The report estimates that each year 1,700 college students die from alcohol-related unintentional injuries, including motor vehicle crashes. In addition, it further estimates that alcohol is involved in 599,000 unintentional injuries, 696,000 assaults, and 97,000 cases of sexual assault and acquaintance rape among college students (Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, 2008). Alcohol and other drug use on college campuses are associated to increased crime, accidents, injury, vandalism, and poor grades. Prochaska, Prochaska, Cohen, Gomes, LaForge, and Eastwood (2004) wrote, alcohol abuse is a major contributing factor to individual and social problems on campuses throughout the United States. Not only does consumption of alcohol and other drugs affect the user it also has profound effects on the entire student body. In one national survey, students at four-year institutions reported several negative consequences caused by their peers’ alcohol consumption: 60% of the survey respondents had their study or sleep interrupted; 48% had to take care of an alcohol-impaired student; 29% were insulted or humiliated; 19% had a serious argument or quarrel; 15% had property damaged, and 9% were pushed, hit, or assaulted. In 1998 with so many deaths, injuries, assaults, sexual assaults, crimes committed, and negative effects on students, the federal government chose to enact the Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention on College Campuses Policy.
According to the United States Department of Education (2011), the purpose of the Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention on College Campuses Policy is to identify and disseminate information about exemplary and effective alcohol or other drug (AOD) abuse prevention programs implemented on college campuses. Through this grant program, the Department of Education will also recognize colleges and universities whose programs, although not yet exemplary or effective, show evidence that they are promising. The colleges chosen to receive grants and participate in the Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention on College Campuses Program are:
• Auburn University.
• Boston College.
• Bowling Green State University.
• George Mason University.
• Gonzaga University.
• Grand Valley State University.
• Hobart and William Smith Colleges.
• Lehigh University.
• Loyola Marymount University.
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• Michigan State University.
• Montclair State University.
• Rutgers University.
• San Diego State University.
• Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute.
• Syracuse University.
• The Ohio State University.
• The Pennsylvania State University
• The State University of New York at New Paltz
For these institutions to receive grants, they are required to describe in detail their innovative program or policy that is currently implemented to reduce and control alcohol and other drug use. Grants received are to sustain and advance the current program and provide in-depth details to other college campuses where the program may be useful. According to models of exemplary, effective, and promising alcohol or other drug abuse prevention programs on college campuses grant competition (2008), the maximum amount an applicant may receive for a project recognized as an exemplary or effective program may be no more than $150,000-plus indirect costs, and a project recognized as a promising program may receive no more than $100,000-plus indirect costs.
What Works
Colleges that pass out flyers or hold a one-day alcohol and drug awareness program are beginning to realize that more effective leadership and strategies are needed to combat the problem. Environmental management is one of those strategies. Environmental management offers five proposed ideas to help reduce student’s alcohol and other drug consumption. The first proposal is to provide students with activities that do not include alcohol and other drugs. Examples of these are keeping libraries open late, keeping health clubs open late, increasing the hours that students can use the campus gym, and placing an importance on and increasing public service activities. The plan in this first idea is to offer students an alternative to going out drinking with their friends.
The second proposal is for colleges to increase their expectations of students. Higher expectations can draw from increasing academic standards, which will translate into increased study time by students. If the college believes their academic expectations are satisfactory than increasing morning classes offered will make students question their participation in late night activities with their friends.
The third proposal is to outlaw the marketing of anything alcohol or drug-related on campus. Oftentimes students can come across flyers on campus from bars, clubs, or other various alcoholic outlets within the surrounding area. If a student is caught distributing or posting these types of materials, proper punishment as deemed appropriate by the educational institution will be enforced.
The fourth proposal is to limit the amount of alcohol and other drugs on campus as well as around the campus. According to the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention (2000), colleges need to bring together faculty, administrators, staff, students, parents, alumni, and local community members to develop and implement strong, effective policies and programs. By collaborating with and informing community members of the situation, colleges can hope to make the acquirement of alcohol and other drugs by students extremely difficult. Actions taken include limiting the availability of alcohol and other drugs to students, establishing boundaries for alcoholic outlets, controlling the hours alcohol is sold, no selling alcohol to intoxicated students, require two forms of identification when purchasing alcohol or entering an establishment that has alcohol, and no delivery of alcoholic products to college campuses.
The final proposal is to enforce current laws. College campuses should collaborate with local, state, and federal agencies to make certain students understand the laws they must follow. College campuses must also make clear that they and law enforcement will enforce these laws if a student breaks the law.
Recommendations
The 2006 Monitoring the Future Survey, conducted at colleges and universities across the country, found that of all the United States college students, approximately 40% have engaged in high-risk drinking. Furthermore, the following percentages of students used various other drugs during 2005: marijuana (33.3%); ecstasy (2.9%); amphetamines (6.7%); hallucinogens (5.0%); cocaine (5.7%); methamphetamine (1.7%), and tranquilizers (6.4%) (Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, 2008). In the future, educational institutions need to collaborate and share the effective ways to combat alcohol and other drug use. A nationwide campaign, such as DARE should be launched with the hope of educating students on the risky behavior and consequences associated with alcohol and other drugs. This strong dependence on the mass media in prevention efforts is not unusual—the mass media are the primary or leading components in a variety of public health campaigns and frequently are the only component (Palmgreen & Donohew, 2003).
