A Plan offered from the Harrisonburg Community on
How JMU can end
“Institutional Enabling”
of the
JMU Negative Alcohol Culture
1. Introduction
2. JMU Negative Alcohol Culture
3. Scope of the problem
a. National data
b. JMU specific data
i. "Alcohol and Drug Use Among James Madison University Students"
2008 study
ii. CORE Survey Data
iii. JMU Judicial Summary Reports
4. Ways in which JMU Policies and Practices may be part of “Institutional Enabling”
a. JUM Policies and Practices regarding alcohol misconduct
1. “In loco parentis” and “Three Strikes Rule”
2. JMU Strategic Plan
3. BASICS- Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College
Students
4. Environmental Scan Study-JMU
5. Suggested Plan for JMU to end “Institutional Enabling” of the Negative Alcohol Culture
1. INTRODUCTION:
JMU has been labeled by JUM President Linwood Rose as having a “Negative Alcohol
Culture”. This paper examines the elements that contribute to the Negative Alcohol Culture.
One of those elements is “Institutional Enabling” by JMU. This is similar to “Institutional
Racism” which means:
The term Institutional Racism is credited to Sir William Macpherson reported in his inquiry into
the death of Stephen Lawrence (1999). Stephen Lawrence was a Black British man from
Eltham, south east London, who was murdered in a racist attack while waiting for a bus on the
evening of 22 April 1993. Macpherson noted that “Institutional Racism” was a major factor in
the investigation into Lawrence’s death. The definition given by William Macpherson was “the
collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people
because of their color, culture, or ethnic origin… It is incumbent on every institution to examine
their policies and the outcomes of their policies and practices to guard against disadvantaging
any section of our communities . . .”
Enabling is a concept frequently identified in Al Anon groups as one of the activities that
family members and friends engage in that contribute to alcohol problems. One definition of
enabling is offered below:
Enabling is doing for someone things that they could, and should be doing themselves. In
relation to alcoholism, enabling creates an atmosphere in which the alcoholic can comfortably
continue unacceptable behavior.
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/basics/g/enabling.htm
1
Combining the two concepts then the following definition of “Institutional Enabling” is
offered:
The collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional
service in that it creates policies and practices in which the alcohol abuser can
comfortably continue unacceptable behavior
As part of this document JMU policies and practices will be examined to see how they
may be part of Institutional Enabling.
2. JUM Negative Alcohol Culture
In an article in the Harrisonburg Daily News Record newspaper JMU President Linwood
Rose refers to the “JMU Negative Alcohol Culture.” JUM made national headlines with the
April 10, 2010 Spring Fest Riot. Over 8000 people, both JMU students and youth from
many towns and Universities in Virginia converged on Harrisonburg to attend an annual
student neighborhood spring block party. The event turned violent and over 200 law
enforcement personnel from multiple agencies and jurisdictions arrived in riot gear to clear
the crowd. Twenty six (26) persons were arrested. The outcome of the arrests are
summarized below:
Of the 26 arrested, 21 were charged with public intoxication and/or failure to disperse
from an unlawful assembly, both misdemeanors. Most of these cases were prosecuted by
June 2010. Thirteen were convicted of one of the charges. Four were convicted on both
charges. Guilty verdicts resulted in fines of between $25 and $550. Four people had both
charges dropped, dismissed or were found not guilty.
The remaining five had charges that included felonies and that could result in jail time.





