ISU SAVP Program Review and Recommendations...IHE SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION Comprehensive Program Review and Recommendations Jim Grizzell, MBA, MA, CHES, ACSM-HFS, FACHA

Institution of Higher Education

Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention Program Review and Recommendations Alcohol and Other Drugs and Related Violence Program Consultation

Jim Grizzell, MBA, MA, CHES, ACSM-HFS, FACHA 1/29/2010

IHE SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION Comprehensive Program Review and Recommendations

Jim Grizzell, MBA, MA, CHES, ACSM-HFS, FACHA – [email protected], (909) 856-3350

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 1

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 2

Background ........................................................................................................................................................... 4

Findings ................................................................................................................................................................. 4

Qualitative ................................................................................................................................................ 4

Quantitative.............................................................................................................................................. 7

Police Ride and Walk Along .................................................................................................................. 12

Summary of Findings for Function and Effectiveness ............................................................................ 12

Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................. 14

Implementation Strategy ..................................................................................................................................... 17

Questions and Answers

1. Recommended Evidence-Based Models for SAVP .............................................................................. 18

2. Role for SAVP ....................................................................................................................................... 20

3. Immediate, Medium and Long Range Goals and Objectives ................................................................ 21

a. Healthy Campus 2010 Objectives ............................................................................................ 22

4. Best Way to Form Coalition ................................................................................................................... 25

5. Key Stakeholders .................................................................................................................................. 28

6. Involving Less Involved Stakeholders .................................................................................................... 29

7. SAVP Organization Structure, Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................... 31

a. Two Recommendations for SAVP Organization (Charts) ........................................................ 33

8. Job Summary Recommendations for Coordinator and Assistant .......................................................... 35

9. Best Way to Use Resources SAVP Currently Has ................................................................................ 41

a. Organization Chart ................................................................................................................... 41

10. Reducing Hard Core High Risk Drinking ............................................................................................... 42

11. Evaluating and Improving Effectiveness of AfterDark ............................................................................ 44

a. Program Planning and Evaluation Logic Model ....................................................................... 49

Appendix

Appendix A: Consultant Agenda ............................................................................................................ 53

Appendix B: Police Ride and Walk Along .............................................................................................. 56

Appendix B: Problem Assessment, Market Research, Market Strategy Worksheets ............................ 58


Jim Grizzell, MBA, MA, CHES, ACSM-HFS, FACHA - (909) 856-3350 - [email protected] Page 1

Introduction

The IHE University consultation provides a forward thinking opportunity to assist in the strategic direction of an institution planning to provide the most current evidence-based interventions. The evidence-based interventions will strengthen the current IHE SAVP services.

The midcourse reviews for Healthy People 2010 (web) and Healthy Campus 2010 (PPT) indicate the 4,200 Institutions of Higher Education (IHE), as a whole, in the US have been unsuccessful at reducing alcohol and other drug abuse (AOD) (i.e., Healthy People and Campus 2010 Objective 26-11b. binge drinking remains at near 50%).

Current knowledge of evidence-based interventions combined with national awareness of alcohol and violence issues gives support for the provision of effective interventions to reduce alcohol and substance abuse and violence. Proof of this comes from many levels. The World Health Organization concept for health promoting universities (pages 24-28, pdf) and the UK National Research and Development Project (pages iv and 4, pdf) describe the healthy settings approach which uses the social-ecological, systems and whole university theories and models. In the US, national organizations (Centers for Disease Control, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, US Department of Education, American College Health Association, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators and American Medical Association) provide evidence-based guidelines. Most recently the Action Model to achieve the Healthy People (and Campus) 2020 goals (web) shows the process of assessment of needs and the campus environment, evidence-based programs that address the determinants of health, monitoring, evaluating, assess for effectiveness, reporting, and refining and sustaining the interventions.

This report describes the results of a consultation throughout Month 2009 with visit to the campus on Month 17 – 20. The consultation was requested by the Division of Student Affairs to assess the functioning and effectiveness of substance abuse and violence prevention and provide recommendations for designing, implementing, and refining SAVP evidence-based programs and policies.

A Multivariate Perspective

Alcohol research clearly indicates that multiple factors interact to produce various drinking patterns. Factors include students' genetic/biological characteristics, family and cultural backgrounds and environments, previous drinking experiences in high school, and the particular environment of the college in which they are enrolled. Even within one college, patterns may be influenced by students' participation in fraternities/sororities, sports teams, or other social groups. Research now has the capacity to bring this enlarged perspective to the problem of college drinking and to test models that take into account many of these factors.

www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/StatsSummaries/3inone.aspx

http://www.healthypeople.gov/data/midcourse/html/tables/pq/PQ-26.htm

http://www.csupomona.edu/~jvgrizzell/hc2010/mc/hc2010_midcourse_fa26_substanceuse.ppt

http://www.yskyeung.com/public/tmp/hkccm_asm/e60163.pdf

http://www.yskyeung.com/public/tmp/hkccm_asm/e60163.pdf

http://www.health.heacademy.ac.uk/publications/miniproject/2009mdooris.pdf

http://www.health.heacademy.ac.uk/publications/miniproject/2009mdooris.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/family/college/

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/AboutNIAAA/NIAAASponsoredPrograms/CollegeDrinkingMLDA.htm

http://www.highereducationcenter.org/

http://www.acha.org/

http://www.acha.org/

http://www.naspa.org/

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/legislation-advocacy/3558.shtml

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/legislation-advocacy/3558.shtml

http://www.csupomona.edu/~jvgrizzell/hc2020

http://www.csupomona.edu/~jvgrizzell/hc2020

http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/StatsSummaries/3inone.aspx



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Month 00, 20XX

PURPOSE

The consult was to give a comprehensive review of the functioning and effectiveness of the Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention Program (SAVP) and recommend possible best practice improvements.

BACKGROUND

Concern has increased due to alcohol and other drug related incidents that have occurred recently, including student deaths. Another concern is if current interventions are effective reaching enough students and students who do high risk drinking.

The review consisted of interviews with over 40 IHE and CITY community members who were asked what should be occurring, what is occurring, who is affected and how much, and what might happen of problems are not addressed. Over 150 documents, reports and data files from 6 surveys were reviewed and analyzed. There were four meetings with SAVP, Student Affairs and Student Health Services administrators and community members plus a Friday evening police ride and walk along through Collegetown bars (included talks with owners and employees) and apartment buildings.

KEY FINDINGS

Qualitative research found that offices and agencies operate independently, are disconnected, not in collaboration; without a coordinated cohesive effort under an umbrella operation, without a strategically planned effort and common messages about substance abuse and violence to students.

Assessment data indicate that prevention efforts are not reducing alcohol use and high risk drinking.

o Since 2000 high risk drinking has increased and non-drinkers have decreased.

High risk drinking has gone from 42% to 46%, frequent high risk drinking has increased from 16% to 19% (both higher than national).

Non-drinking in the past 30 days has decreased from 32% to 27%.

o Universal prevention is received by one-quarter to one-half half of students.

ACHA-NCHA data shows this is 20% - 30% lower than national which is as high as 64%. IHE survey data indicate that less than 25% of students ―listened to or participated in

alcohol and/or drug education.‖

o ACHA-NCHA data indicate that sexual assault / relationship violence prevention information is received by 34% of students and this is 24% less than national.

o Perceptions of the campus environment by students:

Most (62%) students agree that use of alcohol is promoted.

Most (55%) do not agree policies are effective.

Most (63%) do not agree that policies enforced.

Only 55% agree the university is concerned with alcohol abuse prevention.

Faculty are unaware (except advisors) of SAV issues. SAV is not considered their issue, they do not know what to do and they live north of the campus community so don’t see the problems.

IHE LateNiteFun is relied on as the activity to promote fun non-alcoholic activities but only about 7,400 students participated in the last year. Nearly 70% attended more than once. It is not known how many were, if there were, high risk drinkers. In 2003 it was found that alcohol-related offenses on campus were 40% lower on event evenings compared to evenings in previous years. There is not a



coordinated and sustained dissemination of additional fun, easy, convenient activities in the CITY area to students. The IHE LateNiteFun Facebook page is not maintained consistently and the listserv has about 700 members. Other Web 2.0 technologies like Twitter and YouTube are not used.

Campus individual intensive and early interventions may be functioning since it is rare for repeat offenses. This suggests that the SAV advisory committee in existence 10 years ago was effective.

Very few of the interviewees mentioned (and may not know details of) how serious and prevalent substance abuse and violence consequences are in terms of academic performance, lack of use of protective behaviors, fights, arguments, unwanted touching and sexual assault.

Tailgating hurts the image of IHE. 40% of students give it above average value or extremely valuable. 65% of high risk drinkers find above average value in tailgating. By comparison, athletics is valued by 39% of the students and not significantly different from the 44% of high risk drinkers valuing the same way. GPA of those finding tailgating extremely valuable is often significantly lower than for others.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS

The NIAAA recommended comprehensive 3-in1 framework four tier model for SAVP should be implemented. Among the most needed components are universal prevention for ―whole student body‖ and ―campus-community‖ programs with targeted and tailored social marketing to high risk drinkers.

o The significant missing component that should and can be implemented immediately and at GreatStart IHE State this year is universal prevention. As an interviewee said, there should be a ―major‖ education push at GreatStart IHE State.

o There is a positive correlation with agreement that the campus environment is good, and policies are effective and enforced with having had SAV education from the university.

o Freshmen have the greatest to gain from this ―major‖ education push since they come to campus with large over perceptions and may drink to meet the misperception.

The program should have coordinator with strong skills in needs assessment, data analysis, market research, intervention development, implementation, monitoring, evaluation; community organizing; coalition building and advocacy.

Faculty should be made aware of the issues, recognition and ability to help with individual students SAV problems and motivated to support universal prevention with curriculum infusion, research and dissemination of substance abuse and violence prevention activities.

The independently operating campus and off-campus offices and agencies should be united with administration public support and strategic planning, vision, mission and measurable goals.

Have all staff involved in SAV 3-in1 programs discuss and re-consider the need to add BASICS. Interviews indicated current individual interventions rarely have repeat offenses.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS

The president and senior administrators should provide public support and infrastructure support

Establish an SAV advisory committee to strategically plan a 3-in-1 comprehensive program and give a clear consistent institutional message about the IHE’s concern for substance abuse and violence.

Hire a coordinator with knowledge, skills and competencies for needs assessment, data analysis, market research, evidence-based intervention selection and development, planning monitoring and evaluation, implementation, refining the program, coalition building and advocacy.

Establish an office with staff that will coordinate a 3-in1 effort of evidence-based individual, whole student body and campus-community interventions and effectively market the individual interventions.

Initiate, facilitate and encourage actions with a coalition that will unite the campus and campus-community toward the accomplishment of student development goals.



BACKGROUND

Historically, the Division of Student Affairs has taken an active role in substance abuse prevention. The approach has included prevention, intervention, and an examination of the level of treatment and outcomes provided by the University. Gaps have been examined, and prevention has been identified as key with a focus on non-alcoholic activities and individual education and policy. Some major issues examined included tailgating, both University-sponsored and non-sponsored, and alcohol in buildings on campus for special events and concerts. The benefits of that approach were that there was a public discussion about the issues, and it was seen as a community issue. Within the past few years, offices within the Division have been working more independently on issues of substance abuse prevention and intervention. With the number of alcohol and other drug related incidents that have occurred recently, including the drowning death of a student in the spring of 2007, it has become more important to review substance abuse prevention and intervention efforts at IHE and recommend ways to improve those efforts.

FINDINGS

Qualitative and quantitative assessments found many relationships between SAVP programs and services with attitudes, perceptions, knowledge, intentions and behaviors related to substance use. The assessments and reviews include information from students, faculty, staff and community stakeholders. A significant finding matches that mentioned in the background section that offices in the Division have been working independently. Other findings indicate that group activity and individual interventions are somewhat effective but do not reach enough students or priority high risk audiences of students in quantities that will be likely to reverse the trended increases in drinking and high risk drinking, and improve perceptions of the campus environment.

Qualitative Findings

Interviews of individuals and groups began with four questions and allowed the participants to share and discuss responses freely. The same questions were asked to the policeman and bar employees (including an owner) during the police ride and walk along.

The first question was ―What should be occurring?‖ and clarified that it could be for any stakeholder such as students, faculty, staff, administrators, city council, police and others in the community. Responses are:

Cost effectiveness of programs (i.e., IHE LateNiteFun) seems to not be reaching enough students and high risk drinkers.

Reach high-risk drinkers (change knowledge, attitudes, perceptions, intentions, behaviors).

Need central control, coordination, strategic planning, policy leadership, umbrella, mission, goals.

Common messages about substance abuse and violence.

A clear, consistent and supportive institutional message about alcohol and other drug use that is supported by policy and enforcement.

Connectedness between offices and agencies, programs, events, activities.

We should not condone, tolerate underage drinking in tailgating area.

GreatStart IHE State should be the major education push for SAV prevention.

Tailgating area should be eliminated; it should end when the game starts and a bear garden could be allowed which would allow ID checks and reduction of underage drinking.

Student government provides $140,000 to community services like United Way but gets little recognition for it – promotion of this should be occurring.



The next question was ―What is occurring?‖ Compliments and many concerns were noted.

Great work by police (IHE and CITY)

Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) very well organized with all members from campus and in the community knowing what others do and at increasing awareness of sexual assault

Students work in associations (Collegetown Student Association, Collegetown Action Association (revitalized business organization) to improve the quality of CITY and Collegetown.

Some private apartments buildings are clean (no graffiti, no urine smell), clean up is by the management company or owner and the police department is very pleased their recommendations are used.

Greeks seem hardly a problem now since national offices require education programs and better risk management (per police)

Residence life staff doesn’t have ―programs‖ any more.

Several interviewees heard percent of students not drinking is increasing (but 2007 report and IHE survey and ACHA-NCHA data indicates it is down to 27% from 32% in 2000). See page 22.

Offices conducting the individual interventions indicated that it is rare for repeat/2nd

offenses after counseling/intervention. Also, that it could mean students learned to be legal or have figured out how not to get caught.

There seems to be a sense or a perception of safe campus that results in complacence

Bar owners, managers, and ID checkers prefer not allowing under 21 year olds in bars. A bouncer (an IHE senior and CITY hometown resident) said he had much lower worries of underage drinkers in the bars.

1,000 to 1,500 people may be on the streets in Collegetown in late night and early morning with greater risk of arguments and fights due to crowding and a drunk falling onto or bumping others.

o Limiting number of bar licenses in this area without reducing total CITY licenses could result in smaller crowds in Collegetown but small crowds would be spread throughout CITY and may be more difficult for police to watch over.

o There has been a poor image of IHE during and due to tailgating (but due to messy tailgating area it has been moved away from stadium) but now . . .

o Underage drinking allowed, overlooked now that tailgating is in an area away from stadium o Since IHE has a very large parking area (larger than most comparable universities) there are

more tailgaters in one place compared to other universities. o There may be between 9,000 and 12,000 tailgaters and most do not go to the game. At IHE

tailgating is an event that happens to have a football game.

o Some CITY community members blame students, ―those students.‖

o IHE LateNiteFun reached 7,400 students in a recent year and ~69% had been to more than one event. About 20% of the student body was helped at a cost of $50,000, $25/student, and they may be primarily low or moderate risk drinkers. Students may go drinking after IHE LateNiteFun.

o Intensive emergency resources are provided for IHEPARTY

o All/most ambulances, emergency personnel available for IHEPARTY? o Cost: is it offset by economic benefits to CITY? o Leaves city and county short of resources for citizens o Some people leave town to not be bothered by participants

o Faculty (except advisors) unaware of alcohol issues of students and of Collegetown area, how to help, what to do, not their issue



o Faculty and staff noted more drinking to get high and students stating planning to get drunk (in last 7-8 years)

o But noted that 3 women graduated, have jobs, kids and don’t do high risk drinking now, 3-5 years after graduation.

o Athletics does not seem supportive of attending to underage and high risk drinking. Alumni were mentioned as also not being supportive.

o Disconnected SAVP services, offices working independently

o Orientation is a ―marketing‖ event (don’t want to put any fear or discomfort into parents) without SAV prevention combined with comprehensive campus SAVP program

o Parents do ask questions at each orientation meeting with them about alcohol use of students

o GreatStart IHE State speaker Fname Lname (Month XX, 20XX) was apparently considered prevention by Admissions staff according to interviewees but not by them and not as part of a comprehensive prevention effort

o Deaths, 4 – 6 in past few years alcohol related

The third question was ―Who is affected and to what degree?‖ Notable in the responses is that very few of the persons interviewed mentioned specifics of consequences such as types (academic, fights, sexual assaults), percents, numbers, major groups of students (gender, underage). Application of health communication, health marketing, dissemination of outcomes evaluation reports or results which might give the sense of size and seriousness were not mentioned. The two academic advisors did have a sense that about 10% of their advisees may have academic problems due to alcohol. In general, there does not seem to be a good sense of the size and seriousness of problems.

