A Prevention 101 Series Publication

The Higher Education Center for

Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention

Funded by the U.S. Department of Education

Problem Analysis 

The First Step in Prevention Planning
This publication was funded by the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the U.S. Department 

of Education under contract number ED-04-CO-0137 with Education Development Center, Inc. 

The contracting officer’s representatives were Richard Lucey, Jr., and Tara Hill. The content of this 

publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Education, 

nor does the mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by 

the U.S. government. This publication also contains hyperlinks and URLs for information created 

and maintained by private organizations. This information is provided for the reader’s convenience. 

The U.S. Department of Education is not responsible for controlling or guaranteeing the accuracy, 

relevance, timeliness, or completeness of this outside information. Further, the inclusion of information or a hyperlink or URL does not reflect the importance of the organization, nor is it intended to 

endorse any views expressed, or products or services offered.

U.S. Department of Education

Arne Duncan

Secretary

Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools

William Modzeleski

Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary

May 2009

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 Abuse and Violence Prevention, Problem Analysis: The First Step in Prevention Planning, 

Washington, D.C., 2009. 

To order copies of this publication, 

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

Education Development Center, Inc.

55 Chapel Street

Newton, MA 02458-1060

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

or fax: 617-928-1537

or e-mail: HigherEdCtr@edc.org

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

Education’s Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention: 

http://www.higheredcenter.org.
Problem Analysis

1

Student alcohol and other drug abuse 

and violence (AODV) still reign as the 

most serious social problems faced by 

U.S. institutions of higher education.1

To tackle these problems, campus 

administrators—working in conjunction with partners from the surrounding 

community—need to put in place an 

integrated set of strategies that address 

the mix of individual, group, institutional, community, and societal factors 

that lead to student substance abuse 

and violence.2

 This type of comprehensive approach—called environmental 

management—cannot be implemented 

without using a systematic planning and 

evaluation process.3

This publication outlines the first step 

of that process: problem analysis. This 

step, often referred to as needs assessment, is an essential feature of the U.S. 

Department of Education’s principles 

of effectiveness for AODV prevention 

programs. 

Conducting a problem analysis involves 

(1) gathering objective data on the nature 

and scope of the problem at both national 

and local levels; (2) examining available resources and assets in the campus 

community; and (3) analyzing and 

summarizing this information to clarify 

needs and opportunities. Note that the 

process outlined here is suitable for 

both two- and four-year institutions, 

including both residential and commuter campuses. 

Working from the problem analysis, a 

planning group can move on to the next 

steps of the planning process to decide 

on long-range goals and objectives, 

identify potential strategies, and create 

a strategic plan for reducing AODVrelated problems.4

Problem Analysis

The First Step in Prevention Planning

by William DeJong, Ph.D.

Problem analysis is frequently a neglected step in prevention planning. 

Campus and community leaders often 

underestimate how much they still need 

to learn about the multiple factors that 

contribute to student risk behavior, and 

they are therefore eager to sketch out 

new programs or policies right away. 

But acting in haste can lead to prevention efforts that are off target, not fully 

developed, or poorly integrated. In 

contrast, a careful problem analysis will 

result in a more thorough and detailed 

overview of problem behaviors and their 

consequences; a more complete understanding of their contributing causes; 

and an analysis of how current programs 

and policies match up against what 

is needed. Moreover, completing this 

exercise will help a planning group reach 

consensus on the priority concerns that 

should be the focus of their planning efforts, a crucial first step toward creating 

buy-in for the final prevention plan.

Assessing the Nature and 

Scope of the Problem

A key aspect of the problem analysis 

is a review of the nature, scope, consequences, and underlying causes of 

student AODV-related problems on 

campus and in the nearby community. 

Clearly, without a thorough understanding of the problem, a planning group is 

far less likely to develop a strategic plan 

that effectively meets local needs. 

There are multiple information sources 

to draw on, including student surveys, 

key informant interviews, focus groups, 

field observations, and campus and 

community archival data. To the extent 

possible, this review of local conditions 

should be informed by both regional 

and national trend data, plus reviews of 

the research literature on the causes of 

AODV-related problems.