Justin Lyons was found not guilty of assault on a law enforcement officer and
participating in a riot with a deadly weapon.
Japheth Rawls IV was arrested on four counts, including felony assault on a law
enforcement officer and participating in a riot with a deadly weapon. He reached
an agreement with the Commonwealth’s Attorney where the charges were
reduced and he plead guilty to misdemeanor simple assault and participating in a
riot and was sentenced to seven months in jail.
Christopher Dashiell, coverage of whose case was absent in the local media,
ended up with the longest sentence resulting from the incident. Dashiell, who was
originally charged with felony assault on a police officer and unlawful assembly,
pleaded guilty to reduced charges of misdemeanor assault and disorderly
conduct. He was sentenced to 20 months in jail.
Lucie Banting was originally charged with failure to leave an unlawful assembly
and felony assault and battery on a police officer and conspiring to incite a riot.
The Commonwealth’s Attorney dropped her charges, citing “new information”
(“Charges Dropped in Riot Case,” Daily News-Record, Jan. 22, 2011).
Peter Morgner originally faced 12 charges, including nine felony charges of
assault on a law enforcement officer and attempted malicious wounding of a law
enforcement officer. Morgner’s attorneys tried to have the trial moved and
subpoenaed Commonwealth’s Attorney Marsha Garst to testify at the trial. Both
2
were unsuccessful. On January 27 a failed attempt to select a jury resulted in a
mistrial. On February 22, Morgner’s attorneys and the Commonwealth’s
Attorney office reached an agreement where Morgner plead guilty to one count of
felony assault on a police officer in return for having the remaining charges
dropped. He was sentenced to six months in jail. Having been in jail since July
2010 for violating his bail, Morgner’s time served was applied to his sentence and
he was released. Morgner’s guilty plea resulted in the only felony charge
successfully prosecuted from the incidents at Village Lane.
The Storm’s Wake: The Legal Aftermath of Springfest 2010, Jeremiah Knupp -March 8th, 2011 http://hburgnews.com/2011/03/08/the-storms-wake-the-legalaftermath-of-springfest-2010/
The Year 2010 was not the first time that JMU student’s alcohol behavior spilled over to
the Harrisonburg Community and caused violence:
"At James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia, the 2000 school year began
with mass arrest as more than seven hundred partying students confronted riot police
and state troopers. The students were celebrating school's beginning with an annual
progressive party, drinking at seven different student apartments in residential
neighborhood. At least twenty students were arrested, many for underage drinking and
public drunkenness, before police broke up the melee"
(above quotes from: "Dying to Drink: Confronting Binge Drinking on College
Campuses, by Henry Wechsler and Bernice Wuethrich, 2002, Rodale Inc.)
To understand the JMU Negative Alcohol Culture and how that led to violence and the
riot the scope of the problem needs to be examined on both the National level and the JMU
specific level
3. SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM:
Negative Alcohol Culture is not unique to JMU. Research and data exist that examine
the extent of this problem nationwide on college/university campuses.
a. NATIONAL DATA:
"National surveys indicate that from 1999 to 2005 ( Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration 200, 2002, 2006) the percentage of 18-to 24 - year old college students
who drank five or more drinks on an occasion in the previous 30 days increased from 41.7
percent to 45.2 percent, a significant 8 percent proportional increase."
"NIAAA reports have documented that heavy-drinking college students not only place
their own health at risk, they jeopardize the well-being of others:


As many as 46 percent of the 4,553 people killed in 2005 in crashes involving 18- to 24year old drinking drivers were people other than the drinking driver.
Further, a national survey in 2001 indicated that over 690,00 college students that year
Nationwide were hit or assaulted by a drinking college student and
3

97,000 students were the victim of a date rape or assault perpetrated by a drinking college
student (Hingson and Zha 2009)
(From "Focus on College Drinking and Related Problems, Vol. 33 Nos. 1 and 2 ,
2010, Magnitude and Prevention of College Drinking and Related Problems, by Ralph
Hingson SC.D, M.P.H. , Director, Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research,
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Bethesda, Maryland.)
"The Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study (CAS) is an ongoing
survey of more than fifty thousand students at 140 four-year colleges located in forty states....
The participating schools were selected to represent public and private, urban and rural
institutions of all sizes and academic competitiveness."
"..we defined the term binge drinking for men as having five or more drinks in a row at
least once in the prior two weeks, and for women as having four or more in a row....We
classify as "occasional binge drinkers" those students who drank in this manner once or
twice in the previous two weeks, and we classify as "frequent binge drinkers" those who
drank in this way three or more times in two weeks..."
"...The CAS have established a strong relationship between binge drinking and the number and
severity of problems that students face. For example:
 frequent binge drinkers are seventeen times more likely to miss a class, ten times more
likely to vandalize property, and eight times more likely to get hurt or injured as a result
of their drinking than are students who drink but do not binge..."
U S Surgeon General David Satcher called this "the most serious public health problem
on American college campuses today"
"...One study estimates that fourteen hundred college students aged eighteen to twentyfour are killed each year as a result of drinking. They die from alcohol-related motor
vehicle crashes, other unintentional injuries, and alcohol overdoses. At least half a
million more students suffer unintentional injury while under the influence..."
"..College students nationally spend $5.5 billion on alcohol each year, more than they
spend on soft drinks, tea, milk, juice, coffee, and schoolbooks combined..."
"..Our CAS has determined that two in five college students, including freshman, can be
called binge drinkers..."
College drinking facts:



73 percent of fraternity and 57 percent of sorority members are binge drinkers.
58 percent of male athletes and 47 percent of female athletes are binge drinkers
Frequent binge drinkers constitute less than one-quarter of all students (23 percent) but
consume three-quarters (72 percent) of all the alcohol college students drink.
 A ring of bars and liquor stores surrounds most colleges. At one college we found 185
alcohol outlets within two miles of campus
(above quotes from: "Dying to Drink: Confronting Binge Drinking on College Campuses, by
Henry Wechsler and Bernice Wuethrich, 2002, Rodale Inc)
4
B. JMU SPECIFIC DATA
JMU collects a large amount of data regarding alcohol use and misconduct related to
alcohol. Below are highlights from:
i.
"Alcohol and Drug Use Among James Madison University Students" 2008 study:
Key Findings:






Of the students reporting, 83.3% report that they have used alcohol in the past 30 days.
This percentage has steadily increased through the years with the 2008 population
reporting 83.3%, which is the highest 30-day prevalence since data has been collected at
JMU and well above the 2008 national reference group (71.9%)
Students report they consume 8.0 drinks per week. The national average is 5.5.
62.2% of the students reported having "binged" (having five or more drinks in one
sitting) in the last two weeks. The national average is 46.7%
Since the early 1990's various university alcohol prevention task forces have attempted to
re-shape the campus culture and correct student misperceptions to reduce alcohol related
problems on our campus
50.5% of the students reported some form of public misconduct. Examples include
being arrested for DWI/DUI, trouble with police or college authority, or driving while
under the influence at least once during the past year as a result of drinking or drug use.
39.1% of the students reported that they, at least once during the past year, as a result of
drinking or drug use, experienced some kind of serious personal problems including the
following experiences:
o Suicide thoughts,
o suicide attempts,
o becoming hurt or injured,
o trying unsuccessfully to stop using alcohol, tobacco or other drugs,
o
being taken advantage of sexually and
o
performing poorly on a test or important university project and
o
less serious and more common-place problems such as:

memory loss,
 nausea or
 vomiting and hangovers

Students identified the following ways in which other students' alcohol consumption
negatively affects their academic, social or other aspects associated with the quality of
life on campus:
o interrupts studying
o makes you feel unsafe
o messes up physical living space
o adversely affects athletic team/other groups
o prevents you from enjoying events
o interferes in other ways

Prior to their arrival on campus, 38.3% of students feel that JMU tolerates drinking but
tries to keep students from becoming drunk and disorderly.
The majority of students (48.9%) report that their best sexual experience did not involve
drinking alcohol