The last question was ―What could happen if the problem is or problems are not address?‖ One of the main concerns was the intensive emergency resource needs during IHEPARTY and the CITY community residents possibly being left without help if needed. Another was that tailgating gives a message of acceptance of underage and high risk drinking and gives IHE a poor public image.

The interviews provided a sense of strengths, opportunities and threats for the campus.

Factors / Variables

Internal External

Positive

Strengths Opportunities

Leadership in planning stage for creating a better IHE. Academics are considered important by students. Students take care of each other and take responsibility for their actions more than at other universities. Knowledge of effective health promotion practice is available from Prevention, Education and Outreach staff.

On and off campus agencies (Chamber of Commerce, Community Family Resources, Richmond Center, City Council members, are ready to collaborate or form coalition.

Negative

Weaknesses Threats

Effective application of health promotion / public health / disease prevention standards and competencies, evidence-based interventions, market research, intervention, monitoring and evaluation planning.

Knowledge of health promotion/public health/disease prevention standards and competencies, evidence-based interventions, market research, intervention, monitoring and evaluation planning may be weak for those not funded by agencies such as United Way.



Quantitative Findings

The review of quantitative data from six IHE surveys and ACHA-NCHA from 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2007 plus Student Affairs reports provided very useful information about trends and relationships for interventions provided by staff and received by students. Campus environment questions had some significant relationships by intensity of drinking and receipt of education. The following bullet items and tables summarize many relationships.

NOTE: HR is used as an abbreviation for high risk drinker throughout the report.

o High risk drinkers at IHE outpace the national average with the range being 2.7% to 6.6% points over the last 7 years.

o In last 7 years, the percent of frequent high risk drinkers (3+ times in past 2 weeks) at IHE has been greater than the national average. Having gone from 16.3% to 18.7% and most recently 23% greater than national.

o Non drinkers has gone from 32% to 27% in same period as above

o Students say they have received a lot of education in past (70%, 69% non-drinkers and non-high risk (HR) drinkers, 75% 2+x HRs) but only 23% of all have received it at IHE

If, however, a student received info/education he/she is more likely to feel IHE is concerned about prevention (see Greek comparisons and correlation and Chi Sq analysis)

o Receipt of information / education on alcohol

ACHA-NCHA

Freshman

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

National 54% 49% 54% 59% 58% 66% 66% 64%

IHE 29% 43% 46%

All Students

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

National 48% 46% 49% 50% 45% 45% 47% 49%

IHE 34% 47% 38%

IHE 2007

Listened to / participated in alcohol education by Year

Frosh Soph Jr Sr Grad

23% 23% 22% 25% 15%



By College

Coll1 Coll2 Coll3 Coll4 Coll5 Coll6 Coll7

26% 21% 22% 23% 23% 24% 15%

Listened to / participated in alcohol education by residence

On campus

hall alone

On campus hall w room- mates

On campus

apt alone

On campus apt w room- mates

Off campus

apt alone

Off campus apt w room- mates

Frat / Sor

House

Parent’s

28% 19% 31% 12% 19% 20% 58% 0%

Listened to / participated in alcohol education by times 5+ drinks in past 2 weeks (drank on 0 days in typical week, and times 5+ in past 2 weeks)

0 days*

0 HR 1 HR 2+ HR

20% 22% 23% 28%

* No drinking in past 30 days

Listened to / participated in alcohol education by times drunk in past 2 weeks

0 days

0 HR 1 HR 2+ HR

20% 21% 25% 27%

Listened to / participated in alcohol education by times drank to get drunk in past 2 weeks

0 days

0 HR 1 HR 2+ HR

20% 24% 26% 25%

o Lower proportion than national have receipt of information on sexual assault/relationship violence and violence

ACHA-NCHA

Sexual Assault / Relationship Violence, all students

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

National 43% 41% 47% 46% 43% 43% 44% 44%

IHE 38% 37% 34%



Violence, all students

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

National 19% 20% 22% 20% 20% 20% 21% 21%

IHE 14% 11% 16%

o Relationships, associations, correlation with

Protective behaviors

Trends may or appear to show protective behaviors (deciding not to drink, eating before drinking, pacing drinks, drinking look alikes by females; alternating non- w alcoholic drinks, keeping track of drinks, pacing for males) used less than nationally

Environment

62% agree that the campus social atmosphere promotes alcohol use. 10% for tobacco, 10% for drugs

35% of non-HRs agree that policies are effective. 46% and 55% for 1x and 2+ HRs

25% non-drinkers agree that policies are enforced. 40% and 51% for 1x and 2+ HRs

46% non-drinkers agree that the campus concerned about AOD prevention. 61% for HRs

Therefore, of all students, ~47% agree that policies are effective, ~45% agree that policies are enforced, 62% agree social atmosphere promotes alcohol use. Most say polices ineffective and not enforced and alcohol use is promoted.

Consequences1

9%-12% nauseated, unconscious, forgot where were in last 30 days

In last 30 days, 15% and 22% of <21 y/o non-HRs had study and sleep interrupted by others’ alcohol use, 2.3% (4x greater than drinkers) got low grade

4.2% females, 5.4% males experienced sexual assault. .5% rec’d lower grades. Nearly all due to alcohol use

Consequences2

Few seek treatment for self or friend (0% - 2%)

9% and 12% <21 and 21+ experienced legal charges due to alcohol, ~1% due to drugs

Assaults, attempted, fights, unwanted touching appear to be slightly greater than national data for 2007

Injuries, injure another, fighting, regret, forgetting due to alcohol use may or appear to be ~25% greater proportion than national for 2007

Academics

GPA by time 5+ past 2 weeks



0 days

0 HR 1 HR 2+ HR

3.21 3.13 3.12 3.00

34% 22% 15% 29%

GPA education by times drunk past 2 weeks

0 days

0 HR 1 HR 2+ HR

3.21 3.12 3.12 3.0

34% 22% 17% 30%

GPA by times drank to get drunk past 2 weeks

0 days

0 HR 1 HR 2+ HR

3.21 3.12 3.13 2.99

34% 28% 14% 23%

7.5% for 0 HR, 18% for 1 HR, 33% for 2+ HR got lower grade on paper/project, course or dropped. Overall, 12% of students got lower grades

o What are the causes of the SAV problems? - Determinants of Health



Go to this link for description: www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2007/jul/07_0048a.htm#1. This figure illustrates the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) model of the multiple determinants of health. The model is represented by an inner circle and four outer circles.

a. Social conditions include economic inequality, urbanization, mobility, cultural values, attitudes, and policies related to discrimination and intolerance on the basis of race, gender, and other differences. b. Other conditions at the national level include major sociopolitical shifts such as recession, war, and governmental collapse. c. The built environment includes transportation systems, water and sanitation systems, housing, and other dimensions of urban planning.

o Innate individual traits, age, sex, ethnicity, biological factors

o 20% - 25% of low and HR risk drinker have grandparents with drug problems

o 8% - 10% have parents with drug problems

o Men and Whites HR drink more as well as have more consequences plus have an attitude of needing alcohol for fun.

o Individual behavior

o 44% HR drinking in past 2 weeks

o 46% drunk in past 2 weeks

o 39% drank to get drunk in past 2 weeks

o % HR drinking to get drunk and got drunk in past two weeks

38% of women drank to get drunk and did get drunk at least once each in past 2 weeks, 16% twice each

42% of men drank to get drunk and did get drunk at least once each in past 2 weeks, 28% twice each

34% of <21 year olds drank to get drunk and did get drunk at least once each in past 2 weeks, 22% twice each

o Social, family, and community network

o Norms by risk drinking group

<21 and freshmen over perceive drinks at sitting and at party more than older and those further along in academic career

o Living, playing, learning and working conditions

o psychosocial factors

o employment status and occupational factors

o socioeconomic status, (income, education, occupation)

Faculty unaware, uninvolved

Leaving home syndrome, experimenting

o natural and built environments,

the built environment includes transportation systems, water and sanitation systems, housing, and other dimensions of urban planning

Collegetown

o public health services

http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2007/jul/07_0048a.htm#1



Universal prevention less than national

Offices work independently, disconnected, no strategic plan, no same message

o healthcare services

may provide screenings

o Broad social (social conditions include economic inequality, urbanization, mobility, cultural values, attitudes, and policies related to discrimination and intolerance on the basis of race, gender, and other differences.), economic, cultural, health, and environmental conditions (major sociopolitical shifts such as recession, war, and governmental collapse), and policies at the global, national, state, and local levels.

o Little universal prevention (only ~23% receive what is done), no targeted and tailored health communication/marketing to high-risk segment of drinking population/audience

o Disconnected policy, coordination, control of offices/agencies, programs, services, interventions

Police Ride and Walk Along

The ride and walk along was from 9 pm to 11 pm Friday. About 18 miles in the car were through residential areas. The walk was through Collegetown and Legends and another apartment building with every floor being checked. Three bars were visited. See routes on pages 56-57.

During the walk through of the Legend’s building a female grad student was walking with an open glass of beer in a hallway and a fellow student helped her avoid continued trouble by taking the drink to the bar. The policeman specifically did not carry his citation book with the intention of developing good relations with students. He did take the female’s name and chatted with her about how school was going. Also, during the walk it was noted how the hallway walls were clean and painted plus no smell of urine or trash. Sgt. Shelton noted that several of the management companies are taking police advice to keep crime and problems minimized. Management companies are doing more than just having someone pick up beer cans and trash on Monday morning.

A bar manager was introduced and a discussion of monthly meetings with police ensued. These meetings let bar staff know what events and activities are coming up and help them plan for staffing to prevent problems and underage drinking. An IHE senior and Finance major was checking IDs at another bar. This student is very glad students under 21 are not allowed in the bars and he believes it would make his job much more difficult. The policeman noted that most bar owners and managers also prefer not allowing under 21 year olds in bars. At a third bar an owner seemed to agree not letting under 21 year olds in bars was good but they will drink somewhere anyway.

Summary of Findings about Program Function and Effectiveness

Substance abuse and violence prevention efforts at IHE are not reaching the majority of students and are received by a lower proportion of students than nationally. There is a strong likelihood that this caused the increases the proportion of students who drink alcohol and do high risk drinking and at greater rates than national. About 25% to 35% of students received education and 20% participated in alternative activities. Additionally, alternative activities other than IHE LateNiteFun are not promoted/marketed effectively to large numbers of students. Freshmen and students under 21 have not, apparently, received accurate information about the actual norms of drinking. They significantly over estimates drinking and this is likely to promote drinking.

Successful universal preventions that have worked at IHE are those provided to Greeks. Nearly 60% indicate having had education and their rates of consequences like drinking and driving are significantly lower than other groups on campus. Greeks, significantly (and students in general who receive universal prevention, whole study body) are less likely to agree that the campus promotes alcohol use and more likely to agree that policies are effective and enforced.



Judicial Affairs, Counseling Services and the Department of Residence conduct individual education, counseling and assessments depending on the number and seriousness of offenses. These appear to reach many students who should receive their services. Also, these individual interventions may be effective in that it is rare for repeat offenses. The research for this is weak though. A Student Affairs report from 2005-2006 found 272 alcohol offenses (mostly male freshmen and sophomores) and the IHE survey from 2007 indicates 2% (~180) of students living on campus got into trouble on campus.

A cause of low reach of whole student body and campus-community intervention is very likely to be what many of those interviewed suggest as a lack of central control and coordination. The descriptive words and phrases included: lack of strategic planning, policy leadership, mission, goals, common messages about substance abuse and violence, and clear, consistent and supportive institutional messages about alcohol and other drug use. Connectedness between offices and agencies, programs, events, activities is missing.

Stakeholders in student success left out of the prevention efforts are faculty. They are not aware of the problem; don’t believe it is their issue too, don’t know what to do if they had a student with an alcohol or drug problem.

The Collegetown bars, IHEPARTY and tailgating are areas that the university has been able improve some. Each area, however, still could use assistance. The number of bar licenses may be too high. IHEPARTY may be using too many emergency resources. The tailgating area (now farther from the stadium) at football games CITY may be promoting underage drinking and a poor image of IHE. Another problem area to address is parties at rented houses in which students don’t care for each other and control underage drinking.



Recommendations

The university should establish a comprehensive broad and multilevel program with a goal to reach and have recall of having received information and listened to or participated in education about alcohol and other drugs by near 75% to 80% of students in an academic career. This approach and goal gives the greatest opportunity for significant population reductions in substance abuse and related violence plus enhance academic performance.

The NIAAA recommended comprehensive 3-in1 framework and four tier model for SAVP should be implemented. Among the most needed components are universal prevention for ―whole student body‖ and ―campus-community‖ programs. Targeted and tailored ―health‖ or social marketing to high risk drinkers.

o The significant missing component that should and can be implemented immediately and at GreatStart IHE State this year is universal prevention. As an interviewee said, there should be a ―major‖ education push at GreatStart IHE State.

o There is a positive correlation with agreement that the campus environment is good, and policies are effective and enforced with having had SAV education from the university.

o Freshmen have the greatest to gain from this ―major‖ education push since they come to campus with large over perceptions and may drink to meet the misperception.

SAVP should have the role of overall coordination and marketing of the 3-in-1 program

o SAVP should do needs assessment, describe problems, conduct market research, design, plan for monitoring and evaluation, then implement monitor and evaluate interventions for the student body as a whole and interventions for the greater college community. SAVP should have work with a campus SAV advisory committee/task force, offices and agencies on- and off-campus and a campus-community coalition to reduce SAV.

o With regard for the third component, individual interventions, SAVP should be tasked with marketing and influencing students and others (friends, faculty, staff, influentials) to use the individual assessment and counseling services available on campus and in the community (Student Counseling Services, ACCESS, Community Family Resources).

Faculty should be made aware of the issues, recognition and ability to help with individual students SAV problems. Faculty should be motivated to support universal prevention with curriculum infusion, research and dissemination of substance abuse and violence prevention activities.

The current independently operating campus and off-campus offices and agencies should be united with senior administration public support and strategic planning, vision, mission and measurable goals and objectives.

Have all staff involved in SAV 3-in1 programs discuss and re-consider the need to add BASICS. Interviews indicated current individual interventions rarely have repeat offenses. The current individual interventions may be adequately cost-effective and funds could be used for the whole student body and campus-community (coalition) programs.

Charts from the most recent update www.higheredcenter.org/services/publications/strategic-planning-prevention-professionals-campus of NIAAA 3-in1 Framework are on the next two pages.

