Combatting Substance Abuse in Higher Education: Prevention Efforts, Evidence, and Promising Directions

file:///C|/Users/mames/Desktop/test/lps110655/combat.html[9/23/2014 11:15:47 AM]

ONDCP Seal

Prevention

Strategies

Principles

Research

Programs

Resources

Drug-Free

 Workplace

Policy

Combatting Substance Abuse in Higher

Education: Prevention Efforts, Evidence, and

Promising Directions

Andris Ziemelis, Ed.D.

University of Wisconsin-La Crosse

Abuse of alcohol and other drugs by students remains among the more

serious problems facing higher education. The magnitude and significance

of this problem prompted the U.S. Department of Education's Fund for the

Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE) to assume a

leadership role in the search for solutions. Part of FIPSE's comprehensive

approach has been sponsorship of various drug prevention-related grant

competitions for institutions of higher education. Of these, the InstitutionWide Drug Prevention Program competition best exemplifies FIPSE's

strategic efforts. Since 1987, approximately 700 Institution-Wide Program

grants have been awarded by FIPSE to support a wide variety of drug

prevention activities directed toward comprehensive, institution-wide

involvement and change, with particular emphasis on changing the social

environment on campus.

Proactive Philosophy Underlying Institution-Wide Programs

According to Ronald B. Bucknam, FIPSE's Director of Drug Prevention

Programs in Higher Education, the proactive philosophy underlying

Institution-Wide Programs espouses an asset model and encourages

development and implementation of approaches that support and

empower the critical mass of individuals on campus who do not wish to

use alcohol or other drugs. This is in marked contrast to the more

widespread reactive philosophy, which is based on a deficit model and

relies on tactics and strategies designed to assist persons already

experiencing problems associated with substance abuse. Dr. Bucknam

and other proponents of proactive prevention postulate that activation and

support of the critical mass of non-users on campus will contribute to

desired changes in alcohol and other drug use norms and the social

environment.

Analysis Projects

FIPSE's multi-faceted attack on the problem also included sponsorship of

analysis projects whose purpose was to mine the data gathered during

Institution-Wide Program development and implementation. More

specifically, analysis projects were intended to systematically examine

Institution-Wide Program activities and outcomes, identify ingredients of

successful programs, and make practical programming recommendations.

In short, analysis projects provide important feedback for programs and for

FIPSE, and they help chart the course for future drug prevention efforts.

The remainder of this article discusses selected findings from an analysis

project conducted at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse.
Combatting Substance Abuse in Higher Education: Prevention Efforts, Evidence, and Promising Directions

file:///C|/Users/mames/Desktop/test/lps110655/combat.html[9/23/2014 11:15:47 AM]

The La Crosse Analysis Project

Focusing on the 95 Institution-Wide Programs comprising the 1988

Cohort, the La Crosse Project analyzed program activities occurring

during FIPSE sponsorship in relation to program activities, status, and

selected outcomes reported after. More specifically, the analysis (a)

described program content, (b) assessed post-sponsorship program

status, (c) identified longitudinal shifts in program focus, (d) linked

activities to program emphasis on environmental change after FIPSE

sponsorship, and (e) identified common characteristics of the most

successful programs. The above provided a drug prevention program

barometer for FIPSE, and led to preliminary insights about factors

underlying successful drug prevention in higher education.

Content Analysis of Program Activities

Content analysis of Institution-Wide Program final reports yielded 13

themes that captured most prevention activities reported by programs.

These themes were used to categorize and describe all program activities,

and to generate a program composite. Theme analysis showed that during

FIPSE sponsorship two of the highest priorities for programs were

Program Development (establishing the program on campus), and

Program Management (maintaining the program and fortifying its status as

a legitimate and necessary part of the university community). Selected

examples of activities representing the above include: planning and

coordination of program activities; formation of university-wide ad hoc

advisory boards, committees, and task forces; program advocacy and

networking within and outside the institution; and lobbying for program

continuation and institutionalization. Foremost program emphasis on

activities reflecting the Program Development/ Management theme was

not surprising. Fierce competition for diminishing resources at many

institutions, coupled with the knowledge that FIPSE support was timelimited, provided strong incentives for effort in these areas.