Surveys can be a vital source of information about student behavior. The first 

step in crafting a survey is to decide on 

its scope. Some campuses administer 

dedicated surveys on either alcohol and 

other drug use or violence, while others 

administer comprehensive surveys covering multiple health issues, depending 

on their institutional needs. 

To obtain valid and reliable data, the 

planning group should administer its 

survey to a randomly drawn sample 

of students. It is important to obtain 

Principles of Effectiveness for 

Prevention Programs

The U.S. Department of Education’s 

Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools 

promotes principles of effectiveness for 

prevention programs, as codified in the 

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. A 

subset of the principles of effectiveness 

that are most applicable to institutions 

of higher education can be summed up 

as follows:

•	Design programs based on a thorough 

needs assessment using objective data.

•	Establish a set of measurable goals 

and objectives linked to identified 

needs.

•	Implement prevention activities that 

research or evaluation have shown to 

be effective in preventing high-risk 

drinking or violent behavior.

•	Use evaluation results to refine, 

improve, and strengthen the program 

and refine goals and objectives as 

appropriate.
2

The Strategic Planning Process

The following process is excerpted from Experiences in Effective Prevention: The 

U.S. Department of Education’s Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Models on 

College Campuses Grants (p. 58):

1. Conduct a problem analysis.

•	Gather data on the nature and scope of the problem.

•	Examine existing resources and assets.

•	Analyze and summarize the information to clarify needs and opportunities.

2. Establish long-term goals and objectives.

3. Consult research, program experience, and theory to identify potential strategies.

4. Create a strategic plan.

•	Choose the strategies that seem most likely to produce the desired outcomes.

•	Translate the selected strategies into specific activities.

•	Create a “logic model” that describes the intervention components and 

explains how they are expected to work.

•	Create a work plan. 

5. Execute an iterative evaluation plan.

•	Monitor implementation of the work plan.

•	Evaluate programs and policies.

•	Use the findings to guide improvements.

a response rate of at least 50 percent: 

small payments or other modest incentives (e.g., store coupons, giveaway 

items) should be offered to encourage 

student participation.5

 In addition, 

students should complete the survey 

either anonymously or under conditions 

of confidentiality.6

 Paper-and-pencil 

surveys can be a good option, but Web 

site-based surveys are easier and faster to 

administer and can be less expensive.7

There are several issues that can be covered in student surveys, including:

Personal Characteristics

•	 Demographic factors, such as gender, 

age, racial and ethnic background, 

relationship status, and current 

employment.

•	 Academic standing, including year in 

school, full- or part-time status, grade 

point average.

•	 Current residence, including living 

situation (alone, with roommates, 

with family), location of residence (on 

vs. off campus), and type of residence 

(fraternity or sorority house, residence 

hall or dormitory, house or apartment, or other).

•	 Participation in various student activities (e.g., community service, religious 

group, fraternity or sorority, intercollegiate athletics).

Prevalence of AODV Behavior

•	 Alcohol and Other Drug Use

– Frequency and quantity of 

alcohol and other drug use 

(e.g., annual, 30-day).

– Alcohol use in specific contexts 

(defined by occasions and settings).

– Consequences due to own substance use (e.g., missed class, 

had unprotected sex).

– Consequences due to other 

students’ substance use (e.g., 

interrupted sleep, personal 

property damaged).

•	 Violent Behavior and Victimization

– Victimization experiences—hazing, 

stalking, partner violence, hate 

crimes, assault, sexual violence (life

time, in college).

– Perpetration of specific types of 

violence.

– Bystander experiences (e.g., witnessing violence, intervening).

– Consequences of being victimized, 

perpetrating, and witnessing violence. 

Predictive Factors

•	 Knowledge (e.g., effect of alcohol on 

learning, knowledge of which acts 

define sexual assault or hazing). 

•	 Beliefs and attitudes regarding alcohol 

and other drug use and violence (e.g., 

expectancies, perceived benefits).

•	 Perceived AODV risks (seriousness 

and personal susceptibility).

•	 Perceptions of campus substance use 

norms, perceptions of peer support 

for aggressive behaviors and hazing.