NOTE: Detailed and specific recommendations and methods are provided in answers to questions from Student Affairs professionals.

http://www.higheredcenter.org/services/publications/strategic-planning-prevention-professionals-campus








IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS

The president and senior administrators should provide public support and infrastructure support.

o ―College presidents should establish alcohol and other drug abuse and violence prevention as a priority and provide the necessary resources for planning, implementation and evaluation.‖

www.higheredcenter.org/services/publications/strategic-planning-prevention-professionals-campus

RE-establish the SAV advisory committee to strategically plan a 3-in-1 comprehensive program and give a clear consistent institutional message about the IHE’s concern for substance abuse and violence.

o There was one about 10 years ago that established many of the successful individual interventions currently in use.

o www.higheredcenter.org/files/product/enviro-mgnt.pdf

Hire a coordinator with knowledge, skills and competencies for needs assessment, data analysis, market research, evidence-based intervention selection and development, planning monitoring and evaluation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, refining the program, coalition building and advocacy.

o The role of the coordinator and SAVP office should coordinate and facilitate the implementation of the 3-in-1 framework and use of evidence-based interventions.

o See Job Summary recommendations on pages 35-39.

o www.higheredcenter.org/files/product/enviro-mgnt.pdf

o Establish an office with staff that will coordinate a ―3-in1‖ effort of evidence-based individual, whole student body and campus-community interventions and effectively market the individual interventions.

The office should report to the office that can give the most support to achieve measurable goals and objectives of increase non-drinking (especially by underage students) and decreased high risk drinking.

This support may be directly under the Vice President, Associate or Assistant Vice President of Student Affairs or in the

Student Health Center’s Prevention, Education and Outreach Department (PEO).

In either reporting situation SAVP being housed with and in close working proximity to like minded and skilled health promotion program specialists will encourage use of evidence-based interventions and standards of practice for health promotion

More rationale and organization charts are on pages 31-34 and 41.

Form a coalition to initiate, facilitate and encourage actions that will unite the campus and campus-community toward the accomplishment of student development goals regarding substance use and violence.

o ―Coalitions are more successful when they are backed by a college president who publicly expresses support and invests staff resources and money to solve the problem, and when the coalition leader has strong skills in program development, community organizing coalition building, and advocacy.‖

www.higheredcenter.org/services/publications/strategic-planning-prevention-professionals-campus



http://www.higheredcenter.org/files/product/enviro-mgnt.pdf

http://www.higheredcenter.org/files/product/enviro-mgnt.pdf





RECOMMENDED EVIDENCE-BASED MODELS

1. What evidence‐based model of substance abuse and violence prevention do you recommend that we use?

The model I recommend is the 3-in-1 approach with strategies grouped into four tiers. Based on over 10 years of research collected by the US Department of Education’s Higher Education Center successful interventions occur at three distinct levels. In this concept, termed the 3-in-1 approach, interventions must operate simultaneously to reach

individual students,

the student body as a whole, and

the greater college community.

These should be combined with the grouping of strategies into four tiers which are based on degree of scientific evidence supporting them. The tiers are:

Tier 1 representing the most effective strategies to prevent and reduce college drinking.

Tier 2 representing strategies that have been successful with the general population and which could be applied to college environments.

Tier 3 representing strategies that show logical and theoretical promise but require more comprehensive evaluation. Finally,

Tier 4 focusing on the giving information consistently have been found to be ineffective when used in isolation and not as part of a comprehensive prevention effort

What Colleges Need to Know Now: An Update on College Drinking Research (2007). Available at: http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/1College_Bulletin-508_361C4E.pdf.

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism of the National Institutes of Health

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/

NIAAA provides leadership in the national effort to reduce alcohol-related problems

Research Findings on College Drinking and the Minimum Legal Drinking Age


Although there is no silver bullet, we do have evidence that a variety of individual, environmental, and campus–community approaches can work.10-13 Their effectiveness will depend on the culture and context of a particular campus. Generally, strategies that encompass multiple aspects of campus life, including the surrounding community, have been most successful. It also is important to note that underage drinking laws vary among States, and, therefore, college and university administrators need to understand how their State laws apply to their campuses.14

10. Larimer ME, and Cronce JM. Identification, prevention, and treatment revisited: Individual-focused college drinking prevention strategies 1999–2006. Addict Behav 32(11):2439–2468, 2007.

11. Toomey TL, Lenk KM, and Wagenaar AC. Environmental policies to reduce college drinking: An update of research findings. J Stud Alcohol 68(2):208–219, 2007.

12. Weitzman ER, Nelson TF, Lee H, Wechsler H. Reducing drinking and related harms in college: Evaluation of the ―A Matter of Degree‖ program. Am J Prev Med 27(3):187–196, 2004.

http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/1College_Bulletin-508_361C4E.pdf

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/




13. What Colleges Need to Know Now: An Update on College Drinking Research. Available at: http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/1College_Bulletin-508_361C4E.pdf.

14. Alcohol Policy Information System (APIS), a project of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Available at: http://www.alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/stateprofiles/.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention

http://www.higheredcenter.org/

The Higher Education Center helps campuses and communities address problems of alcohol, other drugs, and violence by identifying effective strategies and programs based upon the best prevention science.

College Drinking – Changing the Culture

http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/

Welcome to College Drinking: Changing the Culture, created by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). CollegeDrinkingPrevention.gov is your one-stop resource for comprehensive research-based information on issues related to alcohol abuse and binge drinking among college students.

Guide to Community Prevention Services – The Community Guide: What works to promote health

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/index.html

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/alcohol/index.html

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/index.html

Community Guide Branch, National Center for Health Marketing (NCHM), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,


http://www.alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/stateprofiles/

http://www.higheredcenter.org/

http://www.higheredcenter.org/high-risk/alcohol

http://www.higheredcenter.org/high-risk/drugs/

http://www.higheredcenter.org/high-risk/drugs/

http://www.higheredcenter.org/high-risk/violence/

http://www.higheredcenter.org/environmental-management

http://www.higheredcenter.org/prevention/

http://www.higheredcenter.org/prevention/

http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/index.html

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/alcohol/index.html

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/index.html



ROLE FOR SAVP

2. What role should SAVP have regarding substance abuse and violence prevention?

Two of the three 3-in1 model components described in question 1 should be conducted by SAVP and the other should be marketed by SAVP. SAVP should conduct interventions for the student body as a whole and work with the greater campus community. These would be universal prevention activities. Second, but not less important, SAVP should provide the health marketing to increase participation rates in individual level intensive interventions and early interventions.

SAVP should do needs assessment, describe problems, conduct market research, design, plan for monitoring and evaluation, then implement monitor and evaluate interventions for the student body as a whole and interventions for the greater college community. SAVP should work with a campus SAV advisory committee/task force, offices and agencies on- and off-campus and a campus-community coalition to reduce SAV.

With regard for the third component, individual interventions, SAVP should be tasked with marketing and influencing students and others (friends, faculty, staff, influentials) to use the individual assessment and counseling services available on campus and in the community (Student Counseling Services, ACCESS, Community Family Resources).

US Department of Education Approach for Healthy School Grants

Continuum of Services (Interventions)

Intensive

Early Intervention

Universal Prevention

For students at highest risk of

engaging in negative behaviors or

already having a health problem

For students at risk of

engaging in negative

behaviors or already

having a health problemFor all

students,

regardless of

risk to delay or

prevent health

problems



IMMEDIATE, MEDIUM AND LONG RANGE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

3. What are immediate, medium and long range goals and objectives to strive for? How should we proceed?

A recent publication by the U.S. Department of Education’s Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention has a logic model that relates well to IHE’s current situation. A priority immediate goal would be to ask senior administrators to provide infrastructure support with resources of an advisory committee or task force, a coordinator, staff, funds, office space to implement a comprehensive 3-in1 program. Short-term, possibly 3 - 6 month, goals would be to review IHE survey and ACHA-NCHA data to determine problems and priority audiences (i.e., freshmen and high risk drinkers) and influential audiences (faculty, staff, parents). Medium-term (6 – 12 months) goals would be to complete market research, determine interventions and monitoring and evaluation plans.

Long-term goals should likely be to reduce underage drinking and high risk drinking. These match the recent Federal grant priority imperatives of reducing the proportion of underage college students who drank in the last 30 days (IHE = 73%) and had 5+ drinks in past 2 weeks (IHE = 46.4%). IHE measurable objectives might be to reduce each of these by 10% in 2 years or a target the SAVP Advisory Committee, PEO and SAVP staff decide is realistic and achievable. An additional approach to setting measurable objectives is to use the national ACHA-NCHA data for information receipt on alcohol, sexual assault and relationship violence and violence prevention as benchmarks and targets if the ACHA-NCHA data are better IHE’s (which they are for 2000, 2004 and 2007).

The charts below use the Healthy Campus 2010 and Healthy People 2020 method of better than the best by ethnicity which is to achieve the national goal to eliminate health disparities.



ACHA NCHA 2000-2007 Trends and Healthy Campus 2010 Midcourse Review 27

Objective 26-11b

Non Drinking Last 30 Days

NCHA, 2000

55.0%

31.2% 32%

55.0%


Objective 26-11b

Non Drinking Last 30 Days

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

ISU

National

IHE Baseline: 32% in 2000

IHE 2007: 27%

Recommended IHE 2010 Target: 55%

Target setting method used is same as Healthy Campus and People 2010, better than the best by ethnicity. Used average for Asian/Pacific Islander and Black. National data from ACHA-NCHA

IHE




Objective 26-11b

High Risk Drinking Last 2 Weeks

NCHA, 2000

20.0%

38.3% 42.2%

17.0%


Objective 26-11b

High Risk Drinking Last 2 Weeks

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

ISU

National

IHE

IHE Baseline: 42.2% in 2000

IHE 2007: 46.4%

Recommended IHE 2010 Target: 17.5%

Target setting method used is same as Healthy Campus and People 2010, better than the best by ethnicity. Used average for Asian/Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic. National data from ACHA-NCHA



Another immediate goal might also be to implement what one interviewee in the consultation process suggested. That was a ―major‖ education push about SAV at GreatStart IHE State. It may be possible for Fname Lname and Fname Lname to coordinate this prevention intervention covering policies and drinking norms for this year’s GreatStart IHE State and have a substantial increase over past ―listened to / participated in alcohol education about AOD programs‖ which is at 23%.

An example of goals and objectives for an established program is from the University of Virginia. A one-page plan with measurable goals and objectives is at: http://www.virginia.edu/case/about/documents/07strageticplan.pdf.

Strategic Planning for Prevention Professionals on Campus http://www.higheredcenter.org/services/publications/strategic-planning-prevention-professionals-campus

Another logic model for a successful intervention is the one for A Matter of Degree (AMOD) Logic Model. Available at: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/amod/logicmod.html.

http://www.virginia.edu/case/about/documents/07strageticplan.pdf



http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/amod/logicmod.html



BEST WAY TO FORM COALITION

4. What’s the best way to form a coalition involving the IHE and CITY communities? What role should SAVP play in this process?

A campus and community coalition will address the root causes of the problems in the surrounding community and SAVP should have the traditional student affairs role to facilitate and initiate community unity.

How-To Guide to coalition Building *****

http://www.higheredcenter.org/resources/how-guide-coalition-building

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/outreach/safesobr/12qp/coalition.html *****

Although a coalition should be as broad-based and inclusive as possible, the size of the coalition must be manageable in order to accomplish anything. Determining the appropriate size is a key consideration. The coalition cannot be too small, because everyone probably cannot attend every meeting. There must be enough people at each meeting to make decisions for the group.

Following are some helpful steps to follow before forming a coalition.

Getting Started

Ask three or four other individuals who are affiliated with your current organization and/or who are well-connected in the community to participate in a brainstorming session. Make sure they understand the goals of your proposed coalition and the limited purpose of this initial session. Tell them you need their help in identifying people who could be enlisted to join the coalition.

Draft a letter of invitation asking identified potential members to attend an organizational meeting. It is a good idea to have the letter signed by a prominent individual who is recognized in the community and who is willing to lend his or her prestige to the coalition-building task. An elected official, a judge, the head of a government agency, the police chief, a prominent business person, or a combination of these individuals would be excellent choices.

Develop the roles and responsibilities of coalition members. The start-up group may also want to draft a mission statement. Be sure to include the number of times the group will meet throughout the year, the times of the meetings, and what is expected of the group. Have some activity or activities already developed to include in the roles and responsibilities. For instance, the first activity might be a needs assessment that asks individuals to distribute a market survey to people in their neighborhoods or in their organization.

After your letter has been sent, make a follow-up phone call two days before the meeting to remind individuals to attend.

Following is a list of possible organizations that could be involved in an underage drinking prevention coalition. To form a broad-based coalition, get representation from many of these groups. Are there other groups or individuals in your community who should be invited to participate?

CITY police and _____ County sheriff’s departments;

Judges and prosecutors (both juvenile and adult), juvenile justice system representatives such as probation and children and family services support personnel;

CITY Council

Alcohol Beverage Control Board members or representatives from licensing organizations;

Substance abuse prevention and treatment personnel;

Recreation departments that serve students;

Student government

http://www.higheredcenter.org/resources/how-guide-coalition-building

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/outreach/safesobr/12qp/coalition.html



Student health care providers;

Educators and school administrators, both secondary, community college and IHE level;

Businesses, especially those that employ underage students (fast food, movie theaters, amusement parks), business settings where students often congregate (such as shopping malls);

Alcohol industry representatives (bars, restaurants, liquor stores, beer distributors);

Insurance companies;

Health care companies;

CITY Chamber of Commerce;

Youth entertainment (arenas, record and video stores);

Parent groups;

The medical community (doctors, nurses, children’s hospitals);

The military (such as the recruiters for the different branches of the military);

Churches;

Media (especially radio and television);

Civic groups (Kiwanis, Lions, Rotary, etc.);

YMCAs;

Boys and Girls Clubs, Girl Scouts, and Boy Scouts; and

Students from middle school, high school, and college levels.

New Evidence for College-Specific Audiences using a campus-community partnership

Since the original NIAAA Task Force report was issued in 2002, several studies have evaluated the community partnership (coalition) approach specifically for college communities, with encouraging results. One study examined how the campus and community environments can work together to prevent drinking and driving at two universities. This study was one of the first to test the usefulness of a multistrategy DUI (driving under the influence) intervention within a campus community.

The intervention included a social marketing campaign, with prevention advertisements in the school newspaper, ads posted in public areas on campus, and ads distributed as postcards. The message in the ads warned students that ―Drinking Driving Laws Are Strictly Enforced in the College Area.‖ These advertisements were backed up by strong media coverage on the local community stations and in the college paper. DUI checkpoints were operated by the campus police, with assistance from local city police and the highway patrol. The results were promising. One of the universities showed a ―considerable drop‖

in the students’ reports of driving after drinking.

Short of completely banning alcohol use on campus, research shows that the best prevention programs use multiple approaches. One such multi-component approach, the ―A Matter of Degree‖ program (AMOD), was launched in 1997 at 10 colleges in the United States. AMOD focused on reducing alcohol availability, raising prices, and limiting alcohol promotions and advertising on and around campus.

Sites where this program was implemented saw improvements in two measures—the percentage of students missing class as a result of alcohol use and the percentage of students driving after heavy alcohol use—compared with colleges that acted as control sites. When researchers assessed the interventions more closely, they found that those sites which instituted more interventions had greater



success, reducing both alcohol-related problems, such as binge drinking, and the secondhand effects of drinking, such as alcohol-related assaults.

As more credible studies continue to show positive outcomes associated with campus–community partnerships, this strategy should increasingly be considered an essential component of any college drinking prevention and intervention effort.

