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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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

7. Residence Scan Recruitment
All BC institutions were invited to participate via personal
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 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. Findings of the Scan

13. 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

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