an evaluation of a new alcohol policy for massachusetts state colleges and universities john r....

Massachusetts College Alcohol Study

An Evaluation of a New Alcohol PolicyAn Evaluation of a New Alcohol Policyfor Massachusetts State Colleges and for Massachusetts State Colleges and UniversitiesUniversities

John R. Knight, MD*John R. Knight, MD*; ; Sion Kim Harris, PhD*; Lon Sherritt, MPH*; Sion Kim Harris, PhD*; Lon Sherritt, MPH*; Kathleen Kelley, MBA*; Shari Van Hook, PA-C, MPH*; Henry Wechsler, Kathleen Kelley, MBA*; Shari Van Hook, PA-C, MPH*; Henry Wechsler, PhDPhD¥¥

* The Center for Adolescent Substance Abuse Research (CeASAR) at Children’s Hospital Boston, Harvard Medical School

¥ National College Alcohol Study, Harvard School of Public Health


AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

• The Robert Wood Johnson FoundationSubstance Abuse Policy Research Program

• Massachusetts Board of Higher Education (MBHE)

• Administrators and students from participating Massachusetts colleges and universities


Events SummaryEvents Summary• September 1997September 1997

• Deaths of two Mass. Deaths of two Mass. college studentscollege students

• October 1997October 1997• MBHE enacts new MBHE enacts new

alcohol policyalcohol policy

• September 1998September 1998• Massachusetts College Massachusetts College

Alcohol Study begins Alcohol Study begins

• Nov. 1998 - May 1999Nov. 1998 - May 1999• Time 1 data collectionTime 1 data collection

• Nov. 2000 - May 2001Nov. 2000 - May 2001• Time 2 data collectionTime 2 data collection


Features of MBHE Policy Features of MBHE Policy (10/97)(10/97)

1)1) Limit alcohol to certain supervised areas on campusLimit alcohol to certain supervised areas on campus

2)2) Segregate housing for students Segregate housing for students >> 21 21

3)3) Require advance registration of social events with alcoholRequire advance registration of social events with alcohol

4)4) Ban hazingBan hazing

5)5) Implement “3 strikes and you’re out” disciplinary policy Implement “3 strikes and you’re out” disciplinary policy

6)6) Provide alcohol education programsProvide alcohol education programs

7)7) Develop working relationships with cities and townsDevelop working relationships with cities and towns

8)8) Enforce all federal, state and local lawsEnforce all federal, state and local laws

9)9) Notify parents about violations (added 6/99)Notify parents about violations (added 6/99)


Study ObjectivesStudy Objectives

• To measure student drinking rates across To measure student drinking rates across schools within a single state-wide public college schools within a single state-wide public college systemsystem

• To assess student and administrator To assess student and administrator perceptions of enforcement of their school perceptions of enforcement of their school alcohol policyalcohol policy

• To assess level of association between school To assess level of association between school drinking rates and policy enforcementdrinking rates and policy enforcement


HypothesesHypotheses

• Student drinking rates and alcohol Student drinking rates and alcohol policy enforcement levels will vary policy enforcement levels will vary across the individual colleges, despite across the individual colleges, despite uniform policyuniform policy

• Variation in drinking rates will be Variation in drinking rates will be associated with school-level factors, associated with school-level factors, including level of policy enforcementincluding level of policy enforcement


Study SampleStudy Sample

• Eligibility criteriaEligibility criteria• 4-year public institutions of higher education in Mass.4-year public institutions of higher education in Mass.

• Substantial residential student populationSubstantial residential student population

• Colleges included (n=11):Colleges included (n=11):• University of Massachusetts campuses (3)University of Massachusetts campuses (3)

• Mass. state colleges (8) Mass. state colleges (8)

• Colleges excluded (n=16 ):Colleges excluded (n=16 ):• 2-year community colleges (15)2-year community colleges (15)

• No substantial residential student population (1)No substantial residential student population (1)


Data Collection MethodData Collection Method

At each school, surveys mailed to…At each school, surveys mailed to…

• Dean of StudentsDean of Students(Nov – Dec 1998)(Nov – Dec 1998)

• Campus Security ChiefCampus Security Chief(Nov – Dec 1998)(Nov – Dec 1998)

• Random sample of 225 studentsRandom sample of 225 students(Apr – May 1999)(Apr – May 1999)


