A national study of substance abuse prevention professionals in higher education.
There is an established body of research on the effectiveness of comprehensive substance abuse prevention strategies in higher education. There is relatively little research, however, on the characteristics and job functions of prevention professionals and their effectiveness. This study was designed to examine the characteristics of professionals who offer prevention services. It examined the characteristics, training, and job functions of prevention professionals and the relationship between educational preparation and professional affiliations and the comprehensiveness of prevention services. Using multiple regression, a significant relationship was found between the number of prevention workshops and conferences that the prevention professionals attended, the number of professional certifications they held, and the subsequent comprehensiveness of programming offered by their institution. Continued research on the substance abuse prevention professional is recommended in order to better understand the effectiveness of prevention services thus finding the balance between messenger and message in prevention.
The field of prevention programming in higher education has made significant progress during the last decade. Research in this area has accelerated our knowledge of college student substance abuse prevalence rates (Meilman, 2001), the physiology of drugs, the application of social norms marketing strategies, environmental strategies, and harm reduction strategies (Higher Education Center, 2001). The research has continued to support the need for comprehensive substance abuse prevention services which offers a continuum of services to a number of populations by key stakeholders through a sound infrastructure of planning and evaluation (Anderson and Milgram, 1998; Miller, 2001; Higher Education Center, 2001; and Gonzalez, 1987).
One of the missing pieces in our knowledge about prevention effectiveness, however, is the role of the prevention professional. Despite research on education and mental health professions that indicates the importance of their training, certifications, and professional experience, the research in prevention has focused primarily on the content of the programs (Werch, Lepper, Pappas, and Castellon-Vogel, 1994). If we are to develop a comprehensive approach to researched-based prevention, one of the next steps is a strengthening of our understanding of the prevention professionals who deliver prevention programming.
The delivery of effective, comprehensive services requires a comprehensively trained and effective professional. Crippen (1983) concluded that an expert with knowledge in many subjects, including hard and soft sciences, best delivers prevention programming. Beverly Mills-Novoa (1994) conducted a qualitative study on substance abuse prevention programs at five institutions of higher education. Thirteen factors emerged as characteristics of successful programs. One of these characteristics described the effective substance abuse prevention professional as one with diverse skills, strong community ties, broad-based expertise in prevention education with special expertise in substance abuse, excellent communication skills, personal compatibility, enthusiasm, and dedicated persistent commitment. Pransky (1991) cited other qualitative characteristics of the effective prevention professional. These included possession of an indefinable spirit and commitment, a sense of collective regard, an ability to get results, and perseverance, flexibility and openness to overcoming obstacles. Komines' (1988) research suggested that substance abuse prevention professionals need to be effective leaders. This skill is echoed in the Promising Practices." Campus Alcohol Strategies Task Force Planner (Anderson and Milgram, 1998), which suggests the campus Coordinator, or substance abuse prevention professional, coordinate on- and off-campus resources, coalitions, and multiple programming efforts. A study of military substance abuse prevention specialists suggests these professionals are motivated by the perception of positive outcomes for individuals and organizations that receive services, are able to work autonomously, and don't need supervisory encouragement (Whorley, 1989).
In a step designed to begin defining standards for professionals, the International Certification and Reciprocity Consortium (ICRC) and the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) have set standards for prevention professionals. Of the six domains identified by ICRC for all prevention professionals only one, Domain 5, (Professional Growth and Responsibility), related to the characteristics of the prevention professional (Heavner, 1994). Table 1 lists the Tasks of ICRC Domain 5--Professional Growth and Responsibility.
