An Evaluation of a New Alcohol Policy for Massachusetts State Colleges and Universities John R. Knight, MD*; Sion Kim Harris, PhD*; Lon Sherritt, MPH*; Kathleen Kelley, MBA*; Shari Van Hook, PA-C, MPH*; Henry Wechsler, PhD

1
An Evaluation of a New Alcohol Policyfor
Massachusetts State Colleges and
UniversitiesJohn R. Knight, MD Sion Kim
Harris, PhD Lon Sherritt, MPH Kathleen
Kelley, MBA Shari Van Hook, PA-C, MPH Henry
Wechsler, PhD

• The Center for Adolescent Substance Abuse
  Research (CeASAR) at Childrens Hospital Boston,
  Harvard Medical School
• National College Alcohol Study, Harvard School of
  Public Health

2
Acknowledgements

• The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
• Substance Abuse Policy Research Program
• Massachusetts Board of Higher Education (MBHE)
• Administrators and students from participating
  Massachusetts colleges and universities

3
Events Summary

• September 1997
• Deaths of two Mass. college students
• October 1997
• MBHE enacts new alcohol policy
• September 1998
• Massachusetts College Alcohol Study begins

• Nov. 1998 - May 1999
• Time 1 data collection
• Nov. 2000 - May 2001
• Time 2 data collection

4
Features of MBHE Policy (10/97)

1. Limit alcohol to certain supervised areas on
   campus
2. Segregate housing for students gt 21
3. Require advance registration of social events
   with alcohol
4. Ban hazing
5. Implement 3 strikes and youre out disciplinary
   policy
6. Provide alcohol education programs
7. Develop working relationships with cities and
   towns
8. Enforce all federal, state and local laws
9. Notify parents about violations (added 6/99)

5
Features of MBHE Policy (10/97)

1. Limit alcohol to certain supervised areas on
   campus
2. Segregate housing for students gt 21
3. Require advance registration of social events
   with alcohol
4. Ban hazing
5. Implement 3 strikes and youre out disciplinary
   policy
6. Provide alcohol education programs
7. Develop working relationships with cities and
   towns
8. Enforce all federal, state and local laws
9. Notify parents about violations (added 6/99)

6
Features of MBHE Policy (10/97)

1. Limit alcohol to certain supervised areas on
   campus
2. Segregate housing for students gt 21
3. Require advance registration of social events
   with alcohol
4. Ban hazing
5. Implement 3 strikes and youre out disciplinary
   policy
6. Provide alcohol education programs
7. Develop working relationships with cities and
   towns
8. Enforce all federal, state and local laws
9. Notify parents about violations (added 6/99)

7
Features of MBHE Policy (10/97)

1. Limit alcohol to certain supervised areas on
   campus
2. Segregate housing for students gt 21
3. Require advance registration of social events
   with alcohol
4. Ban hazing
5. Implement 3 strikes and youre out disciplinary
   policy
6. Provide alcohol education programs
7. Develop working relationships with cities and
   towns
8. Enforce all federal, state and local laws
9. Notify parents about violations (added 6/99)

8
Study Objectives

• To measure student drinking rates across schools
  within a single state-wide public college system
• To assess student and administrator perceptions
  of enforcement of their school alcohol policy
• To assess level of association between school
  drinking rates and policy enforcement

9
Study Objectives

• To measure student drinking rates across schools
  within a single state-wide public college system
• To assess student and administrator perceptions
  of enforcement of their school alcohol policy
• To assess level of association between school
  drinking rates and policy enforcement

10
Study Objectives

• To measure student drinking rates across schools
  within a single state-wide public college system
• To assess student and administrator perceptions
  of enforcement of their school alcohol policy
• To assess level of association between school
  drinking rates and policy enforcement

11
Hypotheses

• Student drinking rates and alcohol policy
  enforcement levels will vary across the
  individual colleges, despite uniform policy
• Variation in drinking rates will be associated
  with school-level factors, including level of
  policy enforcement

12
Hypotheses

• Student drinking rates and alcohol policy
  enforcement levels will vary across the
  individual colleges, despite uniform policy
• Variation in drinking rates will be associated
  with school-level factors, including level of
  policy enforcement

