JMU Negative Alcohol Culture blog is looking at what can JMU do to change the culture at JMU. The literature on college alcohol issues and JMU reports, data and policies are reviewed and an invitation is issued to JMU to establish an Independent Alcohol Commission to examine JMU policies and change them in ways that will have a real impact on the JMU Negative Alcohol Culture.
I was glad to receive a response from Governor McDonnell to my letters. I appreciated Mr. Robinson's discussion on the limits and structure of authority of JMU and the Governor. The JMU Board of Visitors is appointed by the Governor and that is one of the more direct ways for the Governor to intercede in decisions about the governance system at JMU. Mr. Robinson suggest that the safety risk of a negative alcohol culture could be a topic for the agenda of the 2011 Governor's Campus Preparedness Conference. I will send a follow up letter to encourage this as an agenda item.
Below is a letter I sent to the JMU Board of Visitors:
Joseph G. Lynch
P. O. Box 1171
Harrisonburg VA 22803
January 18, 2011
Mr. James E. Hartman
Rector JMU Board of Visitors
235 Wynnwood Lane
Harrisonburg VA 22802-8323
Dear Mr. Hartman:
I am writing to you regarding the recent announcement that President Rose is resigning and a search process for his replacement has been established.I know there are many criteria that the search committee must consider in selecting a new President.I would like to encourage that one of the criteria be that the candidate have a demonstrated track record of successfully changing a negative alcohol culture at a University.I see this as a very clear need for JMU and a priority for the new President.
I continue to be concerned about the Negative Alcohol Culture at JMU and have started a blog at this link: http://jmualcohol.blogspot.com/and I encourage you to visit the blog to see the data that JMU already has gathered about its alcohol problem and my position that JMU needs to change its judicial policies and implement real consequences, such as suspension, in order for the culture to change.
I received a response to one of my post that encouraged me to look at the Choose Responsibility website (see link http://www.chooseresponsibility.org/for_educators/) It is an interesting discussion about the issue of the drinking age of 21 being lowered and explores a graduated licensing system. It examines some of the rational for exploring changes. I am not sure lowering the legal drinking age is the answer but I found the web site to be helpful to explore thinking about possible changes in law and policy that might impact the binge drinking pattern of young adults.
According to the article in the JMU The Breeze newspaper a JUM professor was arrested for public intoxication while teaching a class at JMU. Professor Karen D. Evans was reported to have a legal history of alcohol violations.
According to online court records:
Evans was charged Sept. 9, 2009 with a first offense DWI. She was found guilty on Dec. 2, 2009 of a reduced charge of reckless driving and received a six-month suspended license, a $2,500 fine, an 180-day suspended sentence and court ordered Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program classes. Two months later on Feb. 2, Evans was arrested for DWI, felonious assault on a police officer and operating without a license. The felonious assault and operating without a license charges were dropped. Evans was found guilty on April 20 for DWI and failure to comply with VASAP. She received a one-year suspended license, a $250 fine and court ordered VASAP classes. In August, Evans was arrested again for non-compliance with a court-ordered VASAP and was ordered to appear in court on Nov. 16. Evans did not appear in court and received a failure to appear charge that same day. On Sept. 22, Evans was arrested for an alleged second DWI, operating under a suspended license and refusal of a breath test. Evans is scheduled to appear in court on Dec. 15 for the Sept. 22 DWI charge, operating under a suspended license and the Dec. 1 charges of public intoxication and violation of pretrial release.
******************************
I find this to be a sad and tragic story of the impact of alcohol on someones life. It makes me wonder again about the JMU negative alcohol culture and the need for students who violate alcohol laws to have consequences for that behavior. Professor Evans is an example of what can happen with continued alcohol problems over time. JMU has an opportunity to use this sad and tragic story as a catalyst for changing it's three strikes policy and to have suspension as a consequence for student alcohol violations. The sooner one experiences consequences the sooner behavior change is possible.
