A Final Word
Reactions from a Metropolitan Campus
Introduction
Data released by the U.S. Department of Education indicate that students over 25 years of age represented 41.5 percent of students enrolled on college campuses in 1988 and that this group will continue to represent a substantial proportion of campus enrollments in the future (Gerald, Horn & Husser 1989, p. 3). These people are frequently part-time students and have other major commitments in their lives. For example, they are husbands and wives, parents, full-time employees, members of religious organizations, and participants in clubs and service organizations. They have many demands on their time. If you were to ask these people to describe their roles, they may not list "student" at all.
Rhatigan (1986) indicated that there are at least 256 different kinds of students-based on a variety of characteristics (i.e., marital status, working or not working, with or without children)-who attend metropolitan universities. Jacoby (1990) reported that commuters comprise 80 percent of the students attending colleges and universities in the United States. She observed that educators have assumed incorrectly that commuters are "like resident students except they live off campus," and they also have assumed incorrectly that these disparate groups of people have similar curricular and extracurricular needs.
This section is not intended to be a lengthy treatise on the metropolitan university student; however, one should be aware of the socioeconomic factors that shape the experiences of students attending these institutions. Jones and Damron (n.d.) pointed out that students who attend urban institutions typically have less money than those who attend nonurban institutions. Their parents also have less money and contribute less to these students' educational pursuits. Students at urban universities must work outside of school more often than students at residential colleges, and they view work as a necessary part of life. Frequently they are married, have children, take longer to complete their education, and are active in organizations within their communities. These characteristics are considered in the response to the previous sections from the perspective of metropolitan university personnel.
For this review, the preceding sections of this compendium will be viewed through the lens of a student affairs administrator affiliated with a metropolitan (also known as a commuter or urban) institution. First, the metropolitan university will be defined. Then a metaphor will be introduced that illustrates the metropolitan university. Finally, a reaction to the preceding sections using a metropolitan lens will be offered.
The Metropolitan University
According to Pascarella and Terenzini (1991), about one-third of all campuses are commuter institutions. Many of these institutions of higher education are located in metropolitan areas but are not necessarily "metropolitan universities." Bonner (cited by Grobman 1988, p. 4) defined "metropolitan university" as an institution ". . . not merely . . . located in a city; it is also of the city, with an obligation to serve the needs of the city's diverse citizenry." Grobman pointed out that ". . . all universities located in cities are not urban universities; a university located in a city may simply be a resident of that city with few interactions between the city and the university" (1988, p. 9).
The metropolitan university is a relatively recent phenomenon; most of these institutions have grown up since World War II (Wagner 1990) and are still evolving, attempting to determine their educational niche in the urban area they serve. They tend to have an older student population. At times they struggle because of the inevitable comparisons that result when they are viewed with the same lens as their counterparts (that have traditional-age students who live on or near campus and for whom college is the primary activity in their lives). Perhaps the following metaphor will assist in describing the metropolitan university further.
The Shopping Center Metaphor
Regional shopping centers in many areas of our country have become the place where many people do most of their shopping. These malls are located in areas of town with ample parking; they often have three or more large "anchor" stores; and they are the kinds of places where people can spend all day. Food courts, movie theaters, and other forms of recreation are located either in or near the malls, and the malls frequently have other forms of entertainment available.
Regional shopping centers have their drawbacks. The malls themselves often are owned by people from other states. The anchor stores are parts of conglomerates, and even the specialty stores frequently are part of a chain of stores. Customers do not know the owners and are even lucky to know a manager or employee.
When customers go to shopping malls they rarely know their fellow shoppers, unless by chance they meet one of their neighbors. Shopping at a mall is a somewhat impersonal activity, although it can be highly efficient because one does not drive all over town to finish shopping.
Are shopping malls good? That all depends on one's point of view. If the objective of shopping at a mall is to conclude one's business efficiently, then they are great. But shopping at a mall is not an effective socializing experience because it tends to be impersonal. A more lengthy discussion of the shopping mall metaphor is included in Schuh, Andreas, and Strange (1991).
The metropolitan university also functions, at times, like a shopping mall. It is a place where a person can participate in a variety of educational experiences without having to be immersed in the process. Everyone is welcome. There is no expectation that students take a prescribed number of courses. They may attend during the day or at night. Students choose to be as involved in their educational experience as they wish.
Although the shopping center metaphor is not applicable to all students and all metropolitan universities, the point is that educational experiences at metropolitan universities can be very different from those of traditional-age students at residential colleges. Similarly, students' experience with alcohol and other drugs varies from metropolitan universities to residential campuses. This is the lens through which the metropolitan university should be compared to other schools.
Reaction to the Other Sections
Gonzalez Section. Gonzalez' most relevant comment is that there is a growing realization in the prevention field that comprehensive, community-based approaches are needed. This is critical at metropolitan colleges for the reasons given below.
The amount of time that metropolitan college students spend on campus is limited. These students drive to campus, participate in an activity or two, and then go home. At my campus, for example, home means a place owned by the students, since as many students own their homes as live at home with their parents. The average age of our student body is 28. Our students are parents, spouses, and so on. For prevention programs to be focused on capturing students' attention only while they are on campus is hardly worth the effort since (1) students are on campus for a limited amount of time, and (2) they attend classes at various times from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. A program scheduled for a particular portion of the day would miss the vast majority of students who attend the university. As a result, other models, based in the community, would be far more effective than the traditional models focused on the student's campus residence (i.e., residence hall, fraternity, or apartment located near the campus).