Protective Behaviors

•	 Efforts made by the student to avoid 

heavy drinking (e.g., pacing alcohol 

consumption, alternating nonalcoholic 

and alcoholic beverages, planning in 

advance how much to drink).

•	 Strategies used by the student to avoid 

driving after drinking (e.g., safe ride 

program, designated driver).

•	 Efforts made by the student to resolve 

conflicts nonviolently.

•	 Strategies used by the student to deal 

with unsafe situations (e.g., safe escort 

program, buddy system). 

These issues can also be explored with 

students in focus groups or one-on-one 

structured interviews. Equally important for identifying local contributing 

factors and AODV dynamics are key 

informant interviews with campus 

administrators, counseling staff, faculty, 

residence hall assistants, campus and 

local law enforcement officials, student 

health and hospital emergency room 

(ER) staff, and community residents. As 

noted previously, the research literature should also be reviewed, especially 

regarding risk and protective factors 

associated with AODV problems.8

Written records are also an important 

source of information about student 

AODV problems and their consequences. Such records might show, for 

example, the number of students seen 

in local emergency rooms or the student 

health center for AODV-related injuries 
Problem Analysis

3

alcohol, exposure to student-oriented 

alcohol advertising, fear of 

crime); awareness and 

support of 

campus violence prevention policies; 

and perceptions 

of law enforcement activity.

Archival records 

and field observations are important 

here, too. Some 

example measures that 

capture important aspects of the campus and 

community environment 

include the following:

•	 Substance-free options: (1) number 

of substance-free recreational venues near campus and (2) number of 

substance-free concerts, film festivals, 

lectures, and other cultural events 

listed on community Web sites. 

•	 Normative environment: (1) availability of alcohol and other drug-related 

paraphernalia in campus and community stores and (2) number of student 

newspaper stories and editorials that 

appear to glorify alcohol use.

or illnesses; the number 

of students arrested for 

AODV-related infractions; building and 

equipment damage 

reports; and the number of residence hall 

complaints due to 

AODV-related behavior. To protect 

student privacy, 

it is essential 

that these data 

summaries 

not include 

any information that would 

allow individual students to be 

identified. On some campuses, an evaluation team, perhaps involving faculty, 

will need to work with various campus departments (e.g., campus police, 

student health services) and community 

agencies (e.g., local police, hospital ER) 

to develop forms and record-keeping 

procedures to improve the quality of 

information received.

Another vital part of the problem analysis 

is an assessment of environmental factors 

that contribute to AODV problems. 

Regarding violence, important aspects 

of the environment include policies and 

laws; monitoring and enforcement; the 

physical environment; weapon availability; 

and support for diversity.9

 Regarding 

alcohol and other drug use, key factors 

include the availability of substance-free 

options, the normative environment, alcohol and other drug availability, alcohol 

marketing and promotion, and policy 

development and enforcement.10

Again, student self-reports are an essential source of information about the 

campus and community environment. 

For example, survey, focus group, and 

interview questions can focus on sources 

of alcohol and other drugs (e.g., retail 

alcohol outlets, off-campus parties, 

Internet drug providers); perceptions of 

the campus and community environment 

(e.g., ease of access to low-cost or free 

Late-night Breathalyzer Tests

Structured field observations, with 

locations and times of days selected at 

random, can be used to assess student 

intoxication, including breathalyzer 

measurements of blood alcohol concentration (BAC). When faculty members 

at a liberal arts college collected such 

data over several semesters, they found 

that the number of students enrolled in 

Friday classes was inversely correlated 

with the numbers of students with 

blood alcohol levels greater than .05 

percent BAC.11

•	 Alcohol availability: (1) number of 

liquor licenses within one, two, and 

three miles of campus and (2) average price paid for standard alcohol 

products (e.g., six-pack of beer).

•	 Alcohol marketing and promotion: (1) 

number of on-campus kiosk messages 

that promote high-risk drinking 

and (2) number of alcohol-industry 

sponsored events at local bars and 

restaurants.

•	 Policy development and enforcement:

(1) number of students cited for 

AODV-related conduct violations 

and (2) number of calls by community residents to a complaint hotline.

