Pennsylvania
Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF)
State Incentive Grant (SIG)
PA SPF -SIG
Final Report for (Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative)
Table of Contents
Outline ......................................................................................................
Section 1. Executive Summary ................................................................. Pages 3-7
Section 2. Assessment ............................................................................ Pages 8-12
Section 3. Mobilization and Capacity Building .................................... Pages 13-14
Section 4. Strategic Planning ................................................................ Pages 15-12
Section 5. Implementation ..................................................................... Pages 22-26
Section 6. Evaluation ............................................................................. Pages 27-34
1
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
Outline
Executive Summary
Problem Statement
Logic Model
Outcomes
Assessment
Initial assessment
Challenges or problems with initial assessment
Mobilization and Capacity Building
Profile of local capacity and resources
Community-level activities
Strategic Planning
Planning
Community Level Planning Council
Implementation
Grant Implementation
Program Implementation
Community Level Implementation Council
Evaluation
Process Measures
Program Outcomes
2
July 2012
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
Section 1. Executive Summary
Problem Statement: Please provide a statement about the main problems in your
target communities.
Under-age drinking is a serious public health concern in the Kutztown University and
Kutztown Borough communities as evidenced by the high arrest rates for young adults for
driving under the influence. During the period 2001-2006, the rate of arrests for driving under
the influence of young adults, 16-21 years of age in the Kutztown Borough was 8.8 arrests per
1,000 compared a rate of 6.5 arrests per 1,000 in Pennsylvania and a rate of 5.1 arrests per 1,000
in Berks County, Pennsylvania. This high rate of driving under the influence was found to be
linked to several priority risk factors including easy social access to alcohol, low perceived risk
of alcohol, social norms that encourage young people drinking, and availability of
screening/early intervention services. It was also found that all under-age drinking arrests were
of young adults, ages 18-21 and that 48% of the arrests occurred from September through
November, the Fall Semester of university matriculation.
The Kutztown University President’s Roundtable on Alcohol and Drugs, in the
development of the Strategic Prevention Framework/State Incentive Grant (SPF-SIG) Initiative,
sought to address the prevalence of under-age drinking of young adults, ages 18-21, through the
implementation of a Community Strategic Plan of prevention strategies targeted to university
freshmen, sophomores, athletes, off-campus university students, and non-university young adults
arrested for alcohol-related offenses. The formation of this Community Strategic Plan was
overseen by a County Level Planning Council (CLPC) comprised of members of the Berks
Prevention Coalition and representatives of the Kutztown University President’s Roundtable.
The assessment process for this Community Strategic Plan included an examination of the
consequence and consumption pattern data for under-age drinking, a review of local data
relevant to the consequence and consumption data, the prioritization of risk factors based on
local data and the identification of local resources to address the selected risk factors.
The President’s Roundtable members served as the Community Level Implementation
Council (CLIC) responsible for the selection of strategies to reduce the priority risk factors. As a
comprehensive approach, the Kutztown University SPF-SIG Community Strategic Plan
incorporates community-based, environmental, educational, problem identification, information
dissemination, and alternative activity strategies to reduce the risk factors identified in the
planning process. The logic model for the Community Strategic Plan detailed the relationship
between the problem statement, risk factors, and the /interventions. The following is a summary
of the priority risk factors, the data that supported these risk factors, and the selected
strategies/interventions:
1. Risk Factor: Easy Social Access to Alcohol
Indicator: 55% of Kutztown University freshmen reported that they obtained alcohol at
parties and 32% of the freshmen reported that they obtained alcohol from someone they
know who is older than 21(Kutztown University Alcohol Edu 2008 Freshman Survey).
Intervention: The President’s Roundtable chose the Communities Mobilizing for
Change on Alcohol (CMCA) evidence-based approach to support the selection and
implementation of appropriate environmental strategies to reduce this risk factor.
3
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
2. Risk Factor: Low Perceived Risk of Alcohol Use
Indicator: 50% of the drinkers reported chugging while 61% reported doing shots, and
69% reported doing drinking games (Kutztown University Alcohol Edu 2008 Freshman
Survey).
Intervention: Alcohol Edu continued to be a required educational program for university
freshmen to address this risk factor. Alcohol Edu for Sanctions continued to be utilized
as the required educational program for drug and alcohol policy violators. Nonuniversity young adults arrested for alcohol related offenses were referred by the
Kutztown Borough district magistrate to the Berks County SCA Under-age Drinking
Program.
3. Risk Factor: Social Norms That Support/Encourage Young Adult Drinking
Indicator: A 11% decrease during the first semester of university matriculation of
university freshmen reported a decision not to drink (Kutztown University Alcohol Edu
2008 Freshman Survey).
Intervention: The President’s Roundtable utilized Challenging University Attitudes on
Alcohol (CCAA), an evidence-based social norm prevention program in the
implementation of social marketing strategies that promoted positive social norms
regarding alcohol use in the Kutztown University and Kutztown Borough communities.
4. Risk Factor: Availability of screening/early intervention
Indicator: 7% of the drug and alcohol policy violators at Kutztown University received a
drug and alcohol assessment (Kutztown University Health and Wellness Center 2007
report).
Intervention: A coordinated system of problem identification strategies was
implemented for both university and non-university young adults in the Kutztown
University and Kutztown Borough communities to insure high risk young adults were
linked to drug and alcohol treatment services. University-based problem identification
services included a screening of Kutztown University freshmen and sophomore students
utilizing the AUDIT alcohol screening tool. Students who presented a high risk score for
problematic alcohol use through the AUDIT screening and drug and alcohol policy
violators were referred to BASICS, an evidence-based brief intervention program for
university students. The problem identification strategies for non-university young adults
was coordinated with the Kutztown Borough district magistrate. Young adults arrested
for alcohol-related offenses were referred to the Berks SCA Under-age Drinking
Program.
Based on this assessment, the CLPC selected to address Priority Two, “To prevent
(reduce) drinking and driving among persons ages 16 through 21” and selected Kutztown
Borough and Kutztown University as the targeted communities. The Community Strategic Plan
for Kutztown University President’s Roundtable SPF/SIG Initiative represented a coordinated
approach to address the problem of under-age drinking in the Kutztown community. The
Kutztown University President’s Roundtable was responsible for oversight of all implementation
and evaluation activities.
4
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
KUTZTOWN UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT’S ROUNDTABLE
COMMUNITY LOGIC MODEL
Substance Related
Consequences &
Substance Use
Risk&&Protective
Protective
Risk
Factors/Underlying
Conditions
Strategies
Risk Factors
President’s Roundtable
Communities Mobilizing
Change on Alcohol Coalition
Training
Easy Access to Alcohol
High Rate of Under-age
and Young Adult
Drinking and Driving
Among 16 through 21
Years
The rate of DUI arrests for
youth, ages 16-21 in Kutztown
Borough is
8.6 arrests per 1,000
2001-2006 compared to a rate
of 5.1 arrests per 1,000 in all
Berks County municipalities.
Young adults, ages 18-21,
comprised 47% of the total
driving under the influence
arrests in Kutztown Borough
compared to 16% of the
driving under the influence
arrests in all Berks County
municipalities.
55% of the freshman drinkers
reported they obtained alcohol
from someone they know who is
older than 21.
Low Perceived Harm or Risk
50% of the freshman drinkers
report chugging.
Alcohol Edu for Freshman
Alcohol Edu Sanctions for
Policy Violators
Social Norms Accepting
Under-age Drinking
Challenging College
Alcohol Abuse
50% of the freshmen report
obtaining alcohol at parties
Availability of Screening/
Early Intervention
33% of freshman drinkers
(183 students) report blackouts
51 students received drug and
alcohol assessments in the 2007/08
school year
AUDIT
BASICS
Drug and Alcohol Assessment
Referral to Drug and Alcohol
Treatment
Berks SCA Under-age Drinking
Program
Protective Factors
83% of the freshman report
avoiding the risks associated with
alcohol
use
5
78% of the freshmen support the
choice not to drink
Health Promotion and
Alternative Activities
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
Outcomes: Provide information about your outcomes. All outcomes should have
measureable data attached to them.
Both the process and social indicator outcomes of the Kutztown University SPF-SIG
Initiative speak to the effectiveness of the project in addressing the risk factors delineated in the
strategic plan. The President’s Roundtable reviewed all project outcomes on a regular basis.
Based on these findings, the project evolved from a solely broad-based comprehensive approach
to underage drinking prevention on a college campus to a more targeted effort aimed at having
the greatest and most positive effect on those students that exhibited the most risky types of
drinking behaviors.