Theme analysis further revealed that during sponsorship, programs

frequently relied on three types of information and awareness vehicles to

reach students; namely, Tangible Displays, Uni-Directional activities, and

Multi-Directional activities. Tangible Displays include informational or

awareness materials that may be displayed or disseminated independently

or in combination, such as newsletters, public service announcements,

posters, or handouts. Uni-Directional activities are vehicles in which the

communication flow is primarily one-way. Selected examples include films,

skits, and demonstrations. Multi-Directional activities, or activities in which

reciprocal communication between presenters and participants is both

desired and encouraged, include such vehicles as seminars, workshops,

and discussion groups. Heavy reliance on information/awareness vehicles

is consistent with an implicit program goal which is to maximize student

exposure to drug prevention messages.

Many programs also stressed AODA Training and provided opportunities

for Student Involvement/Empowerment. Emphasis on training activities

accomplishes several objectives. First, by encouraging student, faculty,

staff, and administrative participation, programs gain university-wide

exposure and provide participants with a sense of program ownership.

Second, training activities enhance drug prevention awareness among

university constituents and increase the number of advocates for drug

prevention.

Several hypothesized outcomes of activities reflecting the Student

Involvement/ Empowerment theme may partly explain their popularity

among programs. Such activities engender feelings of program ownership

and accomplishment as well as a sense of control over the outcome of
Combatting Substance Abuse in Higher Education: Prevention Efforts, Evidence, and Promising Directions

file:///C|/Users/mames/Desktop/test/lps110655/combat.html[9/23/2014 11:15:47 AM]

one's efforts. The experience of participation in activity development and

implementation empowers students by supporting the belief that their

efforts can make a difference. Activities from the 1988 Cohort best

representing this theme include peer education, AOD informational

sessions conducted by students, student volunteer work, and student

development of program publicity materials. Finally, the relative popularity

of Training and Student Involvement/Empowerment activities within

programs may also be a function of their utility as methods for increasing

campus-wide collaboration and shared responsibility for drug prevention.

Less frequently occurring activities included (a) Policy (activities that focus

on AOD policy issues); (b) Community Involvement (activities which

emphasize establishing and maintaining working relationships with

community agencies and organizations); (c) Curriculum Infusion (activities

that help integrate AOD issues, information, and concepts with existing

curriculum or other traditional educational processes); (d) Alternative

Activities (student participation in appealing activities that exclude and

discourage use of alcohol and other drugs); (e) Support (provision of

support for students and other target groups using both formal and

informal means); (f) Reactive Prevention (activities designed to assist

persons experiencing difficulties with substance use/abuse); and, (g)

Environmental Change (development and implementation of activities

primarily designed to change campus norms, atmosphere, or physical

surroundings relevant to use and abuse of substances). Given the

proactive philosophy advocated by FIPSE, the relative infrequency of

reactive prevention activities was not surprising. On the other hand,

minimal program emphasis on activities specifically designed to bring

about environmental change deserves further discussion.

In this study, the Environmental Change theme only included activities in

which changing the environment was an explicit goal. Examples of such

activities include: (a) establishing drug-free or alcohol-free dorms; (b)

developing activities for students who prefer not using substances; (c)

encouraging traditionally high-risk groups such as athletes, fraternities,

sororities, and off-campus students to participate in AOD prevention

programs; and, (d) eliciting cooperation and support for change from

leaders of high-risk groups, students, faculty, staff, and administration.

Such a delimited definition probably contributed to the relatively low

frequency of Environmental Change theme-related activities found in Final

Reports submitted to FIPSE. It is also noteworthy that most of the above

activities were directed toward activating, supporting, and enlarging the

critical mass of students who preferred not using alcohol or other drugs.

Because the notion of critical mass, as instrumental to environmental

change, was quite new in 1988-90, relatively few program personnel

discussed this concept in their Final Reports. More recent Institution-Wide

project reports are more explicit in addressing environmental change and

related concepts such as critical mass.