Those responsible for developing programs designed to combat the abuse of alcohol and other drugs would be best advised to use a community-based approach as the point of departure. For example, one concerned with the abuse of alcohol and other drugs on the part of metropolitan college students should consider looking for sources of information about substance abuse outside of the campus. On a residential campus, such sources of information as the campus police department, the student health service, the campus physical plant, and the student conduct office all provide useful information to persons interested in assessing the influence of substance abuse on student behavior. These offices may not be as helpful on a metropolitan campus. Instead, the local police department, hospitals and clinics, social service agencies, and churches all have information about their clients-who also may attend the local metropolitan university. Gathering information from these sources would be one way of determining the extent of substance abuse among metropolitan students who probably use community-based, rather than campus-based, resources.
Gilchrist Section. The description of testing the inoculation strategy in junior and senior high schools is irrelevant for students who attend metropolitan institutions. Such testing has little applicability to a situation where many students, perhaps the majority on some campuses, are 30 years of age and older.
Gilchrist described the person-in- environment approach as being useful because colleges are self-contained environments. That is true for the traditional residential campus attended by traditional-age students. However, the metropolitan college is not self-contained, even with respect to the locations where classes are offered. It is very common for these campuses to offer courses all over town besides at the campus itself-at such places as high schools, municipal buildings, and even over the city's cable television system. So, the notion of the campus being self-contained has limited applicability to the metropolitan campus.
The high-risk groups described by Gilchrist, thankfully for the metropolitan college official, do not exist in large numbers. There may be no dormitory (residence hall) students at all. It is common for members of sororities and fraternities not to live in their "houses," which, instead, may be lodges without live-in facilities. Presumably, those who choose to be members of Greek letter organizations might be at higher risk than the rest of the population, but they tend to be a distinct minority and have limited influence on campus life.
Gilchrist's point that programs developed in one locale do not necessarily translate well to another is particularly noteworthy. It is very difficult to find identical situations where programs of any kind can be duplicated elsewhere with identical results. Rather, prevention specialists are cautioned to study carefully the dynamics of specific situations, especially the campus culture, before attempting to use specific programs as models.
Moreover, I agree with her observation that the political and philosophical positioning of a prevention program should not be underestimated. In fact, those two factors may well determine the fate of a specific program. I believe this observation is especially true in the metropolitan setting because the citizens frequently feel as though they own the institution and have a say in its operation whether or not they ever attended it. This is a very different political environment than that of independent institutions, which may desire amicable relations with the local community but do not feel an obligation to foster them. The importance of paying careful attention to the local political climate cannot be underestimated.
As was mentioned earlier, Gilchrist's assertion that campuses are self-contained environments does not apply to the metropolitan institution. Perceiving a metropolitan university as an island within an urban sea is simply incorrect. On the contrary, metropolitan institutions often describe their urban area as the campus, and institutional programs and activities frequently are located all over the metropolitan area.
Kuh Section. The caveat Kuh introduces early in his section speaks to the point that I am attempting to make in this paper. Most of the research included in his section does not apply to community college or urban university students, nor does it apply to students over 23 years of age. In the case of many metropolitan universities, the majority of the students are over 23 years of age, so the material included in the section may not apply to them for two reasons: their age and the type of institution they attend.
Kuh observes that for commuting students, more of their time is spent off campus than on, and, as a result, issues related to the abuse of alcohol and other drugs become as much a responsibility of the community as of the institution. This observation is exactly right. It is very common that students spend their social and recreational time off campus. In these environments the responsibility becomes that of the local community rather than of the campus. As a result, broad-based community intervention programs, discussed earlier in this compendium, have much more potential for success than narrowly focused, campus-based programs.
Finally, Kuh makes the point that campus-specific strategies need to be employed because institutions of higher education are so different from each other. Again, this philosophical approach is consistent with research that has been conducted in the past few years on colleges (Kuh, Schuh & Whitt 1991). Although there can be a consistency in philosophies across campuses, the specific programs and interventions that are implemented on a specific campus need to be developed for the local situation. Just because an approach works at one campus does not mean that it will work anywhere else.
Berkowitz Section. Berkowitz begins his section by asserting that very little is known about the use or abuse patterns of nontraditional students (taken by this reader to mean those older than 23 years of age) and of members of ethnic minority groups. This is very true and complicates the work of prevention specialists in the metropolitan university setting. Frankly, it is difficult to conduct these kinds of surveys of metropolitan university students because so many attend the university on a part-time basis, live off-campus, and are simply unavailable to participate. Mailings to them are costly, and their participation rate in mail-conducted research is low. A very useful first step in the development of prevention programs at metropolitan campuses would be to develop a reliable, yet inexpensive, way of conducting studies of alcohol and other drug use. One approach that might be tried with metropolitan students is the use of telephone polls. Most students have telephones, and conducting a structured interview can yield excellent results (Oltmanns & Schuh 1985).
