On-Campus Strategies ( Ineffective if Used in Isolation)

Policies in this section are likely to be ineffective, based on the lack of evidence of effectiveness reported in the literature, unless they are implemented in conjunction with evidence-based policies.

INVISIBLE - DO NOT DELETE

Strategy: Ban or Require Registration of Kegs

Theory Behind the Strategy

In Maryland, purchasers of kegs (defined as at least four gallons) must give their name and address to the retailer, in accordance with the state keg registration policy. Possession of an unregistered keg or destroying the label on a keg can result in fines or jail time.¹⁹⁵ The point of keg registration is for law enforcement to be able to hold responsible those who provide alcohol to underage drinkers, by being able to trace the kegs at underage drinking parties back to a specific purchaser. Bans on kegs extend the principle behind keg registration: the point is that kegs are often associated with overconsumption, and reducing their availability or making it traceable might reduce that overconsumption.

Evidence of Effectiveness

Toomey et al.¹⁷⁶ reviewed the literature and found that few studies have evaluated the effects of banning kegs on college students’ drinking. College campuses where the surrounding outlets sold beer in kegs report higher rates of binge drinking.¹⁹⁶ The presence of a keg at Greek, off campus, and outdoor college parties has been associated with higher odds of drinking to intoxication.¹⁹⁷ The delivery of kegs to Greek-life housing was prohibited at the majority of colleges surveyed (87%) across the country.⁸ One study evaluated the effects of a university ban on kegs at all fraternity and sorority houses. In contrast to expectations, drinks per occasion and drinks per week actually increased among fraternity/sorority members. This can be partially explained by anecdotes from Greek organization members who indicated that students began drinking more liquor rather than beer.¹⁹⁸ Two other studies have also found keg registration laws to be associated with higher rather than lower underage drinking-driving crashes. The studies similarly hypothesize that this might result from greater use of higher alcohol-content beverages in the wake of restrictions on beer availability.¹⁹⁹^,²⁰⁰

The lesson for college administrators might be that keg bans or registration, when used in isolation from other efforts to reduce availability of alcoholic beverages, can result in an unintended consequence of increasing high-risk drinking. Given that a large proportion of students drink at off-campus parties²⁰¹ and underage drinkers are most likely to report drinking alcohol at parties rather than at bars,²⁰² requiring keg registration has theoretical promise but little empirical support.

Tips for Implementation

If college administrators choose to ban kegs on campus, the state keg registration law can be useful for enforcement by enabling police to identify students who purchased kegs to host a party. However, the evidence suggests that keg registration laws alone are not enough to reduce alcohol use.²⁰

Strategy: Social Norms Campaigns

Theory Behind the Strategy

Social norms campaigns seek to provide students with accurate information on student drinking patterns to correct misperceptions that might lead to increased pressure to drink and greater use. College students often overestimate how much their peers drink; when this misperception is corrected, some research suggests that alcohol use decreases.¹⁸⁷^,²⁰⁴

Evidence of Effectiveness

Evidence of the effectiveness of social norms campaigns around drinking on college campuses is decidedly mixed. A large national multi-site study found that social norms campaigns are generally ineffective at reducing alcohol use and related harms,²⁰⁵ which is consistent with the note of caution about their use based on a review of scientific literature.¹⁷⁶ Wechsler et al.²⁰⁶ compared 37 U.S. colleges that reported administering social norms campaigns with 61 that did not between 1997 and 2001. The authors found slight increases in any alcohol use at schools implementing social norms campaigns, compared with students at schools without campaigns. However, a 2015 review of 66 studies concluded that the effects of social norms campaigns are so small that there is no substantive benefit to be derived from them for the prevention of alcohol misuse among college and university students.²⁰⁷

Part of the reason this literature is mixed in its findings is because studies of campus-wide educational programs or awareness campaigns often have strong limitations in their research methodologies, so results suggesting their effectiveness might not be valid.²⁰⁸^,²⁰⁹ Additionally, most studies have not considered the effects of alcohol outlet density surrounding campuses, an important indicator of alcohol availability. Social norms campaigns have been found to be even less effective on campuses in areas with high alcohol outlet density.²¹⁰

Tips for Implementation

With mixed evidence of effectiveness, college administrators should be cautious about the implementation of social norms campaigns. However, if social norms campaigns are implemented related to alcohol use, it is important to concentrate on changing injunctive norms, which involve the perceptions of whether behavior is approved or disapproved by peers, rather than descriptive norms, which are specific to behaviors performed by others.²¹¹ Implementers should be wary of a boomerang effect, in which photos in campaign ads around campus contribute to perceived norms approval of drinking to intoxication.¹⁹¹ Moreover, campaign developers need to carefully select the reference group that might have the greatest likelihood of spreading the message to the target population.²¹²

Strategy: Provide Alcohol-free Activities

Theory Behind the Strategy

Offering alcohol-free activities might reduce alcohol use by increasing the opportunities to socialize without alcohol being present.

Evidence of Effectiveness

At one university in the Northeast, alcohol use among students who attended alcohol-free parties was found to be no different than among students who did not attend. Moreover, among students who attended alcohol-free events and events with alcohol, students drank more alcohol prior to attending the alcohol-free event,²¹³ indicating that alcohol-free activities were not preventing drinking. However, total use was lower after alcohol-free activity nights compared with after attending an event with alcohol.²¹³

At another northeastern university, late night alcohol-free programming was associated with a reduction in drinking on the day of the event. However, the finding was based on data from only two consecutive weekends so it is unclear whether alcohol-free events were consistently associated with less alcohol use.²¹⁴ It is also important to recognize that the types of students who attend alcohol-free programming might be different from the types who choose not to attend, i.e., attendees might be more likely to be non-drinkers in the first place. In this context, their attendance at such events does not tend to lead to changes in drinking prevalence or the overall alcohol environment because drinkers are still out drinking.¹⁸⁹ When given the choice between an alcohol-free activity and one with alcohol, drinkers might be more likely to choose the alcohol environment.

Tips for Implementation

Because alcohol-free activities do not actually change alcohol availability, they are unlikely to be effective as an environmental intervention. Efforts to provide alcohol-free activities might distract college administrators from implementing more effective strategies to reduce alcohol availability.¹⁸⁹ If used, these activities should be implemented in conjunction with evidence-based strategies described above.