The CAS suggested standards for alcohol and other drug programs in 1997. These standards are divided into 13 parts for alcohol and other drug programs with only one, Leadership, relating to the prevention professional. The description of Leadership Standards includes the following:
Effective and ethical leadership is essential to the success of all organizations. Institutions must appoint, position and empower leaders within the administrative structure to accomplish stated missions. Leaders at various levels must be selected on the basis of formal education and training, relevant work experience, personal attributes, and other professional credentials. Institutions must determine expectations of accountability for leaders and fairly assess their performance. Leaders of the alcohol and other drugs program must exercise authority over resources for which they are responsible to achieve their respective missions. Leaders must articulate a vision for their organization; set goals and objectives; prescribe and practice ethical behavior; recruit, select, supervise, and develop others in the organization; manage, plan, budget, and evaluate; communicate effectively; and marshal cooperative action from colleagues, employees, other institutional constituencies, and persons outside the organization. AODP leaders must address individual, organizational, or environmental conditions that inhibit goal achievement. Leaders must improve programs and services continuously in response to changing needs of students and institutional priorities" (Miller, p. 45).
These efforts by ICRC and CAS only begin to describe necessary characteristics for prevention professionals. They cite expectations for the substance abuse prevention professionals which include: extensive education with receptivity toward retooling through post-service training, multiple and comprehensive skills, serving as a healthy and ethical role model, plus balancing the tasks of providing services with planning and evaluating those services. The ICRC and CAS standards lack specific quantifiable descriptions of the suggested education, training, and certification while using vague terminology such as "personal attributes." It is clear that much more research needs to be conducted if the field is to gain a greater understanding of how prevention professionals' characteristics affect prevention programming. It was the purpose of this research to begin examining the characteristics and job functions of prevention professionals and the relationship between professionals and their effectiveness.
This research project had two primary objectives. The first was to gather descriptive data on prevention professionals in higher education. A review of the literature on prevention professionals in higher education revealed a dearth of information on prevention professional preparation, their credentials, and their job functions. Prevention in higher education encompasses a wide variety of tasks. It was the purpose of this research to shed some light on how these professionals are trained, their credentials, and what they do. The study was designed to collect information on their work settings, their roles and functions on their campuses, their training and experience, and their credentials. The second part of this study was designed to determine if there was a relationship between training, experience and credentials and one measure of prevention effectiveness: comprehensiveness of programming. Because there are few measures that could be used to determine prevention program effectiveness, the measure of comprehensiveness of programming was chosen.
Data Collection Procedures
The population for this study was prevention professionals in higher education. A national sample was randomly drawn from member institutions of the Higher Education Center's Network for Colleges and Universities on the Elimination of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems (Higher Education Center, 2001). At the time of this study there were 1,460 registered institutions in the 48 contiguous United States. The Network represents voluntary membership and an accessible population concerned about prevention efforts in higher education. 305 institutions were randomly selected from the list of 1460 on the list. After an institution was selected, an exploratory email was sent to the institution in an attempt to identify or verify the prevention staff. The identified substance abuse prevention professionals were in turn asked to participate in the study by completing the surveys.
Respondents were asked to complete the Task Force Planner Survey (TFPS) and a survey comprised of personal and professional characteristics. The TFPS was designed to measure the comprehensiveness of prevention services. It was adapted from the Promising Practices: Campus Alcohol Strategies Task Force Planner (Anderson and Milgram, 1998) which is a grid of recommended alcohol prevention tasks in higher education. The grid also includes recommended sponsors, one of whom is the coordinator or substance abuse prevention professional. There are few published lists of alcohol or other drug prevention programming for higher education with as many suggested components for as many sponsors and campus groups as the Promising Practices: Campus Alcohol Strategies Task Force Planner. It suggests depth and breadth of programming and it suggests comprehensive, best practices for substance abuse prevention professionals. In order to create the TFPS, the 38 recommended tasks for the Coordinator section of the grid were converted into questions that asked respondents to indicate on a Five point Likert scale the frequency with which he/ she performed each prevention task. Comprehensiveness of programming was computed by summing the item scores. See Appendix A for the TFPS.
The personal and professional characteristics survey gathered descriptive information on the respondents' formal or pre-service education, informal or post-service education via workshops and conferences, professional networks, number of certifications, the number of memberships in professional organizations, and breadth of professional responsibilities.
