TH E5315 1!??? , «‘- LtwtfififiY “nae. ‘V‘is‘ 3' '9'.“ "‘ ' S ' ‘ ‘33, 23‘ 1,31%; #43} §v$é§te .' I f . J . . . f . a; 'F. 5%? «fig-:1! 4?“: 35350 it was {Iva y ‘. 1.3x- _ -._._ .. This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A Descriptive Study Of Alcohol Education Programs At Selected Four-Year Coileges and Universities presented by Paul Michae] Oiiaro has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for 2111;. .._.____ degree in _Educai:ion_ - Major professor Louis C. Stamatakos Date—Septeuber—lsTAQas MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equa! Opportunity Institution 0-12771 initial/gilt:mmgwmummm 93 10 8149 )V1ESI_J RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LIBRARIES remove this checkout from man; your record. FINES wiH ‘ be charged if book is returned after the date stamped beiow. /o . ;;)Iz”§" a. 2;; deem ' ’ 0". ‘ ~*‘ Au {3531.2 ma, A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF ALCOHOL EDUCATION PROGRAMS AT SELECTED FOUR-YEAR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES By Paul Michael Oliaro A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum 1983 (65 Copyright by PAUL MICHAEL OLIARO 1983 ABSTRACT A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF ALCOHOL EDUCATION PROGRAMS AT SELECTED FOUR-YEAR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES By Paul Michael Oliaro The purpose of this study was to explore and describe components and features of campus alcohol education programs that were perceived to be effective by a panel of alcohol education experts. Twenty-seven insti- tutions participated in the study. All subjects were asked to complete a lengthy questionnaire about their alcohol education program in phase I of the study; in phase II a nested sample of the subjects were asked to par- ticipate in a structured telephone interview to gather more in-depth information about their particular programs. Criterion levels were established in each phase to determine which components and features of the subjects' alcohol education programs were common and essential to all the programs studied. A comparison of the results of the questionnaires in phase I with the criterion level (66.7%) revealed that seven components and 29 fea- tures were found to be common among all the programs studied; in phase II, the program coordinators of the six programs which had the highest percentage of those components and features present in their program were interviewed to determine whether or not those components and features Paul Michael Oliaro were essential to their program's effectiveness. The seven components and 27 of the features were found to be essential to their effectiveness. The components included program management, training, education, referral for treatment, affiliation/coordination with on-campus offices, evalu- ation and funding. Within the limitations of the study, which include a relatively small number of subjects, and the assumption that the programs studied are, in fact, effective, two conclusions were drawn. The first is that there are several key program elements which were consistently present in alcohol education programs that are perceived to be effective. The sec- ond conclusion is that these elements form a framework upon which a model alcohol education program could be developed. This study has also iden- tified other areas for research in this relatively new field of study. Future research should be directed toward attempting to provide more definitive criteria for program effectiveness and should explore an exam- ination of some of the more intangible aspects of campus alcohol education programs such as program philosophy and approach. To Kathy, Scott and Amy, whose encouragement, support patience and love made the completion of this study a family affair. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The investigator would like to acknowledge the support and patience of his doctoral committee which included: Dr. Fred Ignatovich, Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker, and Dr. Larry Foster. A Special note of thanks and appreci- ation is extended to Dr. Gary North, originally a member of the committee and a longtime colleague, mentor and friend. Although his move to anoth- er institution required that he leave the committee, his encouragement and support of my program and my career will always be appreciated. A deep sense of appreciation is extended to my mother and late father. Although not college-educated, their love and self-sacrifice demonstrated to me the value of education and were the impetus behind the attainment of my educational goals. I want to thank Dr. Keith Miser, Dean of Students at the University of Vermont, whose understanding and commitment to my program's completion made it possible for me to beat the odds and complete this study three years and 800 miles from its starting point. I also want to acknowledge my two Assistant Directors during the past three years, Dr. Ron Martel and Dr. Gloria Thompson, who showed the way through the completion of their own programs and offered helpful counsel in those periods of uncer- tainty and low motivation during the conduct of this study. iii I have also benefited greatly from the thoughtfulness of my col- leagues at Michigan State University who have offered long-distance encouragement and motivation since I left that institution. In partic- ular, I want to thank Jim Hall who was always available with his personal assistance on my many return trips to Michigan State to complete this project. Jim and Diane Blattert have consistently demonstrated the depth of their friendship by allowing me and my family to be a part of their family whenever I returned to East Lansing to work on the dissertation. Also, Dr. Robert Minetti, Dr. Preston Herring, Dr. David Marler and Dr. Wendy Baker deserve acknowledgment for their friendship and colleagial support. A deep sense of gratitude is conveyed to the many staff members at the University of Vermont with whom I have worked during the past three years. They not only offered encouragement but also continued to remind me how important it was that this study be completed. In addition, a special acknowledgment goes to Dr. David Holmes whose ideas and excite- ment gave direction and a new sense of value to the study when it was most needed. I want to thank Dr. Narbeth Emmanuel for his review of my questionnaire and his constant reminders that the end was always in sight. I also wish to thank Mr. Joe Nairn for his knowledge and tireless efforts in programming and coding the data from my questionnaire. A special acknowledgement is extended to Ms. Candy Arquit, my co-interviewer and part-time editor. Her listening skills, research, editing skills and unconditional offers of help were of immeasurable val- ue. For Ms. Natalie Howell, I have nothing but admiration and reSpect iv for her typing skills, unselfish dedication to excellence, constructive criticisms and uncanny ability to make our word processor do anything she asked of it. Finally, there are no adequate words to acknowledge the role that my Committee Chairman and Advisor, Dr. Louis Stamatakos, has played in the completion of my program. His faith in me, his personal support and his commitment to my career over the last thirteen years provided the moti- vation to complete this study. As advisor, mentor, colleague and friend, he has always been an important part of my professional development and will always be an important person in my life. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ............................................ Origin of the Study ................................... Need for the Study .................................... Purpose ............................................... Significance of the Study ............................. Definition of Terms ......................... . ......... Methodology ........................................... Limitations of the Study .............................. Summary of the Chapters ............................... II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................. Introduction .......................................... Trends in Substance Abuse ............................. The Drug Abuse Problem in the 1960's .................. Emergence of Alcohol Abuse Problems on the Campus ..... Factors Affecting Campus Alcohol Abuse ................ Growth in Campus Alcohol Abuse Problems ............... Initial Responses to the Alcohol Abuse Problem on College/University Campuses ...................... Suggested Components of An Alcohol Education Program ............................................. Limitations on Defining Effectiveness ................. Summary ............................................... III. METHODOLOGY .............................................. Introduction ............... . .......................... Selection of Subjects ................................. Development of the Survey Instrument.. ................ Collection of Information .............. . .............. Statistical Treatment of Information .................. Summary ............................................... vi IV. RESULTS OF THE STUDY ..................................... Introduction .......................................... Results of Phase I-Survey Questionnaire ............... Summary of Survey Questionnaire Findings .............. Results of Phase II-Telephone Interview ............... Responses to Research Questions ....................... Summary ............................................... V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................. Introduction .......................................... Review of the Study ................................... Major Findings ........................................ Conclusions ........................................... Implications for the Practitioner ..................... Recommendations for Further Research .................. Summary ............................................... APPENDICES APPENDIX A. PANEL OF EXPERTS ........................................ B. COVER LETTER TO PANEL 0F EXPERTS AND NOMINATION OF SUBJECTS INSTRUMENT ..................... .. ......... C. SUMMARY OF PANEL/PUBLICATION NOMINATIONS ........... ..... D. SUMMARY OF PANEL OF EXPERT'S RESPONSES TO IMPORTANCE OF SELECTED COMPONENTS TO PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS .......... E. COVER LETTER AND SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ................... F. COVER LETTER FOR TELEPHONE INTERVIEW AND INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ............................................. BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................... vii 116 118 121 122 123 128 133 Table h-hh-b-h U"! 4.8a 4.8b 4.9a 4.9b 4.9c 4.10a 4.10b 4.10c 4.11 4.12 4.13 LIST OF TABLES DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ................................ PROGRAM MANAGEMENT COMPONENT ........................... TRAINING COMPONENT ..................................... EDUCATION COMPONENT .................................... PEER EDUCATION/COUNSELOR COMPONENT ..................... TREATMENT COMPONENT .................................... ACADEMIC COMPONENT .................... .. ............... PROGRAM AFFILIATION/COORDINATION COMPONENT ............. PROGRAM AFFILIATION/COORDINATION COMPONENT ............. EVALUATION COMPONENT ........... .. ...................... SELF ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM STABILITY ................... SELF ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS .............. . FUNDING COMPONENT .................. . ................... NON-MONETARY SUPPORT FOR THE ALCOHOL EDUCATION PROGRAM .............................................. BASIS FOR ANNUAL RENEWAL OF FUNDING .................... SUMMARY OF COMMON COMPONENTS AND FEATURES BY INSTITUTION .......................................... SUMMARY OF COMMON PROGRAM COMPONENTS CONSIDERED ESSENTIAL FOR EFFECTIVENESS BY INTERVIEW RESPONDENTS .......................................... SUMMARY OF PROGRAM COMPONENTS NOT COMMON BUT CONSIDERED BY INTERVIEW RESPONDENTS TO BE ESSENTIAL TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THEIR PROGRAM .............................................. viii Page 49 51 53 56 58 6O 62 64 65 67 7O 7O 72 73 73 77 79 81 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 SUMMARY OF COMMON PROGRAM FEATURES CONSIDERED ESSENTIAL FOR EFFECTIVENESS BY INTERVIEW RESPONDENTS .......................................... SUMMARY OF PROGRAM FEATURES NOT COMMON BUT CONSIDERED BY INTERVIEW RESPONDENTS TO BE ESSENTIAL TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THEIR PROGRAM ....................... CRITERIA FOR EFFECTIVENESS ............................. MAJOR STRENGTHS OF ALCOHOL EDUCATION PROGRAMS .......... MAJOR WEAKNESSES OF ALCOHOL EDUCATION PROGRAMS ......... ix 82 85 87 88 88 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Origin of the Study In 1971 the U.S. Congress voted to lower the legal age of majority to 18 years of age. As a result of that action, males and females eigh- teen years and older were legally able to enter contracts, sign documents and assume the responsibilities and privileges afforded majority citizens in our society. Subsequent to this change, eighteen states also lowered their legal drinking age to eighteen (Hammond, 1979). By 1974, the use of alcohol by individuals between the ages of 18-21 was higher than it had ever been and the number of alcohol related problems for individuals in that age range were higher than for any other age group (Chafetz, 1974). It is interesting to note that a study made prior to the change in the age of majority by the same source (Keller and Rosenberg, 1971), showed the highest incidence of alcohol related problems were in the 21-24 age group. It was in 1974 that the investigator returned, from a two year absence, to higher education and to a position in residence hall adminis- tration. Ample evidence to support the data offered by the 1974 HEW report was readily found in the number of alcohol related incidents/problems occurring on the investigator's campus at that time. In response to this problem, several students and staff formed a task force to attempt to combat the growing amount of alcohol abuse on that campus. Over the next six years, 1974-1980, an alcohol education program evolved that was designed to address the issues of use and misuse of alcohol on that campus (Oliaro, 1977). During this six year period of the investigator's affiliation with the program, over 400 inquiries were received by the program office requesting information and ideas for starting similar programs on other campuses across the nation. In addition, the staff provided forty work- sh0ps, programs and consultations to professional organizations, confer— ences and individual colleges/universities on the subject of alcohol education during the period of 1975-1980. The demand for information and program ideas related to alcohol education had increased at a rapid rate as reported by Donovan (1977) and Johnson (1977). Need for the Study It became evident from these experiences, that interest in alcohol education was not a passing phenomenon. It appeared that campus adminis- trators were realizing that each year the new freshmen class that entered the campus, while not new to using alcohol, were experiencing for the first time the opportunity to make independent decisions about the quan- tity, frequency and location of their alcohol use without parental monitoring. As a new behavior, in that sense, it could be expected that 2 a wide range of related behaviors and consequent problems would be evi- denced as their drinking habits developed. The majority of college students, while classified legally as adults, are entering the developmental stages of early adulthood and are further establishing independence, autonomy, values, and self-discipline as a part of the process. Experimenting with alcohol is one of the behaviors commonly associated with this age group. Some abuses often observed are excessive consumption, use of alcohol as a means of socialization, strong peer pressure on others to drink, loud boisterous behavior, occasional disruptions and damage, and, on some occasions, harassment, intimidation, and physical conflict with other peo- ple. (North, 1977, p.5) This information and assumption, along with the previously noted experiences, led the investigator to conclude that a study of alcohol education programs was needed because: 1. The use/misuse of alcohol causes health, academic and disciplinary problems on many, if not most, campuses. (Filstead, et al. 1976) 2. Campuses are in need of information and ideas with which to address the issues of alcohol use and misuse within their student population. (Engs, 1978) 3. The number of schools requesting information remained constant from year to year, thus indicating that alcohol misuse was not likely to be a passing issue. 