Coalitions ****

http://www.higheredcenter.org/prevention/coalitions

Research and best practices indicate that the most effective programs are campus wide efforts that involve as many parts of the college as possible, including administrators, staff, faculty, and students. Building coalitions with local community leaders is also critical. Prevention planners can collaborate with local leaders to limit student access to alcohol and other drugs, prevent intoxication, and support the efforts of local law enforcement.

The Higher Education Center has supported college administrators, state officials, and community leaders in forming campus and community coalitions and taking an environmental approach to prevention. This approach is grounded in the principle that students’ decisions about AOD use are shaped by their physical, social, economic, and legal environment.

A committed group of government officials, local prevention advocates, and other key stakeholders on campus and in the local community can help shape this environment to support students in making healthy and productive decisions. Some examples of broad environmental strategies are outlined in the Environmental Management section of this site.

Several mechanisms facilitate team collaboration among partners committed to AODV prevention:

a campus task force can address the contributors to AODV problems on campus,

a campus and community coalition will address the root causes of the problems in the surrounding community, and

a statewide prevention initiative can help mobilize coalitions to engage policy change at the state level. Involving local, regional, and statewide officials to speak out against problems can also raise public awareness and provide a stimulus for broad-based solutions.

Beyond that, a strong campus and community coalition can provide the direction and pressure needed to see effective solutions implemented.

Coalition-Building Primer

http://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/CDCynergy_training/Content/activeinformation/resources/Coalition_Building_Primer.pdf

Recent Federal Grant

http://www.higheredcenter.org/thisweek/us-dept-education%E2%80%99s-osdfs%E2%80%99s-grants-coalitions-prevent-and-reduce-alcohol-abuse-institutions

Building Partnerships

http://www.cdc.gov/drspsurveillancetoolkit/docs/bldg_partners_mkt_msg.pdf

http://www.higheredcenter.org/prevention/coalitions

http://www.higheredcenter.org/environmental-management

http://www.higheredcenter.org/prevention/coalitions/swi





http://www.cdc.gov/drspsurveillancetoolkit/docs/bldg_partners_mkt_msg.pdf



WHO ARE KEY STAKEHOLDERS?

5. In any coalition we build, who do you feel are the key stakeholders other than students?

Additional key stakeholders are decision makers and those involved in operating the interventions. Here are types of stakeholders listed by CDC and how it describes them.

The people who have the power to make decisions about the program. Identify these users of your needs assessment, problem definition and market research findings early in the development of your plan and maintain frequent contact with them. Evaluation activities should address their values and provide the information they

need.

Those served or affected by the program, either directly or indirectly. These stakeholders may include students, their family members, faculty, staff, clients, neighborhood organizations, university offices, elected officials, advocacy groups, professional associations, and staff of related or competing organizations, skeptics and opponents. Opening the process to opposing perspectives by including program opponents and skeptics can strengthen the credibility of your feedback, monitoring and evaluation results.

Those involved in program operations, including staff, sponsors, administrators, managers, collaborators, coalition partners and funding officials. These stakeholders care about how the program might be altered as a result of what's learned from your monitoring and evaluation activities or how results might reflect on them.

CDCynergy Social Marketing Edition

http://www.orau.gov/cdcynergy/soc2web/Content/phase05/phase05_step02_deeper_helping_stakeholders_prioritize.htm?zoom_highlight=stakeholders





INVOLVING LESS INVOLVED STAKEHOLDERS

6. How would you involve offices that showed up and participated with your visit to campus, but traditionally have not been invested in the program, such as Athletics? How can we best involve those who don’t think there’s a problem, or don’t think they play a role in substance abuse and violence prevention?

At least two approaches based on theories can be considered. Side stream social marketing can be used to develop strategies to move less involved stakeholders see more benefits of participation. Prochaska’s transtheoretical model of stages and processes of change can be used to move them to and through the contemplation, planning and action (participation) stages.

Typically, social marketing is thought of in terms of influencing behavior change downstream to the students with the problem. Side stream social marketing determines the needs and aspirations of stakeholders who could be collaborators to influence the behaviors of downstream consumers, students. The benefits, costs, influentials and self-efficacy of collaborating with campus interventions can be addressed with the social marketing approach.

The Transtheoretical model (http://www.uri.edu/research/cprc/transtheoretical.htm) is conceptualized in terms of several major dimensions. The core constructs, around which the other dimensions are organized, is the stages of change. These represent ordered categories along a continuum of motivational readiness to change a problem behavior. Transitions between the stages of change are effected by a set of independent variables known as the processes of change. The model also incorporates a series of intervening or outcome variables. These include decisional balance (the pros and cons of change), self-efficacy (confidence in the ability to change across problem situations), situational temptations to engage in the problem behavior, and behaviors which are specific to the problem area.

Faculty at IHE who teach business (human resources and marketing) and psychology may be ones to consult to these approaches.

Below are several programs Athletics could be encouraged to do as part of a comprehensive prevention program. In addition to increasing awareness and a sense of urgency the next process of change is to let the precontemplative people and groups know there are solutions.

The NCAA Overview of NCAA Student-Athlete Well-Being Programs

Drug Education and Wellness Programs

1. Drug Testing Program. The NCAA Web site provides the following: the NCAA list of banned drug classes, the NCAA Drug Testing Program procedures and policies, information about the NCAA drug testing third party administrator, the National Center for Drug Free Sport; and a link to the Dietary Supplement Resource Exchange Center, which responds to membership questions about medication and supplement product ingredients and whether they contain an NCAA banned substance..

2. Drug Education and Testing Video. The NCAA Drug Education and Drug Testing (DEDT) Subcommittee reviewed the NCAA Drug Education and testing video last produced in 2003. It recommended reissuing an update of the video in 2006 and providing the membership with a strong recommendation to show the video in conjunction with the signing of the compliance forms and in advance of any championship participation.

3. Alcohol and Athletic Performance. The NCAA purchased rights to the Notre Dame publication on Alcohol and Athletic Performance, which is now available on line at www.ncaa.org/health-safety.

4. APPLE Conferences: Promoting Student-Athlete Wellness and Substance Abuse Prevention. APPLE Conferences provide training for member institutions to address their athletics drug-education and wellness policies and program. Meals and lodging are paid for by the NCAA. The institution pays a $100 registration fee and travel expenses.

http://www.uri.edu/research/cprc/transtheoretical.htm

http://www.uri.edu/research/cprc/TTM/StagesOfChange.htm

http://www.uri.edu/research/cprc/TTM/ProcessesOfChange.htm

http://www.uri.edu/research/cprc/TTM/DecisionalBalance.htm

http://www.uri.edu/research/cprc/TTM/efficacy.htm



5. CHOICES Alcohol Education Grant program. The NCAA Web site provides information on this competitive grant program intended to integrate athletics into the campus-wide prevention effort. Included on the Web site is the Call for Proposals and Grant Guidelines, and abstracts from awarded projects. .

The grant award is a maximum of $30,000 per institution, to fund 15 three-year projects. Grant programs must involve students in the program’s development, implementation and evaluation, and must integrate athletics into a broader campus prevention effort.

6. Student-Athletes Taking Active Responsible Roles (STARR). The STARR toolkit guides NCAA institutions through a six-step process to address alcohol abuse and misuse on campus. It uses the social norms approach, which highlights the responsible behavior of the majority. The goal of the STARR toolkit is to correct the inflated misperceptions that most student-athletes abuse alcohol through campus-specific, data-driven facts. By presenting the true norm (i.e., the majority do not abuse alcohol), at-risk groups are less likely to abuse alcohol. The toolkit offers extensive resources to assist institutions with implementation including a workbook, editable print media, and more. It is available by contacting the Education Services department.

NCAA Handbook

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/add06e804e0b864e8497f41ad6fc8b25/wellbeing.doc?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=add06e804e0b864e8497f41ad6fc8b25

Student-Athletes Taking Active Responsible Roles

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2002/endzone/arizona+uses+_social+norming_+to+establish+expectations+-+4-29-02

U of Wyoming partnership between Athletic Department and AWARE (Alcohol Wellness Alternatives, Research, & Education) is housed within the University Counseling Center

http://www.higheredcenter.org/prevention/examples/university-wyoming

Alcohol and Athletes Studies

http://socialnorms.org/pdf/NSNI%20Alcohol%20and%20Athletes.pdf





http://www.higheredcenter.org/prevention/examples/university-wyoming

http://socialnorms.org/pdf/NSNI%20Alcohol%20and%20Athletes.pdf



SAVP ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE, ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES

7. How should SAVP change (e.g., organizational structure, roles, responsibilities, reporting relationships)? Should there be more or less positions than a Coordinator and Assistant? Where SAVP should be housed in order to get visibility and be able to provide our services more efficiently?

Applying the 3-in-1 model should be a natural one to use since Student Affairs staff are to do the following:

Develop whole student interacting in society Facilitate and initiate unity in the community Humanize academic dimensions of student life Whole institution has responsibility for learning Develop learning outcomes before interventions Learning outcomes for M.Ed., Student Affairs Emphasis Apply theory to practice, create, design, and implement, monitor and evaluate programs and

interventions

www.bgsu.edu/colleges/library/cac/sahp/word/Chronology%20of%20Found%20Docs11.28.pdf

Two places in the organization structure for SAVP are directly reporting to the Assistant VP of Student Affairs and the director of Prevention, Education and Outreach in Student Health Services. Fname Lname, Fname Lname, Fname Lname and Fname Lname are very interested and qualified in providing solid support for evidence-based SAVP. In either case, the SAVP coordinator should collaborate and network closely with PEO since they will have similar approaches to influencing student body behavior.

For recommendations for the role of SAVP please see page 20.

The major consideration should be where and from whom the SAVP effort will get the most support to do and expectation of doing evidence-based interventions. Additionally, it is important that SAVP being near and work with professionals with the same knowledge, skills and competencies (see ACHA Standard of Practice for Health Promotion in Higher Education, Certified Health Educator Competencies and ASPH Competencies listed at the end of the Job Summary section) for conducting needs assessments; analyzing data; market research; evidence-based/-informed intervention and health communication development, setting measurable goals and objectives, monitoring, evaluation, implementation; community organizing; coalition building and advocacy.

Supervision and positioning of health promotion and prevention specialists for the whole campus and campus community have become greater issues of concern since 2000. There is a trend to position these professionals directly under a vice president of Student Affairs and at an equal level to the director of the student health center. The rationale is that whole student body, population-based and campus-community health programs are too big, broad and specialized to be reporting to and directed by clinically or recreation/fitness oriented and trained people.

At other campuses, clinically trained and career oriented supervisors (i.e., medical doctors) are often very familiar with treatment and medical care, as they should be, to the extent that they are not able to appreciate the specialization needed for whole student body and campus community prevention. It may be very difficult for them to apply other than approaches to wellness that are not evidence- or theory based or informed and tend to remain 20

th century health care agenda and traditional medical

and health education model with Tier 4 events, presentations, health fairs that include handing out information. Additionally, these activities are often done without needs assessments of the campus community, no review of peer-reviewed literature for evidence-based practice that has worked to achieve measurable goals and objectives plus not monitored or evaluated for outcomes.

http://www.bgsu.edu/colleges/library/cac/sahp/word/Chronology%20of%20Found%20Docs11.28.pdf



Evolution of Health & Wellness

Results / Outcome Oriented

Health and Academic

Performance Management

* = Health Cost Management, NOTE: chart adapted from Chapman, see notes section for reference.

Focus on student learning

Strong risk reduction

Strong high risk focus

Some required activity

SHS, campus & virtual

Strongly segmented audience

Major incentives

Sig. others served

Rigorous assess/eval

Traditional Medical and

Health Promotion

Traditional Medical Model

and Health Education

Mostly health focus

Some risk reduction

Little risk reduction

Limited HCM oriented

All voluntary

Site-based only

Weak personalization

Modest incentives

Few sig. others served

Weak assess/eval

Fun activity focus

No risk reduction

No high risk focus

Not HCM* oriented

All voluntary

Site-based only

No personalization

Minimal incentives

No sig. others served

No assessment/eval

Activity OrientedMorale Oriented

Name of Model

Main Features

Primary Focus

Positioning of SAVP in the campus office of Prevention, Education and Outreach (PEO) should allow the most effective and efficient use of resources. PEO has staff with the knowledge, skills and competencies required to provide evidence-based substance abuse and violence prevention program. The staff in PEO and SAVP can combine the same knowledge, skills and competencies yet have some specialization for different health issues. Examples of position and oversight of health promotion and prevention programs are:

Arizona State University’s Director of Wellness and Health Promotion which include AOD. Directly under the VP of Student Affairs and at an equal level to the director of Student Health Services.

University of North Dakota has a Director of Wellness with a PhD. This position is under the VP of Student Affairs with the directors of the health and counseling centers under the wellness director position.

University of Virginia’s Center for Alcohol and Substance Education is under the Associate VP Student Affairs and Dean of Students while the health center director is under the VP Student Affairs.

University of Kentucky, Louisville’s SAVP position will be with the health promotion department which is within student health center.

University of Colorado, Boulder’s director of AOD programs reports to the Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs.

State University of NY, Oswego coordinator of AOD reports to the Dean of Student Affairs



Two approaches to organizing SAVP

Note that SART is shown on these charts. Several interviewees believe SART’s prevention role would get more support for collaboration in evidence-based programs and more positive visibility if in PEO.

Assistant / Associate VP Student Affairs

Student Health Center

Campus Health Promotion & Disease Prevention Services

Nutrition SAVP

Fitness Students 2 Students

Stress Management & Mental Health

Sexuality & Sexual Health

SART Smoking Cessation

Student Counseling Services



If SAVP is housed or placed in PEO working together to solve problems for the student body they should be sure that values, and tasks and interpersonal process skills are optimal to achieve the organization's mission with improved performance and productivity. I recommend they use tools such as those for Process Consultation and, in particular, use and discuss results of the ―Rating Group Effectiveness.‖ - http://www.healthedpartners.org/processconsultation/

Note that SART is shown on these charts. Several interviewees believe SART’s prevention role would get more support for collaboration in evidence-based programs and more positive visibility if in PEO.

Assistant / Associate VP

Student Affairs


Campus Health Promotion &

Disease Prevention Services

Nutrition Fitness

Sexuality & Sexual Health

Students 2 Students

SAVP SART

Stress Management & Mental Health

Smoking Cessation

Student Counseling Services

http://www.healthedpartners.org/processconsultation/



JOB SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COORDINATOR AND ASSISTANT

8. How should the position descriptions of the SAVP Coordinator and Assistant change?

With the recommended 3-in1 model the coordinator position would have major changes in duties that also have an increased complexity. See the next pages with recommendations for the coordinator and, if necessary, an assistant. Graduate assistants or ones shared with other PEO departments may be sufficient to get work completed without a paid professional program assistant. Links to resources for Coordinator Skills and Competencies (ACHA Standards of Practice for Health Promotion in Higher Education, ACHA Guidelines for Hiring Health Promotion Specialists in Higher Education, Certified Health Education Specialist Responsibilities and Competencies and Association of Schools of Public Health Competencies for MPH Graduates) following the job summary recommendations on page 40.

Job Summary – Briefly describe basic purpose of the position. NOTE: Clipart items are from the current Program Assistant Job Summary

Coordinator Assistant or Graduate Assistant The position of the Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention Coordinator is critical to the reduction and prevention of underage and problem drinking as well as the prevention of illicit drug use on the IHE State University campuses. This position will serve as the primary point of contact for all Coalition activities.

The position of the Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention Assistant is critical to the reduction and prevention of underage and problem drinking as well as the prevention of illicit drug use on the IHE State University campuses. This position will serve as a point of contact for all Coalition activities. The assistant will record and monitor individual, whole student body and campus-community data.