Berkowitz observes that the use of surveys for evaluation purposes has substantial drawbacks. One fundamental shortcoming of forced-choice instruments is that they have a very difficult time uncovering motivation for behavior. An alternative is the use of qualitative methodology since the goal of this type of research is understanding (Crowson 1987; Lincoln & Guba 1985). The use of focus groups and other interview techniques can yield rich data that will be very useful in understanding the behavior of individuals (Whitt 1991).
Qualitative methods can be time consuming and expensive (MacKay & Schuh 1991). The amount of effort required to conduct a good qualitative study can be enormous. As a result, one should not assume that qualitative methods provide an easy alternative to quantitative methods. They are very useful, but should not be used without understanding that a good qualitative study costs a great deal of money and is very time consuming.
A Final Word
The authors of the four major sections have done a good job of outlining some of the problems related to the development of prevention programs on college campuses. Gonzalez' ITMADP model has excellent promise as a comprehensive way of predicting individual and leadership behavior in alcohol and other drug-related situations. Gilchrist's observation that high-level administrative support is essential is astute. Especially in this era of difficult financial times for many colleges and universities, high-level support is necessary to sustain these kinds of programs. Frequently, these programs are financed through "soft" money (i.e., gifts, grants, or other forms outside the traditional revenue stream), and it is not easy to find funding sources when the soft money is gone. Support from senior administrators, faculty, and members of the governing board is essential.
Kuh's observation about espoused versus enacted philosophy is very important to the campus culture. Descriptions for prospective students of life on campus must be consistent with what students encounter once they enroll. Whether campus life is highly structured or not, inconsistent messages lead to cynicism and poor student morale, as well as a lack of trust and confidence in campus leadership.
Berkowitz' comment about data collection being an integral part of any program is true. Without a good data base from which to work, programming to combat the abuse of alcohol and other drugs is analogous to flying a plane without navigational equipment. A good data base is essential, but multiple methods should be used. Qualitative and quantitative methods are both helpful in this kind of work. Quantitative methods help describe the actions of people, but qualitative methods are the best way, in my view, to find answers related to why people behave the way they do. I would advocate that both methods have a place in the development of a data base.
The Perspective of Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Introduction and Background
Prior to the 1980s, campus-based alcohol and other drug programs were a rarity, and widespread alcohol use was frequently the norm. During the past decade, and following the passage of the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1986, there has been an unprecedented proliferation of campus-based programs focused on the prevention of alcohol and other drug problems. Concurrently, research on alcohol and drug use for college students has increased. In the midst of expanded research and program activities, there remains a conspicuous paucity of data on alcohol and other drug use among African-American students.
Most African-American students receive their baccalaureate education at one of the nation's 117 historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). These institutions are symbols of excellence and citadels for the training and modeling of African-American leaders. Any behavior that could jeopardize the mission of HBCUs warrants swift intervention. The abuse of alcohol and other drugs by college-age African-American students represents one such threat.
Historical Background
The purpose of this paper is to explore, in a cursory fashion, the relevance and usefulness of the issues raised in the previous sections to the prevention of alcohol and other drug abuse on HBCU campuses. Although each HBCU has its own distinct characteristics, this paper addresses the commonalities among them as it relates to alcohol and other drug abuse issues. The history of HBCUs is provided as a context for framing the role of these institutions in addressing the theoretical, research, and programmatic issues related to alcohol and other drug use on their campuses.
Historically black colleges and universities have an indisputable responsibility to provide leadership in addressing the drug abuse problem. This responsibility is linked to the founding missions of most of these institutions, which have played a very critical role in the shaping of American society. Patricia Roberts Harris (1971) describes the existence of black colleges as a response to the disconnected relationship of the black person to the total American community. These institutions owe their existence to the condition of African-Americans within this country (Harris 1971; Jones 1971).
The mission of black institutions of higher learning has always been broader than that of traditional academia. In addition to the primary role of education, HBCUs (and particularly private black colleges and universities) have served as a catalyst for social change. Collectively, these institutions have an established legacy of being responsive to the varied issues facing the African-American community.
According to Mack Jones (1971), the founding charge of these institutions was to train black scholars who could challenge and overcome the immediate threats to the survival of the black community while simultaneously pursuing equality. More than a century later, this charge remains the same. The immediate threats may be different, but they are nevertheless challenges to the survival and prosperity of the African-American community. Alcohol and other drug abuse represents an unprecedented threat to the survival of the African-American community. The role of HBCUs in addressing this issue is contained in the founding charge of many of these institutions.
Because most HBCUs were founded by leaders with a strong religious background, black leaders of higher education have historically opposed the use and abuse of substances. For example, Booker T. Washington felt that character training for black students must be supported by religion and should stress sobriety and sexual restraint. Similarly, during the 19th century, blacks were strong supporters of the American Temperance Movement, partly because of its close association with antislavery reform. Often these same organizations participated in the founding of black institutions. Further, many of the founding groups were established religious organizations which also opposed the use of alcohol. Atlanta University in Atlanta, Georgia; Fisk University in Nashville, Tennessee; Talladega College in Talladega; and Tougaloo College in Tougaloo, Mississippi, are four southern institutions which were established by the American Missionary Association between 1865 and 1869. Although a majority of HBCUs are not controlled by a religious denomination, 56 of the 72 black private institutions report having a religious affiliation (Harper 1971).