The CORE Drug and Alcohol Survey was developed in the late 1980s by the US Department of Education and advisors from several universities and colleges. The survey is used by universities and colleges to determine the extent of substance use and abuse on their campuses. The survey is now administered by the CORE Institute at Southern Illinois University - Carbondale (SIUC). ( JMU results of the CORE survey are in an earlier post)
The Core instrument defines "high-risk" drinking as having five or more drinks in one sitting at least once during a two week period. (High-risk drinking and "binge" drinking refer to the same behavior) In the JMU Continuing Student Survey 2009 (see link: http://www.jmu.edu/ie/Surveys/CSS2009.pdf ) students were asked their definition of High risk drinking. Results are below.
Table 45 Definition of High Risk Drinking
2009( 2008/ 2007/ 2006)
6 to 8 drinks 30%(28%/29%/27%)
9 to 11 drinks 28%(30%/25%/27%)
12 or more drinks 22%(23%/24%/28%)
4 to 5 drinks 15%(15%/16%/15%)
1 to 3 drinks 5%( 4%/ 6%/ 4%)
If you add the 9-11 drinks and 12 or more drinks- 50% of the JMU students surveyed think that it takes twice (or more) than the 4-5 drink limit to meet the definition of "high-risk" drinking. Part of how the CORE survey developed the definition of 4-5 drinks is that it is the amount of alcohol that must be consumed for an average male to meet the legal definition of intoxicated and would result in Driving Under the Influence charge. JMU students have an extremely distorted definition of "high-risk" drinking that serves to encourage "high-risk" drinking and the negative alcohol culture.
This article identifies errors that universities make as they attempt to correct alcohol problems. I think JMU has made some of these errors. For example, error #1 " Addressing alcohol consumption without addressing the environment that produces, encourages and profits from the behavior". In the text it notes the following:
"By far, the most popular approach is education. These
programs focus on teaching students, through peers, trained staff,
or on-line programs, about moderation and risk protection
strategies. Though research conducted for the NIAAA report has
shown that there is no evidence of effectiveness among these
programs in reducing alcohol-related problems or campus drinking
rates by campuses who use this strategy alone, the vast majority of
campuses continue to use education as the center of their
prevention efforts."
JMU's efforts have been heavily focused on educational efforts and lacking in the area of policy change and consistent enforcement. The lack of use of suspension by judicial affairs is a clear area that needs to change by JMU in both policy and enforcement.
Also Error #2 " Attempting change without involving all stakeholders." The article defines stake holders as follows:
"A “stakeholder” is an individual (or group) who is affected by
or affects the environment in some way. In the campus-community,
this includes everyone who is directly involved in the alcohol
culture -- student leaders, club officers, housing staff, judicial officers,
Greek leaders and organizers, athletes, coaches, and athletic
promoters, campus and community police, campus medical and
health promotion staff, faculty, student activities staff, academic
advisors, administrators, community leaders, emergency room personnel,
detoxification center staff, bar owners, alcohol distributors,
servers and waitstaff, landlords, off-campus students, and neighborhood
groups."
In reviewing the JMU web site and documents there is not a group that meets this definition. There is a group called the Community Coalition Alcohol Abuse but it has a very low profile on the web site and it does not seem to have much influence on the change process.
Error 4 " Not providing infrastructure to sustain the effort." JMU's efforts seem disjointed and not a sustained comprehensive planned effort. The article notes:
"Many experts estimate that it may take as long as two full cycles
of students before an institution sees significant change. Even when
change does occur, ongoing maintenance of the environment and
student behavior is critical. Rather than trying to sustain the same
energy and effort of the grant project, campuses must institutionalize
their efforts, building collaboration, communication, data collection,
and strategic responses into the existing infrastructure"
The efforts at JMU have not become institutionalized and the data collection on the BASICS program is lacking.
As I look at the JMU's negative alcohol culture problem it strikes me that other Universities have had to deal with similar situations and may have some good ideas to follow. Below is a case example of the University of Florida. I have highlighted a part that talks about mandatory suspension. ( see link at:
Reducing High-Risk Drinking Among College Students
University of Florida: Enrollment 51,725
City of Gainesville: 114,375
Founded in 1853, the University of Florida (UF), located in Gainesville, is a major, public, land-grant, research university. It is the state's oldest and most comprehensive university, and, with an enrollment of more than 50,000 full-time students, it is one of the largest universities in the United States.