The following key outcome findings point to the effectiveness of the project in respect to
the priority risk factors:
Low Perceived Risk of Alcohol Use
This risk factor was reduced as evidenced by a 32% decrease from 2008/09 to 2011/12 in college
students reporting that they chug alcohol and a 2% decrease in college students reporting highrisk drinking during the same period. In 2008/09, the Alcohol Edu baseline survey of incoming
freshman indicated that 50% reported chugging alcohol, and 25% were classified as high-risk
drinkers. A survey of freshmen students in the 2009/10 academic year showed that only 17%
reported engaging in chugging alcoholic beverages and 27% reported high-risk drinking. A
survey of freshmen students in the 2010/11 academic year showed that 17% reported engaging in
chugging alcoholic beverages and 25% reported high-risk drinking. Follow-up surveys of
freshmen students in the 2011/12 academic year showed that 18% reported engaging in chugging
alcoholic beverages and 23% reported high-risk drinking. The reduction of this risk factor could
be attributed to the coordinated efforts of the President’s Roundtable to implement a
comprehensive system of prevention and intervention services following the Communities
Mobilizing for Change of Alcohol model.
Social Norms That Support/Encourage Young Adult Drinking
This risk factor was reduced as evidenced by a 2% increase from 2008/09 to 2011/12 in the
percentage of freshmen who are non-drinkers and a 2% decrease during that same period in the
percentage of freshmen who are considered high-risk drinkers. In 2008, the Alcohol Edu
baseline survey of incoming freshman indicated that 61% were non-drinkers and 25% were
classified as high-risk drinkers. A survey of freshmen students in the 2009-2010 academic year
showed 58% of the students were non-drinkers and 27% reported high-risk drinking. A survey
of freshmen students in the 2010/11 academic year showed that 60% of the students were nondrinkers and 25% reported high-risk drinking. Follow-up surveys of freshmen students in the
2011/12 academic year showed that 53% were non-drinkers and 23% reported high-risk
drinking. The reduction of this risk factor could be attributed to the combined impact of the
SPF-SIG programs that sought to change the norms of the university environment in respect to
the acceptance of young adult drinking.
Easy Access to Alcohol
The change in this risk factor could not be accurately measured since the question used for the
baseline measure was not contained in Alcohol Edu surveys in subsequent years. Therefore the
survey question of where students drink was utilized to measure changes in youth access. In the
2009/10 Alcohol Edu survey, 68% of the student drinkers reported drinking off-campus while
12% reported drinking in fraternities/sororities. By the 2011/12 Alcohol Edu survey, 56% of the
6
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
student drinker reported drinking off-campus while 28% reported drinking in fraternities.
According to the Alcohol Edu for College 2011/12 Executive Summary, with a higher
percentage of students reporting drinking in fraternities/sororities, efforts should be made to
target this location with increased prevention efforts.
Availability of screening/early intervention services
This risk factor was reduced with an increase in availability of screening/early intervention
services to college students. During the life of the project, the number of students receiving
intervention services increased significantly. AUDIT screens increased from 110 screens in
FY2008/09 to 464 screens in FY2011/12. In respect to the growth of the BASICS program, 23
BASICS interventions were conducted in FY2009/10 compared to 106 BASICS intervention in
FY2011/12.
7
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
Section 2. Assessment
Initial Assessment
A data driven assessment process was utilized in the identification of the target
community for the SPF-SIG initiative. A County Level Planning Council (CLPC), comprised of
members of the Berks Prevention Coalition, provided oversight of this assessment process. The
CLPC membership consisted of stakeholders from key sectors of the community including
education, higher education, law enforcement, faith-based community, drug and alcohol
prevention and treatment agencies, students, media, and a local community foundation. Both the
project evaluator and epidemiologist provided consultation throughout the development of this
plan to insure that the selected interventions would impact on the priority risk factors.
The assessment process for this Community Strategic Plan included an examination of
the consequence and consumption pattern data for under-age drinking in respect to the priorities
established by the Bureau of Drug and Alcohol Programs (BDAP). Based on this assessment,
the CLPC selected to address Priority Two, “To prevent (reduce) drinking and driving among
persons ages 16 through 21” and Kutztown Borough and Kutztown University as the targeted
community. The CLPC then determined the local risk factors relevant to the consequence and
consumption data and protective factors that respond to the selected risk factors.
Interpretation of Consequences and Consumption Pattern Data and Local
Information
The CLPC began the SPF-SIG assessment process through a review of the Resource
Allocation Indicators data requirements for the three SPF/SIG priorities as delineated in the
Request for Proposal. A review of this data provided insights into the consequence and
consumption patterns for Berks County. In the determination of the arrest rates, many factors
were taken into consideration. A combination of borough, municipal, regional police
jurisdictions and the Pennsylvania State Police serve the communities in Berks County.
Therefore it was necessary to define the parameters of each police jurisdiction and ascertain the
populations of the respective municipalities served by each police jurisdiction in order to
calculate rates. A determination was made that six Berks County municipalities met the high
need threshold of the indicator specified under Priority Two, “To prevent (reduce) drinking and
driving among persons 16-21.”
8
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
Rate of Berks County Driving Under the Influence Arrests
Rate of Arrests per 1,000
Age Group, 16-21 years of age
2001-2006 Pennsylvania Uniform Crime Reports
40.0
34.5
35.0
Rate per 1,000 population
30.0
25.0
20.0
19.6
20.0
16.8
17.0
OLEY TWP.
AMITY TWP.
15.0
8.1
10.0
8.6
6.5
5.1
5.0
0.0
BERKS
PA
REQUIRED SPF
RATE
KUTZTOWN
BOROUGH
HAMBURG
BOROUGH
FLEETWOOD
BOROUGH
WEST READING
BOROUGH
Due to the variations in the arrest rates among the high need boroughs and townships,
the CLPC consulted with law enforcement officials regarding the high rates for specific
municipalities. It was found that several municipalities including West Reading Borough, Amity
Township, Hamburg Borough, and Oley Township include major thoroughfares with high traffic
volume. These thoroughfares qualify for sobriety checkpoints. The majority of individuals
arrested for driving under the influence in these municipalities are arrested at these checkpoints.
An examination of the age distribution of driving under the influence arrests in Berks
County revealed a significant difference when comparing Kutztown Borough DUI arrests to
Berks County arrests. Youth ages 18-21, comprised 47.7% of the total DUI arrests in the
Kutztown Borough, while this age group comprised only 15.7% of the total arrests in Berks
County. Considering that a high percentage of the young adults, 18-21 in Kutztown Borough are
enrolled at Kutztown University, it became imperative to conduct a more in-depth examination
of the characteristics of the population of youth and young adults in the Kutztown Borough. This
examination revealed the following important considerations:
 Of the 71 DUI arrests, there were no DUI arrests for the ages 16 and 17 in the
Kutztown Borough with twenty year old youth comprised 36% of the total arrests.
Therefore young adults, ages 18-21, can be identified as a higher risk sub-population.
 Of the 71 arrests in Kutztown Borough for DUI arrests of youth, ages 16-21 during
the period 2001-2006, a specific seasonal pattern of arrests emerged. 48% of the
arrests occurred from September to November, the first semester of university. At a
countywide level only 27% of the DUI arrests of youth, ages 16-21 occur during this
same period. Therefore the first semester of university becomes a higher risk period
of time in respect to DUI arrests.
 In respect to the race and ethnic characteristics of the individuals arrested for DUI in
the Kutztown Borough for the period 2001-2006, adult whites comprised 95% of the
arrests which is comparable to Berks County on a whole where 94% of the adults
arrested for driving under the influence were white. However when comparing the
ethnic characteristics of the adults arrested for DUI, non-Hispanics comprised 97% of
9
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative

July 2012
the arrests in Kutztown Borough compared to 85% of the adult arrests in Berks
County.
At the time of the initial assessment, of the 4,400 students enrolled in Kutztown
University, approximately one third of the undergraduate students lived off campus
with the majority of the off-campus students residing in the Kutztown Borough
adjacent to the university.