4. The paucity of literature on this topic underscores the fact that it is a relatively new field of study for higher education and more rel- evant research could make a meaningful contribution to this field. Purpose The primary purpose of the study was to investigate and describe campus alcohol education programs that were perceived to be effective in order to identify components and features that were common to those pro- grams and were perceived to be essential to their effectiveness. A sec- ondary purpose was to utilize these findings to outline a model that could be used in developing alcohol education programs for college cam- puses. The investigation and description focused on several key research questions related to these components and features. These questions are included in the description of methodology noted later in this chapter. Significance of the Study The phenomenon of alcohol problems on the college campus is not a recent one. A major study on college drinking was conducted in the early 1950's (Straus and Bacon, 1953). The realization that college students were relatively uninformed about alcohol (Mueller and Ferneau, 1971) and research evidence that problem drinking in college was related to problem drinking in middle age (Fillmore, 1974) heightened the interest of educa- tors in the topic of alcohol education. The mid 1970's witnessed a marked increase in the devel0pment of campus alcohol education programs, partly through the impetus of federal support (Hewitt, 1976). Yet, 4 despite program efforts such as those described by Kraft (1977b) and Engs (1977b) few prototypical program models have emerged. Noble states: While much progress has been made, it is clear that the campaign to reduce alcohol abuse among college students still has a long way to go. As an integral part of this effort, new prevention strategies are continuously being tested and, hopefully, these tests will eventually produce more effective approaches to mini- mizing alcohol-related problems among young adults. (Goodale, 1978, p.vii) Through the study proposed by the investigator, that it was hoped patterns would emerge which would serve to identify those key components or activities in alcohol education programs that can offer the greatest positive impact on a college campus. With alcohol education efforts in many institutions of higher education competing for fewer budget dollars, the need to efficiently and effectively manage limited available resources is vital. This concept has direct application to the develop- ment of a model alcohol education effort. Identification of a workable model for an alcohol education program can do much to improve planning and reduce costs in developing or expanding alcohol education efforts on campuses of varying types and sizes. Definition of Terms alcohol education: process of disseminating information about use/misuse of alcohol for the purpose of assisting others in making informed choices about their alcohol-related behavior alcohol abuse: misuse of the substance alcohol which manifests itself through negative consequences for the individual user and/or those in contact with him/her alcoholic: individual whose drinking behavior causes him/her a prob- lem in one or more major aspects of their life (job, marriage, health, family, social life, classes, finances) (Chafetz, 1976) common: term used to indicate that a component or feature was included in a specified percentage of the alcohol education programs studied (note criterion level in chapter three). component: a major function within an alcohol education program, i.e. a treatment component, a training component, etc. essential: term used to indicate that a component or feature was cited as necessary to the effectiveness of a specified percentage of alcohol education programs included in phase two of this study (note criterion level in chapter three). feature: an activity or strategy within a component; implemented to achieve the alcohol education purposes of that component. prevention: there are three types: primary - method of information giving as an initial process prior to engaging in any alcohol use behavior; designed to acquaint recipient with alternatives to prevent even acute problems with alcohol secondary - information giving after alcohol use has been initiated; designed to help identify imminent alcohol-related problems for the purpose of avoiding chronic physical/psychological dependence tertiary - reactive information/service giving which serves as treatment for physical and/or psychological dependence on alcohol (Schaps, et al. 1975) Methodology The institutions to be studied were identified through two methods. The 1978 publication, A Monograph on Alcohol Education and Alcohol Abuse Prevention Programs at Selected American Colleges was used to identify part of the sample of institutions studied. This publication was co-sponsored by several professional organizations in higher education, as well as two federal agencies with alcohol education responsibilities. The second method utilized a panel of experts technique through which five nationally known experts on the topic of campus alcohol education were asked to identify campus alcohol education programs which they 7 perceived to be effective. Only four—year colleges and universities were studied. In the first phase of the study, a survey questionnaire was sent to the alcohol education program coordinators of each selected institution of higher education. The questionnaire was developed by the investigator in conjunction with the panel of alcohol education experts. It was used to accumulate demographic data and information related to the following research questions: 1. Are there any program components that are common and essential to effective alcohol education programs? 2. Is a Program Management Component a common and essential element of an effective alcohol education program? If so, what are its common and essential features? 3. Is a Training Component a common and essential element of an effec- tive alcohol education program? If so, what are its common and essential features? 4. Is an Education Component a common and essential element of an effec- tive alcohol education program? If so, what are its common and essential features? 10. Is a Peer Education/Counselor Component a common and essential ele- ment of an effective alcohol education program? If so, what are its common and essential features? Is a Treatment Component a common and essential element of an effec- tive alcohol education program? If so, what are its common and essential features? 15 an Academic Component a common and essential element of an effec- tive alcohol education program? If so, what are its common and essential features? Is a Component involving Affiliation/Coordination agreements with other on or off campus agencies/offices a common and essential ele- ment of an effective alcohol education program? If so, what are its common and essential features? Is an Evaluation Component a common and essential element of an effective alcohol education program? If so, what are its common and essential features? Is a Funding Component a common and essential element of an effective alcohol education program? If so, what are its common and essential features? A criterion level of 66.7% was established to define a component as "common" among all subjects. A similar criterion level was established 9 to define a feature within a component as common. Frequency of reSponse among subjects to the appropriate items within the questionnaire was com- pared against the criterion level to answer the first part of these research questions. After common components and features were identified, cross tabu- lations were run on the information gathered from the survey to identify those individual programs which most closely manifested these common components and features. The coordinators of these programs were then interviewed during the second phase of the study using a series of questions designed to determine whether these common components and fea- tures were considered to be "essential" to the effectiveness of their reSpective programs. That is, the purpose of the interviews was to clari- fy the relationship between those common components and features which are the focus of this study and their perceived impact on the effective- ness of individual alcohol education programs. Through these two methods, the investigator was able to gain insight into the substantive nature of alcohol education programs considered to be effective and define those components and features which might be con- sidered essential to developing an effective alcohol education program model. 10 Limitations of the Study Within the concept and design of the study, there are some limits to the inferences and implications which can be made. First, the "state of the art" of evaluation and assessment of alcohol education programs required that expert opinion be used to identify subjects for the sample upon which the study's conclusions are based. Secondly, the design requires that the information gathered be based on self-report and, thus, the responses are subject to individual interpretation of the survey questions by the respondents. Finally, the assumption that the subject institutions in the study have "effective" programs is crucial to accept- ance of the findings. The absence of definitive studies or literature offering precise detail about effectiveness in alcohol education programs led the investigator to use the panel of experts and, later, the sub- jects of the study to develop an operational definition. It was not the purpose of this study to define effectiveness in an alcohol education program nor to infer that the programs under investi- gation were the only programs that are perceived to be effective. In addition, this study was not designed to identify all the elements which may comprise an effective alcohol education program. Rather, the explo- ration and description of a framework of major components and features of such a program was the goal. Once established, the opportunity to expand that framework would await future researchers. 11 Summary_of the Chapters This chapter has identified the background, purpose and direction of this study. It has delineated the approach, methodology and limitations of this investigation. Chapter two will contain an overview of key issues related to the use and misuse of alcohol on campus. It will pro- vide an opportunity to focus on the problematic impact of alcohol abuse in the college setting and on current responses for dealing with those problems. Chapter three will offer a description of the methodology for conducting this study. It will include the method for selecting the sub- jects and gathering and analyzing the information provided by the subjects. Chapter four will present the results of the study and chapter five will include a summary of the major findings, conclusions, impli- cations of the findings and recommendations for further research. 12 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction This chapter provides a brief overview of some of the key issues related to youthful drug and alcohol abuse from an historical and current perspective. Specific focus is placed on the alcohol problems that have emerged on college campuses during this past decade. The nature of those problems and the activities conducted to respond to them are explored. Specific programs and activities that have been cited as successful are described and reviewed. The use of alcohol has been integral to our American society since the early days of colonialism. Since that period, the country has gone through many chapters in the saga of alcohol's role in our culture's evo- lution. Under most circumstances in which alcohol and its use have assumed a visible role, the focus has been on its problematic conse- quences. Whether it has been the Whiskey Rebellion of 1971, the reckless ‘frontier drinking in the 19th Century (Winkler, 1968) or the legislative folly of the let amendment to the Constitution during the 1920's, the 13 negative impact of alcohol has typically been given the most prominent focus. In more recent years, the focus has sharpened and the negative impact of alcohol abuse on the nation as a whole has become more clearly evident (Keller and Rosenberg, 1971). In no area has this impact been more acutely felt than on the nation's college campuses. While often considered a haven for prolonged adolescence, effective majority citizen- ship at 18 years of age has brought the myriad of problems associated with alcohol abuse (at one time only associated with middle age adults) to the campuses of most colleges in the nation (Engs, 1977a; Ingalls, 1978; Hill and Bregen, 1979). Trends in Substance Abuse The misuse of a particular substance is not something new to the American culture. Abuse of illicit drugs has been documented throughout our history (Cohen, 1969). Evidence of morphine addiction was demon- strated during and after the Civil War due to its use as a painkiller administered to wounded soldiers. A popular drug of choice during the late 1800's was nitrous oxide. Better known as laughing gas, this drug was extensively used for recreational purposes by the middle class in much the same way alcohol, cocaine and marijuana are used today. In the early 1900's, tincture of opium and other mild narcotics were used exten- sively as a means for smoothing over the stresses and strains that {accompanied life at the turn of the century. The 1920's brought the issue of alcohol misuse back into prominence because of illegal laootlegging and "rum running" operations that plagued many of the Imation's major cities. The 1930's through the 1950's marked a period of 14 increasing use of sedative drugs such as librium, valium and meprobomate. These were the prescribed responses of a society coping with the trans- formation from a rural, farming society to an urban, industrial one (Glenn and Warner, 1977). It was also during this period that incidents involving marijuana use were more frequent and resulted in some of the early legislation against its use (Marijuana Tax Act of 1937). With the onset of the post-Korean and Vietnam War eras, the misuse of a wide range of illegal substances assumed national attention. While several theories exist regarding the etiology of the "drug abuse crisis" of the 1960's, the most credible of these point to a combination of sociological factors, psychological stresses and technological conditions which promoted an atmOSphere of national urgency about the nation's drug problems that was felt at the highest echelons of government. The Drug Abuse Problem in the 1960's The problems accompanying the misuse of drugs in the 1960's were as much a conflict of values as they were an issue of substance abuse. The nation had already begun to demonstrate that it was a drug oriented soci- etyu as evidenced by the ever increasing consumption of beer, wine and cristilled spirits that marked the ten year span from 1955 - 1965 (Noble, 1978). The effects of Madison Avenue and the newly emerging medium of television advertising had already begun to teach the nation about the availability of a myriad of substances which could improve their lifestyle and/or their self image. Nurtured by the increasingly capable power of the mass media to transmit information at the speed of light, 15 and of commercial entrepreneurs to develop pamphlets, brochures and other "educational materials", it is little wonder that it was not too long before the nation was acutely aware that a drug problem existed, or at least had been created, in most communities across the land. With the discovery of such a pervasive problem came the predictable response that a solution had to be found. Unfortunately, in retrospect, the solution in many ways turned out to be worse than the problem. Whether in the form of increasingly severe penalties for violations of the law, hastily constructed and inaccurate drug information materials, or outlandish scare tactics to discourage use of illegal drugs, the net effect was nothing less than the creation of a major credibility gap between drug information seekers and information givers. It also created a generation gap between the youth of the 1960's whose drug of choice was different than their adult counterparts (Blum, 1969). The neutral and even counterproductive effects of drug education during that period have been addressed in the literature (Philip, 1971, Swisher, et al, 1971). Films, pamphlets and discussions designed to frighten or threaten individuals into non-use proved to be ineffective not only because the information was often inaccurate, but also because such approaches were insensitive to the increased level of autonomy, independence and intelligence that characterized the youthful target groups of such tactics. The accurate information very often did nothing Inore than create more informed and knowledgeable users of drugs. Too (rften these well-intentioned approaches would deal only on a cognitive level with a problem for which affective approaches were also needed to 16 impact attitudes and behavior change. The decade of the 1960's ended in frustration, anger and disagreement not only about the drug problem but even more about whether the real problem was drugs or the attitudes of individuals toward their use. It was appropriate that the conclusion of this decade of "drug" abuse was marked by a not uncommon response to dealing with a problem we do not understand and for which there are no ready solutions. That is, the declaration by the federal government of a "war on drugs". Emergence of Alcohol Abuse Problems on the Campus. The onset of the 1970's marked a political transition from the tur- moil, unrest and dissatisfaction of an unpopular war to promises of peace and a "new era". At the time, a not so subtle shift in substance use behavior was becoming evident on college campuses. In the wake of a national mobilization toward eliminating drug abuse, drug dealers and drug users, legislation was passed which soon proved to have a tempering effect on illegal drug problems, but with the concomitant, undesirable effect of creating a whole new series of legal drug problems; that is, with the substance of alcohol. In 1971, the Congress of the United States passed the "age of majority" legislation. This act gave the rights of full citizenship to all individuals eighteen years of age or older within the United States. While conferring the right to vote, to enter into legal contracts and to assume responsiblity for oneself, the act also resulted in lowering the legal drinking age in many states. One of the predictable, but apparently not well-anticipated, effects was the 17 introduction of a new wave of legal drinkers on college and university campuses. The issue of consuming alcohol on campus was certainly not a new one. Straus and Bacon (1953) conducted a major study on college drinking in the early 1950's. A review of that study indicates the existence of alcohol problems on the college campus is not a phenomenon unique to recent decades. Rather, student drinking behavior had been problematic since the early 1950's and most likely pre-dates that study. Neverthe- less, it is important to examine some of the factors which have brought greater attention to alcohol problems on the campus in the 1970's and 1980's. Factors Affecting Campus Alcohol Abuse The incidence of problem behavior on campus is very often tied to activities that take place in residential living areas. The environ- mental conditions which bring together scores of men and women between the ages of 18 and 22 years old on an around-the-clock basis, create an ideal setting for social as well as other program activities. Such con- ditions also foster opportunities for experimentation, exploring new values, increased interpersonal conflict and greater individual stress. The dramatically increased demand for on-campus housing that accompanied 'the early 1960's (Riker, 1965) to accommodate the new college age/post inar baby boom generation, created sociological and environmental 18 conditions suitable for the "campus drug abuse problem" of the 1960's. These conditions existed into the 1970's and offer a similarly conducive setting for the alcohol abuse problems of the 1970's and 1980's. There is evidence that these environmental conditions were complemented by attitudinal and value changes which had characterized the pre-adolescent and adolescent years of our nation's youth in the 1960's and 1970's. Glenn (1977) contends that the 1950's marked a transition decade between the rural, family oriented value system which characterized youth in the first half of the twentieth century and the more heterogenous, liberal value systems of the mobile, urban youth of the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's. Specifically, Glenn points to the impact of the extended family, lack of mass media, low level of technology, high familial interaction, existence of many non-negotiable tasks and the inability to avoid conse- quences as the primary values that were a part of the lifestyle of youths during their formative years in the 1920's, 1930's and 1940's. On the other hand, he contrasts this with heterogenous and relatively situational value systems that were characteristic of youth raised in the 1950's and 1960's. The emergence of the nuclear family, high technology, mass media, rapid information flow to make sense of a complex and chang- ing world, and a more laissez-faire approach toward consequences and "non-negotiable“ tasks offered a marked contrast to the lifestyle of the 1950's. It also marked a change in the opportunities available to acquire skills previously considered necessary to successfully cope with the normal developmental tasks of adolescence. 