Background
In 1999, after the University of Florida–University of Tennessee home football game, an alcohol-related fight resulted in the death of two young adults. This event caused an outcry among many for UF to curb high-risk alcohol use. A combination of events led the university to realize a multifaceted, multilevel program was needed to address alcohol abuse among students.
In spring 2000 UF administration formed the Alcohol and Drug Education Policy Committee (ADEPC) to address students’ high-risk drinking and other drug use with the mission to “Create an environment that promotes student wellness and academic success by providing leadership and coordinating multidisciplinary efforts, in an attempt to reduce the prevalence of alcohol and other drug problems.” As a result of this committee’s recommendations a series of policy initiatives were implemented. In fall 2000 a parental notification policy went into effect so that in most cases a parent or legal guardian is notified by a university official if the parent’s or guardian’s under 21 child is transported to the hospital for an alcohol-related incident. That same year UF implemented a policy requiring a one-semester suspension for students convicted of driving under the influence on or off campus. In 2004, UF also banned the distribution of alcohol advertising and other promotional materials on campus, such as flyers from local bars and clubs.
In addition, in 2002 the University Athletic Association, Inc., passed a no-reentry policy during athletic contests and at entertainment events that limits spectator access to alcohol. In 2003 UF implemented a game day survey, which has been administered annually. Researchers identified the student age group that drank the most on game days, and it subsequently formed recommendations for the campus to provide more alcohol-free game day alternatives and designate specific tailgating areas, with a limit on the number of tailgating hours permitted.
“When Bernard Machen became UF’s president in January 2004 he took the issue of alcohol and drug use by students very seriously,” said Maureen Miller, coordinator for alcohol and other drug prevention, GatorWell Health Promotion Services.
“At that time we also held a town hall meeting facilitated by staff from the [U.S. Department of Education’s] Higher Education Center that included several key campus and community stakeholders and led to the formation of three subcommittees that met during the spring and summer 2005 semesters. These subcommittees created and provided a series of recommendations to President Machen. In fall 2005 he then formed the Community Alcohol Coalition. He chairs the coalition, which meets once a semester. Having key administration support especially from the president on down is a huge factor when addressing this issue,” Miller added.
Members of this coalition included community stakeholders who had attended the 2005 Higher Education Center–led town meeting and others from the surrounding community and local government. Also during 2005, President Machen pledged his support to the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s “Campaign for Alcohol-Free Sports TV,” which advocated eliminating alcohol advertising during National Collegiate Athletic Association sporting events. He also banned alcohol and tobacco sponsorship at the Rascal Flats concert and other venues taking place on the UF campus. In addition, he followed the recommendations for college and university presidents on alcohol and other drug abuse prevention outlined in the report of the Presidents Leadership Group, Be Vocal, Be Visible, Be Visionary: Recommendations for College and University Presidents on Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention.
In addition, in an attempt to create a health promoting environment, UF launched a series of complementary initiatives. For example, interviews and other survey research with students discovered a widespread misconception that all UF students drink to excess. As a result, GatorWell Health Promotion Services began a health information campaign named “8 out of 10 UF Students Find a Drunk Person Less Attractive—Sober is Sexy.” The campaign sought to correct UF students’ perceptions of alcohol consumption, specifically that consuming alcohol or drinking excessively was not the norm.
In 2006, UF was awarded a U.S. Department of Education Grant to Prevent High-Risk Drinking or Violent Behavior Among College Students. The four grant goals included reducing the prevalence of high-risk drinking among first-year students, reducing the number of negative consequences related to alcohol use, decreasing the prevalence of high-risk drinking on game day, and changing the perception that alcohol facilitates sexual opportunities. Also in 2006, all students entering UF, including freshmen and transfer students, were required to complete an online alcohol education program prior to registering for spring semester classes.
As a result of multiple interventions, between 2004 and 2008, the UF high-risk drinking rate decreased by 19.8 percent.
Current Prevention Efforts
Prevention efforts at UF are evidence-based and guided by the social ecological model, as part of an overall comprehensive strategy. In 2009 UF was awarded a Models of Exemplary, Effective, and Promising Alcohol or Other Drug Abuse Prevention Programs on College Campuses grant from the U.S. Department of Education to further enhance its individual-, campus-, and community-level prevention efforts through the use of a social norms marketing campaign, a variety of on-campus policy changes, strong administrative leadership and support from the president’s office, and persistent enforcement.