The sample of 305 institutions included: 174 universities, 86 colleges, 33 community colleges and 12 military or technical institutions from 45 states plus the District of Columbia. A total of 97 respondents completed and returned the instruments for a 31% response rate. The respondents served in the following institutions: 57 in universities, 29 in colleges, eight in community colleges, and three in either military of technical institutions. Of the respondents, 23 were men and 74 were women. Their ages ranged from 23 to 60 with a mean age of 41 years and a standard deviation of 10.31. The respondents listed a range of less than one year to 21 years of experience in the field of substance abuse prevention in a higher education setting with a mean of 6.39 years and a standard deviation of 5.59. The years of experience in the field of substance abuse prevention in another setting ranged from less than one year to 42 years with a mean of 3.09 years and a standard deviation of 6.42.
Descriptive statistics were used to develop a profile of the respondents and their work. The educational backgrounds of substance abuse prevention professionals who responded were diverse. Ten percent had undergraduate degrees only, 61% had graduate degrees, 16% had postgraduate degrees, and 13% had doctorates. In addition, 23.5% are enrolled in an educational program. To access informal education, the respondents were asked about the number of substance abuse prevention and substance abuse conferences and workshops they had attended. Table 2 describes the substance abuse prevention (SAP) and substance abuse (SA) conferences and workshops of the respondents using descriptive statistics.
The respondents varied on the types and number of trainer qualifications they listed. An open-ended question was used to ascertain breadth of trainer qualifications for substance abuse prevention professionals. The five most frequently listed trainer qualifications were Boosting Alcohol Consciousness Concerning the Health of University Students (BACCHUS), Training Intervention Procedures for Servers of Alcohol (TIPS), On Campus Talking About Alcohol (OCTAA), counseling credentials, and prevention certification. Table 3 lists the descriptive statistics for the most frequently cited trainer qualifications.
Respondents showed great variability in their job responsibilities. An open-ended question was used to ascertain breadth of job responsibilities for the substance abuse prevention professionals. Initially, the respondents' cumulative list of job responsibilities from the survey was sorted. This qualitative sorting process clustered job responsibility by similarities, job titles, pre-service training requirements, and typical departments in higher education. These areas included student life services, prevention services, wellness services, counseling services, teaching and committee facilitation. The two most frequently cited job responsibilities in the area of student life services were grant writing and the supervision of interns. Health education and wellness education were the two most frequently cited job responsibilities in the area of wellness services. The two most frequently cited job responsibilities in the area of counseling services were counseling and director or assistant director of counseling services. Curriculum infusion and instructional faculty were the two most frequently cited job responsibilities in the area of teaching. The three job responsibilities cited in the area of committee facilitation were chair of the alcohol task force, involvement in a community-university prevention coalition, and involvement in a school-university task force.
There were numerous job responsibilities listed in the area of prevention services. These job responsibilities in the area of prevention services, in order from most frequently cited to least frequently cited, included: alcohol and other drug education; training and supervision of student leaders (like resident assistants and peers); social norms marketing campaigns; sanctioned education; educator for dorm programs; awareness events; advisor for BACCHUS; data/ survey collection; referral services; community outreach; orientation programs; and smoking cessation programs. These five most frequently cited job responsibilities in the area of prevention services were used to measure comprehensiveness by totaling the number listed by each respondent. These five job responsibilities appeared to be normally distributed; for example, 10% of the respondents did not list any of these top five job responsibilities, 30% listed only one of these responsibilities, 31% listed two of these responsibilities, 18% listed three responsibilities, 10% listed four of these responsibilities and only 1% of the respondents cited each of the top five job responsibilities. Table 4 lists the five most frequently cited job responsibilities in the prevention services area from the survey.