13
Study Sample

• Eligibility criteria
• 4-year public institutions of higher education in
  Mass.
• Substantial residential student population
• Colleges included (n11)
• University of Massachusetts campuses (3)
• Mass. state colleges (8)
• Colleges excluded (n16 )
• 2-year community colleges (15)
• No substantial residential student population (1)

14
Data Collection Method

• At each school, surveys mailed to
• Dean of Students
• (Nov Dec 1998)
• Campus Security Chief
• (Nov Dec 1998)
• Random sample of 225 students
• (Apr May 1999)

15
Data Collection Tools

• Student Survey
• Demographics
• Drinking behaviors and associated problems
• Perceptions of school policy enforcement
• Involvement with disciplinary system due to
  alcohol violations
• Administrator Surveys
• Reactions toward policy change and perceived
  enforcement of policies

Adapted from National College Alcohol Study
instruments developed by Henry Wechsler
16
Measures

• Student Binge Drinking Definition
• Proportion consuming ...
• 5 drinks in a row at least once in prior 2 weeks
  (men)
• 4 drinks in a row at least once in prior 2 weeks
  (women)
• Source Harvard School of Public Health College
  Alcohol Study

17
Student Perception of Policy Enforcement

• In your opinion, how strongly does your school
  enforce its alcohol policy?
• Proportion of students reporting enforced or
  strongly enforced

18
Dean and Campus Security Perception of
Enforcement (14 items)

• 9 items Level of enforcement in different
  settings or events (e.g., dorm parties, on-campus
  events, fraternity/sorority parties)
• 5 items Regularity of use of practices to limit
  student drinking (e.g., stop/search students
  entering dorms, check IDs at campus events)

19
Data Analyses

• Dean and Campus Security Chief Enforcement Score
• Responses to 14 items summed and percent of
  possible total calculated
• Unit of analyses School
• Pearsons r or Spearmans rho calculated for
  associations

20
Student Sample Demographics

• Total N 1,252
• Response rate 56 (range 49 - 65)
• 59 Female
• 88 White non-Hispanic
• 51 under 21 years
• 50 lived on campus
• 4 fraternity or sorority members

21
Drinking Patterns of Students at Mass. State
Colleges and Universities, 1999
Total N 1,252
Frequent Binge (binged
3 times in past 2 weeks)
29
Occasional Binge (binged
1-2 times in past 2 weeks)
26
Drank - No Binge (drank
in past year but did not binge in past 2 weeks)
33
Abstain (did
not drink in past year)
12
22
Drinking Patterns of Students at Mass. State
Colleges and Universities, 1999
Total N 1,252
Frequent Binge (binged
3 times in past 2 weeks)
29
Occasional Binge (binged
1-2 times in past 2 weeks)
26
Drank - No Binge (drank
in past year but did not binge in past 2 weeks)
33
Abstain (did
not drink in past year)
12
23
Drinking Patterns of Students at Mass. State
Colleges and Universities, 1999
Total N 1,252
Frequent Binge (binged
3 times in past 2 weeks)
29
Occasional Binge (binged
1-2 times in past 2 weeks)
26
Drank - No Binge (drank
in past year but did not binge in past 2 weeks)
33
Abstain (did
not drink in past year)
12
24
Drinking Patterns of Students at Mass. State
Colleges and Universities, 1999
Total N 1,252
Frequent Binge (binged
3 times in past 2 weeks)
29
Occasional Binge (binged
1-2 times in past 2 weeks)
26
Drank - No Binge (drank
in past year but did not binge in past 2 weeks)
33
Abstain (did
not drink in past year)
12
25
Drinking Patterns of Students at Mass. State
Colleges and Universities, 1999
Total N 1,252
Frequent Binge (binged
3 times in past 2 weeks)
29
Occasional Binge (binged
1-2 times in past 2 weeks)
26
Drank - No Binge (drank
in past year but did not binge in past 2 weeks)
33
Abstain (did
not drink in past year)
12
26
Overall Binge Drinking Rates Among11 Mass. State
Colleges and Universities, 1999