5

The majority of students (56.8%) report that they prefer a non-alcoholic activity on a
normal Friday or Saturday night
 Consistent programming that makes an impact on the campus culture is imperative to reverse
the negative trends seen at JMU
Study Conclusion:
"Sporadic programs with short-term results are occurring, but progress towards long-term goals
is not being made."
Above information from: "Alcohol and Drug Use Among James Madison University
Students" 2008 by Laurie Gabriele, research assistant, The Office of Substance Abuse
Research, JMU. (Available at the JMU web site)
ii. CORE Survey Data:
JMU also participates in the CORE survey. A summary of 2010 data is listed below
indicating basically similar data to the 2008 study above:
iii. JMU Judicial Summary Reports
The below data is taken from JMU, Judicial Summary reports. JMU does not separate
out the data in terms of sanctions that are specifically related to alcohol charges. The “BASICS”
program (Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students) is specifically related
to an alcohol program so data from that sanction is included. The sanction of “suspended from
the University” is provided but it is a total number of suspensions for any reason not just alcohol
charges.
The table below shows that “Cases based on charges brought by University Public Safety,
Students, Faculty and Staff” average near 50% of the cases that the JMU’s judicial system
receives. The community “Cases based on charges brought by Harrisonburg Police Department”
average near 90% of the cases that the community receives. It is clear why the community is
as concerned about the JMU Negative Alcohol Culture as the community is significantly
impacted.
6
BASICS
7/1/2005 Cases based on charges
To
brought by University
6/30/2006 Public Safety, Students,
Faculty and Staff
Cases based on charges
brought by Harrisonburg
Police Department
SUSPENSION
CASES –BOTH JMU
AND HPD
TOTAL
ALCOHOL
CHARGES
FALL
4
26
358 (59%)
SPRING
7
14
296 (52%)
SEMESTER
YEAR
14
253 (95%)
267
SPRING
2
8
121 (92%)
131
1028
FALL
2
8
410 (58%)
SPRING
4
12
329 (53%)
FALL
5
9
292 (92%)
SPRING
1
2
137 (91%)
BASICS
Cases based on charges
brought by University
Public Safety, Students,
Faculty and Staff
Cases based on charges
brought by
Harrisonburg Police
Department
SUSPENSION
CASES –BOTH JMU
AND HPD
1168
TOTAL
ALCOHOL
CHARGES
FALL
7
13
412 (57%)
SPRING
1
3
13
366 (51%)
FALL
3
18
233 (94%)
SPRING
3
11
120 (90%)
SEMESTER
7/1/2007
To
6/30/2008
1184
Totals for 2007 to 2008
1131
654 (55%)
573
2
Totals for 2006 to 2007
YEAR
611
FALL
Totals for 2005 to 2006
07/01/2006 Cases based on charges
to
brought by University
06/30/2007 Public Safety, Students,
Faculty and Staff
Cases based on charges
brought by Harrisonburg
Police Department
TOTAL ALL
CHARGES
TOTAL ALCOHOL
CHARGES EACH
SEMESTER AND
TOTAL CHARGES
FOR YEAR
1028
(65%)
398
374 (94%)
65%
of total of all cases JMU and HPD
are alcohol cases
703
1328
739 (56%)
625
318
1168
(65%)
468
150
429 (92%)
66%
of total of all cases JMU and HPD
are alcohol cases
TOTAL
ALCOHOL
CHARGES EACH
TOTAL ALL
CHARGES
SEMESTER AND
TOTAL CHARGES
FOR YEAR
723
1444
778 (53%)
721
247
133
1824
(62%)
380
353 (93%)
62%
of total of all cases JMU and HPD
are alcohol cases
7
FALL
BASICS
Cases based on charges
brought by University
Public Safety, Students,
Faculty and Staff
Cases based on charges
brought by Harrisonburg
Police Department
SEMESTER
07/01/2008
to
06/30/2009
CASES –BOTH JMU
AND HPD
SUSPENSION
YEAR
TOTAL
ALCOHOL
CHARGES
2
20
356 (56%)
SPRING
14
24
385 (55%)
702
FALL
5
22
285 (95%)
300
SPRING
5
13
127 (87%)
146
FALL
BASICS
Cases based on charges
brought by University
Public Safety, Students,
Faculty and Staff
Cases based on charges
brought by Harrisonburg
Police Department
SUSPENSION
CASES –BOTH JMU
AND HPD
1153
SEMESTER
7/1/2009
To
6/30/2010
TOTAL
ALCOHOL
CHARGES
12
36
409 (51%)
375 (50%)
752
FALL
7
38
463 (91%)
509
SPRING
7
29
334 (91%)
369
SPRING
BASICS
FALL