A further measure of comprehensiveness of prevention programming for the substance abuse prevention professional was the TFPS. An item analysis of the 38 questions on the TFPS revealed a range in means from 1.52 to 4.31. The two most frequently cited tasks were question 10 on the TFPS, "supporting events that encourage awareness, healthy choices, and alcohol-free activities" and question 11 on the TFPS, "distribution of materials and resources to targeted audiences." The two least frequently cited tasks were question 33 on the TFPS, "provided training opportunities for community leaders" and question 37 on the TFPS, "organized a cooperative effort linking students, faculty, administrators, alumni, community agencies and other allies." The 38 responses on the TFPS were tallied to give a total score with a possible range of 0 to 190. The mean of the respondents' total score was 109.13 and the standard deviation was 30.86.
Participants were also asked about substance abuse prevention or related certifications and memberships. Of the respondents, 34% had one or more substance abuse prevention certifications and 70% had one or more memberships in substance abuse prevention or related organizations. Respondents were also asked about the number of on- and off-campus professionals with whom they worked. The mean for on campus faculty, staff, and professionals with whom they worked was 54 and the range was 2-1000. The mean for on-campus substance abuse prevention professionals with whom they worked was 1.6 and the range was 1-20. The mean for off-campus professionals with whom they worked was 20 and the range was 0-300.
Multiple regression was used to determine if there was a relationship between training and certification and comprehensiveness of programming. Comprehensiveness of prevention programming was measured by the TFPS. The substance abuse prevention professionals' total number of substance abuse prevention classes, conferences, and workshops plus certifications and memberships in professional organizations were used as independent variables. The results of the multiple regression can be found in Table 5. Table 6 illustrates the coefficients for this finding.
There were two main groups of results from this study. The first group includes the demographic, training, and job analysis data and the second group includes variables that were related to comprehensiveness of programming. This study was the first of its kind in developing a profile of substance abuse professionals on college campuses. This profile revealed a diverse group of professionals, both in training and in job function. The education ranged from those with undergraduate degrees to those with doctorates, with about a fourth of the group still in educational programs. The educational mode for this group appeared to be the master's degree. Overall, this appears to be a somewhat highly educated group, but one with a high level of variance. This variance makes them difficult to classify and may be a reflection of the lack of accepted standards in the prevention field.
Although there is a high level of variance among the degrees of professionals, it appears that prevention professionals have a strong tendency to obtain training beyond their degrees. The mean number of SAP conferences and workshops attended demonstrated that these professionals value continuing education and training albeit with varying frequencies. The mean number of SAP conferences and workshops was high, but the standard deviation was even higher and the ranges of the amount of training show vast differences. Diversity and different approaches appear to be the key descriptors of prevention professionals in higher education.
An examination of the trainer credentials reveals a somewhat higher level of consistency. BACCHUS appears to be the training credential of choice, held by about a third of the group, followed by TIPS and OCTAA, each held by about a fourth of the sample. About one of eight held some type of counseling credential, but only about six percent held a prevention credential. These data indicate that the prevention professionals appear to value credentialing and that a significant portion of them do value the training-specific credentials of BACCHUS, TIPS, and OCTA, which appear to be the dominant training packages for higher education prevention professionals. More general certification appears to be less attractive and perhaps reflects the diversity in the types of professionals working in higher education prevention. Prevention certification is not yet affecting large numbers of higher education prevention professionals, but it must be noted that this is a relatively new certification. This study, conducted in 2001, can provide a baseline to measure whether there is an increase in professionals obtaining this credential in the future.
These data indicate a profession that is drawing from other professional groups and is therefore still in a maturing phase. Other than the field of counseling, there does not appear to be a clear professional identity. The numbers of prevention professionals credentialed in prevention is only half that credentialed as counselors. With the lack of professional identity, conferences and workshops appear to be a primary method of obtaining training in substance abuse prevention-specific approaches. It is interesting that there is some consensus as to which prevention program training is useful. BACCHUS, TIPS, OCTAA were all strongly represented in this sample. Perhaps these program packages are an indication of where the core information for the prevention profession lies.