Knowledge, skill and abilities



Coordinator Assistant or Graduate Assistant Bachelor’s Degree or equivalent combination of relevant education and experience. Master’s degree preferred. Experience working with students in higher education and knowledge of substance abuse and related violence prevention issues as they pertain to a college campus. Good communication skills. Good teamwork skills. Flexibility and creativity in working with others. Continued training and practice conducting evidence-based and –informed campus- and community-based interventions (may include presentations). Direct experience conducting needs assessments; analyzing data; market research; evidence-based/-informed interventions and health communication development, setting measurable goals and objectives, monitoring, evaluation, implementation; community organizing; coalition building and advocacy. Direct experience working with students. .

Bachelor’s Degree or equivalent combination of relevant education and experience. Experience working with students in higher education and knowledge of substance abuse and related violence prevention issues as they pertain to a college campus. Good communication skills. Good teamwork skills. Flexibility and creativity in working with others. Continued training and practice conducting evidence-based and –informed campus- and community-based interventions (may include presentations). Direct experience conducting needs assessments; analyzing data; market research; evidence-based/-informed interventions and health communication development, setting measurable goals and objectives, monitoring, evaluation, implementation; community organizing; coalition building and advocacy. Direct experience working with students.

. . Propose Job Duties – Total Percent of Time: 100

Coordinator Assistant or Graduate Assistant



The Coordinator will work with the IHE SAVP Advisory Committee and IHE, CITY and _____ County Community Coalition to Reduce Substance Abuse and Violence: Work with the Coalition to market individual interventions and provide universal prevention as part of a comprehensive, campus-wide and community-integrated prevention and intervention effort regarding alcohol and substance abuse issues impacting the college population. Provide regular outreach to various campus and community constituencies and participate in new student orientation and GreatStart IHE State. Create effective health marketing interventions target to priority audience segments related to reducing the risky use of alcohol and other drugs. Serve and provide leadership on other university - community coalitions addressing issues related to alcohol and substance abuse.

40%

The Assistant will work with the IHE SAVP Advisory Committee and IHE, CITY and _____ County Community Coalition to Reduce Substance Abuse and Violence: Work with the Coalition as needed market individual interventions and to provide universal prevention as part of a comprehensive, campus-wide and community-integrated prevention and intervention effort regarding alcohol and substance abuse issues impacting the college population. Assist in the provision of regular outreach to various campus and community constituencies and participate in new student orientation and GreatStart IHE State Assist in the creation of effective health marketing interventions target to priority audience segments related to reducing the risky use of alcohol and other drugs. Assist in providing leadership on other university/community coalitions addressing issues related to alcohol and substance abuse.

25%

Coordinator Assistant or Graduate Assistant Supervise review and evaluation of individual interventions and whole student body and campus-community program information and data.

20%

Assist with management of individual interventions and whole student body and campus-community program information and data. Manage and update marketing listservs, web pages and Web 2.0 (Facebook, Twitter, blogs. etc.) tools to market alcohol-free activities. This includes IHE Daily ―Amuse‖ section.

25%

Coordinator Assistant or Graduate Assistant Supervise paperwork and report preparation, and evaluate and interpret outcomes, revise programs as necessary to improve program effectiveness.

10%

Assist preparation of paperwork and reports, and evaluation and interpretation of outcomes, assist revision of programs as necessary to improve program effectiveness.

15%



Coordinator Assistant or Graduate Assistant Orient, train, and delegate responsibility to assistant and/or undergraduate student workers, if available. Coordinate efforts with peer educators and other university personnel for interventions as necessary

10%

Assist in orientation, training, and delegation of responsibility to undergraduate student workers, if available. Assist in coordination efforts with peer educators and other university personnel for interventions as necessary

20%

Coordinator Assistant or Graduate Assistant Participate in long-range planning and program development. Research, assess and gain understanding of student, campus and campus- community cultures at IHE, CITY and _____ County.

15%

Assist in long-range planning and program development. Research, assess and gain understanding of student, campus and campus- community cultures at IHE, CITY and _____ County.

10%

Coordinator Assistant or Graduate Assistant Participate in professional conference and skill development workshops.

5%

Participate in professional conference and skill development workshops.

5%

Complexity

Coordinator Assistant or Graduate Assistant Due to continuous research on effectiveness and impact of substance abuse and violence prevention efforts on campus, more effective programming is constantly being developed and utilized. Creating interventions that can be adapted to new information and assessment of what work best for

Due to continuous research on effectiveness and impact of substance abuse and violence prevention efforts on campus, more effective programming is constantly being developed and utilized. Creating interventions that can be adapted to new information and assessment of what work best for



this campus is essential. Furth challenges include collecting the necessary assessment information, and ensuring it is accurate and specific in defining any problem areas or concerns that need to be address by prevention efforts.

this campus is essential. Furth challenges include collecting the necessary assessment information, and ensuring it is accurate and specific in defining any problem areas or concerns that need to be address by prevention efforts.

Innovation

Coordinator Assistant or Graduate Assistant The position requires resourcefulness for collaboration with on- and off-campus groups and organizations, particularly concerning determining evidence-based interventions and systems thinking for planning and development of student activities such individual, whole student body and campus-community interventions and keeping students involved.

The position requires resourcefulness for collaboration with on- and off-campus groups and organizations, particularly concerning determining evidence-based interventions and systems thinking for planning and development of student activities such individual, whole student body and campus-community interventions and keeping students involved.

Scope Positive impact . . .

Coordinator Assistant or Graduate Assistant Students, staff and faculty will . . .

Students, staff and faculty will . . .

Types of negative impact . . .

Coordinator Assistant or Graduate Assistant A lack of student, staff and faculty awareness of problems and resources and a lack of involvement to address these issues. Potentially, an increase in

A lack of student, staff and faculty awareness of problems and resources and a lack of involvement to address these issues. Potentially, an increase in



high risk drinking, increase in underage drinking, and related negative academic and health consequences.

high risk drinking, increase in underage drinking, and related negative academic and health consequences.

Resources for Coordinator Skills and Competencies ACHA Standards of Practice for Health Promotion in Higher Education http://www.acha.org/info_resources/sphphe_statement.pdf Guidelines for Hiring Health Promotion Specialists in Higher Education http://www.acha.org/info_resources/ACHA_HP_HiringGuidelines_072108.pdf Certified Health Education Specialist Responsibilities and Competencies http://www.nchec.org/credentialing/responsibilities/ Association of Schools of Public Health Competencies for MPH Graduates http://www.asph.org/userfiles/version2.3.pdf

http://www.acha.org/info_resources/sphphe_statement.pdf

http://www.acha.org/info_resources/ACHA_HP_HiringGuidelines_072108.pdf

http://www.nchec.org/credentialing/responsibilities/

http://www.asph.org/userfiles/version2.3.pdf



BEST WAY TO USE RESOURCES SAVP CURRENTLY HAS 9. What’s the best way to use the resources that SAVP currently has? What additional resources

are needed? If SAVP is incorporated into PEO there may not be a need for a program assistant. In PEO both personnel and monetary resources could provide an efficient and cost-effective program. Fname Lname has very good experience in many health promotion areas and a good working relationship with bar owners. He could be an effective SAVP program coordinator. Additionally, Fname Lname may be able to move into the coordinator position. She may be able to fulfill the Coordinator job duties effectively with supervision from Fname Lname. Ms. Lname has a Master’s degree in Education, extensive experience with the current SAVP program and may be able to take the program to the next evidence-based level with additional training and attendance at Higher Education Center workshops and conferences.

SAVP

Coordinator

and Assistant or shared assistant

Graduate Assistants Peer Educators

Collaboration with Campus Health

Promotion & Disease Prevention Services

Staff

Technical Assistance to Campus Departments

Advisory Committee / Task Force

Campus Community Coalition



REDUCING HARD CORE HIGH RISK DRINKING

10. What programs at comparable institutions have been found to be effective in reducing the substance abuse of the ―hard core‖ binge drinkers at universities? What universities have effective programs for this group?

There are several strategies that are known to work for the ―hard core‖ high risk drinking students. The problem is getting enough nudges (good book - Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness) to them (i.e., the way the Greeks do at IHE does – check with Jenn Plagman-Galvin). Tier 1 interventions are ones to use once you’ve got them.

One strategy for increasing participation in these interventions is to make screening a routine event in student health centers (medical history) and campus wellness / health promotion departments and to use new technology, particularly the Internet, to reach larger percentages of students. Cal Poly Pomona had its ―Study Well Health Assessment‖ on WebCT and Blackboard which all students using The Wellness Center were asked to complete. It is brief (2 pages) health screening and intervention for college students (BHSICS) (www.csupomona.edu/~bacchusgamma/csu/swha.pdf, (www.csupomona.edu/~jvgrizzell/hpprog/cpp_2010targets2000baselines.pdf), covers the 14 Cal Poly Pomona key priority Healthy Campus 2010 health issues www.csupomona.edu/~bacchusgamma/csu/swhaprofile.pdf) including alcohol and provided tailored feedback and resources which research shows is effective in changing behavior. This screening provided greater opportunities for students to receive brief motivational or skills-based, tailored feedback programs, which research continues to support.

NOTE: Fname Lname’s interest is piqued for this idea and suggested students could be given $5 off the Orientation or GreatStart IHE State fee as an incentive to complete a brief health

These approaches teach students how their drinking levels and patterns and other behaviors compare with the campus norms and Clinical Preventive Guideline recommendations, using techniques such as personalized feedback, and give them the skills they need to change their drinking and other health practices. Brief motivational or skills-based interventions may be especially useful with high-risk students, such as those who have been mandated to receive help with alcohol-related problems, freshmen, students involved with fraternities and sororities, and athletes.

Tier 1: Evidence of Effectiveness among College Students These approaches are supported by two or more studies with college populations:

Combining cognitive-behavioral skills training with norms clarification and motivational enhancement interventions(e.g., Alcohol Skills Training Program [ASTP]);

Offering brief motivational enhancement interventions (e.g., Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students [BASICS]); and

Challenging alcohol expectancies, using a combination of information and experiential learning.

According to several new studies, strategies that focus on preventing drinking and alcohol problems in individual students continue to have significant research support. However, these findings also offer some new insights. Since the original Task Force report, a number of new studies have examined measures to reduce drinking among ―mandated‖ students—or students who have been identified as having a problem with alcohol and who have been mandated to receive intervention and/or treatment for their problems. This is in contrast to the original report studies, which focused primarily on students who volunteered.

New Data on Mandated Students

Six new studies of mandated populations have been completed (5–10). Most of these studies used skills-based interventions and motivational interviewing— that is, teaching students about the risks of drinking (for example, the value of avoiding excessive drinking to achieve their academic and career

http://www.nudges.org/

http://www.nudges.org/

http://www.csupomona.edu/~bacchusgamma/csu/swha.pdf

http://www.csupomona.edu/~jvgrizzell/hpprog/cpp_2010targets2000baselines.pdf

http://www.csupomona.edu/~bacchusgamma/csu/swhaprofile.pdf



goals) and showing students how to monitor their drinking, how to set limits and reduce their risks of drinking too much, and how to handle high-risk situations in which drinking is prevalent. The studies found that these interventions can be effective in reducing alcohol-related problems among mandated students.

As an example, in a recent study students mandated to a substance use prevention program were provided either 1) an in-person brief motivational intervention or 2) an alcohol education session. Both groups of students showed a reduction in high-risk drinking. Students who received the brief motivational interview reported fewer alcohol-related problems than did those who received only the alcohol education session.

Participation Rates Remain Low

Unfortunately, recent research also suggests that those students who most need alcohol interventions may be the least likely to participate, yet they also are the most likely to experience or to create alcohol-related problems on campus. Delivering interventions in settings where students experiencing problems with alcohol are more likely to be seen, such as in health or counseling centers, may be most effective. Research also continues to support using trained student peers as part of the team that provides these interventions.

One strategy for increasing participation in these interventions is to make screening a routine event in university health centers and to use new technology, particularly the Internet, to reach larger percentages of students. This screening will provide greater opportunities for students to receive brief motivational or skills-based programs, which research continues to support. These approaches teach students how their drinking levels and patterns compare with the norm, using techniques such as personalized feedback, and give them the skills they need to change their drinking practices. Brief motivational or skills-based interventions may be especially useful with high-risk students, such as those who have been mandated to receive help with alcohol-related problems, freshmen, students involved with fraternities and sororities, and athletes.

The use of computer- or Web-delivered brief interventions is showing promise in a college setting. PC- and Web-based brief interventions for college students with personalized feedback may be the key component of this strategy’s success, both in motivating students and helping them learn the skills they need to successfully change their behavior. The feasibility of providing online alcohol screening and brief intervention to more than one-half of an entire freshman class has been tested. The students were contacted through e-mail and invited to take the brief intervention. It was found that, in general, unhealthy alcohol use—ranging from risky drinking to alcohol abuse and dependence — decreased following the intervention.

Given these findings, it appears that increased alcohol screening and brief interventions are feasible and appropriate for identifying and addressing harmful drinking among college students.

What Colleges Need to Know Now: An Update on College Drinking Research. Available at: http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/1College_Bulletin-508_361C4E.pdf.




EVALUATING AND IMPROVING EFFECTIVENESS OF IHE LATENITEFUN

11. Regarding IHE LateNiteFun, how can we better evaluate our program and make sure that we are having a positive impact on drinking behavior?

A major concern is the cost-effectiveness of the program related to the number of students affected. IHE LateNiteFun, at a cost of $50,000 per year, as a provider of alternative activities may have achieved the best impact it can and at a cost of $25 per student helped to not drink. This may be the best impact and cost per student achievable with the current approach. A Student Affairs report (―evaluation‖) from 2003 does show a 40% decrease in alcohol related offenses on IHE LateNiteFun events.

The current situation presents an excellent opportunity to create a brand, brand IHE LateNiteFun in the minds of the students. Ideas for adding to the effectiveness are to:1) have larger venues since there has not been enough room several times, 2) keep events going until bars close, 3) involve high risk drinkers in planning fun and celebratory IHE LateNiteFun event (identify from and invite participation by them at individual intervention assessment and counseling), 4) increase awareness of non-alcoholic events put on by other organizations in CITY by marketing them with Web 2.0 (listserv [only has 700 members now], Facebook, Twitter – market each) and IHE Daily Amuse section.

Ideas for evaluating IHE LateNiteFun are to use a logic model to determine inputs, outputs, and measurable goals. To improve effectiveness it should be part of many other whole study body and college community comprehensive programs. IHE LateNiteFun should become a brand name. Branding develops words, images, and tone that are used consistently in all communication that promotes the desired behavior change (participate in non-alcoholic activities) and any associated products or services (non-alcoholic events) to the target audience. Brands are a shorthand way to communicate the value of the behavior change and help inspire your audience to action. Branding will attract more students to fun alternate activities in the CITY area as well as IHE’s own continued IHE LateNiteFun events. This will increase the reach and reduce the cost per student incurred by SAVP.

Interventions

High Reach / Low Cost

High

Low

Cost

High

Low

Reach

Policies

Ecological Approach &

Social Marketing

Activities no feedback

Health SystemsActivities w/ Health Education

Specialty

Care

Community &

Neighborhood Collaboration

Primary Care

18

http://www.orau.gov/cdcynergy/soc2web/Content/activeinformation/glossary/glossarycontent.htm?zoom_highlight=brand



The number of students who participated in the most recent was 7,400 and recent reports since 2007 indicated that 68% to 70% percent had attended more than one event. This could mean that about 5,000 students or just fewer than 20% of the whole student body participated. Additionally, 27%, about 2000 or just fewer than 8% of the whole student body may have been helped to avoid drinking. The approximate cost per student who avoided alcohol was $25.

