How To Reduce High-Risk College Drinking: Use Proven Strategies, Fill Research Gaps
Executive Summary
“Underage drinking to excess has a negative effect on everything we’re trying to do as a
university. It compromises the educational environment, the safety of our students (both high-risk
drinkers themselves and other students hurt by their actions), the quality of life on campus,
town/gown relationships, and our reputation.”
Dr. Judith Ramaley Former President, University of Vermont
“Class scheduling, class attendance, student attrition, student academic performance, and the
civility of campus life are all negatively affected by excessive student drinking.”
Dr. Susan Resneck Pierce President, University of Puget Sound
“Student safety is of paramount importance, and if we save one life, our [alcohol prevention]
program is working.”
Dr. William Jenkins President, Louisiana State University System
“Universities are often afraid to reveal that they have a problem with alcohol, although
everyone knows it anyway. But we’ve seen important benefits from focusing on the problem and
taking a tough stand. Applications are up, student quality is up, more students are participating
in activities like drama and music, and alumni giving has increased, for example. I know that
support for me personally has grown with my reputation for taking strong ethical positions and
sticking with them.”
Dr. Robert L. Carothers President, University of Rhode Island
College student drinking to excess is a widespread national problem with serious consequences—and
it has been for a long time. Although the factors that have made the problem so intractable are
complex, today—based on scientific research results—we have the potential to make real progress in controlling excessive drinking. In fact, a substantial body of research studies now offers
direction on how to reduce excessive, underage, and high-risk college drinking. On the basis of
this information, colleges and universities, communities, and other interested organizations can
take steps toward positive change more confidently. Although significant information gaps remain, the science-based guidance now available means campuses and communities no longer have to
“reinvent the wheel” when they try to address the problem. It also enables us to avoid
inadvertently perpetuating ineffective programs and approaches.
The availability of science-based guidance is a significant step forward because lack of
information about what works and what does not has been a major obstacle to progress. On the
research side, high-quality research has addressed only some of the issues of concern to college
administrators and the practical implications of research results have not been widely
disseminated. On the institutional side, most campus alcohol efforts have not been evaluated,
which has hindered the effectiveness of individual campus efforts and slowed the growth of the
knowledge base from which all could learn.
Although the research base on college alcohol problems is limited, the panel of college
presidents, students, and alcohol research specialists that contributed to this report identified a number of effective strategies that colleges and universities could confidently use today. These include strategies for changing the environment to discourage high-risk drinking, affecting the behavior of individuals and groups, creating comprehensive college-community efforts to combat the problem, and adopting effective approaches for managing program implementation. It is encouraging that many of these strategies require no new resources, are modest in costs, and can be accomplished by existing staff.
From its review of the scientific literature, the Panel on Prevention and Treatment believes that adopting approaches with demonstrated effectiveness can begin to reduce high-risk college drinking and continue to advance knowledge by filling critical research gaps. The Panel recommends that the action steps and research needs described below receive priority attention from colleges and universities, researchers, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), and
other potential funders, communities, and interested organizations.
The Panel recommended more action steps in some areas than in others. This is primarily due to
the amount of research available. Except as noted, approaches that have not been included in the
recommendations are not necessarily ineffective. Often simply less is known about them. Among the “key research gaps” identified by the Panel is the need for rigorous testing of strategies now
considered “promising” based on face value or common sense. As researchers rise to this challenge, the effectiveness of many of these approaches will become known.
What Colleges and Universities Can Do Now
The Panel suggested that colleges and universities take the following steps to create a healthy
environment on campus, promote healthy behaviors, develop comprehensive college-community
interventions, and implement effective programs.
Creating a Healthy Environment
Pay careful attention to environmental factors on campus and in the community. They are
extremely important in influencing college drinking behaviors both positively and negatively.
Actively enforce existing age 21 laws on campus; they help decrease alcohol consumption.
Use social norms interventions to correct misperceptions and change drinking practices. When discussing college drinking problems, do not inadvertently reinforce the notion that hazardous drinking is the norm. Help students understand that they have the right not to drink and to have negative feelings about the consequences they experience due to other students’ excessive drinking.
Communicate the institution’s, the community’s, and the State’s alcohol policies to students and parents before and after students arrive on campus.
Be cautious about making alcohol available on campus. In the general population, increased
availability is associated with increased consumption.