As a result of these historical linkages, the opposition to the use of alcohol and other drugs on campus at HBCUs, particularly at the private institutions, has been more evident than on white campuses. For example, the alcohol-related behaviors that have historically characterized fraternities and sororities on predominately white campuses are less evident on black campuses. Generally, on-campus pubs and group drinking competitions are less characteristic of HBCU campuses.
Unfortunately, the historical development of HBCUs has not stopped the emergence of alcohol/drug-related problems on HBCU campuses. People in contemporary society are more tolerant toward substance abuse. However, HBCUs, unlike traditionally white campuses, do not have a past record of accepting heavy alcohol use on their premises.
Drug abuse, whether within the wider African-American community or on the HBCU campus, is rapidly destroying many of the social and cultural traditions, values, and beliefs that have sustained this ethnic group. Historically, the opportunity to obtain a college education has been a highly valued and privileged opportunity-not to be taken lightly or jeopardized in any way, but especially not by the use of mind-altering substances.
The Need for Theory
In section III, Gonzalez raises the critical issue of the role of theory in the design and implementation of campus-based prevention programs. As posited by Gonzalez, campus-based programs have emerged in an atheoretical way. This is partly attributable to the fact that prior to the 1980s, campus alcohol and other drug use was not typically viewed as problematic but as characteristic of the college experience. The passage of the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act and the Drug-Free Workplace Act mandated action by institutions of higher learning. Regrettably, the field lacked a theoretically grounded body of literature on which to develop an agenda for action. In the absence of empirically validated practices, the theory has evolved from practice, rather than the reverse. It must be recognized that theory formulation and testing is a time-consuming process. The enormity of the drug problem required immediate action, so preventive and interventive efforts did not have a strong theoretical basis. A bridge is needed between the work of researchers and practitioners so that programs will be based on both theory and real-world experience.
The efficacy of the Integrated Theoretical Model for Alcohol and Drug Prevention (ITMADP), which has been proposed by Gonzalez, has not yet been tested on HBCU campuses. The model's focus on individual as well as environmental factors does provide a broader conceptual framework for addressing the variety of influences on alcohol and other drug use. Because of the diversity of institutions in terms of size, gender composition, and ethnicity, the universal applicability of a model cannot be assumed. The usefulness of the ITMADP model for HBCUs must be established through testing within the African-American student population.
The research imperative for HBCUs, as it relates to alcohol and other drugs, is indeed an urgent one. Theoretically based prevention and intervention efforts are unquestionably needed. African-American scholars must also develop theoretical models and approaches for addressing alcohol and other drug abuse specifically within the African-American community. Nathan Harris' challenge to black scholars two decades ago to develop new norms and ideological perspectives is still warranted (Hare 1969).
In addition to developing theoretically grounded approaches for African-American communities, HBCUs are also challenged to cultivate an interest in research among African-American students. This includes imparting the knowledge base and analytical skills that will enable the development of valid measures for the population being studied.
Implementation of Programs
HBCUs face many challenges in the implementation of prevention and intervention programs. Although a commitment from the highest level of administrators is a necessary condition, as suggested by Gilchrist, it is not a sufficient condition. Equally important is the support of a core of individuals who represent various units within the institutions. The best evidence of high-level administrative commitment is the allocation of money and staff resources.
As noted earlier, many HBCUs were highly influenced by the philosophies of their founding organizations, which were mostly religious groups closely aligned with the temperance movement. Consequently, viewed within a historical context, abstinence was frequently the desired goal. This orientation has not been sustained over time. However, anecdotal information suggests that alcohol is less frequently used on HBCU campuses.
Little definitive data are available on the effectiveness of campus-based programs. A necessary condition for determining the effectiveness of programs is to establish measurable outcome goals. As indicated by Gilchrist in section IV, an array of outcomes exists; however, the implementation of campus-based programs has rarely evolved out of structured planning processes. The proliferation of campus-based programs to counter alcohol and other drug abuse was, to a large extent, a response to federal mandates and to the intense national (albeit short-lived) focus on this issue.
The response for many HBCUs was more reactive than proactive. Although the drug problem was presented as a matter of national urgency, money was not provided to alleviate the problem. Because the federal mandate came at a time when budgets were being cut, colleges and universities were forced to rely on external support. This was particularly true for HBCUs. Programs were thus developed very quickly.
The Role of the Community
As suggested by Kuh, the haste to address the problems of alcohol and other drugs on campus often precluded the larger community from becoming involved in working with the campus to find solutions. When one considers its historical role, one sees that the HBCU is an integral part of the larger African-American community and serves as a valuable community resource. Consequently, links between the institution and the community are essential.
Strategies for improving campus-community relationships can be viewed within the framework of a community prevention system. The process of developing such a system is one of building relationships among individuals, families, agencies, organizations, and institutions. The first phase of developing a prevention system is initiating a communitywide effort that includes all segments of the community. It is at this level that the problem can be described and the response can be made. (Fletcher 1989). Therein lies the necessity of an inclusive process that recognizes alcohol and other drug abuse as the result of environmental, as well as individual, influences.