Profile of Local Risk Factors
The next step in the strategic planning process was the identification of the risk factors
relevant to the consequence and consumption patterns of driving under the influence for young
adults, ages 18-21 in the Kutztown University and Kutztown Borough communities. The CLPC
considered social indicator data relevant to each risk factor including freshmen student survey
collected through Alcohol Edu, alcohol-related arrest data, and referrals for drug and alcohol
assessments. The following risk factors were deemed to be both of high importance and of high
changeability based on the examination of data:
 Easy social access to alcohol: Alcohol Edu reports provided valuable baseline data
in respect to this risk factor. The Alcohol Edu survey was administered at two
intervals in 2007/08- to freshmen pre-matriculation (Survey 1) and following the first
semester (Survey 3). Of the 1,310 Kutztown University freshmen who completed the
2007/08 Alcohol Edu, 52% reported themselves as non-drinkers in Survey 3
compared to 59% in Survey 1. Of the drinkers, 55% reported that they obtained their
alcohol mainly at parties and 32% reported they obtained alcohol from someone they
know who is older than 21. This data clearly pointed to an increase in alcohol use
during the freshmen Fall Semester.
 Low perceived risk of alcohol use: Of the freshmen drinkers in Survey 3, 50%
reported chugging, 61% reported doing shots, and 69% reported doing drinking
games.
 Social norms accepting and/or encouraging young adult drinking: Of the
freshmen drinkers, 55% reported in Survey 3 that they obtained alcohol at parties and
69% reported that they spent their time drinking at an off-campus
residence/apartment(mine or someone else’s residence). In addition, there was a
decrease in positive behavioral intentions toward alcohol between pre-matriculated
freshmen and freshmen at the completion of the Fall Semester. In Survey 1, 89% of
the pre-matriculated students reported supporting the decision not to drink; in Survey
3, only 78% of the freshmen reported the decision not to drink. An informal
university social norm that requires further documentation is the practice of certain
university instructors of not testing students on Fridays and Mondays due to higher
absenteeism and the perception that students are engaged in drinking and/or parties
the preceding evenings/weekends.
 Availability of screen/early intervention: The need for screen/early intervention is
documented by a number of indicators. In the 2007/08 Alcohol Edu Survey 3, 33%
of freshman drinkers (183 students) reported blackouts. University safety reports also
reported useful information regarding this risk factor. According to the 2005/06
report, of the 332 total alcohol or drug related violations, 38% (126) were freshman
violations. The number of referrals for university drug and alcohol counseling
services pointed to the need to strengthen student screening/early intervention
services. During the 2006/07 school year, nine referrals were made, representing 2%
10
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
of the university student drug and alcohol policy violators. During the 2007/08
school year, 51 drug and alcohol referrals were provided, representing 7% of the
student drug and alcohol policy violators. It is clear from this data that current
strategies and policies utilized by Kutztown University did not assure that drug and
alcohol policy violators are linked to university and/or community-based intervention
services.
Profile of Local Protective Factors
The Kutztown University President’s Roundtable on Alcohol and Drugs (President’s
Roundtable), which serves both Kutztown University and Kutztown Borough, had an
established prevention infrastructure to address the risk factors impacting for under-age
drinking for young adults, ages 18-21 in the Kutztown Borough. As a result of an extensive
history of strategic program planning, the initial assessment ascertained the following
protective factors to address substance abuse problems in both campus and borough settings:
 Healthy Beliefs and Clear Standards (School): Kutztown University has
established strict sanctions on-campus for violations of university policy
 Community Support of Prevention Programs: The Kutztown Borough District
Magistrate utilized the SCA sponsored Under-age Drinking Program in response to
alcohol-related offenses.
 School Support of Prevention Programs: Kutztown University has initiated an
array of prevention programs for student including National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA) Speak Up program, peer education role-plays with local middle
schools, Healthy Kids Day, and numerous non-alcohol based socials for athletes
around sporting events.
Service Gaps and Needed Resources
The initial assessment revealed that the President’s Roundtable has made significant
progress in the establishment of a sustainable data-driven prevention infrastructure to address
the risk factors for substance abuse in the Kutztown Borough. However this assessment of local
resources identified specific gaps in the prevention system:
 Lack of protocol to consistently link young adults at high risk for substance abuse
and/or drug and alcohol policy violators to drug and alcohol screening, intervention,
and treatment services.
 Policies to promote peer referrals for young people in need of medical intervention
and/or drug and alcohol interventions due to high risk alcohol consumption.
 The need to strengthen environmental strategies in respect to substance use by
students who reside in off-campus housing.
 The need to reinforce positive social norms in respect to alcohol use by university
students.
Challenges or problems with initial assessment
A. Difficulty accessing data within a communities or communities
Several challenges emerged in the access of both county and community level data.
 In the review of available data sources, sufficient student survey data was not
available to ascertain alcohol consumption patterns for students under the age of
11
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative


July 2012
eighteen in Berks County school districts. With the lack of this data source, it was
necessary to rely on Uniform Crime Report arrest data.
In respect to the target community level data, it was difficult to separate out
measures with respect to University and community data. The programs
implemented by the project are all very much targeted to the University students,
but the initial data with respect to drunk driving and underage drinking reflect
those behaviors at the community level irrespective of whether the infractions
were with students or youth from the community. Also, inconsistency across the
times of data collection for youth alcohol violations and DUI arrests makes it
difficult to interpret any changes that may have occurred.
Alcohol Edu surveys were utilized as baseline data for the initial assessment.
However, this data only measured the patterns of alcohol use for freshman
students. Data was needed for sophomore students as well as transfer students to
compare patterns of access to alcohol.
B. Challenges with cultural competence in relation to assessment
While the initial assessment did not reveal any specific concerns regarding cultural
competence, the need to consider issues of gender and age when planning
interventions was noted.
C. Differences among decision makers about the importance of priorities
The President’s Roundtable came to quick agreement about the ranking of the
priorities with respect to the project.
D. Challenges with understanding the data
Considering the experience of the members of the CLPC and the President’s
Roundtable in data driven decision-making, there were no challenges in
understanding the data and how to utilize the data in program planning.
12
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
Section 3. Mobilization and Capacity Building
Profile of Local Resources and Capacity
The Kutztown University President’s Roundtable on Alcohol and Drugs (President’s
Roundtable), which serves both Kutztown University and Kutztown Borough, presented an extensive
history of strategic planning to address substance abuse problems in both campus and borough settings.
Kutztown University, from 2004 through 2006, participated in a study conducted by the Special Projects
Committee of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education Institutions on “Challenging the
Alcohol Campus Culture.” This study provided specific recommendations to guide state universities in
the development of a comprehensive program. The President’s Roundtable, established in 1998, has
followed the best practices for university prevention programming. Significant progress was made in the
establishment of a sustainable data-driven prevention infrastructure to address the risk factors for underage drinking and substance abuse in both the university and Kutztown Borough.
The President’s Roundtable served as the CLPC during for the SPF-SIG initiative and provided
oversight for the development, implementation, and evaluation of the prevention infrastructure. The
membership of the President’s Roundtable has been comprised of a diversity of stakeholders including the
university president, director of health and wellness center, director of the university AOD program,
student health ambassadors, counseling staff, dean of student affairs, borough district magistrate, borough
mayor, borough chief of police, Berks SCA, community-based drug and alcohol and social service
providers, and the Kutztown University Kutztown Borough Community Watch (KUBoK). In order to
better coordinate the activities of the CLPC, the Steering Committee of the President’s Roundtable was
formed. The Steering Committee was responsible for setting priorities, reporting on program
implementation, and directing on-going planning and evaluation activities.
The initial assessment served as a starting point to address the risk factors for under-age
drinking in the Kutztown Borough and Kutztown University communities. Specific gaps were
identified in respect to the capacity of the prevention system to address the selected priority:
 Lack of services and protocol to identify and link young adults at high risk for
alcohol abuse to intervention and treatment services.
 Lack of policies to promote peer referrals for young people in need of medical
intervention and/or drug and alcohol interventions due to alcohol consumption.
 The need to strengthen environmental strategies in respect to substance use by
students who reside in off-campus housing.
 The need to reinforce positive social norms in respect to alcohol use by university
students.
The President’s Roundtable, as the CPIC, recognized that assessment and planning is angoing process and would work closely with Roundtable members and the project evaluator to
modify interventions based on service gaps changing needs. The stability of the President’s
Roundtable during the first three years of the grant was a major factor in the successful
implementation of the planned strategies. However the President’s Roundtable ceased to have
regular meetings in the final year of the grant due to major restructuring of university staff
assignments. However communication between Roundtable members was continued and
members were engaged in two strategic planning sessions to develop a sustainability plan for
services.