The background and training of prevention professionals indicates more of a focus on counseling and program-specific training than any other area. This focus, however, does not seem consistent with the existing literature on the skills needed for the job. For example, Pransky (1991), Komines (1888), Anderson, et al. (1998), and Miller (2001) cite the need for leadership abilities in prevention professionals. This inconsistency between the literature and prevention practice would seem to point the way for further discussion and research on needed knowledge, training, and skill development and the adequacy of existing prevention credentials for higher education prevention positions.
There are several issues regarding these prevention credentials which need to be addressed. Of initial interest is the relationship between the dearth of prevention credentialed professions in higher education and the relative newness of the credentials. A second interest is the discrepancy between the credential requirements and the actual work of the higher education prevention professional. If this discrepancy is the problem, then more work on job analysis may be needed and this study would provide a beginning to that task. A third interest is the need for a prevention credential, as there may be no perceived need for such a credential to work in higher education settings. The inconsistency found in this study regarding training and qualifications would, however, argue for the need of a required prevention credential.
This study provided a beginning step toward analyzing the work of higher education prevention professionals. The breakdown of the most frequently cited job responsibilities is a starting place to more clearly understand what prevention professionals actually do. Not unexpectedly, "Alcohol and other drug prevention and education" was at the top of the list. This is a broad title for a job analysis, but it entailed the actual presentation of information and experiences intended to reduce illicit and abusive alcohol and other drug consumption. Although it was the highest activist on the list, it is notable that only 59% of the prevention specialists were involved in this activity. The other 40%, however, may have worked in more administrative positions and may have delegated this task to others. The other four tasks in the top five were somewhat more specific. The items, "Training and supervision of student leaders," "Social norms marketing campaigns," "Sanctioned education," and "Dorm programs" provide us with a somewhat clearer picture of what these prevention professionals are doing. It is recommended that other researchers use this preliminary data to begin to more clearly define a standard or credential that will be meaningful to prevention professionals in higher education.
The second part of this study examined the variables that were related to comprehensiveness of program as measured by the TFPS. It was assumed, based on research by Wechsler, et al. (2000) and Anderson, et al. (1996), that the more comprehensive prevention programs will reach a broader audience, will create a greater impact, and will therefore be more effective. The TFPS provided a list that covered most facets of higher education prevention programs. A multiple regression was run on the following variables: number of undergraduate SAP classes, number of masters SAP classes, number of post-masters SAP classes, number of doctorate SAP classes, number of SAP conferences attended, number of SAP workshops attended, number of prevention-related certificates, number of memberships in professional organizations, total score on the Paragraph Completion Measure, total score on the Defining Issues Test, and the TFPS total score. The multiple regression of these aforementioned variables used institutional size as a control measure and total TFPS score as the dependent variable. The results of this multiple regression revealed that there was a significant relationship between the number of conferences attended and the number of certifications held and the comprehensiveness of programming.
This study offers limited information about substance abuse prevention professionals and acknowledges the gaps in knowledge about these professionals. For example, in acquiring the sample of 305 substance abuse prevention professional for this study, approximately 500 institutions were contacted via a randomized search. Thus, approximately 200 of the institutions contacted either: did not have a designated, full- or part-time substance abuse prevention professional; were without funding for this designated position; underreported substance abuse issues; had more pressing student life issues which drained staff and resources; or this researcher could not find the substance abuse prevention professional on the campus. Wechsler, Kelly, Weitzman, San Giovanni, and Seibring suggested yet another reason, "the institutional investment in prevention" (2000, p. 224-225).
In this study, substance abuse prevention classes, conferences, workshops and certifications were significant variables. These variables are rarely discussed in the prevention literature. It was surprising to find such a large number of substance abuse prevention professionals in this study to have advanced degrees, although an equally large number were not exposed to formal, pre-service substance abuse prevention classes. Not only do these findings suggest more inquiry but they also suggest the need for more formal, pre-service education for future substance abuse prevention professionals and the promotion of certifications that are curriculum specific as well as state and national professional certifications.