19 The result, according to Glenn, was a 1960/1970 young adult who often lacked viable role models within their environment, had a poor understanding of their responsibility and accountablity to others, and who had a high faith in magical solutions to problems; in short, a lack of confidence in their own ability to solve their problems. Also endemic to this and subsequent generations were poor intrapersonal skills, lack of self awareness and self discipline, poor interpersonal skills, an ina- bility to relate with, negotiate with, understand and empathize with others, and poor decision making and judgmental skills which would allow young adults to cope successfully under varying, stressful conditions. Thus, this often created a need to turn to artificial means for coping. A more recent observer of the youth culture, Levine (1981) charac- terizes the youth of the 1960's and 1970's as vacillating between periods of individual and community “ascendancy". He characterizes the values of youth as being highly dependent upon sociological conditions that existed during the pre-adolescent and adolescent periods of their life. In pro- filing today's student, Levine focuses on traits such as being me-oriented, non ideological, weak in basic skills, hedonistic, acceptant of the propriety of taking and heroless. Many of these descriptions par- allel those offered by Glenn of the students of the 1960's and 1970's and combine to create a profile that Glenn contends is that of an individual who is much higher at risk within the population to develop dependencies on artificial substances as a primary means of coping. Little wonder that the change in the age of majority in 1971 and the resulting increase in availability of alcohol to individuals 18, 19 and 20 20 years of age in subsequent years led to an increase in the level of alcohol consumption on college campuses (Hanson, 1977). This increase was accompanied by a shift in the age groups that were identified to have the highest incidence of alcohol related problems between the 1971 and the 1974 in the Reports on Alcohol and Health distributed by the Depart- ment of HEW. In 1971 the highest incidence of alcohol related problems was found in individuals between the ages of 21 - 24; the highest inci- dence of alcohol related problems in the 1974 report was found to be among individuals between the ages of 18 - 21. Growth in Campus Alcohol Abuse Problems One of the more subtle indicators that alcohol abuse became a larger problem during the 1970's, is found in a review of the higher education literature of that period. Prior to 1970, the professional literature was virtually devoid of references to alcohol abuse or alcohol education on the college campus, except in those studies in which it was cited as a factor in behavioral problems (Lemay, 1968). While the existence of such problems is not argued, it would appear that their frequency and nature were such that their impact was dwarfed by other more pressing concerns. However, in the 1970's the literature was marked by many more research reports and articles that addressed the topics of use and misuse of alco- hol on the campus (Penn, 1974; Looney, 1976; Kuder and Madson, 1976; Engs, et al, 1978; Nelson, 1979). Typical indicators of alcohol problems inere emergency medical conditions created by excessive intake of alcohol (alcohol toxicity, respiratory failure, etc.), isolated incidents of stu- dent deaths as a result of car accidents or fraternity hazing incidents, 21 increased incidents of damage and vandalism and increased concern expressed by faculty and staff about the concomitant effects of alcohol misuse on academic achievement (Ingalls, 1982). On the other hand, there were other factors which mitigated against easy admission that an alcohol abuse problem existed on campus. They included naivete and inherent defensiveness about the idea that college age youth could, in fact, develop serious alcohol problems; the not uncommon view that college offered this opportunity for a final harmless "fling" prior to adulthood (Fillmore, 1974); the generalized acceptance of drunkenness and intoxication as a way of life for many college stu- dents; and the difficulty in applying the traditional identifying factors related to individual responsibility which offer early evidence of drink- ing problems in older adults (i.e. 1) poor job performance, 2) deteri- oration of family relationships, 3) financial and/or medical problems, and 4) deteriorating social relationships with acquaintances/colleagues) (Roman, 1980). Although some of the above indicators are identifiable in a college student's lifestyle, the general lack of close supervision and the volatility of student living conditions typically allow for masking of these indicators under the guise of a "students will be students" philos- 0phy. However, on those campuses where problems were identified as a result of alcohol related medical emergencies, damage/vandalism related to intoxicated behavior or data from health services offices/counseling centers pointing to an increase in alcohol related problems among stu- dents, there was an acknowledged need to explore means for effectively 22 dealing with this increasingly disruptive phenomenon. North (1977) summed it up this way, We now recognize that the number of regular drinkers among the college-age population is increasing and that many students do devel0p serious, long-range alcohol abuse problems. Thus our task is to develop new strategies to more effectively treat the problem...the intelligent use of alcohol can be taught and col- lege students are an appropriate target group to whom such program efforts should be directed. (pg. 5) Initial Responses to the Alcohol Abuse Problem on‘CoTTege/University Campuses The professional literature in the mid and late seventies reflects the proliferation of concern and increased level of program activities related to the use and misuse of alcohol by students on college campuses (Kuder and Madson, 1976; Engs, 1977a; Gonzalez, 1978a; Gonzalez and Kouba, 1979). The use of courses, films, discussion groups and campus AA and AL-NON meetings were all utilized to heighten the awareness of stu- dents and university faculty and staff to the alcohol abuse problem (Engs, 1977b; Rozelle and Gonzalez, 1979; Kraft, 1979). In addition to locally generated materials, there were posters, brochures and commercial publications on topics ranging from alcoholism to fetal alcohol syndrome that flooded the campus market in much the same way drug literature did in the 1960's. In 1975, focus was given to efforts to combat the problem of alcohol tnisuse on campus by the federal government through the National Institute (an Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse (NIAAA) and The National Clearinghouse 23 for Alcohol Information (NCALI). This agency also formulated the "50 + 12" alcohol education program for colleges and universities across the nation in 1976. This program identified 50 state institutions and 12 private two year or four year colleges as recipients of intense exper- imental alcohol education programming and support under the guidance of NIAAA. It was believed that a national impetus to this effort would not only result in greater attention to alcohol abuse as a major health con- cern, but that federal support and careful monitoring of various alcohol education programs would encourage the emergence of effective or innova- tive ideas and activities for dissemination and use by other colleges. It was also hoped that model programs might be identified for the purpose of replication (Hewitt, 1976). As a result of the "50 + 12" project, a conference on alcohol abuse for colleges and universities was held in 1975, and a publication enti- tled The Whole College Catalog About Drinking was created and widely dis- tributed. At the local level, resource people from drug and alcohol agencies within state governments were used as consultants to assist colleges in the development of their campus programs over a three year period. Little conclusive evidence emerged about alcohol education strategies that were singularly effective. It was concluded that such activities were important for their educational value, and potentially could play a positive role in addressing alcohol related problems among college students; especially in those instances in which program coordi- nation is undertaken through student affairs staff (Hewitt, 1977). 24 The Whole College Catalog About Drinking presented a compendium of information and ideas for addressing problems associated with alcohol use and misuse on college campuses. It stressed the need for assessment and planning, identification of available resources, creation of a campus task force, use of media for information dissemination, use of peers, individual intervention and referral, fund raising techniques and the importance of evaluation. This publication went on to cite specific strategies utilized on campuses across the nation to promote these aSpects of alcohol education. In 1978, Goodale (1978) coordinated the development of another use- ful publication on alcohol education program strategies. Citing specific campus programs that had seemed to achieve some success in their efforts, this monograph noted among its programs four which had received national acclaim through other citations in the literature. These programs were located on the campuses of the University of Florida (Gonzalez, 1978b), University of Massachusetts (Kraft, 1977a), Indiana University (Engs, 1977b) and Michigan State University (North, 1977). In the description of the University of Florida program, strategies cited as most useful included extensive use of media for information dis- semination, utilization of peers as educators, providing alcohol training in the form of workshops, early intervention with problem drinkers, coor- 321.“ _—.v ”.53— ow 3 2 on: an .3333“:— 55:. «fan-ouxnaeociyu :- 3 a. .8333»:— 55... ataanuuxmaggogu .22 .2; 2.5 w»: .5; as. .54.... g. 12:3: sac—Iowxansoma .213... $941.39.“, 77 was a designee of the individual and was very familiar with that insti- tution's alcohol education program. Because the phone interview was con- ducted several months after the questionnaire, each of the program coordinators was reminded to respond to the questions in terms of the status and operation of their program at the time the survey was com- pleted. Each program coordinator was asked to respond to a series of questions designed to obtain the following information: 1. Whether any of the common components and features of their alcohol education program that emerged from phase I of this study and were part of their alcohol education program were essential to their pro- gram's effectiveness. 2. Whether there were any other components or features of their alcohol education program that they also considered essential to their pro- gram's effectiveness. In addition, the interviewees were also asked: 1. To list the reasons they believed their program was effective 2. Whether timeliness in training was a factor in the effectiveness of their training component 3. Whether there was a need for a minimal amount of funding to conduct an effective alcohol education program 4. What did they consider to be the major strengths of their program 5. What did they consider to be the major weaknesses of their program In accord with the design of this study, the criterion level at which a component or feature would be considered essential was set at 83.3% requiring that five out of the six schools involved in the 78 interviews report that it is essential to their program's effectiveness. This criterion level is slightly higher than the 80% level that was set when it was anticipated that only five schools would be involved in this second phase of the study. Table 4.12 reveals the responses of the program coordinators to those questions asking whether or not each common component was consid- ered by them to be essential to the effectiveness of their respective alcohol education program. An x indicates that the program coordinator believed that component was essential. TABLE 4.12 SUMMARY OF COMMON PROGRAM COMPONENTS CONSIDERED ESSENTIAL FOR EFFECTIVENESS BY INTERVIEW RESPONDENTS Program Component Institution % Consider Essential 1 2 12 13 14 24 Program Management x x x x x 83.3 Training x x x x x x 100 Education x x x x x x 100 Referral for Treatment x x x x x x 100 Prog. Affil/Coord. with on campus offices x x x x x x 100 Evaluation x x x x x x 100 Funding x x x x x x 100 79 Six of the seven program components were considered essential by all six of the program coordinators interviewed. Only the "program manage- ment component" failed to receive unanimous acknowledgement as essential. However, that component did receive the necessary 83.3% necessary to meet the criterion to be considered an essential component of an effective alcohol education program. Table 4.13 identifies those components that were cited by the respondents as essential to the effectiveness of their program even though they were not identified as components common to all programs studied. It is important to note that these components were each identi- fied by the respondents independent of any solicitation from the investi- gator. These responses were a result of an open ended question and not a result of a forced choice question. The table reveals that four compo- nents were identified and that two of these components, a peer education component and an academic component, were cited by four of the six respondents as essential to the effectiveness of their program. However, because this frequency failed to reach the 83.3% criterion level, these two components cannot be accepted as essential. However, the fact that they were identified independently by four of the six program coordina- tors would suggest that their inclusion as components in an alcohol education program could possibly make an important contribution to that program's effectiveness. This supports the beliefs of several authors who contend that peer education (Mills, et al, 1983; Rozelle and Gonzalez, 1980; Kraft, 1979) is a necessary feature of any youth-oriented alcohol education effort. 