There are no findings reported that high risk drinkers participated. There are nearly 12,000 IHE students who drink 5+ or more drink in a setting in the past 2 weeks. Additionally, several interviewees believed that some student went to other activities after IHE LateNiteFun events where drinking was involved. This may be the best impact and cost per student achievable with the current approach specifically for IHE LateNiteFun events. Larger venues, longer lasting (until bars close) and marketing non-alcoholic activities by other organizations and branding IHE LateNiteFun may improve this program’s effectiveness.

The objective of evaluation is to determine which intervention methods produce a significant change in behavior in an impact rate from a baseline rate. IHE LateNiteFun should be evaluated against other whole study body and college community programs using cost effectiveness analysis (CEA). Other types of evaluation include cost-benefit, cost-utility and cost-minimization. In general more cost effective interventions will be those that reach high numbers of students.

Evaluation is a core competency of public and campus health practice. Up through the 1970s evaluation typically only measured and reported resource expenditures, numbers of participants and staff effort, structure and process evaluations. Since then there has been a push to have greater precision in program evaluation. We now know how to plan intervention, what to measure, and how to conduct all major types of rigorous program evaluations.

IHE LateNiteFun is an example of an alternative activity and several similar activities are listed on the Higher Education Center’s web site (http://www.higheredcenter.org/environmental-management/change/alcohol-free). Alternative programs were defined as interventions that included the provision of positive activities more appealing than drug use (e.g., sports activities). Alternative activities are considered an important component of a comprehensive prevention program. An example list is a study (http://www.higheredcenter.org/research/gender-moderates-relationship-between-substance-free-activity-enjoyment-and-alcohol-use) that concludes that ―although further research is required to determine procedures for increasing participation in substance-free activities and to explicate possible gender differences, these results suggest that increasing enjoyable substance-free activities may be an important prevention component. ‖A meta-analyses found that alternative programs overall were less effective than peer programs.‖ (http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh26-1/5-14.pdf). Among the alternative programs, those that involved high-risk youth (this is also a social marketing technique – involving stakeholders) and that involved many hours of activities were most effective. Peer programs were defined as interventions that included social and life skills training, including refusal skills.

A review in the previous reference offered the following conclusions based on the available research:

Alternative approaches seem to be most effective with high-risk youth who may not have adequate adult supervision and a variety of activities available to them in their daily life.

Youth involvement in the planning and implementation of alternatives may enhance participation and effectiveness.

More intensive programs seem to be most effective.

Alternative programs should incorporate skills-building components into their design. Alternative programs should be one part of a comprehensive prevention plan serving

to establish strong community norms against alcohol use. An important component of these activities appears to be active youth leadership. This conclusion was supported by a study reporting that youth who participated in planning alcohol-free activities for their peers significantly reduced their alcohol use.

http://www.higheredcenter.org/environmental-management/change/alcohol-free

http://www.higheredcenter.org/environmental-management/change/alcohol-free

http://www.higheredcenter.org/research/gender-moderates-relationship-between-substance-free-activity-enjoyment-and-alcohol-use

http://www.higheredcenter.org/research/gender-moderates-relationship-between-substance-free-activity-enjoyment-and-alcohol-use

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh26-1/5-14.pdf



To better evaluate IHE LateNiteFun review the following paragraphs and pages with a logic model. A ―best practice‖ approach is to use a logic model to determine inputs, processes, outputs, outcomes and possible measures for each. Logic models are required for Department of Education and United Way grant and funding request applicants. See the next pages for a detailed example.

Short-, medium- and long-term measurable objectives can be set and simple surveys immediately after and a few months after IHE LateNiteFun activities can be used to evaluate effectiveness in short- and medium-term. The ACHA-NCHA and IHE substance use surveys conducted every 2 years can be used to evaluate for long-term outcomes. Short- and medium-term outcomes to measure include changes in perception, knowledge, intentions, and attitudes. Medium-term might include behavior changes such as rates or prevalence of underage alcohol possession violation and drinking and driving violations. ACHA-NCHA and IHE surveys can show changes in proportion of students not drinking in the past 30-days and proportion high risk drinking, as well as, perception of the campus environment. All of these could be assessed early on to monitor the program.



Program Planning and Evaluation Logic Model

Program Name: _________________IHE LateNiteFun___________________________________

Planning Implementation Outcomes

Situation

Priorities /

Intended

Outcomes

Inputs

Outputs

Short-Term Intermediate Long-Term Activities /

Processes Participants

Conduct Consider What we invest What we do Who we reach

Needs and Assets

Assessment

Symptoms vs.

Problems

Stakeholder

Engagement

Vision

Mission

Values

Mandates

Resources

Local Dynamics

Collaborators

Competitors

Resources

Volunteers

Staff

Partners

Research Base

Money

Transportation

Space

Equipment /

Technology

Supplies

Information Guidelines

Services and Goods

Education

Communication /

Marketing / Social

Marketing

Passive Information

Direct Outputs

Number and type of participants

Freshmen

<21 year olds

High Risk Drinkers

Very High Risk Drinkers

Intermediate Effects

of Direct Outputs

Recall,

comprehension,

knowledge,

intentions,

satisfaction,

importance,

perceptions

“Immunized”

Behavior change

Ultimate Effect or

Outcome

Goals

Measurable

Objectives




Program Name: ___________________IHE LateNiteFun____________________________

Planning

Situation Priorities / Intended Outcomes

Conduct Consider

Needs and Assets Assessment

Symptoms vs Problems

Stakeholder Engagement

Thorough situation analysis to include:

Social Assessment – Target population’s perceptions fo their quality

of life by discussion groups, focus groups, surveys;

Epidemiological Assessment identifies health problems that are most

prevalent in the target population’s community. Determine what are

the problems and who has them;

Behavioral and Environmental Assessment identifies behavioral and

environmental risk factors for the health problems that were

identified in the epidemiological assessment, answer the question

why do the students with the health problems have them and;

Educational Assessment identifies the possible antecedents of the

behaviors and environmental conditions that were identified in the

behavioral and environmental assessment.

From Green and Kreuter’s PRECEDE / PROCEED Model

Vision

Mission

Values

Mandates

Resources

Local Dynamics

Collaborators

Competitors

Tobacco industry




Program Name: ________________________IHE LateNiteFun_______________________________

Implementation

Inputs Outputs

Activities/Processes Participants

What we invest What we do Who we reach

Volunteers, Staff, Partners

Research Base

Money, Transportation, Space

(capital, office)

Equipment / Technology (nondisposable items: computers, copiers)

Supplies (disposable items: paper, pens)

Information Guidelines

Standards for operation developed by a

formal process incorporating the best

scientific evidence of effectiveness with

expert opinion

Services and Goods

Education

Policy

Recommend policy changes

Communication / Marketing / Social Marketing

Passive Information

Web pages, pamphlets, literature,

information sheets

Direct Outputs

Number of items produced, specific

services or goods provided and produced

by the program for:

Bingo, movies, etc.

Students

N = 7,400

Non-Drinkers

? N = 5,400 ?

Drinkers

? N = 2,000 ?




Program Name: ________________________IHE LateNiteFun______________________________

Outcomes

Short-Term Intermediate Long-Term

Intermediate Effects of Direct

Outputs

Knowledge, attitudes, intentions,

satisfaction, importance

Recall of receiving information

about topic

Baseline:

2010 Target:

“Immunized”

Behavior change, cessation

attempts

Baseline:

Target:

Ultimate Effect or Outcome

Decrease/increase the proportion of

________ who topic

Baseline:

20?? Target:

2010 Target:

Decreaseincrease the proportion of

________ who topic

Baseline:

20?? Target:

2010 Target:

Decrease/increase the proportion of

________ who topic

Baseline:

20?? Target:

2010 Target:



Evaluation (Monitoring, Measurement, Assessment) Plan Program Name: _____________________IHE LateNiteFun___________________________________

Indicators

(Data) Data Source

Data Collection

Method

Data Collection

Tool

Data Collection

Frequency /

Schedule

Sample Size

Implementation

Inputs

Number of staff,

volunteers, partners

Budget

Standards (CA

DHS/Tobacco

Control Office,

Dept of Ed.)

Office records

Review records

Review records

Review records

Paper / Excel

Worksheets, etc.

Annually

Entire office

Activities /

Processes

Types of media,

articles, trainings,

conference calls,

meetings,

promotional items,

literature,

pamphlets

Office records

showing authors,

attendance, topics,

mode of delivery,

supplemental

materials

Meeting Minutes

Committee

members provide

information on

complete forms

Paper / Excel

Worksheets

Each presentation,

training, meeting.

Summary of above

plus other items

quarterly, semi-

annually or

annually

All activities and

items

Outcomes

Direct

Number of

commercials,

billboards, posters,

training sessions,

meetings, articles,

consultations

Office and

presenter records

Presenters keep

records

Paper / Excel

Worksheets

Quarterly, semi-

annually or

annually

All activities and

items



Indicators

(Data) Data Source

Data Collection

Method

Data Collection

Tool

Data Collection

Frequency /

Schedule

Sample Size

Short-term

# and % changing

knowledge,

attitudes,

intentions, agree

with importance,

satisfaction

Enter source (i.e.,

Pre- / Post-

surveys)

Enter method (i.e.,

participant

completes

questionnaires)

Enter name of

survey tool

Enter frequency

(i.e., Quarterly,

semi-annually or

annually)

Statistically

appropriate sample

(see sample size

calculator

reference)

Intermediate

Decrease/increase

proportion of ____

doing ______

i.e., Annual surveys

and interviews

i.e., Staff conduct

phone, mail or

online interviews

and surveys

i.e., Enter name of

survey tool

i.e., Annually

Statistically

appropriate sample

Long-term

Decrease/increase

the proportion of

____ doing ______

i.e., AF Web-based

Health Assessment

i.e., Web-based

survey

Enter name of

survey tool

i.e., Annually

Statistically

appropriate sample

References

Glanz, K, et al. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research and Practice. Jossey-Bass, 2002.

California Tobacco Control Office Reports, http://www.dhs.ca.gov/tobacco/html/publications.htm

Veney, James., A. Kaluzny. Evaluation & Decision making for Health Services. Health Administration Press, Chicago. 1998.

Windsor, R., et al. Evaluation of Health Education, Health Education and Disease Prevention Programs. McGraw-Hill. 2003.

Sample Size Calculator. Creative Research Systems. Online: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm .

Jim Grizzell, MBA, MA, CHES, ACSM-HFS, [email protected]

Logic Model and Evaluation Guide.doc, Templated created: 4/21/2002

http://www.dhs.ca.gov/tobacco/html/publications.htm

http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

mailto:[email protected]


Jim Grizzell, MBA, MA, CHES, ACSM-HFS, FACHA – [email protected], (909) 856-3350 Page 53

SUBSTANCE ABUSE CONSULTANT AGENDA

JIM GRIZZELL WEDNESDAY, Month 17

5-? Dinner

Fname Lname, Assistant Vice President for Student

Affairs & Director of Counseling Fname Lname, Health Promotion Coordinator,

IHEUniv Student Health Center & Interim

Substance Abuse & Violence Prevention Coordinator

Fname Lname, Interim Program Assistant, Substance

Abuse & Violence Prevention

_____ ______

320 South XX Street

(Fname Will Escort Jim)

THURSDAY, MONTH 18

8-8:15 Fname Lname, Assistant Vice President for Student

Affairs & Director of Counseling

Student Counseling Service

Room 3034A

3rd Floor Student Services Bldg.

8:15-9 Fname Lname, Chair, Department of Psychology Student Counseling Service

Conference Room


9-10 Substance Abuse & Violence Prevention Task Force Fname Lname, Associate Vice President for Student

Affairs

Fname Lname, Health Promotion Supervisor, IHEUniv Student Health Center

Fname Lname, Director, IHEUniv Student Health

Center Fname Lname, Assistant Vice President for Student


Student Counseling Service Conference Room


10-11 Violence Prevention

Fname Lname, Director, Fname Lname Women’s Center

Fname Lname, Program Assistant, Department of

Public Safety Fname Lname, Assistant to Vice President for

Student Affairs

Fname Lname, Director, IHE Police Department


Conference Room 3

rd Floor Student Services Bldg.

11-1 Lunch on Own (Review Notes)

1-2 IHE Faculty

Fname Lname, Associate Provost

Fname Lname, Record Analyst, Educational

Leadership & Policy Studies Fname Lname, Professor, Community and Regional

Planning and CITY Councilman


Conference Room




2-3 IHE Faculty/Staff

Fname Lname, Assistant Professor in Agronomy and

IHE Advisor Fname Lname, LAS Academic Advisor and CITY

Councilman

Fname Lname, Former Student Counseling Service Substance Abuse Graduate Assistant

Fname Lname, Senior Lecturer & IHE Daily Advisor


Conference Room


3-4 Substance Abuse Prevention/Intervention

Fname Lname, Substance Abuse Coordinator, Student Counseling Service

Fname Lname, Interim Program Assistant, Substance

Abuse and Violence Prevention Fname Lname, Health Promotion Coordinator,

IHEUniv Student Health Center & Interim

Substance Abuse & Violence Prevention

Coordinator Fname Kellogg, Assistant Coordinator for Judicial

Affairs & Former Substance Abuse & Violence

Prevention Coordinator


Conference Room 3

rd Floor Student Services Bldg.

4:30-5:30 Student Affairs Central Office

Fname Lname, Vice President for Student Affairs

Fname Lname, Associate Vice President for Student

Affairs

Vice President for Student Affairs

______ Hall

5:30-? Dinner

Fname Lname, Vice President for Student Affairs

Fname Lname, Associate Vice President for Student Affairs

Fname Lname, Assistant Coordinator for Judicial

Affairs & Former Substance Abuse & Violence

Prevention Coordinator

Café ____

823 ______ Street


FRIDAY, MONTH 19

8-9 CITY Community Fname Lname, Drug Free Coordinator, Youth &

Shelter Services

Fname Lname, Youth Community Prevention Specialist, Youth & Shelter Services

Fname Lname, Program Manager, CITY Chamber of

Commerce

Fname Lname, Response Services Coordinator, Assault Care Center Extending Shelter & Support

Fname Lname, Chief of Police, CITY Police

Department and Former Coordinator of IHE Substance Abuse Program & Former Director of

IHE Public Safety


3rd Floor Student Services Building



9-10 Student Affairs/Judicial Affairs

Fname Lname, Dean of Students, Dean of Students

Office Fname Lname, Assistant Dean of Students, Dean of

Students Office

Fname Lname, Residence Life Coordinator, Residence Halls


Conference Room 3080EB


10-11 IHE Students

Fname Lname, Student Editor, IHE Daily

Fname Lname, IHE LateNiteFun Member & Volunteer at Fname Lname Women’s Center &

Access

Fname Lname, Vice President, Student Union Board


Conference Room


11-12 Student Union/Student Activities/Greek Affairs Fname Lname, Assistant Director, Greek Affairs

Fname Lname, Program Coordinator for

Entertainment Programs, Student Union Fname Lname, Director, Student Activities



12-1 Lunch on Own (Review Notes)

1-2 Consultant Presentation

“Design & Implementation of Effective Substance Abuse & Violence Prevention Programs”

Gallery, Student Union

2:15-3 IHEUniv Student Health Center Staff/Department of

Residence

Fname Lname, Health Promotion Supervisor, IHEUniv Student Health Center

Fname Lname, Director, IHEUniv Student Health

Center Fname Lname, Associate Director, Residence Halls


Conference Room


3-4 Wrap-Up

Fname Lname, Assistant Vice President for Student



Room 3034A


4:30-? Fname Lname, Assistant Vice President for Student


Fname Lname, Director, IHEUniv Student Health Center Fname Lname, Health Promotion Supervisor, IHEUniv


The Café

2616 ______ Parkway


9-11 Police Ride Along

Sgt Lname, CITY Police Dept

Meet at Police Dept

Saturday

10:30-12

SAVP Staff

Fname Lname, Health Promotion Coordinator, IHEUniv Student Health Center & Interim Substance Abuse

& Violence Prevention Coordinator

Fname Lname, Interim Program Assistant, Substance Abuse & Violence Prevention

SU Lobby



Police Department Ride and Walk Along Route* with Sgt Fname Shelton – Friday, Month 00, 20xx, 9 – 11 pm

* Tracked with Garmin Forerunner 405 GPS and uploaded to Google Earth





IHE SAVP Recommendations Plan Use this template to record the information pertinent to each step of the planning process.

