THE COLLEGE ALCOHOL SURVEY: THE COLLEGE ALCOHOL SURVEY: The national longitudinal survey on alcohol, tobacco, other drug and violence issues at institutions of higher education David S. Anderson, Ph.D. George Mason University and Angelo F. Gadaleto, Ph.D. West Chester University

THE COLLEGE ALCOHOL SURVEY THE COLLEGE ALCOHOL SURVEY Sample of 4-year colleges and universities No external funding Conducted every 3 years since 1979; 12 survey administrations Respondents are chief student affairs officers Response rate from 50% – 71% Results available at

POLICIES

4

5

6

7 Percentages of Affirmative Responses

8

9

10 Percentages of Affirmative Responses

11 Percentages of Affirmative Responses

12 Percentages of Affirmative Responses

13 Institutional policies to limit alcohol consumption at tailgating events Percentages of Affirmative Responses

Amnesty Policy Percentages of Affirmative Responses

DATA COLLECTION

Campus Survey Done On Alcohol Use 16 Percent Affirmative Responses

Campus Survey Done on Drug Use 17 Percent Affirmative Responses

Campus Survey Done on Tobacco Use 18 Percent Affirmative Responses

Survey Conducted on Student Health and Safety Topics 19 Percent Affirmative Responses

Campus Survey Done on Faculty Engagement 20 Percent Affirmative Responses

Alcohol Violations: Use of BAC and Judicial Charges for Off-Campus Behavior 21 Percent Affirmative Responses

Reporting of Alcohol Related Violations 22 Percent Affirmative Responses

23 Percent Affirmative Responses

24 Percent Affirmative Responses

25

26

Strategies to Measure Effectiveness of Campus Efforts:

SCOPE OF PROBLEMS

30

31

32

33 Mean Percentages

34 Mean Percentages

35

PREVENTION

38

39

Campus Efforts: Awareness & Information None A Lot 40

Campus Efforts: Support Services None A Lot 41

None A Lot 42

None A Lot 43

None A Lot 44

Included in Campus Efforts: Extent of Inclusion

Campus Programs Dealing With Alcohol and Substance Abuse 46

Availability of Safe Rides Program 47 Percent Affirmative Responses

Days of the Week that Safe Rides is Available 48 Percent Affirmative Responses

PERSONNEL, PLANNING AND RESOURCES

Annual Funding For Alcohol/Substance Abuse In 2012 = 55.18% of Wellness Funding Wellness Funding = $ 54,147 50

Funding for Drug/Alcohol/Wellness Programs (per capita) Per capita funding

52

Level of Effort for Professionals Addressing Alcohol and Substance Abuse Education 53 Full time equivalents

Specialist Time Allocations: Roles 54

Specialist Time Allocations: Topics 55

Specialist Time Allocation Within the Drugs Area 56

58

NoneA Lot 59

Strategic plan for addressing alcohol and substance abuse issues 60 Percent Affirmative Responses

61

62 Incorporation of themes into campus programming

63 Not At All Very Much Extent to which the following themes are incorporated into campus programming

64 Not At All Very Much Extent to which the following themes are incorporated into campus programming

65 Not At All Very Much Extent to which the following themes are incorporated into campus programming

66 Not At All Very Much Extent to which the following themes are incorporated into campus programming

67 Not At All Very Much Extent to which the following themes are incorporated into campus programming

None A lot

NoneA lot

TREATMENT

Extent to Which a Student with a Drinking Problem Can Receive Counseling Assistance 72 None A lot

73

74

75

76

RELATED ISSUES

Availability of Tobacco Products 78 Percent affirmative responses

Smoke-free Environment 79 Percent affirmative responses

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENTS

Preferred Minimum Age 82 Percent affirmative response

Administrative Assessment: Alcohol Problems 83 Strongly DisagreeStrongly Agree

Administrative Assessment: Alcohol Problems 84 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

Administrative Assessment: Overall Approach 85 Strongly DisagreeStrongly Agree

Administrative Assessment: Overall Approach 86 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

Administrative Assessment: Planning 87 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

Administrative Assessment: Planning 88 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

89 Prevention Approaches Guiding Campus Efforts

Prevention Approaches Guiding Campus Efforts 1 90 Not at all Very much

Prevention Approaches Guiding Campus Efforts 2 91 Not at all Very much

Perceived Effectiveness for AOD Efforts 92 1 = Not at All 5 = Very Much

Perceived Effectiveness for AOD Efforts 93 1 = Not at All 5 = Very Much

Perceived Effectiveness for AOD Efforts 2 94 Not effective Very effective

Perceived Effectiveness for AOD Efforts 3 95 Not effective Very effective

Perceived Effectiveness for AOD Efforts 4 96 Not effective Very effective

Perceived Effectiveness for AOD Efforts 5 97 Not effective Very effective

Perceived Adequacy for AOD Efforts 1 98 Not adequate Very Adequate

Perceived Adequacy for AOD Efforts 2 99 Not adequate Very Adequate

Perceived Adequacy for AOD Efforts Not adequate Very Adequate

Perceived Adequacy for AOD Efforts Not adequate Very Adequate

Perceived Adequacy for AOD Efforts Not adequate Very Adequate

PUBLIC/PRIVATE COMPARISONS 114 Public Institutions (65.1%) 61 Private Institutions (34.9%)

Percent Affirmative Responses Institution allows tailgating events

School has an amnesty policy Percent Affirmative Responses

Institutional Assessment Percent Affirmative Responses

Crime and property damage Percent Affirmative Responses

Behavioral consequences of alcohol Percent Affirmative Responses *

Academic consequences of alcohol Percent Affirmative Responses

Health consequences of alcohol Percent Affirmative Responses *

Association of alcohol with other drugs Percent Affirmative Responses

Total Funding for Drug/Alcohol programs Total Funding

Funding for Drug/Alcohol programs (per capita) Per capita funding

Campus staffing for alcohol related issues Percent Affirmative Responses

INSTITUTION SIZE COMPARISONS Small- Below 7500 | 32% Intermediate – | 33.1% Large- Above | 34.9%

Percent Affirmative Responses Institution allows tailgating events

School has an Amnesty Policy Percent Affirmative Responses

Institutional Assessment Percent Affirmative Responses

Crime and property damage Percent Affirmative Responses

Behavioral consequences of alcohol Percent Affirmative Responses

Academic consequences of alcohol Percent Affirmative Responses

Health consequences of alcohol Percent Affirmative Responses

Association of alcohol with other drugs Percent Affirmative Responses

Total Funding for Drug/Alcohol programs Total Funding

Funding for Drug/Alcohol/Wellness Programs (per capita) Per capita funding

Campus staffing for alcohol related issues Percent Affirmative Responses

ALCOHOL ALLOWED VS. ALCOHOL NOT ALLOWED 135 Institutions allow alcohol (77.1%) 40 Institutions don’t allow alcohol (22.9%)

Institution allows tailgating events Percent Affirmative Responses

School has an Amnesty Policy Percent Affirmative Responses

Institutional Assessment Percent Affirmative Responses

Crime and property damage Percent Affirmative Responses

Behavioral consequences of alcohol Percent Affirmative Responses

Academic consequences of alcohol Percent Affirmative Responses

Health consequences of alcohol Percent Affirmative Responses

Association of alcohol with other drugs Percent Affirmative Responses

Total Funding for Drug/Alcohol Programs Total Funding

Funding for Drug/Alcohol Programs (per capita) Per capita funding

Campus staffing for alcohol related issues Percent Affirmative Responses