Similar environmental measures related 

to other drugs (e.g., cost and availability) 

and violence (e.g., safety-oriented campus design and maintenance) also can 

be examined.

With these various sources of data in 

hand, the planning group will be able 

to identify specific AODV problems 

on their campus; discover high-risk 

environments on campus and in the 

community; and stimulate a broader 

discussion of the institutional, community, and societal factors that contribute to these problems. As the planning 

group implements its strategic plan, 

environment assessment should be an 

ongoing activity.

The College Alcohol Risk Assessment Guide (CARA) provides several tools and resources for scanning the environment and analyzing alcohol-related problems.12

The guide’s recommended procedures can be adapted to analyze problems 

related to other types of substance use or violence (e.g., buildings and grounds 

safety audit).

The CARA provides forms to document the nature and scope of alcohol-related 

problems; to identify high-risk environments; to monitor the contents of campus bulletin boards and kiosks; to monitor the print media and radio stations 

that target student audiences; to document pricing information for alcohol and 

nonalcoholic beverages; to identify high-risk alcohol service practices at onand off-campus social events; and to analyze the alcohol environment at bars, 

taverns, pubs, and restaurants frequented by students.

This publication is available at the Web site of the Higher Education Center 

for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention (http://

www.higheredcenter.org).
4

Examining Available 

Resources and Assets in the 

Campus Community

The next phase of the problem analysis 

is to assemble information on existing AODV resources and initiatives. It 

is important to think not only about 

agencies, programs, and policies that 

have a direct and obvious connection to 

AODV problems but also about other 

administrative, scholastic, and extracurricular initiatives that contribute to a 

safe and healthy academic environment 

and foster personal resilience. How existing programs and policies line up with 

the planning group’s problem assessment will determine the direction of the 

strategic plan, moving toward a comprehensive and well-integrated prevention 

effort.

Resources include the on- and offcampus personnel available to work on 

prevention-related tasks as paid staff, 

consultants, or volunteers. A broad range 

of content expertise and skills is necessary, including coalition leadership, community organizing, strategic planning, 

risk management, formative research, 

intervention development, health communications, curriculum design, and 

evaluation.13 A critical issue is how much 

time people can devote to this work given 

their other duties and responsibilities. 

Funding is another critical piece. If the 

prevention work is to be a collaborative 

Assessing a Campus Community’s Readiness for AODV Prevention 

Support for the Coalition

•	The campus and community coalition has the full support of the college president.

•	The coalition’s efforts are supported by community leaders.

Coalition Structure

•	The coalition has an effective leader and a supportive committee structure.

•	Key stakeholders from the campus and the surrounding community participate in the coalition.

•	Coalition members are active and value high-performance team functioning.

•	Members of the coalition are working toward a common goal.

•	There are established channels for communication among coalition members.

Support for Data Collection and Evaluation

•	There are ongoing student surveys and other data collection efforts to monitor the nature and scope 

of AODV problems.

•	There is a long-term commitment to evaluate and improve the prevention effort.

Support for Prevention

•	There is widespread recognition of AODV problems on campus.

•	Community norms support action against student alcohol and other drug abuse and violence.

•	There is a strong belief that prevention efforts can succeed. 

Reliance on Evidence-based Approaches

•	Members of the coalition see the value in a comprehensive approach that features environmental 

prevention strategies. 

•	Members of the coalition are committed to using evidence-based approaches.

•	The coalition relies on current data and research to plan prevention activities.

Resources for Effective Action

•	Adequate funds and other resources are available. 

•	The institution’s divisions and departments are encouraged to collaborate and share resources to 

develop alcohol abuse prevention initiatives. 

•	The staff members responsible for implementing the prevention effort are highly trained and experienced.

effort, then many institutional divisions 

and departments will need to have a budget line item to support that work. 

The planning group can broaden its 

review of assets to assess the campus 

community’s readiness to develop, 

implement, and evaluate a comprehensive strategic plan for AODV prevention 

that has a specific set of goals, a feasible 

plan of action, and a manageable timeline. Signs of readiness can be placed in 

six categories:

•	 Support for the coalition;

•	 Structure of the coalition (e.g., lines 

of authority, committees);

•	 Support for data collection and 

evaluation;
Problem Analysis

5

•	 Support for prevention;

•	 Reliance on evidence-based approaches; 

and 

•	 Resources for effective action. 