Data Collection ToolsData Collection Tools• Student Survey*Student Survey*

DemographicsDemographicsDrinking behaviors and associated problemsDrinking behaviors and associated problemsPerceptions of school policy enforcementPerceptions of school policy enforcementInvolvement with disciplinary system due to alcohol Involvement with disciplinary system due to alcohol

violationsviolations

• Administrator Surveys*Administrator Surveys*Reactions toward policy change and perceived Reactions toward policy change and perceived

enforcement of policiesenforcement of policies

* Adapted from National College Alcohol Study instruments developed by Henry Adapted from National College Alcohol Study instruments developed by Henry WechslerWechsler


MeasuresMeasuresStudent Binge Drinking DefinitionStudent Binge Drinking Definition

Proportion consuming ...Proportion consuming ...• 5+ drinks in a row at least once in prior 2 5+ drinks in a row at least once in prior 2

weeks (men)*weeks (men)*

• 4+ drinks in a row at least once in prior 2 4+ drinks in a row at least once in prior 2 weeks (women)*weeks (women)*

* Source: Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study* Source: Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study


Student Perception of Policy Student Perception of Policy EnforcementEnforcement

““In your opinion, how strongly does your In your opinion, how strongly does your school enforce its alcohol policy?”school enforce its alcohol policy?”

Proportion of students reporting Proportion of students reporting “enforced” or “strongly enforced”“enforced” or “strongly enforced”


Dean and Campus Security Dean and Campus Security Perception of Enforcement (14 items)Perception of Enforcement (14 items)

• 9 items9 items: Level of enforcement in different : Level of enforcement in different settings or events (e.g., dorm parties, on-settings or events (e.g., dorm parties, on-campus events, fraternity/sorority parties)campus events, fraternity/sorority parties)

• 5 items5 items: Regularity of use of practices to : Regularity of use of practices to limit student drinking (e.g., stop/search limit student drinking (e.g., stop/search students entering dorms, check IDs at students entering dorms, check IDs at campus events)campus events)


Data AnalysesData Analyses

• Dean and Campus Security Chief Dean and Campus Security Chief Enforcement Score:Enforcement Score:Responses to 14 items summed and Responses to 14 items summed and

percent of possible total calculatedpercent of possible total calculated

• Unit of analyses: SchoolUnit of analyses: School

• Pearson’s r or Spearman’s rho Pearson’s r or Spearman’s rho calculated for associationscalculated for associations


Student Sample DemographicsStudent Sample Demographics

• Total N = 1,252Total N = 1,252•Response rate 56% (range 49% - 65%)Response rate 56% (range 49% - 65%)

• 59% Female59% Female• 88% White non-Hispanic 88% White non-Hispanic • 51% under 21 years51% under 21 years• 50% lived on campus50% lived on campus• 4% fraternity or sorority members4% fraternity or sorority members


Drinking Patterns of Students at Mass. Drinking Patterns of Students at Mass. State Colleges and Universities, 1999State Colleges and Universities, 1999

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Abstain Abstain (did not drink in past year)(did not drink in past year)

Drank - No Binge Drank - No Binge (drank in past year but did not binge in (drank in past year but did not binge in past 2 weeks)past 2 weeks)

OccasionalOccasional Binge Binge (binged 1-2 times in past 2 weeks)(binged 1-2 times in past 2 weeks)

Frequent Binge Frequent Binge (binged 3+ times in past 2 weeks)(binged 3+ times in past 2 weeks)

12%

26%

33%

29%

Total N = 1,252Total N = 1,252


Overall Binge Drinking Rates AmongOverall Binge Drinking Rates Among11 Mass. State Colleges and Universities, 199911 Mass. State Colleges and Universities, 1999

• Range: Range: 71% to 36% 71% to 36%

(among all ages)(among all ages)73% to 37% 73% to 37%

(among underage)(among underage)

• Variation only partially Variation only partially explained by student explained by student demographicsdemographics

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

School


Student Perception of Policy Enforcement: Student Perception of Policy Enforcement: Overall SampleOverall Sample

• How strongly enforced?How strongly enforced?66% enforced/strongly enforced66% enforced/strongly enforced20% weakly or not at all enforced20% weakly or not at all enforced14% didn’t know policy14% didn’t know policy

• Student perception of enforcement level related Student perception of enforcement level related to own drinking levelto own drinking level74% of binge drinkers felt enforced/strongly enforced74% of binge drinkers felt enforced/strongly enforced56% of abstainers or drinkers who didn’t binge56% of abstainers or drinkers who didn’t binge


% Students Reporting Policy Enforced or % Students Reporting Policy Enforced or Strongly Enforced by School, 1999 Strongly Enforced by School, 1999

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

• Wide variation across Wide variation across schools (35% to schools (35% to 90%). 90%).

• Only about 1/2 of Only about 1/2 of variation explained variation explained by binge rate, by binge rate, gender, age, and on-gender, age, and on-campus housing.campus housing.