Community-Level Activities
The successful implementation of the SPF-SIG strategic plan required the full
engagement of a broad base of university and borough stakeholders in the all phases of
13
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
program assessment, planning, implementation, and evaluation. Therefore during the first
year of the grant, several steps were taken to increase the capacity of the President’s
Roundtable. The first step was the expansion of the President’s Roundtable membership to
include a greater representation of young adults and borough residents, with a special focus
on engaging college students residing in Kutztown Borough. Outreach was also directed to
the Kutztown School District since the school district had not consistently designated a
representative to serve on the coalition. The next step in capacity building was the provision
of training to members in the evidence-based program, Communities Mobilizing for Change
in Alcohol (CMCA). This training better prepared to engage in a more in-depth assessment
of community needs in respect to the prevention of under-age drinking and to select the
environmental strategies that will best address the priority risk factors.
Following the CMCA training, the President’s Roundtable increased its level of
community engagement. Focus groups were held to secure stakeholder input regarding the
issues and program needs. Sub-committees/workgroups of the President’s Roundtable were
re-structured to implement the environmental strategies identified in the assessment process.
University and community stakeholders were recruited and engaged to serve on these subcommittees. The Steering Committee monitored all coalition activity to insure that members
remain engaged and focused on addressing the risk factors identified through the SPF-SIG
assessment process. Through the active engagement of key stakeholders, informed decision
were made regarding the direction of all interventions.
Describe SPF SIG mobilization and capacity building activities:
The President’s Roundtable was very active in the first years of the project. Meetings were held
at least quarterly and participation by University personnel and community stakeholders was quite good.
The Mayor was very involved in many Roundtable activities and was instrumental in working with other
community stakeholders and key business owners to address specific issues as they were brought to light
by the Roundtable. Community level capacity building was very closely tied to current substance abuse
issues and events that impacted on under-age drinking in Kutztown. The Roundtable meetings served as a
vehicle to educate members regarding these issues and viable strategies to respond to the emerging
concern. When these situations emerged, there was more participation from members from outside of the
University. When invited to participate and encouraged to continue participation, community members
did make the effort to come to the table and voice their opinions. For example, the increased marketing of
the alcohol energy beverages by local distributors resulted in immediate action by Roundtable members.
The Mayor was able to work with local restaurant and bar owners to decrease/eliminate the sale of the
alcohol-energy drinks that were the cause of several emergency room visits for students. As previously
stated, the Roundtable did not meet regularly during the final year of the project, as there was a change in
University personnel. The change in University personnel created an opportunity to restructure the
President’s Roundtable. Meetings ceased while internal restructuring occurred. Members expressed their
desire to continue their efforts and participated in two Strategic Planning meetings in March and April
2012. These activities will be described in the Strategic Planning section of this report.
14
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
Section 4. Strategic Planning
Planning
The goal of the strategic plan of Kutztown University President’s Roundtable SPF-SIG
Initiative was to reduce driving under the influence arrests of young adults, ages 18-21 in
Kutztown University and Kutztown Borough as well as to reduce the use of alcohol by freshmen
and sophomores at Kutztown University. The first phase of the planning process engaged
stakeholders from the President’s Roundtable as the Community Level Planning Council
(CLPC). The CLPC utilized a consensus-building process to review the existing data for each
risk factor. This data (detailed in Section Two of this report) provided important insights into the
importance and changeability of each risk factor in respect to the on the available resources and
the readiness of the community to effectively implement interventions. Under-age drinking was a
serious public health concern in the Kutztown University and Kutztown Borough communities as
evidenced by the high arrest rates for young adults for driving under the influence. During the
period 2001-2006, the rate of arrests for driving under the influence of young adults, 16-21 years
of age in the Kutztown Borough was 8.8 arrests per 1,000 compared a rate of 6.5 arrests per
1,000 in Pennsylvania and a rate of 5.1 arrests per 1,000 in Berks County, Pennsylvania.
The CLPC agreed that the following risk factors were high priority based on the criteria
of high importance and high changeability:
 Easy Social Access to Alcohol
 Low Perceived Risk of Alcohol Use
 Social Norms That Support/Encourage Young Adult Drinking
 Availability of screening/early intervention
As a comprehensive approach to the reduction of the identified risk factors, the Kutztown
University SPF-SIG strategic plan incorporated evidence-based and innovative programs and
strategies based on their proven effectiveness in respect to these risk factors. SPF-SIG funding
supported the enhancement of community-based, environmental, and problem identification
programs and strategies that would address gaps in prevention services. The strategic plan
also considered existing information dissemination, education, and alternative activity strategies
and coordinated these activities with the enhanced programs.
The SPF-SIG strategic plan, based on required planning guidelines, established
benchmarks for each selected intervention. The following is a summary of the selected
interventions, benchmarks and timelines, achievement of implementation goals, and the barriers
that impacted on the planned implementation.
Communities Mobilizing for Change of Alcohol (CMCA)
1. Benchmarks/Timelines
 CMCA training to be implemented by January 2009.
 CMCA needs assessment to be completed by April 2009.
 CMCA environmental strategies to be selected by June 2009.
 CMCA environmental strategies to be implemented by October 2009 and updated
and/or revised as needed throughout the life of the grant.
15
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
2. Achievement of Implementation Goal
The President’s Roundtable members recognized the importance of the selection and
implementation of environmental strategies to address the priority risk factors. The President’s
Roundtable has traditionally addressed environmental through the consideration of university
drug and alcohol policy changes. Recommendations for changes to these policies have been
brought before the members for consideration before being adopted by the university. The
continued refinement and implementation of environmental strategies in respect to alcohol use
was identified as a critical component of the Kutztown University SPF-SIG strategic plan. The
need for further training and planning in respect to the selection of environmental strategies
became clearly evident throughout the planning process. The decision to incorporate CMCA
enhanced the capacity of the President’s Roundtable. CMCA achieves this goal by engaging
multiple stakeholders who then become knowledgeable and involved in creating a healthier
community by decreasing access and pro-consumption environments. This inclusive approach
mirrored what the Roundtable was already trying to accomplish and therefore was a perfect
structure for the group to adopt in its continued efforts to address youth alcohol use on and off
campus. Where the training fell short for the President’s Roundtable was that the design of the
training was primarily on how to establish a coalition. The President’s Roundtable had already
existed for several years. The CMCA process was recognized as meaningful, but the attendees
identified the need to broaden the scope of the issues and broaden the representation of those
who participated in the Roundtable. However following the training, the Roundtable members
were more attentive to the data that were presented or issues that presented themselves in the
Kutztown community. This information was responsible for the project moving from a solely
broad-based comprehensive approach to underage drinking on a college campus to a more
targeted effort aimed at having the greatest and most positive effect on those students that
exhibited the most risky types of drinking behaviors.
The CMCA protocol was adapted during the final two years of the grant to include other
university selected planning processes. The President’s Roundtable, as a member university of
the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE), had access to consultant
resources to assist with sustainability planning. During the final year of the project, the
President’s Roundtable utilized a consultant from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board and an
independent PASSHE consultant to assist with this phase of planning. The PASSHE resources
were not available at the time of the application for SPF-SIG funding, but proved invaluable in
supporting the President’s Roundtable in achieving the goal established in this initiative.
3. Barrier
The major barrier in the implementation of CMCA was the ability to complete the
number of one on one interviews required by the CMCA protocol. However sufficient
interviews were conducted to support an evidence-based planning process.
Challenging College Alcohol Abuse (CCAA)
1. Benchmarks
 CCAA implementation guidelines are reviewed by February 2009.
 CCAA focus groups are conducted by May 2009.
 CCAA social norms strategies are selected by July 2009.
 CCAA social norms strategies are implemented by September 2009 through March
2012.
16
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
2. Achievement of Implementation Goal
The promotion of healthy social norms was a key component of the Kutztown University
SPF-SIG strategic plan. The President’s Roundtable selected to utilize CCAA, an evidencebased social norm prevention program, in the development of its social marketing strategies to
promote positive social norms regarding alcohol use in the Kutztown University and Kutztown
Borough communities. During the second year of SPF-SIG funding, Kutztown University, as a
member of PASSHE, engaged with 13 other state universities, in the development of a social
norms collaboration. The purpose of this collaboration was to strengthen the capacity of the
participating universities to implement comprehensive social norms strategies. The collaboration
utilized the CORE Drug and Alcohol survey to establish social norms baseline data. Student
representatives of the participating universities based on CORE survey findings selected social
norm messages. While PASSHE resources were not available during the initial planning phase
of the SPF-SIG initiative, these supplemental resources enhanced the capacity of the university
to reach a greater number of students with consistent social norm messages. The President’s
Roundtable was very diligent in working hard to coordinate the SPF-SIG and PASSHE efforts so
that messages were cohesive and supportive and students were not overburdened with multiple
survey efforts to determine students’ behaviors. During the last year of SPF-SIG funding and
following the completion of the PASSHE initiative, Kutztown University sustained and
expanded its social norms campaign through the continued dissemination of social norms
marketing pieces developed through the PASSHE initiative and the continued development of
supplemental social norms media such as radio public service announcements.