Progress in designing and implementing 

an effective strategic plan will be stymied 

if these elements are not in place.

Also needed is a list of prevention efforts 

currently under way. Existing AODV 

programs and policies can be categorized 

using a typology matrix developed by 

the U.S. Department of Education’s 

Higher Education Center for Alcohol 

and Other Drug Abuse and Violence 

Prevention (see table 1 on pp. 6 and 7).14 

The matrix has two dimensions. The 

first divides programs and policies into 

one of five social ecological levels: individual, group, institution, community, 

and societal influences, with a special focus on state and federal public policy.15

The second dimension divides the programs and policies into areas of strategic 

intervention. For alcohol abuse prevention there are four areas to consider as 

part of a comprehensive environmental 

management approach:

1. Changing people’s knowledge, 

attitudes, skills, self-efficacy, and behavioral intentions regarding reduced 

alcohol use;

2. Eliminating or modifying environmental factors that contribute to the 

problem (i.e., environmental change);

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

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

otherwise show evidence of problem 

drinking.

Each category might include several 

program and policy efforts. Note in the 

matrix that the environmental change 

category is further divided into five subcategories, each focused on a strategic 

objective that addresses a problematic 

facet of the typical campus community 

environment. 

Five Strategic Objectives Focused on Environmental 

Change for AOD Prevention

Substance use problems are driven by five environmental factors that increase 

both the availability and the appeal of alcohol and other drugs, each of which 

can be addressed by a set of environmental management strategies.

1. Provide Alcohol-free Options: Many students, especially at residential colleges, 

have few adult responsibilities like jobs and family, a great deal of unstructured free time, and too few social and recreational options that they access 

on the spur of the moment. The strategic objective: offer and promote social, 

recreational, extracurricular, and public service options that do not include 

alcohol and other drugs.

2. Create a Normative Environment: Many people accept drinking and other 

drug use as a “normal” part of the college experience. The strategic objective: 

create a social, academic, and residential environment that supports healthpromoting norms.

3. Restrict Alcohol Availability: Alcohol is abundantly available to students and is 

inexpensive. The strategic objective: limit alcohol availability both on and off 

campus.

4. Restrict Alcohol Marketing and Promotion: Local bars, restaurants, and liquor 

stores use aggressive promotions to target underage and other college drinkers. The strategic objective: restrict marketing and promotion of alcoholic 

beverages both on and off campus.

5. Strengthen Policy Development and Enforcement: Campus policies and local, 

state, and federal laws are not enforced consistently. The strategic objective: 

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

Consider the subcategory of providing substance-free options. The central 

problem is that many students, especially 

those attending residential colleges, have 

few adult responsibilities like jobs and 

family, a great deal of unstructured free 

time, and too few social and recreational 

options that they can access on the spur 

of the moment. The strategic objective is 

to offer and promote social, recreational, 

extracurricular, and public service options that do not include alcohol and 

other drugs. In practice, there are numerous program and policy options that an 

institution might put in place:

•	 Promote consumption of nonalcoholic beverages and food at events.

•	 Create and promote alcohol-free 

events and activities.

•	 Open a student center, gym, or other 

alcohol-free settings, or extend the 

hours. 

•	 Create and promote student service 

learning opportunities.

•	 Create and promote volunteer opportunities.

•	 Require community service work as 

part of the academic curriculum.

•	 Provide greater financial support to 

student clubs and organizations that 

are substance-free.

Some of these tactics can be implemented at more than one level of the 

social ecological model. For example, 

efforts to create and promote alcoholfree events might be done at a group, 

institutional, or community level. 

The matrix can be used later in the strategic planning process to highlight missing program elements and to facilitate 

the development of a comprehensive 

and well-integrated plan.
6

Clarifying Needs and 

Opportunities

The planning group should conclude 

the problem analysis phase by preparing and distributing a report of its 

findings. Major sections can include 

the following:

•	 The most prevalent and harmful types 

of AODV behavior on the campus;

•	 Characteristics of the students and 

settings involved; 

•	 A list of individual and environmental factors that contribute to those 

problems;

•	 An inventory of the campus’s existing efforts (including their goals 

and objectives), resources, and personnel to address the problem; and

•	 Major gaps in the campus’s programs 

and policies.