Outcome Assessment
Another critical aspect of campus programming, assessment, is raised by Berkowitz in section VI. Assessment of campus alcohol and other drug use can be most valuable when it is used as an integral part of the planning and implementation process. The motivation for conducting an assessment will determine its usefulness. Surveys which are done because of an external edict and are not viewed as a useful tool will be of minimal value. On the other hand, when viewed as a means of monitoring change and documenting strengths and weaknesses, the assessment process can serve as the guiding force in program development. Until the assessment is viewed as a meaningful tool for effecting program goals, it will continue to be of little use.
Summary
In summary, although alcohol and other drug abuse is antithetical to the founding premises of many HBCUs, these institutions have not been insulated from such behavior. The enormity of the alcohol and drug problem and the recent national focus in this area have resulted in the emergence of approaches devoid of a strong theoretical foundation. HBCUs have a critical role in addressing alcohol and other drug abuse. The need for research requires that African-American scholars develop prevention and intervention models that are both theoretically grounded and practitioner-oriented for solving alcohol and drug-related problems within the African-American community.
Response from a Public University
Introduction
I was eager to review the articles in this compendium because I am a student affairs administrator in a large, public, research university with a reputation for being a "party school." I have also been involved for the last 20 years in efforts to reduce or eliminate drug and alcohol abuse. I have heard a great deal of talk and, lately, have witnessed a great deal of action. Two efforts by the U.S. Department of Education have led to this action. First, the voluntary national standards established by the Network of Colleges and Universities Committed to the Elimination of Drug and Alcohol Abuse have provided a blueprint for action by institutions of higher education. Second, federal funds to support drug and alcohol prevention efforts have been made available through grants administered by the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education. In spite of these efforts, as Gonzalez correctly points out in his article, we still have very few theoretical models to guide our efforts and even less evidence to show whether or not our efforts have worked.
As a student affairs administrator, I see the results of alcohol and drug abuse daily. I do not need any more theory or research to know that the use of alcohol and drugs by college students leads to a plethora of problems: ineffectual interpersonal relationships, sexual assaults, campus violence, suicide attempts, arrests by campus law enforcement officers, and property damage, as well as poor grades, failure to graduate, and ultimately, for some students, chemical addiction.
I do need more theory and research, however, to know what to do about this plague. This compendium has helped me (1) understand the context within which college student alcohol and drug abuse occurs; (2) think about an integrated way of looking at the problem; (3) know what works and what does not work, and why; and (4) understand why I must do a better job of assessment, and how I might do that.
Comments on the Gonzalez Article
Gonzalez does an excellent job of reviewing the history of our piecemeal efforts to reduce or eliminate drug and alcohol abuse on college campuses and showing why most of them have limitations. We have tried, for example, to "educate" students with information about alcohol and other drugs, in the hope that information would somehow translate into more responsible behavior. It has not. In addition, we have tried to reduce availability through many means-including raising the drinking age to 21-again without apparent reductions in use or abuse. We have also tried to "scare the hell out of them," confident that when students knew the potentially dangerous effects of alcohol and other drugs, they would stop self-destructive behavior. They have not. Alternatively, we have tried to teach them the skills to "say no" to alcohol and other drugs, but "saying no" to drugs also means "saying no" to the peer group, which in many ways is more difficult for students than "saying no" to drugs and alcohol. And, finally, we have tried to build collegiate communities that reinforce healthy behaviors. Unfortunately, we do not really have the knowledge or the tools to plan and implement effective community-based interventions. And even if we did, it takes a long time to achieve results using community-based models, and, on most campuses, there is no consensus among faculty, administrators, and students about the proposed solutions.
I like Gonzalez' Integrated Theoretical Model for Alcohol and Drug Prevention (ITMADP) because it incorporates the best from the above approaches and discards the ineffective. It is also consistent with student development theory in that it focuses upon (1) the person, and who he/she was before coming to college; (2) the environment, and how it influences the person; and (3) the person-environment interaction. It forces me as an administrator to think, plan, and implement new strategies in a comprehensive, rather than a piecemeal, way. More specifically, I must focus on individually oriented skills-building activities (assertiveness, stress management, and interpersonal communication) and on community-oriented interventions (media campaigns) that discourage health-compromising behaviors.
I also like ITMADP because it is based on reality. We know that a student's peer group often reinforces unhealthy behaviors and that most students are drinking before they come to college. These are realities. We also know that awareness does not necessarily translate into behavior, and we know that college youth believe they are immortal. In addition, we know that "forbidden fruit" is attractive, especially when it is readily available and the potential risks are remote.
The ITMADP model takes into account these realities, and strikes to the heart of the problem: If you want to change behavior, you must change both the individual and the environment. But perhaps even more importantly, this model provides a framework within which interventions cannot only be planned and implemented, but evaluated as well. Gonzalez' model must now be tried and tested to determine its efficacy. My own guess is that it will withstand serious research scrutiny and become a useful model, both for practitioners and researchers.
Comments on the Gilchrist Article
Gilchrist reinforces many of Gonzalez' ideas about the failure of prevention programs, but unfortunately many of the studies she quotes were done on adolescents, not college students. Also, most studies of college students were done on traditional-age college students, not the adult students who now constitute nearly a majority of college students in America. Although many of the same principles apply, many more do not. For example, efforts to "inoculate" students from peer pressure are virtually useless for adult students. My guess is that inoculation strategies have worked for marijuana and cigarettes because there is a societal consensus against the use of these substances. There is no such societal consensus against alcohol use. In fact, American society condones alcohol use as long as it does not become abuse.