Future studies on the substance abuse prevention professional in higher education are limitless. If effective substance abuse prevention programming can be assessed then substance abuse prevention professionals can also be assessed in terms of their knowledge, skills, attitudes, personal development, adaptability, retooling capabilities, and effectiveness. Further research can also expand a sense of credibility and identity for prevention professionals.
Appendix A SURVEY FOR THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION PROFESSIONAL This survey is adapted from the Task Force Planner (Anderson and Milgram, 1998). Please indicate how often you have performed the tasks (in the left column) during your current position as a Substance Abuse Prevention Professional by circling the appropriate number (in the right column) using the following key: 0 = never, 1 = rarely, 2 = sometimes, 3 = regularly, 4 = often, 5 = very often. 1. How often have you created a task force 0 1 2 3 4 5 composed of a broad range of campus and community leaders? 2. How often have you scheduled regular 0 1 2 3 4 5 task force meetings to review policy? 3. How often have you revised policies to 0 1 2 3 4 5 comply with emerging legislation, legal liability issues, and government initiatives? 4. How often have you taught a class for 0 1 2 3 4 5 peer educators? 5. How often have you provided an 0 1 2 3 4 5 educational program for alcohol policy violators? 6. How often have you distributed 0 1 2 3 4 5 information to faculty for incorporation into their courses? 7. How often have you encouraged inclusion 0 1 2 3 4 5 of practical and applied courses and workshops? 8. How often have you developed faculty 0 1 2 3 4 5 networks for support and exchange of prevention information? 9. How often have you provided up-to-date 0 1 2 3 4 5 information, relevant resources, and quality awareness programs? 10. How often have you supported events that 0 1 2 3 4 5 encourage awareness, health choices, and alcohol-free activities? 11. How often have you ensured distribution 0 1 2 3 4 5 of materials and resources to targeted audiences? 12. How often have you initiated media 0 1 2 3 4 5 campaigns to promote timely messages and to counteract misinformation? 13. How often have you coordinated special 0 1 2 3 4 5 events and campaigns with national, state, and local efforts as well as with campus groups? 14. How often have you worked with others 0 1 2 3 4 5 to distribute information regarding policy and services? 15. How often have you assured the existence 0 1 2 3 4 5 of diverse self-help/support groups? 16. How often have you developed assessment, 0 1 2 3 4 5 screening and referral guidelines, and services? 17. How often have you linked with the local 0 1 2 3 4 5 court, community services, treatment, and aftercare resources? 18. How often have you provided assistance 0 1 2 3 4 5 to intermediaries such as roommates and supports such as faculty, staff, peers, parents, and coaches? 19. How often have you coordinated with 0 1 2 3 4 5 campus and local police on problems related to high-risk groups and enforcement strategies? 20. How often have you worked with campus 0 1 2 3 4 5 groups to organize a consistent process for alcohol policy violations? 21. How often have you established programs 0 1 2 3 4 5 for campus- and court-referred alcohol policy violators? 22. How often have you worked with campus 0 1 2 3 4 5 officers, especially judicial affairs, to provide assessment and education for referred individuals? 23. How often have you conducted educational 0 1 2 3 4 5 programs for segments (e.g., athletes) of the general student body? 24. How often have you developed a system for assessing the campus environment? 25. How often have you monitored policy 0 1 2 3 4 5 and program implementation and effectiveness? 26. How often have you coordinated student 0 1 2 3 4 5 assessment, evaluation, data collection, and biennial review? 27. How often have you collaborated with 0 1 2 3 4 5 colleagues on- and off-campus? 28. How often have you maintained records 0 1 2 3 4 5 on alcohol-related problems on campus? 29. How often have you resented data 0 1 2 3 4 5 summaries/findings findings to university leadership in a timely manner? 30. How often have you coordinated training 0 1 2 3 4 5 and in-service education for students, faculty, and staff? 31. How often have you identified and 0 1 2 3 4 5 utilized professional development and training opportunities on the local, state, and national levels? 32. How often have you developed training 0 1 2 3 4 5 modules in relevant areas (e.g., intervention, sexual assault) for target populations? 33. How often have you provided training 0 1 2 3 4 5 opportunities for community leaders? 34. How often have you created practicum, 0 1 2 3 4 5 internship, employment, and related opportunities for students and volunteers? 35. How often have you mentored and advised 0 1 2 3 4 5 student organizations? 36. How often have you prepared resource 0 1 2 3 4 5 information on intervention and referral for faculty and staff? 37. How often have you organized a 0 1 2 3 4 5 cooperative effort linking students, faculty, administrators, alumni, community agencies and other allies? 38. How often have you established a 0 1 2 3 4 5 centralized resource library?