A so-called gap analysis will look at 

whether current programs and policies 

are addressing the identified problems 

and their underlying causes. Lehigh 

University’s problem analysis provides 

a good example.18 The institution’s 

alcohol task force discovered the following: students had easy access to 

inexpensive or free alcohol; there was 

a lack of substance-free recreational 

options; the university’s “work hard, 

play hard” reputation was reinforced by 

“mixed messages” from faculty and 

staff that sometimes appeared to condone substance abuse; university 

rules were inconsistently enforced; many students reportedly 

used alcohol to relieve stress; and 

students did not believe it was 

acceptable to complain about other 

students’ drinking. A review of campus and community policies revealed 

a need to make substance-free housing available and to eliminate alcohol 

advertising in university publications. 

Many desired policies already existed, 

but there was inadequate enforcement 

both on and off campus.19

The problem analysis report is the planning group’s best opportunity to make 

its case for a greater commitment of resources to address its campus’s AODVrelated problems. Thus, it is important 

to demonstrate how the identified problems compromise the institution’s ability 

to fulfill its core mission—to provide a 

safe and healthy educational environment where students can develop their 

full potential.

Alcohol and Other Drugs Program and Policy Levels

(Social Ecological Framework)

Areas of Strategic Intervention Individual Group Institution Community State and 

Federal*

Prevention

Knowledge, Attitudes, Skills, Self-efficacy, 

Behavioral Intentions

Environmental Contributors to Alcohol and 

Other Drug Abuse

 1. Substance-free Options

 2. Normative Environment

 3. Alcohol and Other Drug Availability

 4. Marketing and Promotion

 5. Policy Development and Enforcement

Health Protection

Intervention and Treatment

TABLE 1. Typology matrix of program and policy options for 

alcohol and other drug abuse and violence interventions

Program and Policy Options

Program and policy options can be 

found in two publications available 

through the Web site of the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other 

Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention 

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

Lanes on Campus: A Guide for Preventing 

Impaired Driving and Underage Drinking, and Alcohol and Other Drug Policies 

for Colleges and Universities: A Guide for 

Administrators

guidance can be found in recent reviews 

 (in review). Additional 

of the research literature focused on 

individual-level16

prevention strategies.

 and environmental 17
Problem Analysis

7

Violence Program and Policy Levels

(Social Ecological Framework)

Areas of Strategic Intervention Individual Group Institution Community State and 

Federal*

Prevention

Knowledge, Attitudes, Skills, Self-efficacy, 

Behavioral Intentions

 1. Risk of Perpetration

 2. Vulnerability to Victimization

Peer and Bystander Norms and Behaviors

 1. Perceived

 2. Actual

Environmental Contributors to Violence

 1. Policies and Laws

 2. Monitoring and Enforcement 

 3. Physical Environment

 4. Social Inequalities/Oppression

 5. Cultural Influences

 6. Weapon Availability

Environmental Contributors to Alcohol and 

Other Drug Abuse

(see above)

Early Intervention

Student Distress, Early Signs of 

Aggressive or Problem Behavior

Response and Treatment

Effective Response to Survivors

Effective Response to Offenders

TABLE 1. Typology matrix of program and policy options for 

alcohol and other drug abuse and violence interventions (continued)

*This level corresponds to the policy and societal influences of the social ecological framework.

Note: This typology matrix is provided as an aid to help alcohol and other drug abuse prevention and violence prevention practitioners and their community partners in considering program and policy options. It is a useful tool for categorizing existing efforts, 

identifying missing program elements, and guiding new strategic planning.

Final Note

A well-conducted problem analysis will 

provide a compelling case for making 

AODV prevention a priority, articulating 

the need for action while making clear 

that substantial progress is achievable. 