Social media needs to be addressed as a means to spread the word about using alcohol and other drugs. The Office of National Drug Control Policy's social marketing campaign, between 2001 and 2003, included a series of ads, labeled the, "Drugs and Terror Initiative," that connected and equated illicit drug use and abuse with supporting terrorism (Flynn, 2008). After 9/11 the Office of National Drug Control Policy decided to connect using drugs with funding terrorists. This idea is a very good in concept however, the means by which the message was delivered was not. Currently, Facebook and Twitter are growing at a rapid pace and educational institutions could inform many people very quickly about the dangers of alcohol and other drug use.
The theory of prevention, treatment, and punishment is more widely accepted globally than in the United States. However, this theory could be a useful preventative tool for alcohol and other drugs in the future. According to Blume and Detroit Mercy University (1991), prevention efforts are often divided as well between supply-side prevention and demand-side approaches. The supply side approach attributes drug problems to the addictive nature of the drugs themselves, and the theory is to keep these drugs out of the hands of potential users. The demand-side attributes the drug problem more to the user than the drug. These approaches, then, assume that the individual seeks a mood change and will eventually find some substance with which to achieve a chemically altered experience.
The treatment aspect seeks to clear the user of drugs in the system and enable the user to have a drug-free life through education and experience. This theory also uses relapse as a tool for treatment. Alcoholics Anonyms was among the first of these modern approaches with their behavioral focus and acceptance of relapse. With the success of Alcoholics Anonymous other treatments facilities try to mirror their technique but none are as successful.
The theory of punishment is most likely the oldest to date. It is based on assumptions that use is voluntary and people operate rationally on some kind of cost-benefit basis in their decision-making about use, and that their decision criteria are similar enough that a few punishment strategies will be successful for most people (Blume & Detroit Mercy University, 1991). If punishments were stricter, it is very possible that it will deter potential users and current users from continuing to use alcohol and other drugs.
Conclusion
With the government’s Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention on College Campuses Act, grants are offered to higher educational institutions who display exceptional programs to combat the efforts of students using alcohol and other drugs. By offering some type of compensation, it appears that higher educational institutions have made progress in deterring students from using alcohol and other drugs since 1998. However, better communication between higher educational institutions that have effect programs enacted and higher educational institutions that do not needs to improve. Working programs first need to be duplicated in higher educational institutions and if a problem persists, these programs should be modified to fit the current college campus’ system. According to Jiang and Shacket (2001), in all, alcohol use in high school explains 30% of the variance in college alcohol consumption. Therefore, more attention should be placed on battling alcohol and other drug use in high school if combatitive procedures are to be successful in higher educational institutions.
References
Blume, T. W., & Detroit Mercy Univ., M. t. (1991). A social role negotiation approach to campus prevention of alcohol and other drug problems.
DeJong, W., Anderson, J., Colthurst, T., Davidson, L., Langford, L.M., Mackay-Smith, V.L. & Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention (2007). Experiences in effective prevention: The U.S. department of education’s alcohol and other drug prevention models on college campuses grants. US Department of Education.
Flynn, S. I. (2008). Drug Policy. In , Drug Policy -- Research Starters Business (p. 1). Great Neck Publishing.
Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, N.A. (2000). Alcohol and other drug prevention on college campuses: Model programs, 1999 and 2000.
Jiang, Y., & Shacket, R. W. (2001). Alcohol use in high school: Predicting students’ alcohol use and alcohol problems in four-year… American Journal of Drug & Alcohol Abuse, 27(4), 775.
Models of exemplary, effective, and promising alcohol or other drug abuse prevention programs on college campuses grant competition. (2008). Models of exemplary, effective, and promising alcohol or other drug abuse prevention programs on college campuses grant competition, 83.
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (2008). Alcohol and other drug prevention on college campuses: Model programs. US Department of Education.
Palmgreen, P., & Donohew, L. (2003). CHAPTER 2: Effective mass media strategies for drug abuse prevention campaigns. In, Handbook of Drug Abuse Prevention: Theory, Science, & Practice (pp. 27-43). Springer Science & Business Media B.V. / Books.
Prochaska, J.M., Prochaska, J.O., Cohen, F.C., Gomes, S.O., Laforge, R.G., & Eastwood, A.L. (2004). The transtheoretical model of change for multi-level interventions for alcohol abuse on campus. Journal of Alcohol & Drug Education, 47(3), 34-50.
The U.S. Department of Education (2010). Safe and drug-free schools and communities advisory committee. Retrieved on July 7, 20111 from http://www.ed.gov
What else is there to say but goodnight and goodnight to you Mrs. Amore, wherever you may be.
Journey brought up some key points and I'm not genuinely certain if very best practices have emerged all-around points like this. Hard hitting facts and Alcoholism, Depression, Addiction and Anxiety can kill you.
ReplyDelete