3. Barrier
The major barrier in the implementation of the social norms campaign was the
administration of the CORE survey to a sufficient number of students to ascertain the norms
regarding alcohol use. To address this barrier, incentives were provided for student participation
in the CORE survey.
AUDIT
1. Benchmarks/Timelines
 Establish protocol for AUDIT alcohol screens by February 2009.
 Obtain staff training for AUDIT alcohol screens by March 2009.
 Implement alcohol screening using the AUDIT tool by March 2009 and on-going through
March 2012.
 Modify screening protocol based on outcomes by January 2010 and on-going through
September 2011.
2. Achievement of Implementation Goal
One finding of the SPF-SIG assessment was the lack of services and protocol to identify
and link young adults at high risk for alcohol abuse to intervention and treatment services.
During the planning phase, it was recognized that although all college freshmen completed an
alcohol screen as a component of Alcohol EDU, one on one screens were not routinely provided.
SPF-SIG funding supported the initiation of alcohol screening of Kutztown University students
utilizing the AUDIT alcohol screening tool. Students who present a high risk score through the
AUDIT screen would be referred to the BASICS, an evidence-based brief intervention program
for university students. The AUDIT screen was successfully implemented, thus strengthening
the capacity of the university to identify and link high-risk students to services.
17
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
3. Barrier
It was the intent during the planning phase of this initiative to screen all freshmen and
sophomore students. However, it was found that it was difficult to engage commuter and offcampus students in alcohol screens since these students are less likely to use on-campus services.
By the third year of the grant, the majority of the students who participated in the alcohol screens
were residents of on-campus housing or high-risk students.
Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention of College Students (BASICS)
1. Benchmarks/Timeline

Establish protocol for referrals for BASIC interventions by February 2009.

Obtain staff training for BASICS implementation by March 2009.

Implement BASICS interventions beginning March 2009 through March 2012.

Refer students receiving BASICS interventions to community and university-based
assessment and treatment services beginning March 2009 through March 2012.
2. Achievement of Implementation Goal
BASICS is a preventive intervention program designed to reduce drinking and enhance
awareness about alcohol-related issues. This evidence-based program is utilized by colleges and
universities nationwide and has been proven effective in significantly reducing drinking
frequency of college students who have participated in the program. The implementation of the
BASICS program addressed a major gap in services identified in the initial assessment: the lack
of services and protocol to identify and link young adults at high risk for alcohol abuse to
intervention and treatment services. Therefore the successful implementation of BASICS was
seen as a critical component of the SPF-SIG initiative. During the life of this initiative, the
implementation goal in respect to the BASICS program has been achieved. BASICS has
become an integral part of the university’s alcohol intervention services and will be sustained
beyond the SPF-SIG grant funding.
3. Barrier
Kutztown University coordinated the implementation of BASICS in conjunction with a
PASSHE initiative. The university utilized graduate assistants to administer PASSHE services
with BASICS training provided by a PASSHE facilitator at the beginning of each school year.
The most significant barrier to the implementation of BASICS was the turnover in the BASICS
staff and the need to train new staff at the beginning of each school year. This barrier was
addressed by securing BASICS training for the university AOD program director. This
individual provided supervision of the graduate assistants and insuring that the program was
being delivered according to fidelity standards.
18
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
The approved SPF-SIG strategic plan included the following three programs that were not
supported through SPF-SIG funding but were considered components of the overall plan:
AlcoholEdu
1. Benchmarks/Timelines

Continue to require all incoming freshmen to participate in the Alcohol EDU online
program as a part of college matriculation.
2. Achievement of Implementation Goal
During the life of this grant, AlcoholEdu continued to be a component of the university’s AOD
programming.
3. Barriers
There were no barriers in this implementation goal.
Alcohol and Other Drug Clinical Assessment
1. Benchmarks/Timelines

In conjunction with the implementation of the BASICS, by February 2009, establish a
protocol that incorporates the referral of students receiving a BASICS intervention to
drug and alcohol assessment and treatment resources.

Monitor the referral of drug and alcohol policy violators to drug and alcohol assessment
and treatment resources.
2. Achievement of Implementation Goal
The achievement of this implementation goal was dependent upon the modification of university
practice to include the referrals of policy violators to drug and alcohol assessment and treatment
resources. The implementation of the BASICS program resulted in an increase in the number of
students referred to drug and alcohol services.
3. Barriers
There were no barriers in this implementation goal.
Berks Under-age Drinking Program
1. Benchmarks/Timelines

Review protocol for referrals of non-university young adults to Berks SCA under-age
drinking program by February 2009.

Continue to refer young adults to Berks SCA under-age drinking program and monitor
referrals throughout the SPF-SIG grant period.
2. Achievement of Implementation Goal
The Berks SCA Under-age Drinking Program would continue to be an intervention and
education resource for young adults arrested for alcohol-related offenses. The program provides
young adult offenders an opportunity to select this program in lieu of fines. This program is
facilitated by drug and alcohol counselors with participants referred to drug and alcohol
evaluations as deemed appropriate by the program facilitator. The active involvement of the
district magistrate in the President’s Roundtable has facilitated the incorporation of this program
into the strategic plan.
3. Barriers
There were no barriers in this implementation goal.
19
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
Community Level Planning Council
The strategic planning for this SPF-SIG initiative, occurring throughout the life of this
grant, was the responsibility of the County Level Planning Council (CLPC) comprised of
members of the Berks Prevention Coalition and representatives of the Kutztown University
President’s Roundtable. This entity was formed years prior to the current project as a means to
create a cohesive atmosphere among the University and the community. The President of the
University understood that the “us-them” environment that is common to many
college/university towns was not conducive to effectively addressing issues of college student
drug and alcohol use. Thus, the Roundtable was established. Included on the Roundtable was a
mix of University representatives (faculty, staff, administration, and students) and community
representatives (the mayor, law enforcement, district magistrate, and residents). Although never
long-lasting, the Roundtable continuously sought out representation from property owners and
local businesses (with specific efforts made to include bar/restaurant owners). The President’s
Roundtable met at least three times a year during the SPF-SIG Initiative with the Steering
Committee meeting at least four times a year.
The President’s Roundtable was successful in achieving the stated goals and objectives of
its strategic plan. By following the Strategic Prevention Framework and making periodic review
of the project integral to the carrying out of the Roundtable’s mission, the project did redefine
itself over time. What started out as a more broad, comprehensive approach to reducing youth
alcohol use and high risk behaviors, became a more targeted approach that provided specific
programming to students who presented with behaviors and attitudes that suggested the student
was at risk for engaging in high-risk drinking behaviors. This approach, with a lot of effort put
into the AUDIT and BASICS activities, was still reinforced with social norms campaigns that
targeted all students on campus to reduce the overall atmosphere of promoting high-risk drinking
by students on campus.
The SPF-SIG strategic plan served as a starting point to address the risk factors for underage drinking in the Kutztown Borough and Kutztown University communities. However, the
President’s Roundtable, as the CPIC, recognized that assessment and planning is an-going
process and continued to examine both programmatic outcomes and emerging needs to modify
interventions. The President’s Roundtable, in the past six months, has moved into a sustainability
planning phase. The focus of these strategic planning activities was to assess program outcomes
and to determine future priorities. Two strategic planning meetings were held in March and April
of 2012. The findings of these meetings will be utilized by the Kutztown University
administrators and the Steering Committee of the President’s Roundtable in order to redefine the
priorities.