80 This would also support Dahl's (1982) and Gonzalez's (1978b) beliefs that cooperation and integrated involvement with the formal academic and teaching elements of the campus are essential aSpects of sound alcohol education programs. TABLE 4.13 SUMMARY OF PROGRAM COMPONENTS NOT COMMON BUT CONSIDERED BY INTERVIEW RESPONDENTS TO BE ESSENTIAL TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THEIR PROGRAM Program Component not Institution %’Consider common but essentiiT‘ Essential to effectiveness 1 2 12 13 14 24 Peer Education Component X X X X 03 05 N Academic Component x x x x 66:7 Media x 16.6 Public Relations/Marketing x 16.6 81 TABLE 4.14 SUMMARY OF COMMON FEATURES CONSIDERED ESSENTIAL FOR PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS BY INTERVIEW RESPONDENTS ‘Feature Institution % Consider Essential 1 2 12 13 14 24 Program Mgt. Component Centr. Office location x x x x x 83.3 Resident Stud. a target x x x x x x 100 Frat/Soro a target x x x x x x 100 Prog. exists for 3/more yrs.x x x x x x 100 Training Component Factual Info. a topic x x x x x x 100 Ident/Referral a topic x x x x x x 100 Values Clarif. a topic x x x x x 83.3 Plan Al. Ed. Act. a topic x x x x x 83.3 Education Component Informal Disc/Seminars x x x x x x 100 Show Films/Tapes x x x x x x 100 Distr. Questionnaires x x x x x 83.3 Dissem. Pamph/Brochures x x x x x x 100 Skill Develop. Program x x x x x 83.3 Use on campus fac/staff x x x x 66.7 Use Peer Educators x x x x x x 100 Use Comm. Pamph/Brochures x x x x x 83.3 Use Internal Developed Pamphlets/Brochures x x x x x x 100 Referral/Treat. Component Ref. to outpatient psych. therapy x x x x x x 100 Ref. to AA/AL-ANON x x x x x 83.3 Affil/Coord. Component Task Force/Committee x x 33.3 Coord w/Res. Life x x x x x x 100 Coord w/Counseling Ctr. x x x x x 83.3 Coord w/Stud. Activities x x x x x 83.3 Evaluation Component Eval. Ind. Goals/Purpose x x x x x x 100 Use survey data from target groups x x x x x x 100 Eval. incl. quantity of act.x x x x x x 100 Eval. incl. quality of act. x x x x x x 100 Eval used for prog modif. x x x x x x 100 Funding Component Some Fund. provided by College/Univ. x x x x x 83.3 Donated services from resource people x x x x x x 100 82 Table 4.14 contains a summary of the responses of the Six program coordinators to questions regarding whether those features of their pro- gram which were common among all programs studied were also essential to the effectiveness of their individual program. An x indicates that they considered that feature to be essential to the effectiveness of their program. An examination of the table will Show that virtually all of the features noted are found to be essential at the 83.3% criterion level. The only features which did not achieve the designation as essential were: - use of a task force/committee for affiliation/coordination with on campus offices - use of on campus faculty/staff as resources within the education com- ponent of the program For 18 of the remaining features there was unanimous agreement among the six schools that these features were essential to the effectiveness of their programs. Three of the four coordinators who indicated that a task force or committee was not essential added that the task force was at one time essential but as the program evolved, it was no longer needed. The com- munication link that it provided between campus offices had been replaced by routinized communication patterns developed in support of ongoing cooperation on alcohol education activities. Two program coordinators indicated that use of on campus faculty/staff as resources was not essen- tial to their program. Both indicated that, although they were used on occasion, faculty and staff more often would use the services and resources of the program than be used as a resource for it. 83 Table 4.15 displays features that were ppp_common among programs but were considered essential by the program coordinators who were part of phase II of the study. Three features emerged as essential at the 83.3% criterion level. Those features included having (1) full time coordinator as part of the Program Management component; (2) conducting training at the start of the academic year as a feature of the Training component; and (3) having minimal funding for at least a full time coordinator as a feature of the Funding component. Although no other features met the criterion level to be considered essential, six other features were cited by at least three of the six interviewees. Because these citations did not come in response to forced choice questions, the frequency with which they were cited by the program coordinators would suggest that they pppld be important aspects of an alcohol education pro- gram. These features included: 1. program is under jurisdiction of the Dean of Students or VP for Stu- dent Affairs 2. in-service training is provided throughout the year 3. in-house diagnosis for treatment purposes is provided 4. coordination/affiliation agreement exists with fraternity/sorority staff 5. evaluation of effect/outcomes is a purpose of evaluation 6. a need for minimal funding that includes operating expenses (i.e. paper, supplies, publications) 84 TABLE 4.15 SUMMARY OF PROGRAM FEATURES NOT COMMON BUT CONSIDERED BY INTERVIEW RESPONDENTS TO BE ESSENTIAL TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THEIR PROGRAM Program Features not Institution % ConSider common but essentTET Essential to effectiveness* 1 2 12 13 14 24 Prog. Management Component Full Time Coordinator x x x x x 83.3 Under Jurisdiction of DOS/ CSAO x x x 50.0 Training Component Skills to conduct alcohol education programs x x 33.3 Group Process/Facilitation skills x x 33.3 Confrontation Skills x x 33.3 Offer training at start of year x x x x x 83.3 Maintain in-service all year x x x 50.0 Education Component Formal class lectures x x 33.3 Use of media x x 33.3 Ref. for Treatment Component Services avail. at no cost x x 33.3 Provide in-house diagnosis x x x 50.0 Have referral capability for in-patient cases x x 33.3 Affil/Coord. Component Coord. w/Campus Police/Sec. x x 33.3 Coord. w/Judicial Program x x 33.3 Coord. w/State Prevention Agencies x x 33.3 Affiliation Component Coord. with Frat/Soro x x x 50.0 Coord. with Campus Ministry x x 33.3 Coord. with local treatment resources x x 33.3 Evaluation Component Eval. of effect/outcomes x x x 50.0 Use of informal feedback x x 33.3 Funding Component Min. funding for FT Coord. x x x x x 83.3 Min. funding for operating expenses x x x x 66.7 *only features cited by more than one coordinator are included 85 Responses to Other Interview Questions The responses received from program coordinators to the other questions identified earlier in this section are included in Tables 4.16, 4.17 and 4.18. Although it was not a purpose of this study to investi- gate what defines "effectiveness" in alcohol education programs, Table 4.16 identifies the various criteria used by program coordinators for considering their program to be effective. While there is very little commonality in their specific responses, some reSponses were cited by at least half of the coordinators and include (1) positive student response to the program, (2) increases in more responsible alcohol-related behav- ior, (3) increased demand for services and (4) a high degree of internal and external visibility for the program. This finding would appear to support the investigator's contention that consistent criteria for defin- ing effectiveness in the assessment of alcohol education programs has yet to emerge. On the other hand, this list provides an extensive array of criteria upon which evaluation models to assess the effectiveness of alcohol education programs could be developed. 86 VTABLE 4.16 CRITERIA FOR EFFECTIVENESS Summary of telephone interview responses from Program Coordinators regarding criteria7f6r considering their program "errectfvafi - positive student response (4) - positive response from - increase in responsible alcohol- faculty related behaviors (3) - positive response from local - increased demand for services (3) community offices - internal visibility of program (3) - policy changes that support - external visibility of pro ram (3) alcohol education concepts - need to expand services (2% - student participation in - positive response from local media (2) alcohol related course - program meeting goals/objectives - positve response from - decrease in damage central administration - decrease in alcohol-related public - increased student in- offenses volvement in program activ. - decrease in irresponsible behavior ( ) indicates frequency if cited more than once Tables 4.17 and 4.18 identify the responses of program coordinators to the major strengths and weaknesses of their respective programs. While no pattern or consensus on common strengths is identified, many of the strengths cited parallel or are related to a number of the components and features that have been identified as common and essential to effec- tive alcohol education programs. Specifically, support from the Residential Life Office, coordination with on campus offices, a high lev- el of student involvement, program organization and planning and program evaluation. Once again, the importance of student involvement is noted in the references to student support, leadership and peer education activities. The program coordinators list of major weaknesses is high- lighted by the already identified need for improved evaluation methods, 87 TABLE 4.17 MAJOR STRENGTHS OF ALCOHOL EDUCATION PROGRAM Summary of strengths cited by program coordinators in telephone coord. with academic departments (2) peer education activities coord. between on campus offices coomunication within alcohol educ. program interview support of Res Life Director (3) - commitment to prevention/ support from students (3) responsible decision- skills/leadership of students (2) making model) program planning availability of services program organization comprehensiveness of services evaluation efforts - visibility of efforts ( ) indicates frequency if cited more than once TABLE 4.18 MAJOR WEAKNESSES OF ALCOHOL EDUCATION PROGRAM Summary of program weaknesses cited by prggram coordinators in telehpone interviews: need for improved evaluation (3) need better planning for priorities and assessing needs (3) need more personnel (2) lack of guaranteed funding need more visibility for the Alcohol Education Office need better peer program need more support from central administration need to have more impact on policy difficulty reaching real problem drinkers difficulty handling large turnover in student p0pulation each year ( ) indicates frequency if cited more than once 88 need for better planning and the need for more personnel to staff the program. Responses to Research Questions As a result of a review of the responses to the survey question- naires and to the follow up telephone interviews, the following answers have emerged for the research questions stated in Chapter One: 1. Are there any program components that are common and essential to effective alcohol education programs? Seven alcohol education program components have been identified as common and essential to the effective alcohol education programs under investigation. Those components include a (1) Program Mana e- ment Component, (2) Training Component, (3) Education Component, I4) Referral for Treatment Component, (5) Program Affiliation/Coordination with On Campus Offices Component, (6) Evaluation Component and (7) Funding Component. 2. Is a Program Management Component a common and essential element of an effective alcohol education program? If so what are its common and essential features? There are four features within the Program Management Component which were found to be both common and essential to an effective alcohol education program. They include (1) a centralized office location, (2) including on-campus residents as a target group, (3) including Fraternity/Sorority and other students in supervised housing as a target group and (4) program has been in existence for at least three years. A fifth feature was found to be essential at the stated cri- terion level even though it was not common among all programs studied. This feature is a full time Program Coordinator. 3. Is a Training Component a common and essential element of an effec- tive alcohol education program? If so, what are its common and essential features? fp. There are four features of the Training Component which were found to be both common and essential to an effective alcohol education program. These features include (1) fac- tual information on alcohol use/misuse is a training topic, (2) identification/referral of individuals with alcohol problems is a training t0pic, (3) planning alcohol education program activities is a training topic and (4) values clarification is a training topic. A fifth feature, though not common among programs studied but consid- ered essential by selected program coordinators was: conducting training at the beginning of the academic year. 89 Is an Education Component a common and essential element of an effec- ' tive alcohol education program? If so, what are its common and essential features? There are eight features of the Education Component which were found to be both common and essential to an effective alcohol education program. They include: (1) using informal discussions/seminars as an education strategy, (2) using films/tapes as an education strategy, (3) distributing questionnaires as an education strategy, (4) dissem- inating pamphlets, brochures and posters as an education strategy, (5) offering skill development programs (i.e. such as assertiveness, values clarification, confrontation, etc.) as an education strategy, (6) using peer educators as resources in conducting alcohol education programming, (7) using commercial pamphlets, brochures and posters in programming and (8) using internally developed pamphlets, brochures and posters in programming. Is a Peer Education/Counselor Component a common and essential ele- ment of an effective alcohol education program? If so, what are its common and essential features? A Peer Education/Counselor Component was not found to be common nor essential to effective alcohol education programs at the established criterion levels. Is a Treatment Component a common element in an effective alcohol education program? If so, what are its essential features? There are two features within the Referral for Treatment component which were found to be both common and essential to an effective alcohol education program. Those features include: (1) capacity to refer for out-patient psychological therapy and (2) capacity to refer to AA/AL-ANON. Is an Academic Component a common and essential element of an effec- tive alcohol education program? If so, what are its common and essential features? An Academic Component was not found to be common or essential to effective alcohol education programs at the established criterion level. Is a Component involving Affiliation/Coordination agreements with other on or off campus agencies/offices a common and essential ele- ment of an effective alcohol education program? If so, what are its common and essential features? There are four features within the Affiliation/Coordination with On Campus Offices Component which were found to be both common and essential to an effective alcohol education program. They include: 90 10. (1) coordination agreement exists with the Residential Life Office, (2) coordination agreement exists with the Counseling Center and (3) coordination agreement exists with the Student Activities Office. Is an Evaluation Component a common and essential element of an effective alcohol education program? If so, what are its common and essential features? There are five features within the Evaluation Component which were found to be both common and essential to an effective alcohol educa- tion program. They include: (1) establishment of general purposes/goals, (2) use of survey/self-report data from target groups as an evaluation technique, (3) evaluation of quantity/extent of activities as a strategy, (4) evaluation of the quality of program activities as a strategy and (5) use evaluation results for the pur- poses of program modification. Is a Funding Component a common and effective element of an effective alcohol education program? If so what are its common and essential features? There are two features within the Funding Component which were found to be both common and essential to an effective alcohol education program. They include: (1) some funding from the college/university and (2) donated services from resource people who are used for pro- gramming. A third feature, while not common, was considered essen- tial by selected program coordinators. This feature was to insure there was a minimum level of funding which could support at least a full time Program Coordinator. Mex): In this chapter, the investigator described the information gathered from the survey questionnaires that were distributed and the follow up telephone interviews that were conducted. The components and features that are common and essential to effective alcohol education programs were identified and described in conjunction with the criterion levels and research questions that had been developed for this study. In all, there were seven components and twenty-eight features which emerged as both common and essential to alcohol education programs that were consid- ered to be effective. 91 In Chapter Five the investigator will present a summary of this study and will present its major findings. Conclusions related to these findings will be offered and the implications of these findings for practitioners in the field of alcohol education will be provided. Finally, recommen- dations for further research related to the purposes of this study will be presented. 92 CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Introduction This chapter contains a summary of the purposes, methodology and results of this study. Its major findings and conclusions are reviewed and the potential implications of those findings for the field of alcohol education are explored. Finally, the investigator proposes recommen- dations for further research related to this study. Review of the Study It was the purpose of the study to identify and describe those com- mon and essential components and features of college campus alcohol edu- cation programs that were perceived to be effective. In the first phase of the study, the program coordinators of thirty-one selected alcohol education programs were asked to respond to survey questionnaires. Twen- ty-seven of those responses were useable. As a result of the information derived from these questionnaires, thirty-seven components and features were identified as common to at least two-thirds of the alcohol education 93 programs included in the study. In phase two of the study, the coordina- tors of the six alcohol education programs which most closely manifested these common components and features in their own programs participated in an in-depth telephone interview to determine whether these components and features were perceived to be essential to the effectiveness of their respective alcohol education programs. Major Findings In order to be considered common, a component or feature had to be present in at least two-thirds (66.7%) of all programs studied. An essential component or feature was one which was considered essential to the effectiveness of 83.3% (or five out of six) of the alcohol education programs involved in the second phase of this study. At these stated criterion levels: 1. Seven components were found to be both common and essential to effec- tive alcohol education programs. They include the following compo- nents: Program Management, Training, Education, Referral for Treatment, Affiliation/Coordination with On-Campus Offices, Evalu- ation and Funding. 