Program Status after FIPSE Sponsorship

An 86 item follow-up survey instrument was sent to representatives of the

95 programs comprising the 1988 Cohort. Survey results showed that

nearly 94% of programs continued operation after FIPSE sponsorship. Of

those continuing, over 68% reported the same or increased program

scope after sponsorship. Reliability of these findings was further supported

by similar results obtained by FIPSE from the 1987 and 1989 Cohorts.

They reported continuation rates of 96% and 91%, respectively. Such

consistently high continuation figures show a favorable cost-tobenefit ratio for FIPSE's investment, and they are in keeping with

goals of the FIPSE Drug Prevention Program.

Program Shifts after FIPSE Sponsorship
Combatting Substance Abuse in Higher Education: Prevention Efforts, Evidence, and Promising Directions

file:///C|/Users/mames/Desktop/test/lps110655/combat.html[9/23/2014 11:15:47 AM]

The obtained high continuation percentages also inspired the question:

"How did programs manage to survive once the grant money was

expended?" Interviews with program personnel revealed that while some

programs were institutionalized, more often, survival resulted from creative

shifts in program priorities and resources. Examples of shifts include: (a)

increased emphasis on early intervention and referral; (b) increased

utilization of community-based counseling/treatment services for early

intervention and referral; and (c) increased availability of volunteer

activities for service provision by students. These results reflect successful

attempts to elicit program support and assistance from others, both on

campus and off.

Other important program shifts included: (a) increased overall institutional

response to issues relating to AOD policy, with concomitant increases in

policy awareness among students, faculty, and staff; (b) increased quantity

and quality of materials in AOD resource collections or Information

Centers; and (c) increased emphasis on dissemination of AOD awareness

and other prevention literature. Finally, the most noteworthy shift was a

dramatic increase among programs in emphasis on environmental change.

In the follow-up survey, environmental change was defined as program

emphasis on creating an environment that discourages substance

use/abuse and advocates more healthy lifestyles. Because such emphasis

is both a significant program shift and an important program outcome, it is

discussed more fully below.

Activity Correlates of Environmental Change Emphasis

To enhance understanding of environmental change dynamics, program

emphasis on environmental change after FIPSE sponsorship was

analyzed against information from two sources: (a) program activity theme

frequencies gleaned from Final Reports; and (b) changes in program

activities reported in the follow-up survey. These analyses led to following

conclusion: Programs placing the greatest emphasis on proactively

oriented activities, both during and after FIPSE sponsorship, were

the ones that reported the greatest post-sponsorship emphasis on

creating campus environments that discourage substance use/abuse

and advocate more healthy lifestyles. For example, activity themes

most correlated with emphasis on environmental change after FIPSE

sponsorship were (a) the Program Development/Management theme; (b)

the three information/awareness vehicle themes (Tangible Display, UniDirectional Activity, and Multi-Directional Activity); (c) the Policy theme;

and (d) the Alternative Activities theme. More reactively oriented themes

such as (e) Reactive Prevention (providing assistance for persons

experiencing problems associated with substance use/abuse); (f) Support

(e.g. providing support or self-help groups such as AA); and (g) Training

(e.g. teaching methods of peer counseling and providing AODA

internships and practica) were either unrelated, or inversely related to

emphasis on environmental change. Similarly, the strongest relationships

between post-sponsorship activities and emphasis on environmental

change were found for the following program variables: (a) emphasis on

policy review; (b) dissemination of prevention literature; (c) the quantity

and quality of materials in AOD resource collections or Information

Centers; (d) frequency of awareness presentations to various target

groups; and (e) availability of prevention-related activities for student

groups. These results suggest that proactive prevention activities

play a more central role than reactive prevention activities in

accounting for program emphasis on environmental change.