Correlation Between Administrator Correlation Between Administrator Enforcement Scores and School Binge RatesEnforcement Scores and School Binge Rates

* Pearson’s correlation coefficient p<0.10

Campus Campus Security Security (n=10(n=10))

Deans Deans (n=11)(n=11)

Percent Binge:Percent Binge:

All Students -.45-.45 .30.30

On-Campus StudentsOn-Campus Students -.40-.40 .24.24

Underage StudentsUnderage Students -.47-.47 .22.22

Percent Frequent Binge:Percent Frequent Binge:

All StudentsAll Students -.61*-.61* .42.42


Underage StudentsUnderage Students -.60*-.60* .37.37







All Students -.45-.45 .30













All Students -.45 .30.30








Summary of 1999 ResultsSummary of 1999 Results

• Binge drinking rates varied significantly Binge drinking rates varied significantly among Mass. public colleges and among Mass. public colleges and universities.universities.

• Despite a uniform policy, enforcement Despite a uniform policy, enforcement practices varied among schools.practices varied among schools.

• Stronger enforcement by campus security Stronger enforcement by campus security was moderately associated with lower was moderately associated with lower school binge drinking rates.school binge drinking rates.


Study LimitationsStudy Limitations

• Self-reported informationSelf-reported information

• Potential selection bias due to 44% Potential selection bias due to 44% student non-response ratestudent non-response rate

• Small number of schoolsSmall number of schools

• Cross-sectional studyCross-sectional study

• Other key informants not surveyed; Other key informants not surveyed; i.e., Resident Assistantsi.e., Resident Assistants


Study StrengthsStudy Strengths

• Able to look system-wide following a Able to look system-wide following a policy changepolicy change

• Multiple key informant perspectivesMultiple key informant perspectivesStudentsStudents

Deans of StudentsDeans of Students

Campus Security ChiefsCampus Security Chiefs


Implications/ RecommendationsImplications/ Recommendations

• Colleges should consider:Colleges should consider:Review of policy and enforcement Review of policy and enforcement

practicespractices

Support for “front-line” enforcement Support for “front-line” enforcement personnel (e.g., campus security, RA’s)personnel (e.g., campus security, RA’s)

Enhancing communication among Enhancing communication among administrators involved in policy administrators involved in policy enforcementenforcement


Article ReferenceArticle Reference

Knight JR, Harris SK, Sherritt L, Kelley K, Knight JR, Harris SK, Sherritt L, Kelley K, Van Hook S, Wechsler H. Heavy drinking Van Hook S, Wechsler H. Heavy drinking and alcohol policy enforcement in a and alcohol policy enforcement in a statewide public college system. statewide public college system. Journal of Journal of Studies on AlcoholStudies on Alcohol. 64(5): 696-703. (2003). 64(5): 696-703. (2003)


Dean and Campus Security Dean and Campus Security Perception of Enforcement (14 items)Perception of Enforcement (14 items)

• 9 items: Perceived level of enforcement in 9 items: Perceived level of enforcement in different settings or eventsdifferent settings or events

»““Rarely enforced”Rarely enforced”

»““Enforced when violations are blatant or Enforced when violations are blatant or reported reported

»““Aggressively enforced in all Aggressively enforced in all circumstances”circumstances”


Dean and Campus Security Chief Dean and Campus Security Chief Perception of Enforcement cont’d.Perception of Enforcement cont’d.

• 5 items: Perceived regularity of use of 5 items: Perceived regularity of use of practices to limit student drinking such practices to limit student drinking such as…as…

»Stop or search students entering Stop or search students entering dorms or residence hallsdorms or residence halls

»Check student IDs at campus eventsCheck student IDs at campus events


MA Aggregate Trends in Student MA Aggregate Trends in Student Drinking and Marijuana Use,Drinking and Marijuana Use,

1999-20011999-200188 86

55 51

29 30

67

55

23 22

0102030405060708090

100

AnyDrinking

Any Binge FrequentBinge

UsuallyBinge

Marijuanain past 30

days

1999

2001

Per

cen

t o

f S

tud

ents

**

* Statistically significant difference, p<0.05


Percent Change in Student Binge Percent Change in Student Binge Drinking Rates Across 11 SchoolsDrinking Rates Across 11 Schools

1999-20011999-2001

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

Decrease

Increase

an evaluation of a new alcohol policy for massachusetts state colleges and universities john r....

Documents

limit alcohol

new alcohol policy mbhe

alcohol education programs

disciplinary policy

college students deaths

massachusetts state

certain supervised areas

segregate housing