2. Twenty-eight features within these common and essential components were all found to be common and essential to the effectiveness of the alcohol education programs of the same sample of subjects. Those features included the following: 94 Features within Program Management Component centralized office location on campus residents are a target group fraternity/sorority residents are a target group alcohol education program is at least three years old Features within Training Component factual information about alcohol use is a training topic identification/referral of individuals with alcohol problems is a training topic planning alcohol education program activities is a training t0pic values clarification is a training topic Features within Education Component use of informal discussion sessions on alcohol use is a strategy use of films/tapes is a strategy dissemination of pamphlets/brochures is a strategy offering skill development programs (i.e. values clarification, assertiveness, confrontation, sex role clarification) is a strat- egy distribution of questionnaires is a strategy peer educators are resources used for programming commercial pamphlets, brochures and posters are resources used for programming internally developed pamphlets, brochures and posters are resources used for programming 95 Features within Treatment/Referral Component - includes referral capacity for out-patient psychological services - includes referral capacity for AA/AL-ANON services Features within Program Affiliation/Coordination Component - formal coordination is arranged with the Residential Life Office - formal coordination is arranged with the Counseling Center - formal coordination is arranged with the Student Activities Office Features within Evaluation Component - general goals/purposes are defined - acquiring survey data from target groups is an evaluation strate- 9V - a purpose of evaluation is to assess quantity of program activ- ities - a purpose of evaluation is to assess quality of program activ- ities - evaluation results are used to modify the program Features within Funding Component - some funding is provided by the college/university - non-monetary support is provided through donated services from resource people They will be discussed in greater depth later in this chapter when the implications of this study are reviewed. Three features emerged in the second phase of this study as essential to the effectiveness of an alcohol education program even though they were not found to be common features among all the programs under 96 investigation. These features were: a. A full-time program coordinator b. The need to provide training in a timely fashion at the start of the academic year c. The need for at least minimal funding to maintain a full-time coordinator Two reasons are offered for these features emerging as essential but not common: - for many programs without a full-time coordinator, this feature could still be perceived as either highly desireable or necessary to maintaining or improving the effectiveness of their program. - the features related to training and funding for a full-time coordinator were elicited from respondents in phase II with suf- ficient frequency to meet the criterion for essential but, were not the subject of specific questions asked in the original ques- 'tTEnnaire. Two components under investigation, a peer education component and an academic component, did not emerge as common among the programs studied. Neither were they considered essential by the program coor- dinators who participated in the second phase of the study. However, the frequency with which each of these components were cited in both phases of the study, and the attention in the literature given to the potential value of these two functions within an alcohol education program Should not preclude their consideration as important aspects of any organized alcohol education effort. Two features which were common among the programs studied did not emerge as essential during the second phase of the study, they were: 97 a. use of a task force/committee to coordinate with on campus offices b. use of campus faculty and staff as resources for programming While the need to have a task force or committee when alcohol education programming efforts are in their initial stages was empha— sized, it was not perceived as essential as a communication link once a program matured and developed a level of effectiveness. In fact, it could be argued that the routinized communication links that exist between offices on a day-to-day basis within an effective program preclude the need for such a task force or committee. Although faculty and staff may be used with some regularity as resources in alcohol education programming, the availability of other resources and the increasing reliance on peer involvement in program- ming could explain the fact that faculty/staff participation is not considered essential. Also, the fact that faculty and staff were typically not among the recipients of alcohol education programming on campus would also preclude faculty/staff participation as alcohol education resources with their own peers. Conclusions Any conclusions that may be reached as a result of the major findings of this study are contingent upon acceptance of the assumptions which underly the design of the study. Therefore. before offering con- clusions, it would be prudent to review each of these major assumptions. 98 Assumption 1: That the alcohol education programs under investigation are, in fact, effective. This assumption is important because it implies that the results of the study could be generalizable and would be instrumental in developing effective alcohol education programs on other campuses. For that reason, the process for selection of the subjects for the study was crucial. Selection of subjects relied on a publication which was approximately four years old at the time of the study and upon the expert opinion of five individuals who had extensive experience in the relatively young field of alcohol education programming. In all, fourteen alcohol education programs were cited in the publi- cation and included in the study. Seven of those were also cited by at least one expert. Of these seven, four were cited by two or more experts. Among the six programs included in the phase II of the study, two of these programs were included in the previously noted publication and these two programs were also cited by two and three experts, reSpec- tively. In all, five of the six programs included in phase II (which were cited as most extensively manifesting the components and features which were considered common) were cited by at least two of the five members of the panel of experts. Finally, three of these six schools are nationally recognized for the quality of their alcohol education programs. They are Pennsylvania State University (IFS 1983) and the previously noted Univer- sity of Florida and University of Massachusetts at Amherst. 99 The point was made that a consistent and definitive explanation of what constitutes effectiveness in an alcohol education program is not found in the literature of this field. However, the investigator would suggest that the cross referencing among experts, and between the experts and the publication in the selection of subjects, should lend credibility to the operational definition of "effective" as used within the context of this study. Assppption 2: That the criterion levels established for determining whether a component/feature was common and/or essential were set high enough to avoid including components and features which were not impor- tant elements for the effectiveness of an alcohol education program. In an exploratory study such as this, it is difficult to rely upon statistically based criteria to establish a level of confidence for sug- gesting that a certain variable within an alcohol education program is common and essential to the program's effectiveness. It should be kept in mind that it was not the purpose of this study to discover whether a causal relationship existed between the presence of certain variables and the effectiveness of an alcohol education program. Rather, an attempt was made to determine whether there were any variables whose presence in selected programs was frequent (common) enough to suggest that they may be essential to the perceived effectiveness of that program. In a study such as this, statistically based confidence levels similar to those used in experimental studies would not provide an appropriate criterion for discovery of new knowledge in the field of alcohol education which is in its early stages of development. 100 It was on that basis that a 66.7% criterion level was established to determine whether a program component or feature was to be considered common among all programs studied. The investigator would contend that practitioners looking for new knowledge in this field would accept the presence of certain program components and features in two-thirds of all subjects' programs as a reasonable basis for considering those variables as potentially important to the effectiveness of an alcohol education program. It is further argued that establishment of an even higher criterion level (83.3%) for a variable to be considered essential was also reason- able and sound. Six of the common components and eighteen of the common features included in the second phase of the study were unanimously cited as essential to the effectiveness of the alcohol education programs included in that phase of the study. This finding led the investigator to speculate that there may be other variables within alcohol education programs which may also be essential but did not emerge as common or essential due to the high criterion levels that were set. The emergence of three variables as essential but not common rein- forced that Speculation. Further, the independent citations, by four program coordinators in phase II, of a Peer Education Component and Aca- demic Component as essential also suggest that the criterion levels did serve their purpose of minimizing any Type I errors (Kerlinger, 1964). That is, including a component or feature as common or essential even though it may not be. 101 Within these parameters that describe the two basic assumptions which underly this study, the following conclusions are offered: 1. There are a number of key organizational elements, specific program implementation strategies and resources that are present with great regularity in alcohol education programs that were considered to be effective. 2. The presence of these specific elements and their perceived impor- tance to the effectiveness of alcohol education programming suggests a framework for a model upon which alcohol education program efforts on a college campus may be developed. The parameters imposed by the limited number of programs studied and by the fact the sample was not representative of all four year colleges and universities (and excluded all two year colleges) limits the opportunity to generalize about the applicability of such a model. However, such a suggested model does offer a broad organizational framework for develop- ing an alcohol education program by delineating certain key functions and selected strategies for carrying out these functions. Other key elements of a program, such as its philosophical approach, specific organization structure, programming content, budget detail and operating procedures are not addressed here. Rather, the results of this exploratory study suggest that the basis for a comprehensive program model may exist but cannot be inferred from the results of this study. Implications for the Practitioner The diversity and uniqueness of each college campus, its student population and its philosophical foundations make the broad applicability of any suggested model for all alcohol education programming, presumptu- ous. 0n the other hand, the paucity of literature on comprehensive 102 approaches to program planning for alcohol education makes the suggestion of such a model a potentially useable concept for both the neophyte prac- titioner as well as the experienced program coordinator. It is within that context that the implications of these findings are offered. The major findings in this study suggest that if it is going to be effective, there are certain planning and program implementation compo- nents and features that should be a part of an alcohol education program. In the broadest context, effective is defined as including any or all of the following: (1) receiving support from students, staff and top level administrators, (2) maintaining a high level of visibility and credibili- ty with all groups who will be recipients of the program's efforts, (3) increasing responsible behavior as it relates to alcohol and decreasing irresponsible behavior, (4) maintaining a high standard in the quantity and quality of services offered, (5) achieving a high level of student involvement in the program and (6) meeting the established goals and objectives of the program. A suggested model for attaining these ends is offered as follows: Program Management Component An administrative structure Should exist which includes a full-time program coordinator and a centralized office location which can serve as focal point for the program's activities. On campus resident stu- dents and fraternity and sorority students, as well as other students 103 in off campus supervised housing should be among the primary target groups to whom the programs efforts should be directed. Although it was not confirmed by the findings, the demographic results would suggest that the program should be given at least three years to develop before final judgments are made regarding its viability and effectiveness. Additionally, information gathered in the course of this study suggests that consideration may be given to including a graduate assistant or practicum student as additional support for the program's central office. It also appears to be typ- ical, and probably advantageous, for the program coordinator to have a reporting relationship within the Student Affairs Division. Fur- ther, a task force or committee to assist in providing direction and communication within the program does not appear to be essential, but may serve a useful purpose in the early development of the program. However, it is likely to become less important as the program devel- ops direction and establishes its communication network with both on and off-campus offices. Training Component The capacity to train alcohol education program staff and other staff who will conduct alcohol education programming for the student groups must be developed and the training should be conducted at least at the beginning of each academic year. Training topics should include factual information about the use and misuse of alcohol, identifica- tion and referral of individuals experiencing alcohol related 104 problems, values clarification skills, and training on how to arrange alcohol education program activities. In addition, although not con- firmed in the findings, it would appear to be helpful if training topics could also include teaching group facilitation/group process skills to help individuals learn how to conduct an effective alcohol education information session. Education Component Among the strategies used to provide alcohol education information to the target groups of the program, the following should be included: a. Conduct of informal discussions/seminars on the topic of alcohol use/misuse b. use of films and tapes (video and audio) c. distributing questionnaires on alcohol related matters d. disseminating both commercially and internally developed pam- phlets, brochures and posters to target groups e. offering skill development programs in areas such as assertiveness training, values clarification and confrontation skills f. utilizing student peers in programming efforts whenever possible In addition to these findings, other information gathered from respondents suggests that the impact of education efforts may be most effective when directed at specific, identifiable problems that affect the campus. This suggestion was offered by two of the program coordina- tors interviewed in the second phase of the study and is supported by Mills (1983) when he states: 105 Since the members of a community will be open to alcohol education only to the extent that they believe alcohol-related problems exist, the first step in creating an alcohol education program must be documentation of problems. (p.6) The strategies listed under this Education Component include using questionnaires which can be utilized as an assessment tool to identify problems as well as an information dissemination strategy. In either instance, the concept of directing education strategies at specific alco- hol problems that affect the campus appears to be a viable one. Referral for Treatment Component The capacity to refer individuals seeking help with alcohol related problems must be provided. In particular, the capacity to be able to refer individuals for out-patient counseling about alcohol related problems is crucial; and the capacity to be able to make referrals to local chapters of AA and AL-ANON is also essential. In addition, although not confirmed by the findings, the availability of out-patient counseling services within the structure of the program and, in particular, the capacity to perform some initial diagnosis in conjunction with such a referral could be advantageous to the effec- tiveness