The first sustainability strategic planning meeting was attended by thirteen Roundtable
members and consisted of a SWOT analysis facilitated by a representative of the Pennsylvania
Liquor Control Board through a contract with PASSHE. The following is a summary and
conclusion of this SWOT Analysis:
Strengths
 Commitment of people
 Kutztown University/Borough of Kutztown Community Watch(KUBoK)
 Relationships between different organizations and communities
Weaknesses
 No alcohol and drug-free alternatives in downtown Kutztown
 Lack of involvement of liquor licensees
 Lack of funding
20
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
 Social norm results in excess partying
Opportunities
 Community/Kutztown University interaction
 Property owner and liquor licensees involvement in prevention
 Education on social hosting and good neighbor for off campus students
 Continuation of BASICS
Threats
 State budget cuts
 Institutional priority of President’s Roundtable programs
 Dry campus leads to student fear of getting caught
The findings of the SWOT analysis, clear pointed to the fact that the President’s
Roundtable members were strongly in favor of continuing its efforts. As noted in the “strengths”
category, the Roundtable members maintain their commitment and believe this sense of
commitment also exists in the Kutztown community. The Roundtable would like to make
greater efforts at engaging local licensees and landlords in a collaborative effort to address the
continuing issues that pertain to underage drinking in a college community. The group is aware
of state and local budget cuts/difficulties that might require the group to manage on its own
without the promise of additional funding. This did not appear to hamper anyone’s enthusiasm
for the continuation of the Roundtable mission. In fact, the session ended with a clear attitude
toward continuing to meet on a regular basis, continuing the intervention efforts directed at
students (BASICS) and stepping up efforts to do more work in the greater Kutztown community.
At the second strategic planning meeting, the Roundtable members initiated the
development of updated strategic implementation plan for university AOD programs. Priorities
were discussed including the sustainability of BASICS as a priority program to address issues of
high risk drinking with students on campus. Due to a re-alignment of university resources,
certain programs may be considered for discontinuation including Alcohol Edu. A final report
on the updated strategic plan was not available to include in this document. However it is the
intent of the President’s Roundtable to utilize the findings of this report to guide the restructuring
of the President’s Roundtable and university supported alcohol prevention and intervention
services.
21
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
Section 5. Implementation
Implementation of the grant
A. In respect to the fidelity of the SPF-SIG Initiative, all components of the strategic plan
were implemented as planned throughout the first three years of the project. During the
fourth year of the project, due to administrative changes at Kutztown University, regular
meetings of the President’s Roundtable were not convened. While this meeting did
impact the level of communication among members, all programs continued to be
implemented as proposed and a sustainability plan was developed during strategic
planning sessions with Roundtable members.
B. The structure of the SPF-SIG model served as a useful tool to guide decision-making at
the university and Kutztown Borough in respect to the selection, implementation, and
evaluation of prevention and intervention programs. The CMCA program enhanced the
capacity of the President’s Roundtable to make data supported decisions regarding
strategies and programs. However transitions in university staff did present a challenge in
maintaining the integrity of the SPF-SIG process. While the President’s Roundtable
meetings were discontinued during the final year of the grant, several planning sessions
were held that engaged the President’s Roundtable members in the development of a
sustainability plan for the project.
C. No adaptations were made to the strategic plan. However the collaboration with PASSHE
enhanced the capacity of the President’s Roundtable to implement both the BASICS and
Changing College Alcohol Abuse social norms programs.
Implementation of specific programs/policies/practices (including environmental
practices)
The Kutztown President’s Roundtable, as both the CLPC and CLIC for this SPF/SIG
Initiative provided oversight for the implementation of all selected interventions. The
Roundtable Steering Committee, comprised of key University staff, Berks SCA staff, the project
evaluator, and chairs of each sub-committees and workgroups, met on a quarterly basis to
monitor the status of the implementation of each intervention. By engaging key University and
community members on the Steering Committee, fidelity issues were addressed and coordination
of services was enhanced. The Steering Committee reviewed process and outcomes data for
each intervention. This review process insured that timely modifications were made, as needed,
to resolve implementation issues for each intervention.
The timing of the implementation of the programs was critical to the success of the
project. Data indicated an increase of alcohol use by freshmen during the Fall semester.
Therefore the programs were staged to begin at the commencement of the Fall semester and with
the social norms campaigns and information dissemination strategies specifically directed to
incoming freshmen.
Programs
Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol (CMCA)
The Roundtable made the decision to adopt the research-based process CMCA to provide
more structure to the group’s activities and endeavors. CMCA is an evidence-based program
utilizing community-organizing strategies to reduce youth access to alcohol by changing
community policies and practices. The goal of CMCA is to reduce youth alcohol use by
22
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
eliminating illegal sales and obstructing the provision of alcohol to youth by adults. CMCA
achieves it goal by engaging multiple stakeholders who then become knowledgeable and
involved in creating a healthier community by decreasing access and pro-consumption
environments. This inclusive approach mirrored the approach of the Roundtable and therefore
was a perfect structure for the group to adopt in its continued efforts to address youth alcohol use
on and off campus. The CMCA training increased the attentiveness of Roundtable members to
the importance of data-driven decision-making in both policy and program implementation. This
information was responsible for the project shifting from a really broad-based comprehensive
approach to underage drinking on a college campus to a more targeted effort aimed at having the
greatest and most positive effect on those students that exhibited the most risky types of drinking
behaviors.
The President’s Roundtable adhered to the fidelity standards established for the
implementation of CMCA including:
 Designated a Kutztown University AOD staff person as the community organizer;
 Secured the CMCA training for stakeholders;
 Assessed community norms, public and institutional policies, and resources;
 Conducted one on one interviews;
 Used the one on one interviews to recruit Roundtable members;
 Developed and implemented an action plan;
 Built a broader base of support from a wide range of stakeholders;
 Evaluated change on an on-going basis.
Following the implementation of the CMCA model, the University became more actively
involved in policy change and advocacy for community policies to restrict under-age access to
alcohol. The Good Samaritan Policy exemplifies a major policy initiative. The intent of the
Kutztown University Good Samaritan Policy is to provide a general immunity from misconduct
allegations for violations of the Kutztown University Student Code of Conduct if a student acts
in an effort to seek assistance for themselves or another person. It does not and cannot grant
immunity for criminal, civil, or legal consequences for violations of Federal, State, or Local law.
Students who seek emergency medical attention for themselves related to consumption/use of
drugs or alcohol will not be charged with violations of the Kutztown University Student Code of
Conduct related to that violation, if that student subsequently completes an alcohol and other
drug assessment and any recommended treatment.
Challenging College Alcohol Abuse (Social Norms Campaign).
As an environmental strategy, the Roundtable utilized the CCAA social norms strategy.
To insure that the social norms strategy followed the fidelity of the CCAA model, the following
five steps were incorporated into the development and design of the campaign:
 Collected and analyzed data- In an effort to craft an effective social norms
campaign to address underage/binge drinking, focus groups were conducted with a
diverse representation of college students and the CORE survey was administered to
students.
 Selected preliminary campaign messages designed to correct key misperceptions
in the target population- The CORE survey secured the data needed to develop the
campaign social messages. According to this survey data, less than 50% of underage
students reported drinking within the last 30 days, and only 50.3% of all students
reported drinking alcohol during the last 30 days. In contrast, almost 90% of students
believed that the average student uses alcohol once a week or more.
23
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative



July 2012
Chose the campaign format, placement, and overall design-Input from the focus
groups provided direction for the campaign format. Student recommendations
included an alcohol prevention Facebook page, Potty Paper newsletters posted in
university bathrooms, table tents in the dining halls, dorm door messages, classroom
posters, sidewalk chalk messages, and the log-on page of the Kutztown University
website.
Incorporated market-test feedback, and produce and distribute finished
materials-Social norms print materials were disseminated around campus on two
occasions to provide students with factual information regarding student
behavior/attitudes toward alcohol use. These materials were supported through
PASSHE funding.
Conduct ongoing evaluation-The evaluation of the social norms campaign included
both a process evaluation of campaign activities and an outcome findings regarding
changes in student drinking behavior.
The Social Norms campaigns are a key method of informing youth that not only are not
all of their peers using alcohol, but in fact, most of their peers are not using alcohol. This
knowledge makes it easier for college students to make the decision themselves not to use
alcohol and to participate in activities where alcohol is not the central form of entertainment.
The initial plan was for the social norms campaign to be specific to Kutztown University.
However Kutztown University, as a member of PASSHE, joined an university social norm
collaboration. This collaboration supported each university in its selection of university specific
messages and campaign design. The PASSHE collaboration enhanced the capacity of Kutztown
University to implement a year round campaign that reached the student body. The PASSHE
sponsored Facebook site provided student feedback in the assessment of the effectiveness of the
social norms messages. The Kutztown University Student Health Ambassadors were responsible
for the implementation of the social norms campaign and related alternative activities.
Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT).
The AUDIT screen is a 10-item screening questionnaire, developed by the World Health
Organization. The AUDIT is not intended for making a diagnosis, but rather to determine if
further assessment is recommended. The higher the score, the more likely the individual may be
at risk for health consequences due to alcohol use. Participants were categorized based on their
total score. Scores of 7 or less are considered not at risk, 8-18 indicates potential risk and scores
of 19 and higher indicate possible alcohol dependence.