Continuing through the strategic planning process, the planning group can 

work from this report to establish its 

long-term goals and objectives, identify potential strategies, and create a 

strategic plan that has the right mix of 

programs and policies. 

William DeJong, Ph.D., is a professor of social and behavioral sciences at 

the Boston University School of Public Health and a senior adviser to the 

Higher Education Center for Alcohol 

and Other Drug Abuse and Violence 

Prevention.
8

References

1. Hingson, R.W.; Zha, W.; and Weitzman, E. R. 

“Magnitude of and Trends in Alcohol-Related 

Mortality and Morbidity Among U.S. College 

Students Age 18–24, 1998–2005. Journal of 

Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, forthcoming.

2. 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.

3. Langford, L., and DeJong, W. Strategic Planning for Prevention Professionals on Campus

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education, Higher Education Center for 

Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence 

Prevention, 2008). Available at http://www.

higheredcenter.org.

4. DeJong, W. Experiences in Effective Prevention: 

The U.S. Department of Education’s Alcohol 

and Other Drug Prevention Models on College 

Campuses Grants (Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Education, Higher Education 

Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse 

and Violence Prevention, 2007). Available at 

http://www.higheredcenter.org.

5. DeJong, W. Methods for Assessing College 

Student Use of Alcohol and Other Drugs.

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education, Higher Education Center for 

Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence 

Prevention, 2008). Available at http://www.

higheredcenter.org.

6. Ibid.

7. Pealer, L.; Weiler, R.; Pigg, R.; Miller, D.; 

and Dorman, S. “The Feasibility of a WebBased Surveillance System to Collect Health 

Risk Behavior Data from College Students.” 

Health Education & Behavior 28: 547–559, 

2001; Miller, E. T.; Neal, D. J.; Roberts, 

L. J.; Baer, J. S.; Cressler, S. O.; Metrik, J.; 

and Marlatt, G. A. “Test-Retest Reliability 

of Alcohol Measures: Is There a Difference 

Between Internet-Based Assessment and 

Traditional Methods?” Psychology of Addictive 

Behaviors 15: 56–63, 2002.

8. For example, see DiFulvio, G., and Akinola, 

O. (eds.). Annotated Bibliography of Alcohol, 

Other Drug, and Violence Prevention Resources 

2001–2005 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education 

Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse 

and Violence Prevention, 2007). Available at 

http://www.higheredcenter.org.

9. Langford, L. Preventing Violence and Promoting Safety in Higher Education Settings: 

Overview of a Comprehensive Approach

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education, Higher Education Center for 

Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 2004). 

Available at http://www.higheredcenter.org.

10. 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). 

Available at http://www.higheredcenter.org.

11. McIntosh, K. G., and Craig, D. “Creating 

New Data for Social Norms: Results from 

Late Night Breathalyzer Testing.” (Presentation at the Social Norms on College/University Campuses Conference, Montclair State 

University, Montclair, N.J., April 17, 2007).

12. 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, 1997). Available at 

http://www.higheredcenter.org.

13. Bartholomew, L. K.; Parcel, G. S.; Kok, 

G.; and Gottlieb, N. H. Planning Health 

Promotion Programs: An Intervention Mapping 

Approach (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006).

14. DeJong and Langford, Strategic Planning.

15. Stokols, D. “Translating Social Ecological 

Theory into Guidelines for Community 

Health Promotion.” American Journal of 

Health Promotion 10: 282–298, 1996.

16. Larimer, M. E., and Cronce, J. M. “Identification, Prevention, and Treatment Revisited: 

Individual-Focused College Drinking Prevention Strategies.” Addictive Behaviors 10: 

1999–2006, 2007.

17. Toomey, T. L.; Lenk, K. M.; and Wagenaar, 

A. C. “Environmental Policies to Reduce 

College Drinking: An Update of Research 

Findings.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol and 

Drugs 68: 208–219, 2007.

18. Smeaton, J. W.; Eadline, M. C.; Egolf, B.; 

and DeJong, W. “Lehigh University’s Project 

IMPACT: An Environmental Management 

Case Study.” Journal of Drug Education and 

Awareness 1: 59–75, 2003.