Information from the two preceding sections led to three additional

observations. First, results of this study reflect longitudinal program

shifts and trends based on the collective wisdom and influence of

persons most knowledgeable about drug prevention in higher
Combatting Substance Abuse in Higher Education: Prevention Efforts, Evidence, and Promising Directions

file:///C|/Users/mames/Desktop/test/lps110655/combat.html[9/23/2014 11:15:47 AM]

education. Such collective wisdom advocates proactive prevention

as a foundation for environmental change. Because Project

Coordinators and Directors are most intricately involved with programs,

they have an excellent vantage point from which to assess program

structure, function, and effectiveness. Consequently, they have opportunity

to play significant roles in advocating changes they believe are in the best

interest of their programs. Second, to survive after FIPSE sponsorship,

many programs made shifts in their prevention efforts such as relying

more on support and assistance provided by students and off-campus

agencies. This trend was particularly evident for the more reactively

oriented activities such as AODA early intervention and referral, treatment,

and counseling, which are being increasingly referred to off-campus

agencies. And third, programs are becoming more proactive and are

placing greater emphasis on environmental change. With increasing

referral of reactive prevention activities to off-campus agencies and

service providers, programs have greater opportunity to emphasize

proactive prevention focused on AOD policy issues, use of various

information and awareness vehicles, and providing alternatives and

involvements that empower the critical mass of non-users on campus.

Other promising possibilities for prevention program development are

suggested below.

Common Characteristics of Successful Programs

A final set of analyses conducted by the La Crosse Project identified

common characteristics of the most successful programs using the followup survey. Program success may be defined in many ways; however, in

this study, the more successful programs were defined as: (a) those

reporting post-sponsorship increases in program scope, (b) those

providing high quality prevention activities for students, and (c) those

emphasizing creation of an environment that discourages substance

use/abuse and advocates more healthy lifestyles. Programs that best

fulfilled these three criteria also increased the most in the following: (a)

institutional emphasis on policy issues, with concomitant university-wide

increase in awareness of AOD policies; (b) institution-wide and student

committee, task force, or advisory board activity addressing AOD

prevention and quality of campus life; (c) quantity of prevention activities

available for students, such as those associated with Alcohol Awareness

Week, prevention-related contests, and the campus AOD peer education

program; (d) use of information or awareness vehicles such as AOD

presentations to target populations (i.e. to academic classes and

residence halls), prevention literature dissemination, and preventionrelated public service announcements; (e) utilization of available resources

for early intervention and referral; (f)) quality of AOD-related needs

assessment on campus; and (g) part time position security, and funding

for office space, equipment, and supplies. In summary, the more

successful programs are: (a) increasing their emphasis on AOD

policy issues, (b) focusing on raising AOD awareness, (c) eliciting

institution-wide cooperation in addressing AOD prevention and

quality of campus life, and (d) providing more opportunities for

student participation and involvement. Furthermore, they are (e)

increasing their utilization of extra-program resources for reactive

prevention activities, (f) working to improve campus AOD needs

assessments, and (g) finding ways to bolster security of their parttime AOD positions and program support budgets.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Analysis of program activities reported by the 1988 Cohort, both during

and after FIPSE sponsorship, showed that on the whole, drug

prevention programs are evolving in ways that are conducive to

creation of campus environments that discourage substance use and
Combatting Substance Abuse in Higher Education: Prevention Efforts, Evidence, and Promising Directions

file:///C|/Users/mames/Desktop/test/lps110655/combat.html[9/23/2014 11:15:47 AM]

advocate more healthy lifestyles. Although many approaches may lead

to these outcomes, three general program guidelines are suggested by

this analysis. First, to make significant progress in combatting substance

abuse in higher education, we must develop broad-based proactive

prevention strategies that that support and empower the critical mass of

student non-users both on and off campus. Second, the more reactively

oriented activities should be referred to available sources of assistance

both on campus and off. And third, programs should expend the effort

necessary to elicit institution-wide commitment to shared responsibility for

drug prevention.

Lastly, this analysis showed a favorable return on FIPSE's investment in

the Drug Prevention Program in Higher Education. With the impetus

provided by FIPSE sponsorship, most programs remained viable after

sponsorship and were able to continue their drug prevention efforts.

Copyright © 1995 by Andris Ziemelis

Return to Selected Articles

PRIVACY POLICY | DISCLAIMER

Last Updated: March 4, 2002