Higher Education: Common Characteristics of Successful Programs

file:///C|/Users/mames/Desktop/test/lps110655/drug_prevent.html[9/23/2014 11:15:44 AM]

Frequently effective recreational activities include parties, dances, socials,

coffee houses, movies or commercial entertainment, and participatory

non-athletic competitions. Educational activities that often work include film

or video presentations, seminars, workshops, retreats, student

participation in program development and implementation, peer

educator/counselor assistant programs, and opportunities for collaboration

with other students in AOD projects or events. Some of the above

activities may occur in conjunction with those reported in the next section.

Student Involvement/Empowerment. Program success is also consistently

associated with student involvement and participation in activities that are

interactive, relational, and empowering. Examples of the latter include

student participation in program development and implementation, peer

educator/counselor assistant programs, and student collaboration in AOD

projects or events. Success of such activities within prevention programs

is plausible if we consider the developmental needs and priorities of

traditional college age students such as establishing good relationships,

striving for autonomy, establishing identity and personal competency, and

acquiring a perception of self-efficacy.

Training. More successful programs provide various training opportunities

for members of the university community. Examples include professional

AOD staff training, awareness and procedural training for staff and faculty,

AOD training for student peers and volunteers, and AOD training for RAs,

servers, and hosts. Such activities are both interactive and empowering,

and they encourage active involvement by participants as well as shared

responsibility for drug prevention.

Policy. The more successful programs send unequivocal messages to the

entire university community through their efforts to address AOD policy

issues. For example, an institution's advocacy of AOD policy or the need

for policy change, its policy review, clarification or change, and its policy

dissemination and enforcement send explicit and implicit messages about

institutional stance regarding substance use and abuse.

Cooperation/Teamwork. Successful programs encourage cooperation and

teamwork leading to shared responsibility for drug prevention. Examples

include: forming steering groups or advisory boards, recruiting student,

staff, or faculty volunteers, providing AOD training opportunities for the

university community, encouraging collaboration within groups of students

and between offices on campus, and eliciting support of faculty through

curriculum infusion. All of the above also increase program visibility.

Information/Awareness. The more successful programs also raise

awareness or provide information, but they emphasize interactive rather

than one-sided or top-down approaches to communication. For example,

student participation in workshops, seminars, retreats, or training activities

is more likely to produce desired results than student attendance at topdown lectures or presentations where fewer opportunities for interaction

and participation may exist. Alternatively, when one-sided approaches are

used, their credibility and effectiveness are enhanced if they are well

planned, organized and rehearsed, and based on sound theory or

research evidence. For example, grounding information and awareness

oriented prevention efforts in principles of social influence may improve

their efficacy. Student receptivity to written materials or other tangible

displays may also be increased through dissemination of high quality

products. Thus, a well-designed brochure, pamphlet, or handbook has

more credibility, and is more likely to have desired impact, than a quickly

constructed sign or poster.

Support. More successful programs often provide support by sponsoring

events that recognize the contributions of AOD program participants. For
Drug Prevention in Higher Education: Common Characteristics of Successful Programs

file:///C|/Users/mames/Desktop/test/lps110655/drug_prevent.html[9/23/2014 11:15:44 AM]

example, official recognition at banquets, meetings, or other official events

is an effective way of motivating and empowering students.

Reactive Prevention. Although the focus of Institution-Wide Programs is

predominantly proactive, certain reactive efforts are also consistently

associated with program success. Sponsorship of AOD support groups,

and efforts to ban or restrict alcohol or other drugs, are prime examples.

Support groups are usually interactive and relational, and are often

empowering for participants. Also, efforts to ban or restrict alcohol or other

drugs reflect importance of programming that addresses the "agent" as

well as the "host" and "environment."

Curriculum Infusion. For those programs involved with Curriculum Infusion,

the best results are obtained when AOD instruction occurs in faculty

taught classes or when faculty develop an AOD course, minor, or

certificate program. Such activities help solidify AOD prevention as an

integral part of the university community, and they encourage interdepartmental cooperation and shared responsibility for drug prevention.

Program Management and Accountability. Lastly, more successful

programs emphasize the formative and summative components of

program accountability, and they make special efforts to secure and

maintain program budget support. Such activities are complementary in

that demonstration of program merit enhances the argument for continued

program funding. They are also particularly important at a time when

competition for diminishing resources is on the rise.

Conclusion

Inductive analysis of drug prevention program activities at institutions of

higher education nationwide shows that many current approaches to drug

prevention are consistently associated with program viability and success.

Most programs already use at least some of these approaches in their

prevention efforts. These findings argue for development of hybrid drug

prevention programs comprised of the empirically supported parts of

existing approaches. Although varied populations and settings may require

varied approaches, this analysis supports primary program emphasis on

environmental change, proactive alternatives, student involvement and

empowerment, training, and AOD policy issues. Furthermore, within these

approaches, interactive, relational, and empowering activities for students

appear most promising as vehicles for effective drug prevention in higher

education. Because of their consistently positive associations with program

viability and success across cohorts, these prevention themes have broad

applicability and may provide a solid foundation for programming efforts.

Copyright © 1998 by Andris Ziemelis

Return to Selected Articles

PRIVACY POLICY | DISCLAIMER

Last Updated: March 4, 2002