of this component of the program. Affiliation/Coordination with On Campus Offices Some kind of written or verbal agreement or relationship must be established with key offices on campus in order to further the 106 purposes of the alcohol education program. In particular, the Office of Residential Life, Counseling Center Office and Student Activities Office are essential to the establishment of this communication link. Although not confirmed by the findings, it may also be advantageous to establish additional relationships with other on campus offices, particularly within the Student Affairs Division, and with key off campus offices such as local alcohol treatment centers and State pre- vention agencies. The establishment of a task force or committee made up of represen- tatives of many of these key offices to facilitate this coordination can be a useful strategy for programs in the early stages of develop- ment. However, as the program develops it appears to be less essen- tial. In fact, the eventual obsolescence of such a committee may be a prime indicator that an effective coordination and communication process has been achieved among these key offices. In that context, some programs have changed the focus of such committees away from communication and toward developing new and innovative directions for the program. Evaluation Component An Evaluation Component for the program is essential and must be developed in accordance with the general goals and purposes estab- lished for the program. In addition, evaluation strategies for gath- ering information must include some kind of data received from the target groups toward whom program efforts are directed. The purposes 107 of the evaluation effort must include the assessment of the quantity of activities being conducted and the quality of those activities. Although not confirmed by the findings, it will also be helpful if measuring the effect or the outcomes of the program's efforts are also included in the purposes of the evaluation effort. Evaluation results should primarily be used for the purposes of modifying the program to improve its effectiveness. While results may also be uti- lized to determine funding and, perhaps, the continuation or dissolution of the program, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that this is an essential factor influencing the effectiveness of the program. Funding Component Some funding should be provided by the college or university on the campus where the program is located. The program must also expect to rely on donated services from resource people in the conduct of its programming activities. While the quantity of funding does not appear to be a major factor in the effectiveness of alcohol education programs, as a minimum, funding for a full-time program coordinator should be available. It would also be helpful if some funding were available for basic operating expenses during the year. Funding from a variety of resources both within and outside of the campus also appears to be advantageous for effective alcohol education program- ming efforts. As financial constraints continue to plague institutions of higher education, private funding sources in addition 108 to college/university funding are likely to become more important to the support of a campus' alcohol education efforts. The tenets of this program model are supported in much of the liter- ature that has evolved in recent years on campus alcohol education pro- gramming. It supports Bryan's (1982) contention that administrative structure and management is essential to programming. It also supports O'Hara (1977) and Kraft (1979) and their emphasis on the role of training. Gonzalez (1978b) and others emphasize the importance of varie- ty and diversity in the alcohol education and information activities that can be offered to students. The need for referral and coordination components is supported in the work of Duston (1981). Kraft's (1977a) emphasis on evaluation of extent, effort and effect is also reinforced in this model. Although the question of funding and 'how much is enough?‘ is still largely unanswered, there is no conclusive evidence in this study that refutes contentions that large amounts of money are not neces- sary for a program to be effective and/or successful. However, it should not be overlooked that among the six programs that most closely mani- fested all the components and features that emerged as common, four of them had total budgets in excess of $15,000. The sharpest divergence from the literature is found in omitting a peer education component as an integral part of this program model (Gonzalez, 1978b; Kraft, 1979). While this omission is not intended to discount the importance of such a component, its inclusion lacked support at the stated criterion levels established in the study to consider it common or essential for program effectiveness. For the practitioner, 109 this should not necessarily suggest that this component is always periph- eral to alcohol education programs that strive to be effective. Its unsolicited citation as essential by four of the six coordinators of the programs included in the second phase of this study, supports its poten- tial to contribute to an alcohol education program. Rather, the investi- gator would suggest that lack of support in the survey findings for it as an essential component may be a reflection of the state of the art of alcohol education programming on campus. That is, peer education is typ- ically not evident as a formal program component such as that described by Kraft (1977) but, rather, alcohol education program activities are often carried out by student peers who serve as resident assistants and other student staff as a part of the residence hall pro- gram. In any case, the ability of students to influence the behavior and attitudes of other peers toward many things, including the use of alcohol, cannot be discounted. Evidence to the contrary in the litera- ture is much too extensive. Recommendations for Further Research Although the major findings of the study suggest that the framework exists for a planning model upon which to build campus alcohol education programs, there are limitations to the study which prompt further explo- ration of this topic. Specifically, recommendations for additional research include: 110 1. Development of an operational definition for determining what consti- tutes "effectiveness" in an alcohol education program. 2. Conduct of a follow up study that would include a larger N and uti- lize a more rigorous methodology for identifying programs that are considered to be effective. 3. Identification of intangible variables that may effect the success/effectiveness of alcohol education programs. Defining Effectiveness It has been noted previously that a consistent or agreed upon meas- ure for determining the effectiveness of a campus alcohol education pro- gram is currently not offered in the literature. Although programs have defined success in many ways, such as an increase in knowledge about alcohol (Engs, 1978), decreases in alcohol related problems (Mills, et al, 1983), and a high level of visibility and support for the program and attainment of the program's objectives (IFS, 1983), there is a need for a more common and consistent point of reference and set of criteria through which a program's impact can be measured. A framework for such a study may be found in table 4.16 on page 87. This table lists the criteria for effectiveness used by those program coordinators who are directing the six alcohol education programs that most extensively reflected the components and features which were found to be common in the first phase of the study. That is, they most closely approximated the suggested model program. 111 These criteria offer a broad array of content areas upon which to build an assessment tool for determining the effectiveness of an alcohol education program. While achieving consensus about what constitutes “effectiveness" may be a difficult goal to reach, the potential exists within such research to at least begin to fill the current void that exists in dealing with this important aspect of campus alcohol education programming. Follow Up Study Limitations on the generalizability of this study are a product of its relatively small N and the differing levels of credence which may be given to the assumptions that underly the selection of subjects. (It should be noted that no inference has been made that the programs studied were the pply alcohol education programs that could be considered effec- tive.) In a recent 1982 study by Gadaleto and Anderson (Ingalls, 1983) it was reported that 79% of all college campuses have some kind of alcohol education program. This study showed that this percentage represented an increase of 10% from a Similar study conducted three years earlier in 1979. This recent proliferation of alcohol education programs on campus- es across the country suggests that there would be value in initiating a follow-up study to the one described in this document. That follow up study could compare a random sample of institutions with alcohol educa- tion programs with another selected sample of programs which were identified as effective. 112 It is further suggested that the selected sample of effective pro- grams could be identifed through use of a Delphi technique (Travers, 1976). This process offers the opportunity for a multiple review of sub- jects before final selection of the sample is made. While this approach has not achieved a high level of credibility as a research technique, it could offer a more rigorous approach to reaching some consensus on the subjects and could strengthen the generalizability of the findings to other programs. However, this process would also be limited by the sub— jective nature of the judgments to be made by the members of the Delphi panel. Finally, the utility of any follow-up study would still be limit- ed by the extent to which the issue of 'what constitutes an effective program?' is resolved. Intangible Aspects of an Alcohol Education Program Another potential area for research would include the exploration and identification of those less tangible elements of a campus alcohol education program which can have an impact on its success. The investi- gator suggests that the philOSOphical approach which underlies the opera- tion of an alcohol education program is one of these important variables. This is particularly true in view of the changes in the legal drinking age that have occurred in many states. In those states in which the drinking age has been raised to 19, 20 or 21, many college students have been disenfranchised from the right to legally drink alcohol. On those campuses, considerable discussion is likely to take place regarding which philOSOphical approach should be taken when addressing the issue of alco- hol use on that campus. It could be speculated that the higher the legal 113 drinking age, the fewer college students can legally drink and the more likely it is that an abstinence approach to alcohol use would be promoted. 0n the other hand, much of the current alcohol education programming that is taking place is centered around the theme of "responsible drink- ing" or "responsible decision-making" regarding the use of alcohol. For many, such an approach would imply that violation of the state legal drinking age is implicitly condoned by the campus that promotes this phi- losophy toward alcohol education. For that reason, a study, which can examine the impact of philosophical approach on the success or effective- ness of alcohol education efforts could do much to assist campuses in coping with this dilemma. Such a study would seek to examine not only the philOSOphy but also the content of the education efforts which were promoted within the program and match that information against the meas- urable effects the program has had on the campus in general and on students' behavior, in particular. This information could be compared between programs located in states in which the legal drinking age was 18, 19, 20 and 21. The results of such a study could also offer informa- tion worth considering when issues surrounding the changing of the legal drinking age are raised. Summary The issue of alcohol use on the college campus has been a part of the student affairs professional literature for several decades (Mueller, 1961; Sanford, 1962; Maddox, 1970; Hanson, 1974 and Hanson, 1982). 114 However, only recently has major attention been focused on this issue and, even then, primarily as a result of its problematic impact on the nation's campuses. This attention has provided alcohol educators with a "window in time" during which viable and lasting approaches for address- ing the issue of alcohol use and misuse among college students must be developed. It is likely that the visibility and centrality of this issue will pass as new student development priorities take its place. However, the problems associated with youthful alcohol misuse and the need to pro- mote responsible use among young adult drinkers will continue to confront student affairs and other campus professionals every year. For that reason, it is imperative that campuses create a sound sys- tem or model for dealing with this issue in a manner that is effective and which will allow it to be integrated into a comprehensive student development program. It is hoped that this study has provided the frame- work for developing such a model. The components and features which com- prise this framework offer a direct and simple system for delivery of information and services in the area of alcohol education. However, it still requires that a competent and sensitive Student Affairs profes- sional administer this program in a manner that demonstrates sensitivity not only to its controversial nature, but also to the fact that decisions surrounding the role of alcohol in a student's life are just one of several developmental challenges that students face during this important time in their lives. 115 APPENDICES APPENDIX A PANEL OF EXPERTS APPENDIX A PANEL OF EXPERTS Panel Member A A mid-level administrator in the housing office of a large state univer- sity in the southeast; was the Director of that campus' alcohol education program and served for 3 years as the Chairperson of the American College Personnel Association (ACPA) Alcohol Task Force. (Mr. Craig Ullom, Administrative Assistant, University of Georgia) Panel Member B A senior level administrator in a medium-size mid-western state universi- ty; initiated a regionally recognized alcohol education program; authored an alcohol education manual which received wide distribution; and initi- ated a nationally recognized Wellness Program on his campus. (Dr. Fred Leafgren, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs, University of Wisconsin--Stevens Point) Panel Member C A chief Student Affairs Officer at a mid-size, private western university; has worked 8 years in alcohol education and was co-author of a major publication on campus alcohol education programs; was instru- mental in initiating a nationally recognized alcohol education program on another campus where he was previously employed. (Dr. Tom Goodale, Vice-President for Student Affairs, University of Denver) Panel Member 0 116 A member of the faculty at a major mid-western university; was instru- mental in initiating an alcohol education program on her campus and in developing several alcohol education instruments and exercises for use in programming; is a recognized authority on alcohol education with several articles on the topic published in highly regarded journals. (Dr. Ruth Engs, Professor, Indiana University) Panel Member E Director of a nationally recognized alcohol education program on a large state university campus in the southeast; recipient of federal and local grants for alcohol education; initiator of a national network of alcohol education programs and author of several journal articles and publica- tions on alcohol education. (Dr. Gerardo Gonzalez, Director, BACCHUS of U.S., University of Florida) A Sixth panel member was initially included but could not participate due to obligations outside of the country at the time of the study. That individual had been the Director of a nationally recognized alcohol edu- cation program at a large state university in the northeast, was recipi- ent of a large federal demonstration project grant and is the author of several articles and publications on alcohol education. (Dr. David Kraft, Director of Mental Health Services, University of Massachusetts) 117 APPENDIX B COVER LETTER TO PANEL 0F EXPERTS AND NOMINATION OF SUBJECTS INSTRUMENT APPENDIX B COVER LETTER The University of Vermont {T e r DEPARTMENTOFRESIDENTIALLIFE 1-f7 -' y; ‘5] F brua y 1, 1982 25COLCHESTERAVENL‘E - fl, auRLlNGTON, VERMONT 35405 0090 *: 7;} ‘ / Dr. Tom Goodale Kces// Vice—President of Student Affairs University Park - University of Denver Denver, Colorado 80210 . Dear Dr. Goodale: I am in the process of conducting research on Alcohol Education Programs on college campuses around the country. Until just over a year ago. I was Director of the Michigan State University Alcohol Education Program and have been active in the field of alcohol education for the last seven years. The research project I have undertaken is in conjunction with my doctoral dissertation and will also serve as a vehicle for revising Our current alcohol education efforts at the University of Vermont. I am asking for your help in identifying up to ten colleges/universities that you feel have a viable alcohol education program. For the purposes of this study, ”wellness” programs that also focus on alcohol education/prevention are to be included. While I recognize that firm criteria for viable or “effective“ programs are not conclusive, the parameters of this study allow for your judgment to be a sufficient basis for identifying such programs. You will be one of five ”experts" asked to make your recommendations. You were chosen because of your acknowledged expertise and many contributions to the field