Gilchrist argues very strongly that we must focus on environments as well as on students. Gonzalez would agree, and so do I. I could not agree more that college campuses ". . . may be uniquely suited to the person-in- environment approach in that they are relatively self-contained environments." Unfortunately, most college students today (about five in six) live and work off campus and study part time. Although those who are in the self-contained environment are especially susceptible to our influence, most students are not easily influenced because they are not a part of campus life.
In summarizing the research on the effectiveness of ecological approaches, Gilchrist correctly concludes that "only those intensive educational approaches where students received direct training in multiple sessions over time result in actual changes in drinking behaviors." For me as a student affairs administrator, this is a very important finding. It means that one-shot approaches, such as informational programs-no matter how well done or how well attended-are not effective substitutes for intensive and sustained interventions.
Gilchrist's article provides me with a blueprint for implementing a comprehensive approach by referencing the work of Parcel, Simons-Morton, and Kolbe (1988). The authors of this work state that one must start with an institutional commitment, alterations in policies and practices, and alterations in roles and actions of staff-which lead to new student learning activities. All are key elements. I disagree that "sustained administrative support is so critical that proceeding with planning without administrative support is likely to be fatal." It has been my experience that successful administrative support follows from a documented presentation of the problem and from the presentation of a comprehensive plan. I would argue that the attempted implementation of a plan without administrative support will be fatal.
One of Gilchrist's most powerful arguments is the need to define precise goals for alcohol and other drug prevention programs. This has not always been done. We need to ask ourselves what our primary goal is. Is it prevention of initial use? Is it abstinence? Is it reduction of abuse? Gilchrist does not advocate any particular goal, but she does argue for clarity and consistency. Regarding the latter, I know of many institutions that fail to practice what they preach, which is confusing at best and hypocritical at worst. This is especially true of institutions whose policies reflect abstinence or lawful use, but whose practices may best be characterized as "look the other way."
Comments on the Kuh Article
Kuh's article is especially instructive because it provides well-documented evidence of the influence of collegiate environments on student development, in general, and on alcohol and other drug behavior, in particular. His ecological model stresses the influence of various campus environments, including the physical, the organizational, the social-psychological, and the cultural. As an administrator in a large, public, research university, I am somewhat saddened by what he says about physical environments: that they are more positive when they are less crowded, more structured, and smaller. Perhaps the lesson here for those of us in large universities is that we must work harder to create small microenvironments within our larger environments. This could be done through residential and campus programs that provide opportunities for students to interact in smaller, more intimate environments.
Kuh stresses the importance of the organizational environment, both in terms of policies and activities. He argues, and I agree, that many drug and alcohol abuse prevention programs have helped, but the increase in the drinking age to 21 has not necessarily reduced use and abuse, especially off campus. We must target certain of our campus environments, such as single-sex halls and fraternities and sororities, where alcohol and drug abuse appear to be greatest.
Kuh describes the typical peer environment of institutions with traditional-age students: There is a great deal of peer pressure to drink, easy availability of alcohol, social norms that reinforce alcohol use and abuse, and existence of the concept of drinking as a rite of passage-all of which, from my experience, are accurate. He also correctly identifies the cultural attitudes that influence alcohol use and abuse, including the external environment (which is pro-use, if not pro-abuse), the institution (where attitudes range from abstinence to implicitly encouraging abuse), various subcultures (whose attitudes range from promoting abstinence to promoting abuse), and individuals (whose attitudes range from fostering abstinence to accepting addiction). These notions once again reinforce the idea that the campus environment, as well as individuals, must be the intervention target.
Kuh's most important conclusions, I believe, relate to the susceptibility of individuals to peer and environmental influence. Why do some students seem to be immune to environmental influences, yet others seem to be particularly susceptible? Kuh's review indicates that students who are most susceptible to environmental influence, whether good or bad, are those most open to change, most concerned about social acceptance, and most responsive to peer pressure. Women, less-confident students, and first-year students are especially vulnerable to environmental influences. For me as a practicing student affairs administrator, this means my alcohol and drug interventions must be both targeted and timely.
Kuh concludes by making recommendations that make a great deal of sense to me as a student affairs administrator: Know the drinking behaviors of students on your campus; make programs campus specific; target at-risk groups; develop policies that are well articulated, well known, and consistently enforced; and reinforce health-enhancing behaviors. But perhaps most important of all, work at developing "human-scale" environments that will model healthy behaviors and will discourage alcohol and other drug abuse. In short, develop caring environments where students, faculty, and staff get involved with one another.
Comments on the Berkowitz Article
Berkowitz, in his article on assessing collegiate substance use, identifies precisely what is wrong with most studies on student alcohol and other drug use and abuse: poor sampling, unreliable and invalidated instrumentation, poor problem identification, poor methodology (most often failure to take into account all variables contributing to use and abuse), and incomplete data analysis (such as generalizing from single-institution studies). To this list I would add the bias of the researcher. Some studies are conducted by researchers or organizations who intend to "prove" certain preconceived notions. When I review a study, I first look at the prior record of the researcher. I ask myself if this study has been done by the "responsible drinking" crowd, the "neoprohibitionist" crowd, the "academic" crowd, or the "government" crowd. All may have a platform that biases their results, and the reader must be diligent in assessing any possible bias.