The AUDIT screens were administered to students by trained graduate assistants
following the protocol established by the World Health Organization. The AUDIT screen was
utilized solely as a method of identifying those students that were at risk for health problems
associated with alcohol use, or that exhibited possible alcohol dependency. The primary goal of
the screen was to raise individuals’ awareness of their drinking behaviors and thereby reduce
alcohol use to low-risk levels. Students with at risk scores were referred to further intervention
and/or counseling services including the BASICS program.
Brief Alcohol Screening in College Students (BASICS).
BASICS is an intervention program designed for college students who are considered at
risk due to heavy drinking behaviors. The brief intervention relies primarily on a motivational
interview to provide students with the skills, knowledge, and insight into the consequences of
24
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
drinking. Kutztown University criteria for participation in the BASICS program included
university policy violators, students with at risk scores on the AUDIT screens and self-referrals.
Each intervention participant was provided with two sessions of direct intervention services and
was requested to complete an on-line education and assessment program between the first and
second session. During the second session, the participant received individualized feedback
about his or her level of risk and encouraged to seek assistance, if so desired. Participants in the
high and extreme risk categories were also contacted by phone to offer assistance and
encouragement to reduce their risks associated with alcohol use.
Kutztown University implemented BASICS according to the fidelity standards. The only
adaptation was offering the first session in a group rather than an individual format.
The implementation plan included several programs, while not directly supported through SPFSIG funding, were coordinated as components of the strategic plan.
Alcohol EDU
Kutztown University has implemented Alcohol EDU for several years (including prior to the
implementation of this project). University administrators view this online educational tool
favorably and require all incoming, newly matriculated students to complete the online course
prior to their arrival to campus in August.
Berks SCA Underage Drinking Program
Through the Underage Drinking Program, the Council educates youth about the negative
consequences of drug and alcohol use. This program is designed to offer drug and alcohol
education as a diversion for youth charged with underage drinking or related offenses. It is a
voluntary program that allows the youth charged to access education relevant to their risk-taking
behaviors. The program consists of 12 hours of drug and alcohol education. Upon successful
completion of the program, the Magisterial District Judge may consider lessening the penalty for
the summary offense.
Health Promotion and Alternative Activities
The Wellness Center at Kutztown University provided various activities for students to
participate in that gave them an opportunity to socialize, have fun, and meet new individuals
without the use of alcohol. These activities were largely selected and designed by students as a
means of maintaining cultural relevance of the student body of Kutztown University. The social
norms campaign was integrated with the health promotion and alternative activities.
B. If specific program fidelity measures were collected, provide the data here.
All program activities were tracked to ensure that they were following program protocol.
The program fidelity protocol was reviewed as a component of staff training for the program. No
specific fidelity measures were used. However fidelity and adaptations for all activities
delivered under evidence-based program was reported in the Performance-based Prevention
System.
25
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
C. Discuss any adaptations made to the specific programs/policies/practices. What
were the reasons for adaptations? Were adaptations or deviations from plans
approved by BDAP?
Adaptations were made in the implementation of CMCA and BASICS, two evidencebased programs. The fidelity protocol for CMCA requires the implementation of one on one
interviews with key stakeholders as part of the needs assessment and planning. The adaptation
was in respect to the number and categories of stakeholders that were interviewed. Interviews
were not completed with representatives from the local school district due to changes in
personnel. This adaptation was reviewed with the developer and not considered significant to
impact on program fidelity.
An adaptation in the BASICS program was in respect to the implementation of the first
session of the BASICS intervention. The BASICS training provided by a certified trainer to
Kutztown University graduate assistants, provided that the first session could be provided in
either an individual or group session. The group session format is a major adaptation to the
program and although approved by the program developer, it is not advised. Of the total
BASICS interventions provided, adaptations through the use of group sessions were made to
5.9% of the services.
Discuss the development of the Community Level Implementation Council. Did it
meet regularly? Was membership stable? Is it still active?
The President’s Roundtable was the designated Community Level Implementation
Council (CLIC) for this project. The President’s Roundtable held regular meetings that included
the University’s President, the Mayor of Kutztown, University Personnel including professors
and student life administration, and (albeit less regularly) community representatives. Meetings
were quarterly and included updates on various activities being overseen by the Roundtable,
especially the activities coordinated through the AOD program of the Kutztown University
Health and Wellness Center. In addition to these more “business” oriented meetings, the
Roundtable brought in a variety of speakers as a means of educating students, University
personnel, and community members on topics relevant to student health, substance use, and risky
behaviors. Membership was very stable, with most of the members remaining active throughout
the life of the project.
The activities of the President’s Roundtable have now been incorporated into the
Kutztown University Strategic Plan as a university initiative. This decision is a significant
systematic change to the university structure and will result in the sustainability of the priority
programs implemented through the SPF-SIG initiative.
26
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
Section 6. Evaluation
1. Discuss the role of evaluation and the evaluator in your SPF-SIG Project. Include the
evaluator/lead agency relationship (internal or external evaluator, frequency of meetings,
reports, etc.).
The evaluator from the Community Prevention Partnership of Berks County and the lead agencies
(Council on Chemical Abuse and Kutztown University) worked closely together during the life of the
grant. Evaluation activities became more of a focus once programs were underway. The Evaluator
attended the quarterly Roundtable meeting’s when possible and provided periodic updates to the
Roundtable where data was presented. The major challenge in data collection was the accessibility of the
data. Program activity data, according to grant requirements, was entered into two different database
systems (PBPS and MRT). Each system had different report formats that became cumbersome in respect
to data analysis. University personnel provided oversight to the collection of both process and outcomes
data but changes in personnel resulted in sometimes inconsistent data collection patterns. However the
evaluator worked closely with key university personnel to monitor data collection and to insure that the
necessary data was available to evaluate the project.
2. Were specific process measures collected? If so, describe them here.
Process measures specific to each program were developed. Activity data collected for each program
was collected during the four year period of the grant. The following is a summary of the process
measures for each program:
CMCA
Process Measures:
 Number of attendees in the CMCA training -18 participants completed 16 hours of training in
CMCA in April 2008.
 Number of one on one interviews and input from interviews-56 interviews were completed
 Number of participants in President’s Roundtable and sub-committees – 25 participants
 Number of policy changes-Three policy/practice changes
FY2008/09- Good Samaritan Policy adopted
FY2010/11- Borough mayor obtains agreement from local alcohol distributors to
discontinue sale of alcohol energy beverages (before legislation was adopted).
FY2011/12-President’s Roundtable incorporated into Kutztown University strategic plan
CCAA
Process Measures:
 Number of focus groups conducted-Fifteen focus groups conducted with a total of 89 college
students(55 females and 34 males)
 Number of social norms materials developed-Materials developed, through funding by PASSHE,
included posters, social norms messages on water bottles, and a Facebook page. Materials
developed by Kutztown University, following the PASSHE project, included two radio
announcements.
27
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
AUDIT Screens
Process Measure: Number of screens
The following chart is a summary of AUDIT screens conducted during the SPF-SIG Initiative. The
number of AUDIT screens exceeded the projections for the third and fourth year of the project.
ATOD Intervention Program
AUDIT Screens
600
513
464
500
400
350
350
350
Number of Students
Projected
300
200
179
Number of Students Served
100 110
100
0
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
SPF-SIG Grant Year
BASICS
Process Measure: Number of students receiving BASIC Interventions.
The following chart is a summary of BASICS interventions conducted during the SPF-SIG
Initiative. With the first year of the grant primarily focusing on program development and
strategic planning, the BASICS program was not fully implemented until the second year of
SPF-SIG funding.
28
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
BASICS Interventions
120
100
100 103
100
106
100
80
Number of Students
Projected
60
40
Number of Students Served
23
20
0
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
SIF-SIG Grant Year
The following programs were approved in the Strategic Plan although not funded by the SPF-SIG
Initiative. These programs were in existence before the SPF-SIG Initiative and were coordinated with the
SPF-SIG programs.