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION PROFESSIONAL
It would be helpful to have some background information on you, your career, and your institution. Please complete this demographic survey as completely as possible.
Assume SAP refers to Substance Abuse Prevention.
1) What is your gender?--male--female
2) What is your age?--
3) What is the highest educational degree you attained?
4) If you are currently enrolled in an educational program, what degree are you working towards?
Not currently enrolled
5) List the number of specific SAP classes you had in each of the following programs:
Post Masters Program?--
6) List the number of general Substance Abuse classes you had in each of the following programs:
Post Masters Program?--
7) Approximately how many SAP specific conferences have you attended?--
8) Approximately how many SAP specific workshops have you attended?--
9) Approximately how many general Substance Abuse conferences have you attended?--
10) Approximately how many general Substance Abuse workshops have you attended?--
11) List the types/names of your Trainer Qualifications (ex. TIPS, BACCHUS or OCTAA, etc.):--
12) List your current job responsibilities (ex. hall programs, social marketing campaign, etc.):--
13) How many on-campus staff/faculty/professionals do you network with?--
14) How many off-campus professionals do you network with?--
15) How many SAP Professionals do you work with on campus?--
16) How many students are enrolled at your institution? --undergraduates--graduates
17) How many cumulative years' experience do you have as a SAP Professional in higher education?--
18) How many cumulative years' experience do you have as a SAP Professional in another setting?--
19) How many SAP or related Certifications (ex. CSAP, CPP, etc.) do you have?--
20) How many memberships in SAP or related organizations do you have?--
Table 1 Tasks of ICRC Domain 5--Professional Growth and Responsibility Task 1. Attain knowledge of current research-based prevention trends, models, strategies, and ethical, legal, and professional standards by taking advantage of appropriate educational opportunities and reviewing current literature in order to provide state-of-the-art prevention services. Task 2. Model collaborative behavior with colleagues and other professionals, individuals, and communities by networking in order to establish mutual empowerment. Task 3. Practice ethical behavior by understanding and adhering to legal and professional standards in order to promote the integrity of the profession and to protect the consumer. Task 4. Recognize existing community norms by gaining awareness of culture, lifestyle, and other factors in order to be sensitive to the unique needs of the community. Task 5. Practice personal wellness by continually assessing life choices and circumstances with the willingness to change behavior and seek assistance, if applicable, in order to model a healthy lifestyle. Table 2 Conferences and Workshops Type M SD Range SAP conferences 7.82 13.37 0-115 SAP workshops 14.63 17.94 0-100 SA conferences 7.61 10.98 0-50 SA workshops 17.74 31.51 0-200 Table 3 Trainer Qualifications Trainer Qualifications Frequencies Percentages BACCHUS 39 33.7 TIPS 23 23.5 OCTAA 23 23.5 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Counselor 12 12.2 Certified Prevention Specialist 3 6.1 Table 4 Top Five Job Responsibilities in Prevention Services Job Responsibility Frequency Percent Alcohol and other drug prevention and education 58 59.2 Training and supervision of student leaders 41 41.8 Social norms marketing campaigns 32 32.7 Sanctioned education 30 30.6 Dorm programs 24 24.5 Table 5 Regression Model Summary for the Relationship Between Education of the Substance Abuse Prevention Professional in Higher Education and Comprehensiveness of Programming F for [R.sup.2] Model [R.sup.2] change Sig. 1 # of undergraduates .011 .919 .340 2 age and # of conferences .129 6.21 .003 3 age and # of conferences .203 7.05 .000 and # of certifications Table 6 Regression Equation Coefficients for the Relationship Between Education of the Substance Abuse Prevention Professional in Higher Education and Comprehensiveness of Programming Coefficient [beta] Beta T Sig. Constant 96.481 21.107 .000 Number of Undergraduates .00036 .100 1.014 .313 Number of Conferences .591 .226 2.611 .011 Number of Certifications 10.491 .283 2.780 .077
Anderson, D. & Milgram, G. (1996). Promising practices: Campus alcohol strategies sourcebook, Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.