• Range
• 71 to 36 (among all ages)
• 73 to 37 (among underage)
• Variation only partially explained by student
  demographics

27
Student Perception of Policy Enforcement Overall
Sample

• How strongly enforced?
• 66 enforced/strongly enforced
• 20 weakly or not at all enforced
• 14 didnt know policy
• Student perception of enforcement level related
  to own drinking level
• 74 of binge drinkers felt enforced/strongly
  enforced
• 56 of abstainers or drinkers who didnt binge

28
Students Reporting Policy Enforced or
Strongly Enforced by School, 1999

• Wide variation across schools (35 to 90).
• Only about 1/2 of variation explained by binge
  rate, gender, age, and on-campus housing.

29
Correlation Between Administrator Enforcement
Scores and School Binge Rates
Campus Security (n10) Deans (n11)
Percent Binge
All Students -.45 .30
On-Campus Students -.40 .24
Underage Students -.47 .22
Percent Frequent Binge
All Students -.61 .42
On-Campus Students -.46 .20
Underage Students -.60 .37
Pearsons correlation coefficient plt0.10
30
Correlation Between Administrator Enforcement
Scores and School Binge Rates
Campus Security (n10) Deans (n11)
Percent Binge
All Students -.45 .30
On-Campus Students -.40 .24
Underage Students -.47 .22
Percent Frequent Binge
All Students -.61 .42
On-Campus Students -.46 .20
Underage Students -.60 .37
Pearsons correlation coefficient plt0.10
31
Correlation Between Administrator Enforcement
Scores and School Binge Rates
Campus Security (n10) Deans (n11)
Percent Binge
All Students -.45 .30
On-Campus Students -.40 .24
Underage Students -.47 .22
Percent Frequent Binge
All Students -.61 .42
On-Campus Students -.46 .20
Underage Students -.60 .37
Pearsons correlation coefficient plt0.10
32
Summary of 1999 Results

• Binge drinking rates varied significantly among
  Mass. public colleges and universities.
• Despite a uniform policy, enforcement practices
  varied among schools.
• Stronger enforcement by campus security was
  moderately associated with lower school binge
  drinking rates.

33
Study Limitations

• Self-reported information
• Potential selection bias due to 44 student
  non-response rate
• Small number of schools
• Cross-sectional study
• Other key informants not surveyed i.e., Resident
  Assistants

34
Study Strengths

• Able to look system-wide following a policy
  change
• Multiple key informant perspectives
• Students
• Deans of Students
• Campus Security Chiefs

35
Implications/ Recommendations

• Colleges should consider
• Review of policy and enforcement practices
• Support for front-line enforcement personnel
  (e.g., campus security, RAs)
• Enhancing communication among administrators
  involved in policy enforcement

36
Implications/ Recommendations

• Colleges should consider
• Review of policy and enforcement practices
• Support for front-line enforcement personnel
  (e.g., campus security, RAs)
• Enhancing communication among administrators
  involved in policy enforcement

37
Implications/ Recommendations

• Colleges should consider
• Review of policy and enforcement practices
• Support for front-line enforcement personnel
  (e.g., campus security, RAs)
• Enhancing communication among administrators
  involved in policy enforcement

38
Implications/ Recommendations

• Colleges should consider
• Review of policy and enforcement practices
• Support for front-line enforcement personnel
  (e.g., campus security, RAs)
• Enhancing communication among administrators
  involved in policy enforcement

39
Article Reference

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

40
Dean and Campus Security Perception of
Enforcement (14 items)

• 9 items Perceived level of enforcement in
  different settings or events
• Rarely enforced
• Enforced when violations are blatant or
  reported
• Aggressively enforced in all circumstances

41
Dean and Campus Security Chief Perception of
Enforcement contd.

• 5 items Perceived regularity of use of practices
  to limit student drinking such as
• Stop or search students entering dorms or
  residence halls
• Check student IDs at campus events

42
MA Aggregate Trends in Student Drinking and
Marijuana Use,1999-2001


Percent of Students
Statistically significant difference, plt0.05
43
Percent Change in Student Binge Drinking Rates
Across 11 Schools1999-2001