Alcohol Edu
Process Measure
Number of freshmen who completed Alcohol EDU
FY08/09-1,549
FY09/10-1,553
FY10/11-1,414
FY11/12-1,257
Berks Under-age Drinking Program
Process Measure
Number of young adults referred by Kutztown District Magistrate
FY08/09-23
FY09/10-35
FY10/11-88
FY11/12-89
Health Promotion
Process Measure
Number and type of health promotion materials disseminated
FY08/09-3,415
FY09/10-2,126
FY10/11-1,586
FY11/12-1,545
29
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
3. General Outcomes.
The evaluation of the general outcomes of the project considered the changes in the social
indicator data relevant to the risk factors identified in the Strategic Plan. Findings documented a
reduction in three risk factors. The changes in one risk factor, Easy Access to Alcohol, could not
be tracked during the four year period of the grant due to the elimination from Alcohol Edu of
the survey question used as the indicator measure of the risk factor. Therefore another survey
question relevant to student access to alcohol was tracked.
Risk Factor
Low perceived risk of alcohol use
Outcome Measure: Percentage of freshmen who report chugging and high-risk drinking
In 2008/09, the baseline response from the Alcohol Edu survey of incoming freshman was that
50% reported chugging alcohol, and 25% were classified as high-risk drinkers. A survey of
freshmen students in the 2009/10 academic year showed that only 17% reported engaging in
chugging alcoholic beverages and 27% reported high-risk drinking. A survey of freshmen
students in the 2010/11 academic year show that 17% reported engaging in chugging alcoholic
beverages and 25% reported high-risk drinking. Follow-up surveys of freshmen students in the
2011/12 academic year showed that 18% reported engaging in chugging alcoholic beverages
and 23% reported high-risk drinking.
Chugging and High-risk Drinking
Kutztown College Freshmen
2008/09-2011/12
Source: Alcohol Edu for Colleges Surveys
60%
50%
40%
50%
Chugging
30%
20%
25%
10%
27%
17%
25%
17%
23%
18%
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
0%
2008/09
30
High-risk Drinking
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
Risk Factor
Social norms accepting and/or encouraging young adult drinking
Measure: Percentage of freshmen who are non-drinkers and the percentage of students
who are considered high-risk drinkers
The following chart illustrates a 2% increase from 2008 to 2012 in the percentage of freshmen
who are non-drinkers and a 2% decrease during that same period in the percentage of freshmen
who are considered high-risk drinkers. The reduction of this risk factor could be attributed to the
combined impact of the SPF-SIG programs that sought to change the norms of the university
environment in respect to the acceptance of young adult drinking.
Drinking Rates of Kutztown
University Freshmen
2008/09-2011/12
Source: AlcoholEdu for Colleges Surveys
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
15%
25%
15%
23%
14%
61%
58%
60%
63%
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
25%
14%
27%
High risk drinkers
Moderate drinkers
Non-drinkers
When comparing Kutztown University freshmen drinking rates to national averages, the 2011/12
percentage of non-drinkers is higher (63% of Kutztown freshmen are non-drinkers compared to
58% of the national average). The percentage of high-risk drinkers is lower (23% of Kutztown
freshmen are high-risk drinkers compared to 28% of the national average).
Comparison of 2011/12
Freshmen Drinking Rates
Kutztown University and
National Average
Source: AlcoholEdu for Colleges Surveys
80%
60%
40%
20%
Kutztown University
63% 58%
14% 16%
23% 28%
Moderate
drinkers
High-risk
drinkers
National Average
0%
Non-drinkers
31
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
Risk Factor: Easy social access to alcohol
Measure: Percentage of student who reported that they obtained alcohol at parties and the
percentage of students who reported they obtained alcohol they knew who is older than 21.
Of the Kutztown University freshmen who reported drinking in the 2007/08 Alcohol Edu, 55%
reported that they obtained their alcohol mainly at parties and 32% reported they obtained
alcohol from someone they know who is older than 21. This question was not contained in
Alcohol Edu in subsequent years. Therefore the survey question of where students drink was
utilized to measure changes in youth access. In the 2009/10 Alcohol Edu survey, 68% of the
student drinkers reported drinking off-campus while 12% reported drinking in
fraternities/sororities. By the 2011/12 Alcohol Edu survey, 56% of the student drinker reported
drinking off-campus while 28% reported drinking in fraternities. According to the Alcohol Edu
for College 2011/12 Executive Summary, with a higher percentage of students reporting
drinking in fraternities/sororities, efforts should be made to target this location with increased
prevention efforts.
A. The measure used to collect data (data source, specific wording)
Alcohol Edu is an on-line survey completed by college freshmen and policy violators. The
Alcohol Edu freshmen survey data was utilized for indicators of three risk factors: low perceived
risk of alcohol use, social norms accepting and/or encouraging young adult drinking, and
easy access to alcohol.
The specific Alcohol Edu survey questions for each risk factor are as follows:
Low perceived risk of alcohol use
 When you drink, to what degree do you do the following-Chug alcohol
A. Never
B. Always
Social norms accepting and/or encouraging young adult drinking
 During the past year have you consumed alcohol (i.e. had more than a few sips of
wine, beer, or liquor)
A. Yes
B. No
Easy social access to alcohol
 In the past two weeks when you consumed alcohol, where did you spend most of
your time drinking?
A. A bar or nightclub
B. A restaurant
C. In an on-campus residence
D. In an off-campus resident
E. Fraternity/sorority house
F. At an athletic event
G. Outside setting
H. In a car
B. How often data were collected (timeliness)
Alcohol Edu survey data was collected on an annual basis.
C. Type of design (pretest/posttest, etc.)
32
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
The Kutztown University SPF-SIG initiative did not administer education programs therefore
pretests and posttests were not administered. The Alcohol Edu surveys were administered to
freshmen students at three intervals: before arrival at campus, midway through the Fall Semester,
and after completion of Alcohol Edu. Data from the third survey was used as baseline data and
to report changes in student behaviors and attitudes regarding alcohol use during the life of the
grant.
D. Discuss any ongoing challenges to data collection throughout the course of the grant, as well
as any threats to the validity of the data.
The major challenge to data collection was the adherence to the changing requirements
from the funder with respect to what measures were appropriate or approved for various
aspects of the project. The efforts of the project were environmental in nature and would
not be adequately reflected in a measurement such as the NOMS survey. Also the adult
and youth NOMS survey was not designed for young adults/college students and
therefore would not provide useful data for program evaluation. Since Alcohol Edu was
the most consistent data collected over the four year grant period, it was utilized to assess
program outcomes. One minor challenge occurred when the Alcohol Edu survey
questions were modified and the question utilized to collect baseline data for youth
access to alcohol was eliminated. It should be noted that the cohort of the numbers of
students surveyed varied throughout the grant period, however this change was not
considered a threat to the validity of the data.
Risk Factor: Availability of screening/early intervention
Measure: Number of college students who were referred to AUDIT screens and BASICS
intervention services
The integration of the AUDIT screens and the BASICS program into the university’s
AOD services had a major impact on addressing the risk factor of availability of screening/early
intervention services. The delivery of these programs by the staff at Kutztown University Health
and Wellness Center and the social norms campaign messages also changed the perception of
alcohol abuse to a health issue. During the life of the project, the number of students receiving
intervention services increased significantly. AUDIT screens increased from 110 screens in
FY2008/09 to 464 screens in FY2011/12. In respect to the growth of the BASICS program, 23
BASICS interventions were conducted in FY2009/10 compared to 106 BASICS intervention in
FY2011/12.
The data collected through the 2011/12 AUDIT screens will assist in the on-going strategic
planning process. The following chart illustrates the risk level of the college students screened
during the last year of the grant.
33
Final Report for Kutztown SPF-SIG Initiative
July 2012
Kutztown University AUDIT Screens
2011-2012
N=464
AUDIT
0-7 - Not at risk
3%
31%
8-18-Potential risk
66%
19-25-Possible alcohol
dependence
Before the strategic plan was developed, screens were conducted at annual screening events to a
mostly universal population. As the project shifted to serving a higher-risk population, efforts
were directed to engaging these students in AUDIT screens and BASIC Interventions. With the
increased identification of higher-risk students, on-going strategy planning will need to
determine how to best address the needs of these students for drug and alcohol evaluation and
treatment services.
A. The measure used to collect data (data source, specific wording)
The number of students who participated in AUDIT screens and BASICS interventions
were the data measures considered in the assessment of this risk factor.
B. How often data were collected (timeliness)
This data was collected and reported on a bi-weekly basis.
C. Type of design (pretest/posttest, etc.)
A comparison of the number of students receiving AUDIT screens and BASICS
Interventions was tracked. The outcomes of the AUDIT screens were also tracked.
D. Discuss any ongoing challenges to data collection throughout the course of the grant,
as well as any threats to the validity of the data.
There was no challenge in the collection of this data.
34