Berkowitz sees gaps in the research, most of which result from the assumptions that all students are alike and that substances affect all persons in the same way. We seldom find studies of student subpopulations such as nonusers, multiple-drug users, or high-risk users. We seldom see studies of possible differences among women, men, racial/ethnic minorities, poorer students, and older students. We also have problems with our definitions of use and abuse, particularly with a drug like alcohol, which is illicit for some (those under 21 years of age) and legal for all others.
Perhaps most importantly, Berkowitz sees many uses for assessment besides merely describing the present condition of alcohol and other drug use and abuse on college campuses. Assessment studies can support initiation and alteration of campus policies and can provide support for counseling and educational programs. Such studies can also demonstrate the effectiveness of various intervention methods. Especially helpful in this regard is the movement toward standardization of survey instruments. Unfortunately, Berkowitz focuses exclusively on quantitative research methodology, while ignoring the growing field of qualitative research methodology. Focus groups and individual interviews, for example, can provide the depth of understanding about drug and alcohol problems that surveys typically do not provide.
Conclusion
The bottom line is that well-designed and well-controlled studies have exceptionally high credibility in collegiate environments, where research is highly valued, especially among faculty. Research is also a very effective way of validating campus alcohol and other drug problems to those who are skeptical about the existence of such problems. In addition, research can provide guidance for planning and intervention and for demonstrating program effectiveness. In short, assessment is a powerful way of gaining, maintaining, and expanding the resources needed to address campus alcohol and other drug problems.
I believe these authors have done an excellent job of describing accurately and realistically the problems of alcohol and other drug abuse that I face as a practicing student affairs administrator. I would add one overall suggestion. If we want intervention methods that are intensive, long term, applicable to all students (regardless of their gender, age, enrollment status, or racial/ethnic background), and if we want to promote health-enhancing campus communities, why not revise our curricula to do so? Courses for credit that focus on campus alcohol and other drug issues and that encourage peer interaction may be the most effective way of influencing both individuals and environments.
This approach has many advantages. First, the intervention is sustained over a period of time (a semester) and is therefore intensive. Second, graded assignments and examinations provide the rewards and reinforcement that today's students value. Third, the content can be specific to the campus, and out-of- class assignments can combine the experiential with the didactic approach. Fourth, part-time, older, and off-campus students-whose participation rate in on-campus, voluntary programs is notoriously low-will, in fact, enroll for credit courses. Fifth, credit courses offer an opportunity for intellectual depth that other intervention methods cannot provide. And finally, credit courses offer opportunities to influence students' attitudes and behaviors.
It is clear that what we have learned from the research and literature is helpful not only in developing comprehensive models of prevention, such as the one suggested by Gonzalez, but also in developing and evaluating programs, as suggested by Gilchrist and Berkowitz. But the themes of environmental influence, developed by Kuh and reinforced by the other authors, are clearly the trend for the future. We need to know more about how environments can be influenced so that they can positively affect students.
Alcohol and other drugs are such a pervasive, negative influence on today's campuses that we cannot afford to diminish our efforts to know more. To do anything less is a failure to live up to our educational and moral obligations to students.
A Private University Perspective
Introduction
In 1960, W. H. Cowley spoke on general education to university presidents at a conference held at Harvard University. At that time, Cowley was a professor of higher education at Stanford University. Cowley described three types of college teaching:
Practicentric teaching, which could be viewed as a bridge between the specialist and the layman, is the focus of higher education administrators. The goal of such administrators is to provide both students and informed laymen with practical, usable knowledge.
Pragmatic Practice
The articles in this compendium summarize the current state of research on the prevention of alcohol and drug abuse on college campuses. The articles, which have a practicentric focus, contain specific suggestions for today's higher education administrators. The writers have drawn skillfully upon the work of logocentric teachings to develop these suggestions and have, consequently, extended the frontiers of practice. The field of alcohol and drug abuse prevention has traditionally had a pragmatic, service-oriented focus rather than a theory-oriented focus.
Administrators have sometimes been criticized for this lack of emphasis on theory. However, much of the research being performed in this field has addressed the general public, not the college or university student. Those responsible for designing and implementing programs to prevent drug and alcohol abuse were unable to apply the results of such research to their programs. Therefore, administrators used a commonsense basis for their programs: They inferred that increasing a student's knowledge about substance abuse would change his or her attitudes, which would lead to a change in behavior. This model, although it seemed intuitively sound, turned out to be flawed. Over the years, administrators have realized that substance abuse problems are more deeply rooted and that abusers are not very responsive to theories about the consequences of abuse.
Recently, greater pressures have been applied on administrators to improve the effectiveness of their programs. These pressures have come both from the general public and from the federal government. Because of this renewed democentric interest in the field, the articles in this compendium should be very useful.
The Need for Commitment
The article by Gerardo Gonzalez, "Theories, Dominant Models, and the Need for Applied Research," describes several research-based models for ways to effect change in this field. He introduces new terms for concepts that merit wider exposure-such as "perceived susceptibility," "peer refusal skills," and "multiple causes." Gonzalez' work demonstrates that the wider society contains multiple forces that impel a student to abuse alcohol or drugs and that these forces must be addressed directly and changed. The influence of advertisements for alcohol, for example, should not be underestimated. One way to reduce alcohol abuse on college campuses would be to develop anti-abuse advertising campaigns that are at least as powerful as the campaigns of alcohol marketers.