Promoting Healthy Behaviors Through Individual- and Group-Focused Approaches
Use brief motivational interventions, such as giving feedback on students’ personal drinking
behavior and negative consequences, comparing individual drinking habits to actual campus norms,
and teaching drinking reduction skills. Strong evidence of effectiveness supports these relatively
low-cost interventions.
Increase screening and outreach programs to identify students who could benefit from
alcohol-related services.
Train those who regularly interact with students, such as resident advisors, coaches, peers,
and faculty, to identify problems and link students with intervention services and/or provide
brief motivational interventions. This allows colleges and universities to improve services
without adding new staff.
Use educational interventions that provide new information such as describing alcohol-related
programs and policies, informing students about drinking-and-driving laws, and explaining how to
care for peers who show signs of alcohol poisoning. Use alcohol education in concert with other
approaches, such as skills training or social norms.
Avoid using educational efforts focused primarily on facts about alcohol and associated harm as a sole programmatic response to student drinking. They have proven to be ineffective.
Be inclusive of varied student subpopulations. Determine and address the special needs of groups such as racial/ethnic minorities, women, athletes, “Greeks,” students of different ages, and gay and lesbian students.
Create and/or participate in joint college-community interventions to reduce student drinking problems. Community coalitions have been effective in addressing alcohol and other health issues, although there has been no research on campus-community activities to reduce high-risk drinking and related problems.
Create a task force or coalition representing relevant constituencies on campus (including
students) and in the community (including local businesses) to develop and monitor college
drinking initiatives.
Plan coalition activities strategically, including setting measurable objectives, establishing
target timelines, clearly defining member responsibilities, and collecting and evaluating data on
both the process of working together and the results of the interaction.
Managing Program Implementation Effectively
Be critical consumers of alcohol prevention strategies. Use programs with demonstrated effectiveness, such as those recommended in this report.
Take a strategic, outcome-driven approach to planning that reflects the campus situation and recognizes the need for the alignment of alcohol programs and policies with other aspects of institutional policy. Evaluate policies and programs and share the results with other colleges and universities.
Recognize that college student drinking prevention programs require a long-term (10- to
15-year) commitment. Set realistic objectives for change that are based on institutional
assessment and national experience.
Establish a system for collecting data regularly on alcohol consumption and related problems.
Report information objectively on campus and in the community, and update progress regularly.
Adopt and integrate complementary approaches, rather than focusing only on one. For example,
when combined, social norms and policy enforcement efforts can enhance each other.
Involve students in developing and implementing activities to reduce high-risk drinking.
Involve a broad base of campus and community groups in prevention efforts, and reward students
and others for supporting these programs.
Use social marketing approaches to create and market programs to students.
Encourage presidents, administrators, and other campus leaders to communicate the message that
reducing harmful alcohol use is an institutional priority.
Have alcohol prevention interventions in place before the freshmen arrive in the fall and
sponsor related activities frequently during the first weeks of the academic year. Train those who
conduct prospective student tours and interviews to explain the institution’s alcohol policies and
desired norms.
Help move the field forward. Be willing to participate in alcohol-related research programs,
for example, or to become a State or national policy advocate on college drinking issues.
Recommendations to Researchers: Key Research Gaps
The Panel developed recommendations for researchers in the form of study questions to address
gaps in the same four action areas suggested above for colleges and universities.
Creating a Healthy Environment
What is the effect of banning or stringently regulating alcohol on campus? Do problems simply
move off campus? How are on- and off-campus cultures affected?
Are parental notification policies effective? If so, what are the characteristics of effective
parental notification programs? At what point should parents be notified for optimal results?
What is the most effective type of campus disciplinary system for alcohol offenses? Should
campus alcohol disciplinary systems and standards be extended to students who live off campus and
in what circumstances? Should infractions be handled differently for those under 21 years of age?
How does the academic environment affect student drinking patterns? For example, would
high-risk drinking be reduced if more classes were scheduled on Fridays or academic expectations
were increased (e.g., reducing grade inflation, increasing difficulty of classes and
requirements)?
What is the impact of substance-free housing on alcohol problems?
What approaches effectively reduce alcohol problems within the Greek system? Does the presence
of a live-in resident advisor reduce drinking? Does delaying rush reduce alcohol problems? Do risk
management efforts make a positive difference?
What are the key environmental characteristics that influence drinking? How should
environmental characteristics and environmental change be measured?
Do alcohol-free activities and venues reduce college alcohol problems? What factors (e.g.,
frequency, timing, type, planning) influence effectiveness?
