1. THE COLLEGE ALCOHOL SURVEY: THE COLLEGE ALCOHOL SURVEY: The national longitudinal survey on alcohol, tobacco, other drug and violence issues at institutions of higher education 1979 - 2012 David S. Anderson, Ph.D. George Mason University and Angelo F. Gadaleto, Ph.D. West Chester University

2. THE COLLEGE ALCOHOL SURVEY THE COLLEGE ALCOHOL SURVEY 1979 - 2012 Sample of 4-year colleges and universities No external funding Conducted every 3 years since 1979; 12 survey administrations Respondents are chief student affairs officers Response rate from 50% – 71% Results available at www.caph.gmu.edu

3. POLICIES

4. 4

5. 5

6. 6

7. 7 Percentages of Affirmative Responses

8. 8

9. 9

10. 10 Percentages of Affirmative Responses

11. 11 Percentages of Affirmative Responses

12. 12 Percentages of Affirmative Responses

13. 13 Institutional policies to limit alcohol consumption at tailgating events Percentages of Affirmative Responses

14. Amnesty Policy 2012 14 Percentages of Affirmative Responses

15. DATA COLLECTION

16. Campus Survey Done On Alcohol Use 16 Percent Affirmative Responses

17. Campus Survey Done on Drug Use 17 Percent Affirmative Responses

18. Campus Survey Done on Tobacco Use 18 Percent Affirmative Responses

19. Survey Conducted on Student Health and Safety Topics 19 Percent Affirmative Responses

20. Campus Survey Done on Faculty Engagement 20 Percent Affirmative Responses

21. Alcohol Violations: Use of BAC and Judicial Charges for Off-Campus Behavior 21 Percent Affirmative Responses

22. Reporting of Alcohol Related Violations 22 Percent Affirmative Responses

23. 23 Percent Affirmative Responses

24. 24 Percent Affirmative Responses

25. 25

26. 26

27. Strategies to Measure Effectiveness of Campus Efforts: 2012 27

29. SCOPE OF PROBLEMS

30. 30

31. 31

32. 32

33. 33 Mean Percentages

34. 34 Mean Percentages

35. 35

37. PREVENTION

38. 38

39. 39

40. Campus Efforts: Awareness & Information None A Lot 40

41. Campus Efforts: Support Services None A Lot 41

42. None A Lot 42

43. None A Lot 43

44. None A Lot 44

45. Included in Campus Efforts: 2012 45 Extent of Inclusion

46. Campus Programs Dealing With Alcohol and Substance Abuse 46

47. Availability of Safe Rides Program 47 Percent Affirmative Responses

48. Days of the Week that Safe Rides is Available 48 Percent Affirmative Responses

49. PERSONNEL, PLANNING AND RESOURCES

50. Annual Funding For Alcohol/Substance Abuse In 2012 = 55.18% of Wellness Funding Wellness Funding = $ 54,147 50

51. Funding for Drug/Alcohol/Wellness Programs (per capita) Per capita funding

52. 52

53. Level of Effort for Professionals Addressing Alcohol and Substance Abuse Education 53 Full time equivalents

54. Specialist Time Allocations: Roles 54

55. Specialist Time Allocations: Topics 55

56. Specialist Time Allocation Within the Drugs Area 56

58. 58

59. NoneA Lot 59

60. Strategic plan for addressing alcohol and substance abuse issues 60 Percent Affirmative Responses

61. 61

62. 62 Incorporation of themes into campus programming

63. 63 Not At All Very Much Extent to which the following themes are incorporated into campus programming

64. 64 Not At All Very Much Extent to which the following themes are incorporated into campus programming

65. 65 Not At All Very Much Extent to which the following themes are incorporated into campus programming

66. 66 Not At All Very Much Extent to which the following themes are incorporated into campus programming

67. 67 Not At All Very Much Extent to which the following themes are incorporated into campus programming