Click on the appropriate link from the list below to go to the step in MyPlan. Note: Once the answers to the guiding questions are reflected in the outcome step, the instructions and guiding questions can be deleted to save space if you wish.

To create a table of key program decisions about Target Audience, Behavior Change, Exchange/Benefits, Strategy, Intervention Activities and Tactics, go to the My Model

document.

How To Use It

At the bottom of the page for Phase 1, Step 1, ―1.1 Write a problem statement,‖ you will see this text.

Use My Plan

To record your problem statement, click on the button to the right labeled My Plan and follow the directions. You will see a form with a blank [Form Field] for each step in the Social Marketing planning process and related worksheets. Record your problem statement under Phase 1, Step 1 and then save your My Plan file so that you can add to it later.

You may not be able to answer all the descriptive epidemiology questions at this point. Make note of any critical missing information; it will be reframed as a set of market research questions in the next phase.

Hints for recording (typing) answers to the questions starting on page 3.

Example

a. Guiding questions:

What should be occurring? (desired behavior) Hit Enter key to add bullet points

o This line created using Enter key and Tab key to indent the line.

What is occurring? (problem)

o This line created using Enter key and Tab key to indent the line.

Need Help

If you have questions about how to use this document or about meaning of any questions please contact Jim Grizzell, [email protected] or 909-856-3350 (between 8 am and 9 pm Eastern time).

mailto:[email protected]



Hint: To move quickly to the Step you want to go to hold the ―Control‖ [Ctrl] key

down and, at the same time, click on the link to that Step. Phase 1 - Problem Description

Step 1.1 - Write a problem statement Step 1.2 - List and map the causes of the health problem Step 1.3 - Identify potential audiences Step 1.4 - Identify the models of behavior change and best practices Step 1.5 - Form your strategy team Step 1.6 - Conduct a SWOT analysis

Phase 2 - Market Research

Step 2.1 - Define your research questions Step 2.2 - Develop a market research plan Step 2.3 - Conduct and analyze market research Step 2.4 - Summarize research results

Phase 3 - Market Strategy

Step 3.1 - Select your target audience segments Step 3.2 - Define current and desired behaviors for each audience segment Step 3.3 - Describe the benefits you will offer Step 3.4 - Write your behavior change goal(s) Step 3.5 - Select the intervention(s) you will develop for your program Step 3.6 - Write the goal for each intervention

Phase 4 - Interventions

Step 4.1 - Select members and assign roles for your planning team. Step 4.2 - Write specific, measurable objectives for each intervention activity. Step 4.3 - Write a program plan, including timeline and budget, for each intervention. Step 4.4 - Pretest, pilot test, and revise as needed. Step 4.5 - Summarize your program plan and review the factors that can affect it. Step 4.6 - Confirm plans with stakeholders.

Phase 5 - Evaluation

Step 5.1 - Identify program elements to monitor. Step 5.2 - Select the key evaluation questions. Step 5.3 - Determine how the information will be gathered. Step 5.4 - Develop a data analysis and reporting plan.

Phase 6 - Implementation

Step 6.1 - Prepare for launch. Step 6.2 - Execute and manage intervention components. Step 6.3 - Execute and manage the monitoring and evaluation plans. Step 6.4 - Modify intervention activities, as feedback indicates.



Phase 1 - Problem Description

Step 1.1- Write a problem statement a. Guiding questions:

o What should be occurring? (desired behavior(s) of students, faculty, staff, administrators, policy makers,

stakeholders in community)

o Cost effective programs (re: IHE LateNiteFun)

o Reach high-risk drinkers (change knowledge, attitudes, perceptions, intentions, behaviors)

o Central control, coordination, strategic planning, policy leadership

o Common messages about substance abuse and violence

o A clear, consistent and supportive institutional message about alcohol and other drug use that is

supported by policy and enforcement. o Connectedness between offices and agencies, programs, events, activities

o Not condone, tolerate underage drinking in tailgating area

o GreatStart IHE State should be the major education push for SAV prevention

o My thoughts

Need measurable SMART objectives, monitoring and evaluation of activities

Rethink what “programs” are – not necessarily presentations, rethink what programs are to

think of interventions using health communication and health marketing with media

o What is occurring? (problem)

o High risk drinkers at IHE outpace the national average with the range being 2.7% to 6.6% over the last 7 years.

o In last 7 years, the percent of frequent high risk drinkers at IHE has been greater than the national

average. The range is from 0.7% to 3.5%.

o Non drinkers has gone from 32% to 27% in same period as above

o Great work by police (IHE, CITY)

o SART very well organized with all members knowing what others do and at increasing awareness of

sexual assault

o Some private apt buildings clean (no graffiti, no urine smell), clean up by management

company/owner, police pleased

o Greeks seem hardly a problem now since national offices require education programs and better risk

management (per police)

o Residence life staff doesn’t have “programs” any more (rethink what programs are to think of interventions using health communication and health marketing with media)

o Interviewees heard percent of students not drinking is increasing but 2008 report indicates down to

27% from 32% in 2000

o Rare for repeat/2nd offenses after counseling/intervention, students learning either to be legal or not get

caught

o Sense / perception of safe campus seems to result in complacence

o Bar owners/managers prefer not allowing under 21 year olds in bars – lower worries of underage

drinking and less

o 1,000 to 1,500 people may be on the streets in Collegetown in late night and early morning with

greater risk of arguments and fights due to crowding.

Limiting number of bar licenses in this area without reducing total CITY licenses could result in smaller crowds in Collegetown but spread throughout CITY and more difficult for police to

watch over

o Poor image of IHE due to tailgating (but due to mess tailgating area moved away from stadium) but

now . . .

Underage drinking allowed, overlooked now that tailgating is in an area away from stadium

o Some CITY community members blame students, “those students”



o IHE LateNiteFun reaches 7,400/yr, but who many are duplicates, therefore reach less than 25% of

students [for $50,000] and maybe primarily low or moderate risk drinkers (~55% of students), Students

may still go drinking after IHE LateNiteFun is over

A 2003 report shows effectiveness with alcohol-related offenses on evenings of IHE

LateNiteFun events decreased by 40%

o Intensive emergency resources for IHEPARTY

All/most ambulances, emergency personnel available for IHEPARTY?

Cost: is it offset by economic benefits to CITY? o Faculty (except advisors) unaware of alcohol issues of students and of Campus Town area, how to

help, what to do, not their issue

o Faculty and staff noted more drinking to get high and stating planning to get drunk (in last 7-8 years)

o Students say received a lot of education in past (70%, 69% non, 75% 2+x HRs) but only 23% received

at IHE

If, however, rec’d info/ed more likely to feel U is concerned about prevention (see Greek

comparisons and correlation and Chi Sq analysis)

o Receipt of information / education on alcohol

ACHA-NCHA

Freshman

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

National 54% 49% 54% 59% 58% 66% 66% 64%

IHE 29% 43% 46%

All Students

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

National 48% 46% 49% 50% 45% 45% 47% 49%

IHE 34% 47% 38%

IHE 2008

Listened to / participated in alcohol education by Year

Frosh Soph JR Sr Grad

23% 23% 22% 25% 15%

By College

Ag Des Eng HmSrv Bus LibS VetMd

26% 21% 22% 23% 23% 24% 15%

Listened to / participated in alcohol education by residence

On

campus

hall

alone

On

campus

hall w

room-

mates

On

campus

apt

alone

On

campus

apt w

room-

mates

Off

campus

apt

alone

Off

campus

apt w

room-

mates

Frat /

Sor

House

Parent’s

28% 19% 31% 12% 19% 20% 58% 0%

Listened to / participated in alcohol education by times 5+ drinks in past 2 weeks

(drank on 0 days in typical week, and times 5+ in past 2 weeks)

0 days

0 HR 1 HR 2+ HR

20% 22% 23% 28%

Listened to / participated in alcohol education by times drunk in past 2 weeks

0

days

0 HR 1 HR 2+

HR



20% 21% 25% 27%

Listened to / participated in alcohol education by times drank to get drunk in past 2

weeks

0

days

0 HR 1 HR 2+

HR

20% 24% 26% 25%

o Lower proportion than national have receipt of information on sexual assault/relationship violence and

violence

ACHA-NCHA

Sexual Assault / Relationship Violence, all students

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

National 43% 41% 47% 46% 43% 43% 44% 44%

IHE 38% 37% 34%

Violence, all students

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

National 19% 20% 22% 20% 20% 20% 21% 21%

IHE 14% 11% 16%

o Relationships, associations, correlation with

Protective behaviors

Trends may or appear to show protective behaviors (deciding not to drink, eating

before drinking, pacing drinks, drinking look alikes by females; alternating non- w

alcoholic drinks, keeping track of drinks, pacing for males) used less than nationally

Environment

62% agree that campus social atmosphere promotes alcohol use. 10% for tobacco,

10% for drugs

35% non-HRs agree policies effective. 46% and 55% for 1x and 2+ HRs

25% non-drinkers agree policies enforced. 40% and 51% for 1x and 2+ HRs

46% non-drinkers agree campus concerned about AOD prevention. 61% for HRs

So, of all students, ~47% agree that policies are effective, ~45% agree that policies

are enforced, 62% agree social atmosphere promotes alcohol use. Most we say

polices ineffective and not enforced and alcohol use is promoted.

Consequences1

9%-12% nauseated, unconscious, forgot where were in last 30 days

In last 30 days, 15% and 22% of <21 y/o non-HRs had study and sleep interrupted by

others’ alcohol use, 2.3% (4x greater than drinkers) got low grade

4.2% females, 5.4% males experienced sexual assault. .5% rec’d lower grades.

Nearly all due to alcohol use

Consequences2

Few seek treatment for self or friend (0% - 2%)

9% and 12% <21 and 21+ exp’d legal charges due to alcohol, ~1% due to drugs

Assaults, attempted, fights, unwanted touching appear to be slightly greater than

national data for 2007

Injuries, injure another, fighting, regret, forgetting due to alcohol use may or appear

to be ~25% greater proportion than national for 2007

Academics

GPA by time 5+ past 2 weeks

0 0 HR 1 HR 2+



days HR

3.21 2.13 3.12 3.00

34% 22% 15% 29%

GPA education by times drunk past 2 weeks

0

days

0 HR 1 HR 2+

HR

3.21 3.12 3.12 3.0

34% 22% 17% 30%

GPA by times drank to get drunk past 2 weeks

0

days

0 HR 1 HR 2+

HR

3.21 3.12 3.13 2.99

34% 28% 14% 23%

7.5% for 0 HR, 18% for 1 HR, 33% for 2+ HR got lower grade on paper/project,

course or dropped. 12% of students got lower grades

o Disconnected SAVP services

o Orientation is a “marketing” event (don’t want to put any fear or discomfort into parents) without SAV

prevention combined with comprehensive campus SAVP program

o Parents do ask questions at each orientation meeting with them about alcohol use of students

o GreatStart IHE State IHE speaker Will Keim (Month 20xx) was apparently considered prevention by

Admissions staff according to interviewees but not by them and not as part of a comprehensive

prevention effort

o Offices working independently

o Deaths, 4 – 6 in past few years alcohol related

o Who is affected and to what degree?

o Not one interviewee mentioned any specifics of consequences: types, percents, numbers o Not sense of size and seriousness of any problems

o No mention of audience segmentation by gender, <21/21+, college, residence

o No mention of health communication/marketing, dissemination of outcome evaluation reports or

results

o Academic advisors think about 10% of academic problems are related to alcohol use

o What could happen if the problem isn’t addressed?

o Maintain status quo: same HR drinking, deaths

b. Outcome of this step:

To most students alcohol use appears to be promoted with little primary and universal prevention efforts to

reduce its use and consequences. Most students also believe policies are ineffective and not enforced.

Information and education regarding substance abuse, sexual assault and relationship violence and violence to

students from the University are provided at about 70% to 80% of the national rate. Less than 25% of IHE

students received education about Students receiving information and education tend to believe policies are

effective and enforce and that alcohol is promoted less. There are significant differences about attitudes

surrounding alcohol between non-high risk drinkers and high-risk drinkers. The vast majority of prevention

efforts target non-drinkers and non-high-risk drinkers. Virtually no primary or universal prevention efforts

target high-risk or very high-risk drinkers.



High risk drinking is associated with lower academic performance (average GPA, C frequency) for ~10%

of students. The drinking by others causes study and sleep to be interrupted for 15% to 22% of non-high risk

drinkers.

There is secondary prevention with sanctions and counseling that appears to work to prevent second

offenses.

Step 1.2 - List and map the causes / determinants of the health problem a. Guiding questions:

o What are the causes of the health problem?

o Innate individual traits, age, sex, ethnicity, biological factors

20% - 25% of low and hr risk drinker have grandparents with drug problems

8% - 10% have parents with drug problems

Men and Whites HR drink more as well as have more consequences plus have a need alcohol

for fun attitude

o Individual behavior

44% HR drinking in past 2 weeks

46% drunk in past 2 weeks

39% drank to get drunk

% HR drinking to get drunk and got drunk in past two weeks

38% of women drank to get drunk and did get drunk at least once each in past 2

weeks, 16% twice each

42% of men drank to get drunk and did get drunk at least once each in past 2 weeks,

28% twice each

34% of <21 year olds drank to get drunk and did get drunk at least once each in past

2 weeks, 22% twice each

o Social, family, and community network

Norms by risk drinking group

<21 and freshmen over perceive drinks at sitting and at party more than older and

those further along in academic career

o Living, playing, learning and working conditions psychosocial factors

employment status and occupational factors

socioeconomic status, (income, education, occupation)

Faculty unaware, uninvolved

Leaving home syndrome, experimenting

natural and built environments,

the built environment includes transportation systems, water and sanitation systems,

housing, and other dimensions of urban planning

Collegetown

public health services

Universal prevention less than national

Offices work independently, disconnected, no strategic plan, no same message

healthcare services

may provide screenings

o Broad social (social conditions include economic inequality, urbanization, mobility, cultural values,

attitudes, and policies related to discrimination and intolerance on the basis of race, gender, and other differences.), economic, cultural, health, and environmental conditions (major sociopolitical shifts



such as recession, war, and governmental collapse), and policies at the global, national, state, and

local levels.

No universal prevention (only ~23% receive what is done), no targeted and tailored health

communication/marketing to high-risk segment of drinking population/audience

Disconnect policy, leadership, coordination, control of offices/agencies, programs, services,

interventions

o What are the risk factors?

o What are the protective factors?

b. Worksheet:

Health Problem Analysis Worksheet – You can type directly in the boxes below and resize boxes or make you own

worksheet such as a table with columns for heading of each box. The boxes and “elements” are just there as

examples of formats to use.

Indirect Contributing

Factors

Direct Contributing

Factors

Risk/ Protective

Factors

Worksheet elements to copy and paste:

Health Problem



Go to this link for description: www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2007/jul/07_0048a.htm#1. This figure illustrates the

Institute of Medicine's (IOM) model of the multiple determinants of health. The model is represented by an inner

circle and four outer circles.

a. Social conditions include economic inequality, urbanization, mobility, cultural values, attitudes, and policies

related to discrimination and intolerance on the basis of race, gender, and other differences.

b. Other conditions at the national level include major sociopolitical shifts such as recession, war, and governmental

collapse. c. The built environment includes transportation systems, water and sanitation systems, housing, and other

dimensions of urban planning.

http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2007/jul/07_0048a.htm#1



c. Outcome of this step:

List of health problem causes categorized as direct and indirect, and as risk and protective factors organized

in a logical sequence or as level (ring) of determinants of health.