19. Ibid.

Resources

Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools 

(OSDFS)

U.S. Department of Education

http://www.ed.gov/osdfs; 202-245-7896

OSDFS supports efforts to create safe 

schools, respond to crises, prevent alcohol 

and other drug abuse, ensure the health 

and well-being of students, and teach 

students good character and citizenship. 

The agency provides financial assistance 

for drug abuse and violence prevention 

programs and activities that promote 

the health and well-being of students in 

elementary and secondary schools and 

institutions of higher education.

The U.S. Department of Education’s 

Higher Education Center for Alcohol 

and Other Drug Abuse and Violence 

Prevention

http://www.higheredcenter.org; 

1-800-676-1730; 

TDD Relay-friendly, Dial 711

The Higher Education Center considers strategic planning and evaluation to 

be an important component of a comprehensive prevention approach. The 

Higher Education Center has several 

publications and other materials, including literature reviews, to help campus 

administrators develop and evaluate prevention programs. These materials can be 

accessed for free from its Web site.

The Network Addressing Collegiate 

Alcohol and Other Drug Issues

http://www.thenetwork.ws; see Web site 

for telephone contacts by region 

The Network Addressing Collegiate Alcohol 

and Other Drug Issues (Network) is 

a national consortium of colleges and 

universities formed to promote healthy 

campus environments by addressing 

issues related to alcohol and other 

drugs. Developed in 1987 by the U.S. 

Department of Education, the Network 

comprises member institutions that 

voluntarily agree to work toward a set of 

standards aimed at reducing AOD problems at colleges and universities. It has 

more than 1,600 members nationwide.
Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the individuals listed below for reviewing draft manuscripts of this publication. 

We appreciate the comments they provided to help us assure that this publication has a solid 

scientific foundation and contains clear messages. To the extent that we achieved that goal, the 

credit is theirs. To the extent we did not, the fault is ours. 

•	 Diane Berty, East Central University

•	 John D. Clapp, San Diego State University

•	 Frances Harding, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, SAMHSA, DHHS

Titles in the Prevention 101 Series

The Approach and Framework

1. Environmental Management: A Comprehensive Strategy for 

Reducing Alcohol and Other Drug Use on College Campuses

2. Environmental Management: An Approach to Alcohol and 

Other Drug Prevention

3. Experiences in Effective Prevention: The U.S. Department of 

Education’s Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Models on 

College Campuses Grants

4. Preventing Violence and Promoting Safety in Higher Education 

Settings: Overview of a Comprehensive Approach

The Building Blocks

1. Getting Started on Campus: Tips for New Prevention 

Coordinators 

2. Strategic Planning for Prevention Professionals on Campus

3. Problem Analysis: The First Step in Prevention Planning 

4. Setting Goals and Choosing Evidence-based Strategies 

[In review]

5. College Alcohol Risk Assessment Guide: Environmental 

Approaches to Prevention (CARA) 

6. Methods for Assessing College Student Use of Alcohol and 

Other Drugs

7. Evaluating Environmental Management Approaches to Alcohol 

and Other Drug Abuse Prevention 

8. Alcohol and Other Drug Policies for Colleges and Universities: A 

Guide for Administrators [In review]
Our Mission

The mission of the U.S. Department of

Education’s Higher Education Center for 

Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence 

Prevention is to assist institutions of higher 

education in developing, implementing, and 

evaluating alcohol, other drug, and violence 

prevention policies and programs that will foster 

students’ academic and social development and 

promote campus and community safety.

How We Can Help

The U.S. Department of Education’s Higher Education Center offers an integrated array of 

services to help people at colleges and universities adopt effective prevention strategies:

	 • Resources, referrals, and consultations

	 • Training and professional development activities

	 • Publication and dissemination of prevention materials

	 • Assessment, evaluation, and analysis activities

	 • Web site featuring online resources, news, and information

	 • Support for the Network Addressing Collegiate Alcohol and Other Drug Issues

Funded by the U.S. Department of Education

Get in Touch

Additional information can be obtained by contacting:

The Higher Education Center for 

Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention

Education Development Center, Inc.

55 Chapel Street

Newton, MA 02458-1060

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

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

E-mail: HigherEdCtr@edc.org