Anderson, D. & Milgram, G. (1998). Promising practices: Campus alcohol strategies task force planner, Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.
Crippen, D. (1983). Substance use-abuse and cognitive learning: Suggested approaches to viable drug education programs, Journal of Instructional Psychology, 10 (2), 74-82.
Gonzales, G. (1987). Alcohol policy development: A necessary component for a comprehensive alcohol education program on campus. In J.S. Sherwood (Ed.) Alcohol Policies and Practices on College and University Campuses, Monograph Series Vol. 7, (87-95). National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Inc.
Gonzalez, G. (1994). Theories, dominant models, and the need for applied research. In G. Gonzalez & V. Clement (Eds.), Research and intervention: Preventing substance abuse in higher education, (pp. 3-24). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Heavner, S. (Ed.) (1994). Alcohol, tobacco, and other drug abuse prevention specialist: Role delineation study, Raleigh, NC: International Certification Reciprocity Consortium/Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse, Inc.
Higher Education Center (2001). Retrieved from www.edc.org/hec/ network.
Komives, S. (1988). Taking leadership: Enhancing personal and professional effectiveness (p.17) Approaches to drug abuse prevention at colleges and universities: A collection of presentations made at the National Collegiate Drug Awareness Week kick-off conference, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Research and Improvement.
Miller, T. (2001). The Book of Professional Standards for Higher Education, Washington, D.C.: Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education.
Mills-Novoa, B. (1994). Characteristics of successful drug prevention programs in higher education. In E. Coughlin (Ed.), Successful Drug and Alcohol Prevention Programs, 76, (pp. 65-79). San Francisco, CA: Fall, Jossey-Bass.
NIDA Notes (2001). Studying comprehensive drug abuse prevention strategies, Research News, 14 (5), l-2.
Pransky, J. (1991). Prevention--The critical need, Burrell Foundation, MO.
Wechsler, H., Kelly, K., Weitzman, E., San Giovanni, J., & Seibring, M. (2000). What colleges are doing about student binge drinking: A survey of college administrators, Journal of American College Health, 48 (10), 219-226.
Werch, C., Lepper, J., Pappas, D., & Castellon-Vogel, E. (1994). Use of theoretical models in funded college drug prevention programs, Journal of College Student Development (September), 35, 359-363.
West, S. & Aiken, L. (1997). Toward understanding individual effects in multicomponent prevention programs: Design and analysis strategies. In K. Bryant, M. Windle & S. West (Eds.), The Science of Prevention: Methodological Advances from Alcohol and Substance Abuse Research (pp.167-209). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Mary K. Crozier, Addictions Counseling Program, Medicine Hat College, Alberta, Canada; Charles F. Gressard, College of William and Mary.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mary K. Crozier, Addictions Counseling Program, Medicine Hat College, 299 College Drive SE, Medicine Hat, AB, T1A 3Y6, Canada.
Mary K. Crozier, Medicine Hat College, Alberta, Canada
Charles F. Gressard, William & Mary School of Education
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION PROFESSIONALS|
|Author:||Gressard, Charles F.|
|Publication:||Journal of Alcohol & Drug Education|
|Date:||Jun 1, 2005|
|Previous Article:||Longitudinal modeling of adolescent normative beliefs and substance initiation.|
|Next Article:||Parenting practices and adolescent drug-related knowledge, attitudes, norms and behavior.|