Promoting Healthier Residence Environments Changing the Culture of Substance Use Project (CCSU)

About Us Catriona Remocker Project Coordinator Changing the Culture of Substance Use, CARBC Sarah Joosse Knowledge Exchange & Social Learning Coordinator Healthy Minds | Healthy Campuses, CMHA BC

Webinar Overview Residence Scan Background Scan Recruitment & Methodology Data Collection & Analysis Hallmarks of Authentic Community Promising Practices for a Healthier Residence Environment Helpful Resources Featured Example: TRU’s Drink with Class Facilitated Discussion Questions

Things You May Notice Assumption of broad co-occurring factors underlying substance use, mental health and wellness Inauthentic qualitative research approach Study Rationale: Residence identified as a key area for campus culture change around substance use. However, very little was known beyond the literature of what characterized a healthy residence and what promising practices we could recommend to professionals relevant to the western Canadian context.

Residence Scan Background Developed out of the CCSU project following consultations with six campuses in BC Scan Rationale: Residence = key area for campus culture change around substance use Very little known beyond the literature Study Rationale: Residence identified as a key area for campus culture change around substance use. However, very little was known beyond the literature of what characterized a healthy residence and what promising practices we could recommend to professionals relevant to the western Canadian context.

Purpose: Residence Guide Deliverable: Purpose to develop a guide, supported by the evidence and grounded in the experience of BC and Alberta’s institutions of what was working well in residence to support their student’s health, wellness and relationships with substances

Residence Scan Recruitment All BC institutions were invited to participate via personal email Alberta institutions were recruited through a presentation Once institutions committed, they were asked to recruit participants through their networks Student participants offered $15 food vouchers Refreshments provided for focus group meetings All BC institutions were invited to participate via personal email to Residence Managers, some via liaison with CCSU participants Alberta institutions were recruited through a presentation at an RLPA meeting Once institutions committed, they were asked to recruit participants through their networks Student participants were offered $15 food vouchers as an incentive for participating in the focus group Refreshments were provided for focus group meetings

Residence Scan Methodology Focus groups conducted via teleconference and recorded Data collected through two types of focus groups with 8 post- secondary institutions across BC and Alberta: One-hour multilevel stakeholder focus group 30-minute student-only focus group Focus group data substantiated through corroborating documents Focus groups were conducted via teleconference and recorded Data collected through 2 types of focus groups with 9 post-secondary institutions across BC and Alberta (5 universities and 4 colleges): One hour multilevel stakeholder focus group, including: Senior-level residence administrator Several mid-level residence staff (RAs & RLCs) 3-5 representative students living in residence 30-minute student-only focus group Focus group data substantiated through corroborating documents, including information about policies, programs and practices in residences

Residence Scan Methodology A draft guide offered to participants in advance Confidentiality, study background, data collection, storage and analysis practices covered Verbal participant consent obtained and recorded A draft guide, grounded in the literature, was offered to participants in advance of the session to orient them to health promotion, the CCSU project and important areas for reflection All participants were given the necessary information around confidentiality, study background, data collection, storage and analysis practices Verbal participant consent was obtained and recorded during each focus group

Data Collection Reflections on the draft guide Focus group questions centered on: E.g. How well does this guide in its present form reflect your perspective on and experience of what contributes to a healthy residence environment? E.g. If you could urge change in just one area of your residence environment in order to promote a healthier environment for students, what would it be? E.g. What stories you can offer us, which might illustrate/indicate the influence of a positive aspect of your residence life on the substance use of campus residents? Reflections on the draft guide Facets of residence life Stories of residence life

Data Analysis Focus groups recorded and transcribed by a team of analysts using open-coding, along with a coding categorization system Thematic analysis conducted Corroborating documents consulted to support identified themes & key initiatives Focus groups recorded and transcribed by a team of analysts using open-coding, along with a coding categorization system to identify a key principle (p), promising practice (pp), in residence etc. Thematic analysis conducted by project lead Corroborating documents consulted to support identified themes and key initiatives for further detail following thematic analysis

Findings of the Scan

Hallmarks of Authentic Community 1. Transparency 2. Complexity 3. Shared Norms and Values 4. Open Communication 5. Mutual Obligations 6. Participatory Practices 7. Community Maintenance 8. Bridge-Building Transparency. Policies and practices are clearly communicated and their reasons are both evident and consistent with community goals. Complexity. Policies and practices promote active cooperation, integration and consensus building. Shared norms & values. Community members actively engage in understanding one another and together forming context-appropriate cultural priorities. Open communication. Community leaders engage authentically with members to address issues, with regular information sharing and dialogue. Mutual obligations. The community establishes a healthy ethos with a joint commitment to foster care, trust, and teamwork for the common good. Participatory Practice. Policies and practices facilitate, support and reward involvement in decision-making processes and in community activities. Community maintenance. Leaders attend to development of personnel and ensure that services meet members’ needs. Bridge-building. The community focuses not only on internal cohesion, but also on forging links with other communities that share its members. Tim to talk and elaborate

Promising Practices for Promoting Health in Residence How many were there? 14? Covering a wide variety of areas