How are social norms campaigns most effectively used (e.g., in combination with other
activities; to set the stage for more comprehensive initiatives)?
Promoting Healthy Behaviors Through Individual- and Group-Focused Approaches
What are the campuswide effects of implementing individual- and group-focused interventions?
How well do these interventions work with different campus populations, including Greeks,
incoming students, mandated students, adult children of alcoholics, athletes, students at various
risk levels based on current alcohol practices, students living on and off campus, and members of
different ethnic, religious, and cultural groups?
How effective are student-to-student interventions?
What are the most effective uses of computer-based technologies in college alcohol
initiatives?
Should approaches be tailored to the needs and situations of underage students versus those
age 21 and older?
What are the most effective and cost-effective ways to conduct outreach for alcohol services?
What criteria are appropriate for diagnosing college student alcohol problems? Do they differ
from the general population criteria used in currently available instruments?
How well do pilot programs work when taken to scale on different campuses?
Are comprehensive college-community interventions to reduce high-risk college drinking
effective? What is the most effective mix of policy and program elements? What are the assets and
liabilities for colleges and communities?
Is it more effective to focus such efforts on drinking practices or on the health and social
problems high-risk drinkers cause for themselves and others?
Where should decision-making responsibility be focused: in city government, the college and
university, another group or institution, or a combination of players?
What are the best strategies for mobilizing and optimizing the effectiveness of
campus-community coalitions?
Do effects of college-focused programs extend to others in the community?
What is the best way to enforce community alcohol-related ordinances?
How can the results of alcohol research be effectively disseminated to community audiences
such as chiefs of police, parents, and legislators?
How effective are State-level coalitions that support individual campus-community
collaborations?
Managing Program Implementation Effectively
What planning structure or process is most effective in developing campus alcohol policies and
programs?
What is the relative effectiveness of different accountability structures for managing college
alcohol programs?
What are the costs and effects of alcohol prevention interventions including campus-based and
comprehensive campus-community efforts? How can programs be made more cost-effective?
Which alcohol policies and programs most benefit the college and university in terms of
student recruitment, student quality and academic performance, student diversity, student
retention, faculty behaviors, fundraising, and alumni relations?
What are the most effective strategies for involving presidents, administrators, faculty,
students, other staff, and boards of directors in alcohol prevention programs?
Is it effective to make prospective students aware of alcohol policies during the marketing or
admissions process?
What are the most effective ways of engaging, optimizing, and maintaining the involvement of
different student subgroups, including ethnic and racial minorities?
How can higher education and secondary education work together on alcohol issues, including
the transition from high school to college?
Recommendations to NIAAA and Other Potential Program Funders
The Panel offered the following recommendations to NIAAA and other program funders:
Provide direction for the research field through initiatives and publications.
Consider new initiatives, mechanisms, and procedures to encourage and support needed research
that may not conform to a typical National Institutes of Health investigator-initiated research
format.
Provide technical assistance, remove barriers, and offer incentives to facilitate college and
university participation in alcohol research studies.
Increase collaboration with other Federal agencies for joint funding in this field.
Invest resources in developing a model alcohol-related data collection system for campuses
nationwide. Maintain a permanent database of this information.
Work with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to include data indicators needed
to quantify college alcohol problems in accident reports. Indicators include whether subjects are
enrolled in college, where, and at what level.
Conduct an annual press briefing to highlight progress made and resources needed to continue
addressing college alcohol issues.
Open dialogue and seek partnerships with national organizations to fulfill the recommendations
of this report. Such groups include other Federal agencies, States, the national Interfraternity
Council and Pan-Hellenic Council, boards of individual Greek organizations, national student
organizations, industry, athletic conferences, high schools, and groups representing college and
university presidents, boards of trustees, and administrators. Give such a coalition a reason to
interact, such as working together to develop the model for national data collection.
Create and disseminate short publications to various campus audiences (including students)
that synthesize current research findings and identify what the college community can do about the
problem.
Recommendations to Other Interested National Organizations
The Panel offered the following recommendations to other national organizations:
Provide venues (e.g., at annual meetings) for researchers to share information on this issue.
Encourage colleges and universities to enact policies and programs that research deems
effective.
Help educate the press about campus alcohol issues, including actual levels of college
drinking and the progress being made in reducing high-risk behaviors and their consequences.
Consider ways in which existing jobs and organizational elements could be reconceptualized to
include a focus on college alcohol issues.