68. None A lot

69. NoneA lot

71. TREATMENT

72. Extent to Which a Student with a Drinking Problem Can Receive Counseling Assistance 72 None A lot

73. 73

74. 74

75. 75

76. 76

77. RELATED ISSUES

78. Availability of Tobacco Products 78 Percent affirmative responses

79. Smoke-free Environment 79 Percent affirmative responses

81. ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENTS

82. Preferred Minimum Age 82 Percent affirmative response

83. Administrative Assessment: Alcohol Problems 83 Strongly DisagreeStrongly Agree

84. Administrative Assessment: Alcohol Problems 84 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

85. Administrative Assessment: Overall Approach 85 Strongly DisagreeStrongly Agree

86. Administrative Assessment: Overall Approach 86 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

87. Administrative Assessment: Planning 87 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

88. Administrative Assessment: Planning 88 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

89. 89 Prevention Approaches Guiding Campus Efforts

90. Prevention Approaches Guiding Campus Efforts 1 90 Not at all Very much

91. Prevention Approaches Guiding Campus Efforts 2 91 Not at all Very much

92. Perceived Effectiveness for AOD Efforts 92 1 = Not at All 5 = Very Much

93. Perceived Effectiveness for AOD Efforts 93 1 = Not at All 5 = Very Much

94. Perceived Effectiveness for AOD Efforts 2 94 Not effective Very effective

95. Perceived Effectiveness for AOD Efforts 3 95 Not effective Very effective

96. Perceived Effectiveness for AOD Efforts 4 96 Not effective Very effective

97. Perceived Effectiveness for AOD Efforts 5 97 Not effective Very effective

98. Perceived Adequacy for AOD Efforts 1 98 Not adequate Very Adequate

99. Perceived Adequacy for AOD Efforts 2 99 Not adequate Very Adequate

100. Perceived Adequacy for AOD Efforts 3 100 Not adequate Very Adequate

101. Perceived Adequacy for AOD Efforts 4 101 Not adequate Very Adequate

102. Perceived Adequacy for AOD Efforts 5 102 Not adequate Very Adequate

103. PUBLIC/PRIVATE COMPARISONS 114 Public Institutions (65.1%) 61 Private Institutions (34.9%)

104. Percent Affirmative Responses Institution allows tailgating events

105. School has an amnesty policy Percent Affirmative Responses

106. Institutional Assessment Percent Affirmative Responses

107. Crime and property damage Percent Affirmative Responses

108. Behavioral consequences of alcohol Percent Affirmative Responses *

109. Academic consequences of alcohol Percent Affirmative Responses

110. Health consequences of alcohol Percent Affirmative Responses *

111. Association of alcohol with other drugs Percent Affirmative Responses

112. Total Funding for Drug/Alcohol programs Total Funding

113. Funding for Drug/Alcohol programs (per capita) Per capita funding

114. Campus staffing for alcohol related issues Percent Affirmative Responses

115. INSTITUTION SIZE COMPARISONS Small- Below 7500 | 32% Intermediate – 7500-18000 | 33.1% Large- Above 18000 | 34.9%

116. Percent Affirmative Responses Institution allows tailgating events

117. School has an Amnesty Policy Percent Affirmative Responses

118. Institutional Assessment Percent Affirmative Responses

119. Crime and property damage Percent Affirmative Responses

120. Behavioral consequences of alcohol Percent Affirmative Responses

121. Academic consequences of alcohol Percent Affirmative Responses

122. Health consequences of alcohol Percent Affirmative Responses

123. Association of alcohol with other drugs Percent Affirmative Responses

124. Total Funding for Drug/Alcohol programs Total Funding

125. Funding for Drug/Alcohol/Wellness Programs (per capita) Per capita funding

126. Campus staffing for alcohol related issues Percent Affirmative Responses

127. ALCOHOL ALLOWED VS. ALCOHOL NOT ALLOWED 135 Institutions allow alcohol (77.1%) 40 Institutions don’t allow alcohol (22.9%)

128. Institution allows tailgating events Percent Affirmative Responses

129. School has an Amnesty Policy Percent Affirmative Responses

130. Institutional Assessment Percent Affirmative Responses

131. Crime and property damage Percent Affirmative Responses

132. Behavioral consequences of alcohol Percent Affirmative Responses

133. Academic consequences of alcohol Percent Affirmative Responses

134. Health consequences of alcohol Percent Affirmative Responses

135. Association of alcohol with other drugs Percent Affirmative Responses

136. Total Funding for Drug/Alcohol Programs Total Funding

137. Funding for Drug/Alcohol Programs (per capita) Per capita funding

138. Campus staffing for alcohol related issues Percent Affirmative Responses