In addition to confronting the problem of alcohol advertising on campuses, administrators of substance abuse prevention programs need clear statements of commitment from college and university presidents. The article by Lewayne Gilchrist mentions this need for "commitment from the highest level of an organization." The president must clarify his or her stance on all aspects of alcohol use or advertising. For example, he or she must clarify the following: whether programs apply to alumni returning to campus; whether alcohol marketers are allowed to define the atmosphere in or around collegiate events at a stadium; and whether intramural programs and fraternity parties are sponsored by campus representatives of the alcohol beverages industry.
Influences for Change
The determination of policies on university campuses is often a collaborative effort. Policies are often designed by "planning groups" or "practice planning groups" (from the Gilchrist article). On the campuses of private schools, such planning groups face an unusual problem: Because students pay high tuitions, they sometimes assume they are entitled to determine policies. In private schools, administrators of substance abuse prevention programs must negotiate with students regarding potential policies rather than imposing policies on them without their prior knowledge.
The Gilchrist article notes that students do not typically reduce their alcohol intake as a result of believing their health, in general, is threatened. Students respond more favorably to specific deterrents such as being arrested for drunk driving, fear of date rape, or fear of being sent to a detoxification center.
George Kuh's article, "The Influence of College Environments on Student Drinking," offers the conclusion that policies and programs designed to reduce college students' alcohol use have been generally ineffective. Policy changes seem to have had more effect than programs on "responsible drinking." We agree with this conclusion. However, changes in policy sometimes lead to changes in students' behavior. For example, when on-campus fraternity parties at the University of the Pacific were reduced and better controlled, the number of fights outside of fraternity houses decreased rapidly.
In addition to reducing chronic substance abuse, administrators must focus on helping moderate drinkers or nondrinkers to avoid becoming addicted. Kuh makes an important point that developing small, human-scale environments on campus helps engender a sense of belonging and support in students that empowers them to choose healthy outlets rather than alcohol or drug use.
The Role of Data
Administrators of alcohol and drug abuse prevention programs have not gathered or analyzed much data on their students or on program effectiveness. One reason for not gathering data is that governing boards have not usually required it. Another reason is that the presentation of data does not usually lead to results on a campus. Embarrassing publicity, such as a death from cocaine abuse, is more likely to effect change. Although data are important for managing budgets and planning for the future, people are usually more motivated by hearing real stories about other human beings.
The Need for an Integrated Approach
To help students recover from substance abuse problems and to improve the choices they have for more healthful behaviors, college presidents and administrators must integrate the three approaches mentioned earlier-the logocentric, the practicentric, and the democentric. Only an integrated approach can bring about effective and enduring change.
Schuh References
Crowson, R.L. (1987). Qualitative research methods in higher education. In J.C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. III, pp. 1-55). New York: Agathon.
Gerald, D.E., Horn, P.J., & Husser, W.J. (1989). Projections of education statistics to 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Grobman, A.B. (1988). Urban state universities: An unfinished national agenda. New York: Praeger.
Jacoby, B. (1990). Making up deficiencies: Is there a choice? Metropolitan Universities, 1(2), 19-29.
Jones, J.D., & Damron, J. (no date). Student affairs programs at universities in urban settings. Washington, DC: NASULGC.
Kuh, G.D., Schuh, J.H., & Whitt, E.J. (1991). Involving colleges: Successful approaches to fostering student learning and development outside the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
MacKay, K., & Schuh, J.H. (1991). Practical issues associated with qualitative research methods. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 424-432.
Oltmanns, G.V., & Schuh, J.H. (1985). Purposes and uses of residence hall libraries. College and Research Libraries, 46, 172-177.
Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rhatigan, J.J. (1986). Developing a campus profile of commuting students. NASPA Journal, 24, 4-10.
Schuh, J.H., Andreas, R.E., & Strange, C.C. (1991). Students as metropolitan universities. Metropolitan Universities, 2(3), 64-74.
Wagner, T.E. (1990). Adapting your institution to meet the needs of commuter students. Metropolitan Universities, 1(2), 61-71.
Whitt, E.J. (1991). Artful science: A primer on qualitative research methods. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 406-415.
Fletcher References
Fletcher, B. (1989, November). The role of HBCUs in facilitating substance abuse education, prevention and intervention efforts: Research and networks. Commissioned paper presented at One-Third of A Nation Conference, Howard University, Washington, DC.
Hare, N. (1969, December). The challenges of black scholars. The Black Scholar.
Harper, C. (1971). The legal status of the black college. Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 100(3), 772-782.
Harris, P.R. (1971). The Negro college and its community. Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 100(3), 720-731.
Jones, M. (1971). The responsibility of the black college to the black community: Then and now. Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. 100(3), 732-744.
Upcraft References
Parcel, G.S., Simons-Morton, B.G., & Kolbe, L.J. (1988, Winter). Health promotion: Integrating organizational change and student learning strategies. Health Education Quarterly, 15(4), 435-450.
Assessing Collegiate Substance Abuse: Current Trends, Research Needs, and Program Applications
A Final Word
![[ Home ]](/icons/EDhome.gif){kind=icon}