of alcohol education and prevention, particularly on the college campus; also, because I am familiar with yOur work and believe you to be among the pioneers in this particular field during the last decade. In addition, I would ask that you identify up to five (5) features or components of an alcohol education program that, for yOu, should serve as criteria for effectiveness. For purposes of convenience, I have included a list of ten possible features. If these do not coinCide with your judgment, please list additional features in the spaces provided. The purpose of my study is to review, thrOugh a Survey questionnaire, up to 25 Alcohol Education Programs on college campuses across the nation. In doing so, I will be attempting to determine through comparative analysis the similarities and differences between these programs for the purposes of identifying a prototype or "model” program. If you w0uld like copies of the abstract and final results of the study, please let me know on the enclosed sheet. Please complete the enclosed sheet and return it to me in the self addressed, stamped envelope by February 10. By the way, please feel free to include yOur own institution on the list of programs that you identify. Best wishes in your continuing work in the field of alcohol education. I thank you in advance for your participation and contribution to my research. Sine/Q‘ely, .r ‘ ”524266%Z;.4:228234aea Paul M. Oliaro Director of Residential Life (802) 656-3434 PMO/nj Enclosures 118 APPENDIX B NOMINATION OF SUBJECTS INSTRUMENT ALCOHOL EDUCATION RESEARCH STUDY Part I Please indicate by a check (X) mark, up to five items that you would consider necessary features of an effective alcohol education program. Please list items you feel are not included in this list in the Spaces provided. ____Centralized office or committee for program leadership and coordination ___Training component for program staff ___Education component for information dissemination ___Treatment component (physical and psychological) ___Academic component (development of related courses in a department's curriculum) Peer counselor/educators component ___Coordination/affiliation with other related on/off campus offices ___Variety in program activities (films, discussion, workshops, etc.) ___Stable funding Program evaluation component Comments/Explanations: 119 Part II Please list the institution, program title and contact person (if known) of up to ten alcohol education/prevention programs that you believe to be effective. If you feel compelléd to list more than ten, please do so. Program Contact Institution Title Person Address 10. I would like to receive a copy of your results: Name Address Phone 12[) APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF PANEL/PUBLICATION NOMINATIONS APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF PANEL/PUBLICATION NOMINATIONS Ihsti- Expert Expert EXpert Expert ’EXpert POblicatidn tution A B C D E 1 X X 2 X X X 3 X 4 X 57 X 6 X 7 X 8 X X 9 X 10 X X’ X 11 X 12 X X X 13 X X 14 X X X7 X 15 X 16 7F 17 X’ 18 X 19 X 20 X 21 X X 7X 22 X 23 24 X IX 25 X 26 X* IX X X 27 X X 28 X X X 29 X X TX 30 7X 31 X7 1 U. of South Carolina 13 Penn State U. 23 U. of North 2 U. of Massachusetts 14 U. of Florida Carolina-Chapel 3 U. of San Diego 15 U. of Kentucky Hill 4 U. of California-Davis 16 St. Olaf College 24 So. Illinois U. 5 U. of Illinois 17 Indiana U. 25 U. of Miami 6 E. Stroudsburg St. Col.(Pa) 18 St. Mary's U.(Tx) 26 U. of Wisconsin- 7 U. of Rhode Island 19 U. of Deleware Stevens—Point 8 Washington University 20 Ohio U. 27 Arizona State U. 9 U. of South Florida 21 Iowa State U. 28 So. Methodist U. 10 Michigan State University 22 SE Missouri 29 U. of Iowa 11 Emory U. 12 U. of Georgia State U. 121 30 Rutgers U. 31 U. of Texas APPENDIX 0 SUMMARY OF PANEL 0F EXPERT'S RESPONSES TO IMPORTANCE OF SELECTED COMPONENTS T0 PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS APPENDIX 0 SUMMARY OF PANEL OF EXPERTS RESPONSES TO IMPORTANCE OF SELECTED COMPONENTS TO PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS Component ’Expert Expert Expert Expert IEXpert A B C D E * Centralized Office/ Committee (Prog. Mgt) X X X X X Training X X X Education X X X Peer Education X X X Treatment X X X X Academic X X X X Coord/Affiliation with on/off Campus Offices X Program Evaluation X X Stable Funding X X X Variety in Activities X X Note: Other components cited under "comments" section include: community support; referral network; emergency response element; early intervention; administrative support from university. * cited "all" under comment section 122 APPENDIX E COVER LETTER AND SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX E COVER LETTER The University of Vermont DEPARTMENT OF RESIDENTIAL LIFE ROBINSON HALL REOSTONE CAMPUS BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05405-0090 (802) 656-3434 July 15. 1982 Dear I am conducting a research study on alcohol education programs on college campuses around the nation. Your program was reconmended as an "effective program" by a panel of alcohol education experts and was selected for inclusion in the study. The purpose of this study is to review selected programs to identify their main components and features. I will be attempting to determine. through comparative analysis, the similarities and differences between these programs for the purposes of identifying a prototype or "model" alcohol education program. I am asking you to complete the enclosed survey and return it in the self- addressed, stamped envelope no later than August 6. Please know that you are one of only 31 programs to be studied. For that reason, your participation is essential to the study and would be greatly appreciated. Should you choose not to complete the survey, please return it in the stamped envelope immediately to expedite my follow-up efforts. Best wishes in your continuing work in the field of alcohol education. I thank you in advance for your participation and contribution to my ‘esearch. Sincerely, Paul M. Oliaro Director of Residential Life (802) 656-3434 Enclosures \n Equal (1;);lnill.llll\ Empluscr 123 APPENDIX E SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE [ALCOHOL EDUCATIOWROGRAM ASSESSMENT SURVEY] FPlease fiTTTout completely: Institution Person completing survey Title PFogram Title Address Telephone The following questions require either a Yes-No. Multiple Choice or Check All That Apply response. Please read each item carefully and indicate your response(s) in the space provided. I)IInstitutionaT'Demographfl 1) Total student population 2) On-Campus Residential population 3) Students residing in fraternity/ a. under 1,000 a. under 1,000 -sorority or other superVised _ b. 1.000 - 5.000 — b. 1,000 - 5,000 °"’“"P“‘ "°"5'"9 c. 5.001 - 10.000 c. 5.001 - 10.000 ____ a. under 500 d. 10.001 - 20.000 d. 10.001 - 20.000 b. 500 - 1.000 e. over 20,000 e. over 20.000 c. 1,001 - 2.000 d. over 2,000 4) Percentage of total student 5) Length of time alcohol education 6) Is it likely that the program population residing in on- program has been in existence will continue next year campus/Greek/supervised ”59' l___ a. less than 1 year ___ a. not likely ___ a. under 10% b. 1 - 2 years b. at reduced level b. 10 - 25% c. 3 - 5 years c. at same level c. 26 - 50% 0. oval 5 years d. at increased level d. over 50% II);Program Management) 1) The structural organization of the alcohol education program includes: ___Centralized office location to serve as a ___At least one FTE staff member (non-clinical) focal point for the program's operation working for the program in addition to a coordinator/administrator ___Full-time Program Coordinator/Administrator _ ___Task force committee of students and/or faculty/ ____Part time Program Coordinator/Administrator staff to assist in policy and program development _% effort and implementation ___Other: 2) The target group for your alcohol education program includes: ___Students residing on campus ___Students residing off campus in unsupervised housing ___Students residing off campus in fraternity/ ___Administrative and clerical staff sorority or supervised housing Faculty 3) The alcohol education program is under the direct administrative jurisdiction of: ___VP for Student Affairs Office ___Counseling Center Office ___Other: ___VP for Academic Affairs Office ___Residential Life Office ___Dual reporting relationship: ___Dean of Students Office ___An Academic College/Dept: ___Health Services Office III)[TrainingfiComponenfl 1) Training in the form of workshops/presentations to assist in accomplishing program goals is provided to: ___All alcohol education program staff ___Volunteers/Peer educators ___Full-time program staff only ___Training is not a component of the program ___Part-time program staff only 2) Training topics include: ___Factual information about alcohol use and misuse ”__Planning alcohol education programming activities ___Identification/Referral of individuals with ___Counseling/Assisting individuals with alcohol alcohol related problems problems ___Values clarification ___Other: ___Confrontation skills 3) Training sessions for staff are provided: ___Once or twice a year ___On a regular basis ___For class/c0urse credit IV)lEducation Componenfl 1) One of the goals of our campus alcohol education program is to provide information to our target gr0ups on alcohol use/misuse to heighten the awareness of our target groups. Yes No 2) Alcohol education program activities include: (___Conduct of informal discussion sessions/ ___Offering skill deveIOpment programs seminars on alcohol use (assertiveness. values calrification, ___Showing of films/tapes confrontation, sex-role clarification, etc.) to the target group ___Distribution of questionnaires Other- ___Dissemination of pamphlets. brochures. posters 3) Among the resources that are utilized in conducting/developing these activities are the following: ___Alcohol education program staff .___Off-campus resource people ___Commercial pamphlets. ___Other on-campus faculty/staff ___AA/AL-ANON members brochures. posters ___Peer educators ___Other: ___Internally developed pamphlets. brochures. posters V):Peer Education/COunselor Componeht] 1) Does your alcohol education program include a program of training and supervision of undergraduate students (other than residential staff) to promote alcohol education efforts with their fellow students? Yes No (If no. proceed to Section VI) 2) If so. are your peer educators/counselors ___Volunteer ___Compensated 3) Peer educators/counselors are responsible for the following activities: ___Counseling other students on alcohol-related ___Conduct/lead alcohol education information/ problems/issues awareness sessions ___Arranging alcohol education activities/programs ___Other: ___Leading small group skill training sessions on values clarification, confrontation, assertiveness. etc. VI)ITreatment Component] Ia) Are physical and psychological treatment services provided to individuals as a component of your alcohol education program? Yes No (If no, proceed to question 2a) lb) If yes. what type of services? ___In-patient detoxification ___Out-patient psychological therapy ___In-patient psychological therapy ___AA/AL-ANON meetings 1c) These services (except AA/ALoANON) are available: ___At no cost to members of the university community ___Only through health insurance programs or private pay ___Cost varies with type and extent of services needed 2a) Are physical and psychological treatment services provided to individuals through referral to other agencies? Yes No (If no. proceed to Section VII) 2b) If yes. what type of services? ___In-patient detoxification ___Out-patient psychological therapy ____In-patient psychological therapy ___AA/AL-ANON meetings 125 2c) These services (except AA/AL-ANON) are available: ___At no cost to members of the university ___Cost varies with type and extent of services conmuni ty needed ___Only through health insurance programs or private pay VII) Academic Componeht] 1) Staff affiliated with the alcohol education program are responsible for teaching an alcohol-related course in one or more academic departments on campus. Yes No 2) The alcohol education program offers practica/internships for academic credit to students. Yes No 3) The alcohol education program coordinates with one or more academic departments on research activities related to alcohol use and/or abuse. YES NO VIII)[Program Affiliation/CoordinatTofi 1) The alcohol education program has a formally (written/verbal) defined relationship or agreement for services/coordination with the following: a. On-Campus Agencies b. Off-Campus Agencies ___Health Services Office ___Local hospitals(s) ___Counseling Center ___Local alcohol/drug treatment centers ___Residential Life Office ___Local alcohol/drug information centers ___Judicial Program ___Municipal/State alcohol/drug program offices ___Campus Security/Police ___Municipal/State mental health offices ___Employee Assistance Program ___None .___Student Activities Office ___None 2) The alcohol education program has a Task Force or Coordinating Committee and representation is included from the following office(s): ___Health Services ‘___Judicial Program ___Student Activities ___Counseling Center ___Campus Security/Police ___Other: ___Residential Life ___Employee Assistance Program ___No Task Force/Committee exists IX)[EVETuation Componepp] 1) The alcohol education program has formally defined: ___General goals/purposes ___Milestones/subojectives ___Other: ___Specific behavioral objectives ___Deadlines/time frames for accomplishing objectives 2) The following strategies are utilized in gathering information for program evaluation purposes: (___Survey/self-report data from program staff ___Conpardson of incident data related to program _ objectives from key agencies (i.e. Security Police. -—-§:;;:ié::l: report data from target group Counseling Center, Health Services. Judicial Programs. etc.) ___Employment Of a Program Evaluator ___Individual assessment of each program activity 3) The purposes of the program evaluation include assessment/description of: I___Extent/quantity of program activities ___Ouality with which activities are conducted (participation/target group satisfaction) ___Specific and measurable behavior changes related to program objectives 4) Use made of evaluation results include: ___To assess needs for program modification ___To decide on funding levels for next budget period ___To determine continuation/dissolution of program 126 5) Overall, I wOuld evaluate our program as: ___Very effective ___Slightly effective ___Moderately Effective ___Ineffective 6) The future of the alcohol education program can best be described in the following manner: ___Stable: If so, why? (identify by prioritizing--1.2. etc. for those that apply) ___Effort/Quantity of activities is meeting standards ___Ouality of activities is meeting standards ___Effect/behavior outcomes of activities are measured and meet standards ___Funding is secure _Othet': ___Unstable: If so. why? (identify by prioritizing-~1,2, etc. for those that apply) ___Effort/quantity of activities is not meeting standards ___Ouality of activities is not meeting standards ___Effect/behavior outcomes of activities has been difficult to measure or is not meeting standards ___Funding is based on temporary grants/"soft" money Funding is built into base budget but must be reaffirmed each budget year based on program —_—performance _Other: X) {Fundin 1) Total annual budget for the Alcohol Education Program is: ___ under - $5.000 ___ $15,001 - $25,000 ____ $5.000 - 315.000 ____ over $25,000 2) Please indicate sources of funding for the alcohol education program by noting the letter which corresponds to the approximate percentage of the alcohol education program budget provided by that source. a) less than 251 b) 502 c) 75% d) 100% e) no funding from this source ___College/University ___Federal Grants ___State/Local Grants ___Private Foundations/Donations ___Self-Supporting ___Student Government Allocations ___Other: 3) Renewal of Annual Funding is based on: ___Incremental increase reqoests from the ___An annual cost/benefit review ””9”” t° the “Ming ”me _Availability of funding .at state/federal level ——Req“°5t I" °°""""“'°" °f " 9"“ ___Availability of funding at university level ___Competitive renewal of a grant 4) Non-Monetary support for the alcohol education program is available in the form of: ___Donated services by resource peOple ___Free access to paper/office supplies ___Free use of films/tapes and audio visual ___Free access to publications/pamphlets/brochures equipment Other: Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. If you would like a copy of the abstract of the study. please list the name and address of the person to whom it should be sent: (Results should be available by early Fall) Name Address Please return to: Paul M. Oliaro. Director of Residential Life, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont 05405 127 APPENDIX F COVER LETTER FOR TELEPHONE INTERVIEW AND INTERVIEW QUESTIONS APPENDIX F COVER LETTER The University of Vermont ( DEPARTMENT OF RESIDENTIAL LIFE 25 COLCHESTERAVENUE ' ' BURLINGTON VERMONT 05405 0090 ' May 24, 1983 T Ms. Patricia S. Eckert Coordinator, Alcohol Drug & Programming, Wellness Center Southern Illinois University at Carbondale Carbondale, Illinois 62901 Dear Ms. Eckert: Thank you for your willingness to participate in a telephone interview about your alcohol education program. The telephone interview will be the second part of a two phase study designed to identify essential features of alcohol education programs that are considered to be effective. Because you are only one of five schools who will be participating in this second phase of this study, your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Enclosed is a c0py of the questions that I will be asking when I call. I would ask that you respond in as brief and concise a manner as possible. The date and time agreed upon for the interview is Wednesday, June 1 at 1:00 p.m.. The interview should take approximately 20 - 30 minutes. If you have any questions regarding the interview, please contact me as soon as possible. Again, your willingness to participate in this study is sincerely appreciated. I am looking forward to talking with you on June 1. Yours_truly, r; ,// '//'(/. «I (.. Paul M. Oliaro Director of Residential Life p.s. For your information, a c0py of your completed questionnaire from phase I of the study is enclosed. Enclosure "128' APPENDIX F ALCOHOL EDUCATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT SURVEY TELEPHONE INTERVIEW Prepared for: Dr. William L. Eck Pennsylvania State University Mr. Michael Shaver University of South Carolina Ms. Patricia S. Eckert University of Southern Illinois Ms. Cindi Lewis-Shaffer University of Florida Ms. Carlene Riccelli University of Massachusetts Ms. Marcy Ullom University of Georgia You will be asked to respond to the following questions regarding your alcohol education program. Please keep in mind that the components and the features within the components that are referred to in the questions are those that are present in your program and were found to be common components and features in at least two-thirds_5f all the alcohol education programs included in this study. It is the purpose of this follow up telephone interview to determine which of these components and features are considered by you to be essential to the effectiveness of your program. I. You consider your program to be effective. Why? 11. This study has identified 7 components of alcohol education programs which seem to be common among those programs considered "effective", they are: -Centralized Program Management -Training -Education -Treatment/Referral -Program Affiliation w/on-campus -Evaluation offices -Funding Do you feel that you could eliminate any one of these particular components and still have an effective program? 