Step 1.3 - Identify potential audiences


Who is most affected by the problem?

o High risk drinkers

Who is most likely to change their behavior?


Who is most feasible to reach?


What are the key secondary audiences?

o Policy and decision makers, faculty, offices currently working independently (on and off campus)




Freshmen

High risk drinkers

Policy makers

Offices currently working independently

Faculty

Type two or three potential audiences.

Step 1.4 - Identify the models of behavior change and best practices


Which theories appear to have determinants of behavior that match the causal factors you identified in Step

1.3 and why?

o TRA, TPB, Norms for freshmen

o Social Marketing, Theory of Planned Behavior for HRs

o Organizational processes and stages of change for policy makers, faculty, offices/agencies

What has worked with similar audiences in the past based on your review of other programs?

o Norms for freshmen

o Social Marketing TPB for HRs o Org P&S of Change for decision makers


Use organizational stages of change and recommend norms and social marketing

Type a summary of the theories and best practices that you will use.

Step 1.5 - Form your strategy team a. Guiding questions:

What are the required roles?

Who can help with financial and political issues within the organization?

Who are the external partners most critical to get on board?

What organizational structure will be used?

What communications approaches will be used?

b. Worksheet:

Team Member Affiliation Role

Fname

Fname



Fname

Decision-making process:

Management decisions

Communication process:

Report with recommendations


The names of your team members, their affiliations, and their roles and brief descriptions

of your communication and decision-making processes

Step 1.6 - Conduct a SWOT analysis a. Guiding questions:

How relevant is the problem to your organization’s mission/goals? o Academic mission

o Safe community

Where does the problem fit in your organization’s priorities?

o High 9 on 10 pt scale

What knowledge is available to ameliorate the problem, and do you have access to that information?

o Still need market research on IHE HR drinker cultural, aspirations

What is the state of relevant technology?

o Online tools available – WebCT, Blackboard

Are the human, technical and financial resources you need to address the problem available?

o Yes, coordinator

What activities can you do in-house?

o Need to hire coordinator

What activities will you need to contract for, and what challenges are presented by the contracting process?

o None or maybe consultant for social marketing market research

What work is already underway to address the problem, and who is doing that work?

o Low risk getting intervention with IHE LateNiteFun

What gaps exist?

o Need significant market research on IHE HR drinkers

What political support and resistance surround the problem?

o None, can bypass bar owners, do counter social marketing and norms marketing

What organizations or activities that affect the problem indirectly (that work “upstream” in your health

problem analysis could be potential partners?

o U president!!!



Are there ethical concerns associated with any of the possible interventions?

o None

b. Worksheet:

SWOT worksheet

Factors/Variables Internal External

Positive

Strengths Opportunities

Leadership in planning stage

Academics considered important

Students take care of each, take

responsibility for action more than at

other campuses

Off campus agencies ready to

collaborate or form coalition

Negative

Weaknesses Threats

Knowledge of health promotion/public health/disease prevention standards

and competencies, evidence-based

interventions, market research,

intervention, monitoring and

evaluation planning may be weak.

Knowledge of health promotion/public health/disease prevention standards and

competencies, evidence-based

interventions, market research,

intervention, monitoring and evaluation

planning may be weak for those not

getting funding from agencies such as

United Way.


The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats identified, along with any ethical

barriers to adopting particular interventions in your community. Also, a summary of

eliminated approaches and ones that appear to be more attractive based on the SWOT

analysis.



Phase 2 - Market Research

Step 2.1- Define your research questions


What gaps or assumptions are there in your Phase 1 analysis?

o For HRs

Channels

Benefits of other behaviors than HR drinking or co-behaviors to use that would be protective

o For policy makers

o For faculty

What questions are suggested by the theory (ies) of behavior change you are choosing for guidance?

o For HRs

Benefits, costs, others, self-assurance

Alternative behaviors

What questions do you have about applying evidence-based/-informed to your specific target audience and

situation?

o Research on college population HR drinker interventions is sparse

o May need to apply –informed and social marketing market research on HR audience segment

extensively

What questions do you have about benefits, barriers and competition for some behaviors you may want to

target? o Need to determine other things HRs do, where do it, channels/get info

o


Need to do thorough market research on audience segment of HR college drinkers

List of research questions (divide them into nice to know and need to know)

Step 2.2 - Develop a market research plan a. Guiding questions:

Which of the research questions developed in Step 2.1 can be answered using secondary sources and which

ones require collecting new (primary) data

o IHE and ACHA-NCHA assessment attitude, protective behaviors, value of IHE activities,

sense of campus environment, reasons for drinking

Will you be using qualitative or quantitative methods to answer your primary research questions and if so

which ones specifically?

o Qualitative document reviews and interviews for policy maker and stakeholder support

o Quantitative for audience segments of freshmen and HR drinkers

In what order will you conduct your formative studies?

o Documents



o Interview

o IHE and ACHA-NCHA assessments.


Market Research Plan

Review docs’ interviews, meetings, ride along, dinners with stakeholders; statistical analysis of surveys.

Step 2.3 - Conduct and analyze market research a. Guiding questions:

Who will carry out each major component of the market research plan you crafted in the previous step?

o Fname for documents and schedule

o Jim for doc review, interviews, statistical analyses, report and recommendation writing

o Ruth for report/rec proofing

What are their roles and responsibilities?

o

If needed, who will be the lead researcher?

o Jim

How will you tabulate and analyze the data?

o Jim


Type market research analysis here

Step 2.4 - Summarize research results a. Market research results summary worksheet: (type ideas, concepts here)

Executive Summary

Type ideas, concepts here

Introduction

Methodology

Results

Conclusions and

Recommendations


Type market research results summary here



Phase 3 - Market Strategy Step 3.1 - Select your target audience segments


For each of the potential segments, answer the following questions using information from your research

findings:

What are their aspirations?

o HR drinkers

See IHE survey xtabs for HR drinking and attitudes, perceptions, consequences, campus environment

Not volunteering or being in organizations

o Freshmen

See xtabs for above and note perceptions

o Decision/Policy makers

Cost effective prevention, intervention services and programs

o Campus/Off campus offices/agencies

Coordination, collaboration, effective use of resources

o Faculty

Likely that students perform well

What are the benefits of the target behavior valued? o HR drinkers

Fun celebrations, easy, not have to worry about safety or being “that guy”

o Freshmen

HRs may need self-assurance of social skills to talk, participate, have fun

No need for Collegetown bars, IHEPARTY not important yet


Less worry of poor image of IHE

Cost-effective expenses reach students most in need


Smoother operations, more efficient and effective use of resources

o Faculty Know students have education/resources for help

What are the competitive behaviors practiced?

o HR drinkers

Intention to get drunk,

o Freshmen

Emulate perceptions


Contemplation stage


Same services

o Faculty

Same attitude, knowledge

What information channels are used?

o HR drinkers

IHE Daily,

o Freshmen

Likely res halls


Meetings, IHE Daily, campus dept/office reports




Little/few

o Faculty

Meetings, IHE Daily

What is their level of readiness for change?

o HR drinkers

Precontemplative

o Freshmen Precontemplative


Planning


Contemplative

o Faculty

Precontemplative

Which segments have the following?

Perceived benefits that are easy to build into an exchange o HR drinkers

Need market research

o Freshmen

Info / education on non-alcoholic activities and organization

Nudges for good social skills


Provide solutions


Provide coordination and leadership

o Faculty Health communication regarding SAV and prevention efforts

Competing behaviors against which you can “win” o HR drinkers

Likely counter marketing related to

o Freshmen

Often captive audience in res halls


Contemplation with more awareness of problems and increasing sense of urgency to

move through planning to action stages


Status quo communication with coordination by a coordinator on campus o Faculty

Complacency due to little communication to them

The largest number of people reachable at the smallest cost o HR drinkers

Maybe about ½ to ¾ (need market research) of the 11,500 HRs (maybe higher proportion

2+ HRs) would get social marketing messages through IHE Daily and same days bars

advertise

o Freshmen

~3,000 - ~5000


All o Campus/Off campus offices/agencies

All

o Faculty



Maybe about 75%

The greatest readiness to change

o HR drinkers

1 HRs more than the 2+ HRs

o Freshmen

Maybe most of each level of drinker


All o Campus/Off campus offices/agencies

All

o Faculty

Psych, Human Resource, Human Services, Ag Life Science

Based on the characteristics and concerns of secondary audiences (influentials) in your Phase 2 research,

does the amount of influence they have merit devoting program resources to reaching them as a distinct

audience segment?

o YES!


Freshmen and all very (2+ HR, ~25%) of students high risk students are two primary audiences.

Decision/policy makers, campus and off-campus offices/agencies, faculty

List of primary and secondary target audience segments refined from the list created in Step 1.2 using the

results of the research done in Phase 2. Step 3.2 - Define current and desired behaviors for each audience segment


What behaviors are the audience segments you have chosen currently engaged in?

o HR Drinkers

5+, drinking to get drunk, getting drunk

o Freshmen

Emulation, HR drinking


Preparation/planning o Campus/Off campus offices/agencies

Each doing own thing

o Faculty

teaching Which of these behaviors could be changed in the short-run?

o HR Drinkers

Using protective behaviors a little bit

o Freshmen



Participating in more non-alcohol related activities


Adopt most of recommendations o Campus/Off campus offices/agencies

Come to planning meetings

o Faculty

Move to contemplation to support and promote SAVP Is it likely to change them with a little more incentive? If audience members take the desired action,

will it make a tangible difference in achieving your overall program goal?

o HR Drinkers

May need very high reach

Definitely core/solid benefits determined by the HR drinkers

Maybe expect 10% reduction in consequences like fights and

arguements

o Freshmen

Yes, with more activities available to choose from

Better gpa, fewer hangovers, fewer study and sleep time disturbed


Yes, all or most measures would approach national benchmarks

for protective behaviors and receipt of information o Campus/Off campus offices/agencies

Similar cohesiveness/connectedness to SART

o Faculty

Increased curricular infusion and promotion of SAVP and other

prevention activities

To narrow your list down to the final priorities, answer these questions about the

following factors for each audience/behavior pair:

Risk

Is the target audience segment currently practicing risky or unhealthy behaviors? o HR Drinkers

Yes

o Freshmen

Some


No


No

o Faculty

No How serious is the risk?

o HR Drinkers

Very serious

o Freshmen

Serious




A little serious o Campus/Off campus offices/agencies

A little serious

o Faculty

A little serious

Impact

Does the new (desired) behavior reduce risk? o HR Drinkers

Yes

o Freshmen

Yes


Yes o Campus/Off campus offices/agencies

Yes

o Faculty

Yes Will addressing this audience/behavior have a useful, lasting impact on the problem?

o HR Drinkers

Yes, fewer consequences, better grades

o Freshmen

Yes, more accurate perceptions of drinking norms sooner in academic

career, fewer consequences, better grades, greater belief that campus

is concerned and has effective and enforced policies


Yes, sustainable prevention services and programs o Campus/Off campus offices/agencies

Yes

o Faculty

Yes How effective will the proposed behavior be at reducing overall negative outcomes or improving

positive ones? o HR Drinkers

Effective 4

o Freshmen

Very effective 5


Between effective and very effective 4.5 o Campus/Off campus offices/agencies

Effective (this group mostly affects a third of students since mostly secondary

prevention) 5

o Faculty

Effective, supportive 4 Is the audience/behavior being effectively addressed by anyone else?



o HR Drinkers

No

o Freshmen

Residence halls 3.5, Greeks 3.5


No o Campus/Off campus offices/agencies

No

o Faculty

No

Behavioral Feasibility

Is the audience likely to adopt the behavior? Is the current behavior seen as a problem? How ingrained

or “rewarding” are the current or competing behaviors? o HR Drinkers

Not a lot, not seen as a problem, very rewarding

o Freshmen

Somewhat likely to adopt, not too ingrained and rewarding


Yes, yes, quite ingrained o Campus/Off campus offices/agencies

Very likely, yes, current behavior not rewarding

o Faculty

Somewhat likely How costly is it (time, effort, resources) for the audience segment to perform the behavior?

o HR Drinkers

Lots of mental and psychological effort

o Freshmen

Some mental / planning effort


Additional $100,000 (coordinator salary and IHE Daily weekly full

page ad) if IHE LateNiteFun maintained o Campus/Off campus offices/agencies

Attend additional meeting once every 1 to 3 months

o Faculty

Some mental effort to plan to promote prevention efforts with

announcements and curriculum infusion How complex is the behavior (does it involve few or several elements)?

o HR Drinkers

o Freshmen





o Faculty

How frequently must the behavior be performed?

o HR Drinkers

o Freshmen



o Faculty

How compatible is the proposed behavior with the audience’s current practices (is the behavior

socially approved)? o HR Drinkers

o Freshmen



o Faculty

Are there major barriers to engaging in the desired behavior? What information, skills, resources

and/or access must the audience segment acquire to overcome the barriers and make the desired behavior change?

o HR Drinkers

o Freshmen



o Faculty

Are there at least some members of the segment (“doers”) who manage to do the desired behavior? Do

they have unusual characteristics? o HR Drinkers

o Freshmen





o Faculty

Resource Feasibility

How effectively can we reach this audience segment given our available resources? How effectively can we influence their behaviors given our available resources? Can this audience/behavior be addressed within the timeframe of the initiative or does it require an

ongoing effort?

Political Feasibility

Will the community (or other important stakeholders) support this audience/behavioral objective? Does your organization support the choice?

b. Worksheet:

Utilize the interactive Health Intervention Comparison Wizard provided for this step in

CDCynergy.


Type descriptions of current and desired behaviors for each audience segment here

Step 3.3 - Describe the benefits you will offer


What do your audience research findings show that the target audience wants?

o HR Drinkers

o Freshmen



o Faculty



What do audience members say they value the most?

o HR Drinkers

o Freshmen



o Faculty

What are you are asking them to do?

o HR Drinkers

o Freshmen



o Faculty

What they’ll get in return?

o HR Drinkers

o Freshmen



o Faculty

Does the exchange you are proposing meet the following criteria?

o HR Drinkers

o Freshmen



o Faculty

Easy-to-irresistible to accept?

o HR Drinkers



o Freshmen



o Faculty

Maximizes the benefits they will get for adopting a behavior?

o HR Drinkers

o Freshmen



o Faculty

Minimizes any barriers that might deter them?

o HR Drinkers

o Freshmen



o Faculty

b. Worksheet:

Exchange Worksheet

HR drinker audience member gives:

Audience member gets: ????

Social Marketer gets:

Freshmen audience member gives:

Audience member gets: fun social activities,

medium/long term better grades


Decision/policy maker audience member gives:

Money, verbal support to community

Audience member gets:




Office/agency audience member gives: time



Faculty audience member gives: time




Type description of the benefits that will be offered here.

Step 3.4 - Write your behavior change goal


Who?

Will do what?

Under what conditions?

In exchange for?


Behavior change goal write-up

Step 3.5 - Select the intervention(s) you will develop for your program a. Guiding questions:

What interventions do you propose to develop?

o Communication about facts and benefits

o Providing or improving a service

o Developing or adapting a product

o Changing policy through advocacy and community mobilization to reduce barriers to

service


List of interventions to be developed



Step 3.6 - Write the goal for each intervention a. Guiding questions:

How will each intervention work to influence the audience to adopt the new behavior?


Type description of in goals for the interventions here