“We work closely with the Alachua County Coalition-Partners in Prevention of Substance Abuse (PIPSA). When we were awarded the models program grant we used some of the funds to help support the town hall meeting that PIPSA holds annually. The PIPSA coalition received some grant funding and used it to help the Gainesville Police Department outfit a trailer as a safety ‘kiosk.’ Officers go out on Wednesday and Saturday nights, the heavy drinking nights, and look for students who may need help to keep them safe and give them assistance,” said Principal Investigator Virginia Dodd, who is an associate professor in the Department of Health Education & Behavior.
One of the successful policy initiatives the ADEPC focused on was a city of Gainesville ordinance prohibiting establishments with a certain number of serving underage patron violations from allowing 18- to 20-year-olds from entering the bar or club.
“If bars are cited a certain number of times for exceeding their capacity limits or for serving people under the age of 21 they lose the ability to admit 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds into their establishment after 9 o’clock at night. It was a very controversial policy. But at that time the ADEPC chairperson was a Gainesville city commissioner, so we worked with her, went to the hearings, sent letters, and did all that we could to support the ordinance,” said Miller. “This ordinance rewards establishments who follow the rules and restricts those who do not.”
“Recently we tried to get ‘ladies night’ drink specials discontinued but because of Florida state law we were not able to act locally. But we were able to use the city of Gainesville’s antidiscrimination ordinance to prevent establishments from offering free or discounted alcohol to someone based on their gender. Maureen met with the director of Gainesville’s Office of Equal Opportunity and presented him with fact sheets we had developed based on the information we learned from our research. As a result, establishments were notified to stop such promotions and it is now being enforced,” said Dodd.
Evaluation
“We evaluate our prevention efforts through a number of ways. Of course, we conduct a biennial review in compliance with federal regulations. We work closely with the University Police Department to track the number of on-campus driving under the influence offenses. We receive information from Student Conduct and Conflict Resolution and the Counseling & Wellness Center to track the number of alcohol violations. We also work with Residence Life to track the number of hospital transports for alcohol or drug overdoses. Continuously monitoring these data and other problem indicators enables us to gauge problem levels and determine whether we are meeting our goals and objectives,” said Dodd.
UF also administers the Core Alcohol and Drug Survey to obtain information on student behaviors and problems. In addition, support from the Department of Education has enabled UF to collect qualitative data through focus groups, which has opened up other avenues for program development.
“For example, the College of Journalism and Communications has used the data we collected through focus groups and surveys. Students were assigned to develop a marketing campaign based on information Maureen and I shared. At the end of the semester each group presented their final product, treating us as though we were their clients. This experience provided us with a great deal of insight from the perspective of communication and marketing strategies, which is quite different from that of health education,” said Dodd.
One of UF’s latest campaign efforts is based on an idea formed from journalism and communications students, entitled “When I Drink Too Much.” Messages center on the experiences of students when they drink too much. Experiences include those relating to “texting under the influence,” such as “When I drink too much I send my mom texts meant for my girlfriend. She knows way too much about my relationships now.”
Lessons Learned
According to Miller, strong relationships and collaborations not only on campus but within the community and across the state are very important in supporting prevention efforts. “I currently serve as the chair-elect for our statewide coalition, Florida Higher Education Alliance for Substance Abuse Prevention. This coalition has provided us with the opportunity to work with the Florida Board of Governors to address alcohol issues within higher education, which is a first,” she said.
Dodd emphasized it is important not to get discouraged if drinking rates go up. “Remember, we are dealing with a new crop of students every year,” she said.
“In addition, you cannot do this kind of work in a silo. To really succeed we need a great deal of assistance from a lot of people. But we also recognize we must be willing to help others succeed in their efforts as well,” Dodd concluded. “This often means involvement in a variety of coalitions and committees external to UF. The question we continually ask ourselves is, “Who wins if we win?” Once we have the answer we try to find ways to help them succeed, and in turn, they help us to succeed. And when we succeed, UF students benefit, which is the ultimate goal of our efforts here at UF.”