129 III. IV. VI. . 0f the following features of your Centralized Program Management component, are there any which you consider essential to your program's effectiveness? --on campus students are a target group --fraternities/sororities are a target group . Are there other features of your Program Management structure not listed which you consider essential to your program's effectiveness? . 0f the following topics included within your training component, are there any which you consider are essential to the effectiveness of your program? --factual information about alcohol use --identification/referral of individuals with alcohol problems --planning alcohol education program activities --values clarification . Is timeliness a factor in your training? . Are there any other features of your Training Component not listed which you consider are essential to your program's effectiveness? . 0f the following features within your Education Component, are there any which you consider are essential to your program's effectiveness? --informal discussion sessions --use of films and tapes --dissemination of pamphlets/brochures/posters --offering skill development programs (assertiveness, values clarification, confrontation, etc.) --on campus faculty and staff are resources used for programming --peer educators are resources used for programming --commercial pamphlets/brochures and posters are used --internally developed pamphlets/brochures and posters are used . Are there any features of your Alcohol Education component not listed here which you consider are essential to your program's effectiveness? Of these features within your Treatment/Referral Component, are there any which you consider are essential to your program's effectiveness? --referral for out-patient psychological therapy --referral to AA/AL-ANON 130 VII. VIII. IX. b. a. . Are there any other features of your Treatment/Referral Component that are not listed here which you consider are essential to your program's effectiveness? . Of these features within your Program Affiliation/Coordination Component with on-campus offices, are there any which you consider are essential to your program's effectiveness? --task force/committee format is used to bring offices together to work on alcohol education issues --coordination with Residential Life office --coordination with Counseling Center office --coordination with Student Activities office . Are there any other features of your Program Affiliation/ Coordination component with on-campus offices that are not listed here which you consider are essential to your program's effectiveness? . 0f the following features within your Evaluation Component, are there any which you consider are essential to your program's effectiveness? --formally defined program goals --acquiring survey/self-report data from our target groups --evaluating the extent/quantity of program activities --evaluating the quality of program activities --using evaluation results to initiate program modification Are there any other features within your Evaluation Component that are not listed here which you consider are essential to your program's effectiveness? . 0f the following features within your Funding Component, are there any which you consider are essential to your program's effectiveness? --some funding comes from the college/university (from tuition, fees, etc.) --non-monetary support is provided through donated services from resource people Is there a specific, minimum amount of funding necessary in order for your program to be effective? Are there any other features within your Funding Component that are not listed here which you consider are essential to your program's effectiveness? Please identify the major strengths of your program. 131 XI. XII. . Please identify the major weaknesses of your program. . Are there any other components of your program not identified previously which you consider essential to your program's effectiveness. 132 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Astin, A. A., Four Critical Years, San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1977. Blum, R. H., Students and Drugs, San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1969. Brown, E. H., and Klein, A. L., "The Effects of Drug Education on Atttitude Change". Journal of Drug Education, vol. 5, 1975, p. 51-56 Bryan, W. A. "Administering a Campus Alcohol Program“, in Dean, J. C., and Bryan, W. A., (Eds.) Alcohol Programs for Higher Education. Carbondale: Southern Illinois’UnTVersity Press (ACPA), 1982. Chafetz, M. E. (Ed.), Alcohol and Health: Third Special Report to Congress. Washington, D:C.:’UIS. GOvernment Printing Office. 1974. Chafetz, M. E., Why Drinking Can Be Good For You. New York: Stein and Day, 1976. Chickering, A., Education and Identity. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1969. Cohen, S., The Drug Dilemma. New York: McGraw Hill, 1969. Dahl, I. J., "Interdisciplinary University Curriculum", in Dean, J.C. and Bryan, W. A. (Eds.) Alcohol Programs for Higher Education. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UhiversityTPress (ACPA), 1982. Dean, J. C. "Alcohol Programming: A Conceptual Model" in Dean, J. C., and Bryan, W. A., (Eds.) Alcohol Programs for Higher Education. Carbondale: Southern Illinois’University Press, 1982. Dean, J. C. and Dean, H. E., "The Evaluation of Campus Alcohol Programming", in Dean, J. C. and Bryan, W. A. (Eds.) Alcohol Programs for Higher Education. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press (ACPA), 198?. 133 Dean, J. C., and Bryan, W. A., Alcohol Programs for Higher Education. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1982. Donovan, B. E., "Studies of the Drinking Behavior of American White Male College Students: Implications of the Research for the Establishment of a College Alcohol Education Program", Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, vol. 22, no. 3, 1977, p. 5-16 Duston, E. K., "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Alcohol Abuse Prevention Programs: Some Preliminary Answers", Paper presented at American College Health Association Conference, 1977 Duston, E. K., "Evaluating an Alcohol Education Project" in Goodale, T. (Ed.), Monograph on Alcohol Education and Alcohol Abuse Prevention Programs at selectedTAmerican Colleges Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1978. Duston, E. K., Kraft D. P. and Jaworski, 8., "Alcohol Education Project; Preliminary Answers", Journal of American College Health Association, vol. 29, 1981, p. 272-278 Ebel, H. C., Katz, 0., and Rose, A., "Effect of Marijuana Drug Education Program: Comparison of Faculty Elicited and Student Elicited Data", Journal of Drug Education, vol. 5, 1975, p. 77-85 Education Commission of the States (ECS), Final Report of the Education Commission of the States on Responsible DeEisions About AlcOhol. Denver, Colorado, 1977. Engs, R. C., "Drinking Patterns and Drinking Problems of College Students", Journal of Studies on Alcohol, vol. 38, no. 11, 1977, p. 2144-2156 (a) Engs, R. C., "Let's Look Before We Leap", Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, vol. 22, no. 2, 1977, p. 39-48 (b) Engs, R. C., “College Student Knowledge About Alcohol and Drinking", Journal of American College Health Association, vol. 26, no. 4, 1978, p. 189-194 134 Engs, R. C., DeCoster, D. A. and Larson, R. V., "The Drinking Behavior of College Students and Cognitive Effects of a Voluntary Alcohol Education Program", NASPA Journal, vol. 15, no. 3, Winter 1978, p. 59-63 Feldman, D. A. and Newcomb, T. M., The Impact of College on Students. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1969. Fillmore, K., "Drinking and Problem Drinking in Early Adulthood and Middle Age", Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, vol. 35, no. 3, 1974, p. 819-840 Filstead, W.J., Rossi, J. J. and Goby, M. J., “Alcoholism and Alcohol Problems on College Campuses: Problems, Priorities and Recommendations", Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, vol. 21, no. 2, 1976, p. 35-43 Gadaleto, A. F. and Anderson, 0. 5., "That Happy Feeling. Alcohol Education Overview and National Survey Report", paper presented at the National Association of Student Personnel Administration Conference, 1982 Glenn, H. S. and Warner, J. W., The Developmental Approach to Preventing Problem Dependencies. Washington, D.C.: Social Systems, Inc., 1977. Gonzalez, G. M., "What Do You Mean-Prevention?", Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, vol. 23, no. 3, 1978, p.14-23 (a) Gonzalez, G. M., "Procedures and Resource Material for Developing a Campus Alcohol Abuse Prevention Program: A Tested Model". Gainesvglle: Office for Student Services, University of Florida, 1978 (b . Gonzalez, G. M., "Effects of a Model Alcohol Education Module on College Students Attitudes, and Behavior Related to Alcohol Use", Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education", vol. 25, no. 3, 1980, p.1-12 Gonzalez, G. M., and Kouba, J. M., "Comprehensive Alcohol Education A New Approach to an Old Problem", NASPA Journal, vol. 16, no. 4, Spring 1979, p. 7-13 135 Goodale, T. G. (Ed.), Monograph on Alcohol Education and Alcohol Abuse Prevention Pro rams at Selected American Colleges. Gainesville: University 0 orida Press, 1978. Goodale, T. G. (Ed.), personal communication, 1982. Goodstadt, M. 5., "Planning and Evaluation of Alcohol Education Programs", Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, vol. 26, no. 2, 1981, p. 1-10 Hammond, R. L., "Legal Drinking at 18 or 21 Does It Make Any Difference?", Catalyst, vol. 1, no.2, 1979, p. 37-48 Hanson, D. J., "Drinking Attitudes and Behavior Among College Students", Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, vol. 19, no.3, 1974, p.6—14 Hanson, D. J., "Trends in Drinking Attitudes and Behaviors Among College Students", Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, vol. 22, no.3, 1977, p.17-22 Hanson, D. J., "The Effectiveness of Alcohol and Drug Education", Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, vol. 27, no. 2, Winter 1982, p.-6 Hecker, 0., "What's Going 0n?-Assessing the Campus", in North, G. B. (Ed.), Alcohol Education for College Student Personnel. East Lansing: Michigan State UnTVerSity Press, 1977. Hewitt, K., University Project: A Final Report on the Original 63 Project Schools, unpublished report, 1977. Hewitt, K., The Whole College Catalog About Drinking, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing OffiCe, 1976. Hill, F. E., and Bregen, L. A., "A Survey of Drinking Behavior Among College Students", Journal of College Student Personnel, vol. 20, 1979. p. 236-342 Information and Feature Service (IFS), "College Awareness Program Provides Range of Activities", no. 107, May, 1983. 136 Ingalls, 2., "On Campus, The Biggest Drug Problem is Alcohol", The Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 17, no. 7, 1978, p. 3-5 Ingalls, Z., "Higher Education's Drinking Problem", Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 24, no. 21, 1982, p. 1-3. Ingalls, Z., "Although Drinking is Widespread, Student Abuse of Alcohol is Not Rising, New Student Finds", Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 25, no. 19, 1983, p. 9 Johnson, R. D., "Alcohol and the College Campus", Journal of the American College Health Association, vol. 22, no.3, 1977, p. 216-219 Keller, M. and Rosenberg, S. S. (Eds), Alcohol and Health: First Special Report to Congress. Washington, D.C.:7UTS. Government Printing Office, 1971. Kerlinger, F. N., Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. Kraft, D. P., Alcohol Education Programming at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and Evaluation of ResultsTTo Date, Rockville, Maryland, NationaTTIhstitute on AlcoholiSm and Alcohol Abuse, (dhew/phs) 1977 (a). Kraft, D. P., "Follow Up of a Federal Effort to Encourage Campus Alcohol Abuse Prevention Programs", Paper presented at American College Health Association Conference, 1977 (b) Kraft, D. P., "Strategies for Reducing Drinking Problems Among Youth: College Programs", in Blane, H. T. and Chafetz, M. L. (Eds.) Youth, Alcohol and Social Poligy. New York: Plenum Press, 1979. Kuder, J. M. and Madson, "College Student Use of Alcoholic Beverages", Journal of College Student Personnel, vol. 17, no. 2, 1976, p. 142-144 Studies on Alcohol, vol. 29, 1969, p. 939-942 Lemay, M., "College Disciplinary Referrals for Drinking", Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol", vol. 29, 1968 p. 939-942. 137 Levine, A., When Dreams and Heroes Died. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1981. Liccione, W. J., "The Relative Influence of Significant Others on Adolescent Drinking: An Exploratory Study“, Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, vol. 26, no. 1, 1980, p. 55-62. Looney, M. A., "Alcohol Use Survey on Campus: Implications for Health Education:, Journal of American College Health Association, vol. 25, no. 2, December 1976, p. 109-112 Maddox, G. L. (Ed.) The Domesticated Drug: Drinking Among Collegians. New Haven: College and University Press,‘l970. Mills, K. C., Pfaffenberger, B. and McCarty, D., "Guidelines for Alcohol Abuse Prevention on the College Campus", Journal of Higher Education, vol. 52, 1982, p. 399-414 Mills, K. C., Neal, E. M. and Peed-Neal, I., Handbook for Alcohol Education: the Community Approach. Cambridge: Ballinger PUBTishing, 1983. Mueller, S. and Ferneau, E., "Attitudes Toward Alcoholism Among A Group of College Students", International Journal of the Addictions, vol. 6, no. 3, 1971, p. 443-451 Mueller, K. H., Student Personnel Work in Higher Education. Boston: Houghton-Mifflih, 1961. Nelson, S. J., "Alcohol Use on the College Campus: Some Ethical Implications", NASPA Journal, vol. 16, no. 4, Spring 1979, p. 2-6 Noble, E.P. (Ed.) Alcohol and Health: Third Special Report to Congress. Washington, D.sz’U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978. North, G. B. (Ed.), Alcohol Education for College Student Personnel. East Lansing: MiChigan State University Press, 1977. O'Hara, D. J., "Training--A Key to Success", in North, G. B. (Ed.), Alcohol Education for College Student Personnel. East Lansing: WfichiganTState UniVersity Press, 1977. 138 Oliaro, P. M., "Alcohol Education--Everyone's ReSponsibility" in North, G. 8. (Ed.), Alcohol Education for College Student Personnel. East Lansing: Michigan StateiUniversity Press, 1977. Oppenheim, A. N., Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement. New York: Basic Books, 1966. Philip, A. F., "The Campus Drug Problem", Journal of American College Health Association, vol. 16, no. 2, 1967, p. 150-160 Penn, J. R., "College Student Lifestyle and Frequency of Alcohol Usage", Journal of American College Health Association, vol. 22, no. 3, 1974, p. 220-222 Riker, H. C. College Housing as Learning Centers. Washington, D.C.: ACPA Monograph Services, 1965. Roman, P., "Employee Alcoholism and Assistance Programs“, Journal of Higher Education, vol. 51, 1980, p. 135-149 Rozelle, G., and Gonzalez, G. "A Peer Facilitated Course on Alcohol Abuse: An Innovative Approach to Prevention on the College Campus", Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, vol. 25, no. 1, Fall 1979, p. 20-3 Russell, R. D., "Philosophies for Educating About Alcohol and Other Mood Modifying Substances", Journal on the Studies of Alcohol, vol. 37, 1976, p. 365-324 Sanford, N., The American College. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1962. Serdahely W. J. and Behunin, 0., "Drug Education: Reducing or Increasing Drug Consumption?", Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, vol. 23, no. 1, 1977, p. 8-19 Schaps, R., Cohen, M. and Resnik, A., Prevention in Perspective. Stein and Day: New York, 1975. Straus, R. and Bacon, 5., Drinking in College. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953. 139 Swisher, J. D.; Crawford, J.; Goldstein, R. and Yura, M., "Drug Education: Pushing or Preventing?", Peabody Journal of Education, vol. 49, no. 1, 1971, p. 68-75 Travers, R. M., An Introduction to Educational Research. New York: Macmillan, 1976. VanDalen, D. B., Understanding Educational Research. New York: McGraw Hill, 1962. Winkler, A. M., "Drinking on the American Frontier", Quarterly Journal of Alcohol Studies, vol. 29, 1968, p. 413-445 140 "llllilllllllillli