SUSPENSION
Cases based on charges
brought by University
Public Safety, Students,
Faculty and Staff
Cases based on charges
brought by Harrisonburg
Police Department
796
32
CASES –BOTH JMU
AND HPD
TOTAL
ALCOHOL
CHARGES
11
59
436 (57%)
784 (51%)
1581
(65%)
878
797 (91%)
65%
of total of all cases JMU and HPD
are alcohol cases
TOTAL
ALCOHOL
CHARGES EACH
TOTAL ALL
CHARGES
SEMESTER AND
TOTAL CHARGES
FOR YEAR
759
12
42
349 (46%)
692
FALL
8
33
398 (97%)
412
SPRING
11
28
254 (90%)
281
Totals for 2008 to 2009
412 (92%)
65%
of total of all cases JMU and HPD
are alcohol cases
TOTAL
ALCOHOL
CHARGES EACH
TOTAL ALL
CHARGES
SEMESTER AND
TOTAL CHARGES
FOR YEAR
9
SEMESTER
07/01/2010
to
06/30/2011
446
SPRING
1581
750 (56%)
1162
(65%)
1548
Totals for 2009 to 2010
YEAR
634
1336
Totals for 2008 to 2009
YEAR
TOTAL ALL
CHARGES
TOTAL
ALCOHOL
CHARGES EACH
SEMESTER AND
TOTAL CHARGES
FOR YEAR
1451
785 (54%)
(5(54%) 1437
67%
693
652 (94%)
%
of total of all cases JMU and HPD
are alcohol cases
8
FALL
BASICS
Cases based on charges
brought by University
Public Safety, Students,
Faculty and Staff
Cases based on charges
brought by Harrisonburg
Police Department
SUSPENSION
7/1/2011
To
6/30/2012
CASES –BOTH JMU
AND HPD
SEMESTER
YEAR
TOTAL
ALCOHOL
CHARGES
3
62
451 (56%)
SPRING
2
67
349 (51%)
678
FALL
7
40
261 (92%)
285
SPRING
5
22
169 (91%)
195
FALL
SPRING
BASICS
Cases based on charges
brought by University
Public Safety, Students,
Faculty and Staff
Cases based on charges
brought by Harrisonburg
Police Department
SUSPENSION
CASES –BOTH JMU
AND HPD
800 (54%)
1256
(64%)
480
456 (95%)
64%
of total of all cases JMU and HPD
are alcohol cases
SEMESTER
07/01/2012
to
06/12/2013
806
1484
Totals for 2009 to 2010
YEAR
TOTAL ALL
CHARGES
TOTAL ALCOHOL
CHARGES EACH
SEMESTER AND
TOTAL CHARGES
FOR YEAR
10
50
TOTAL
ALCOHOL
CHARGES
TOTAL ALL
CHARGES
TOTAL ALCOHOL
CHARGES EACH
SEMESTER AND
TOTAL CHARGES
FOR YEAR
453 (55%) 823
1570
13
71
324 (43%) 747
FALL
4
19
196 (92%) 212
SPRING
2
13
121 (89%) 136
777 (49%)
1089
(57%)
348
312 (90%)
57%
of total of all cases JMU and HPD
are alcohol cases
SOURCE: All Data from JMU Office of Judicial Affairs, Judicial Summary reports
Totals for 2008 to 2009
4. WAYS IN WHICH JMU POLICIES AND PRACTICES MAY BE PART OF
“INSTITUTIONAL ENABLING”
“Institutional Enabling”:
“The collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional
service in that it creates policies and practices in which the alcohol abuser can comfortably
continue unacceptable behavior”
It is clear from the data that whatever programs, disciplinary sanctions, educational
efforts or other actions that JMU has implemented over the years that it has not been effective in
decreasing the amount of binge drinking and alcohol related negative behaviors of JMU students.
9
The data consistently show that over 50% of the Judicial issues of JMU students are alcohol
related and over 90% of the HPD charges are for alcohol issues. When a major problem that has
led to a near riot in 2000 and a riot in 2010 in the city of Harrisonburg, continues to be an
ongoing issue and has not been effectively addressed then it is logical to ask: WHY?
One element may be “Institutional Enabling” by JMU.
a. JUM Policies and Practices regarding alcohol misconduct:
1.
“In loco Parentis” and “Three Strikes Rule”
In the JMU Student Handbook under the Student Rights & Responsibilities section #3
notes "James Madison University is no sanctuary from the general law…” JMU like most
colleges and universities rejects the legal concept of “in loco parentis”.
The legal doctrine of in loco parentis "...existed in the 1950's and prior. This
view held that a college replaced the role of a parent when one entered an institution of
higher education. The institution had virtually complete control over the behavior of
students (subject to the limits that parents have in controlling the behavior of their own
children) and thereby had similar obligation as a parent over safety issues"
Over the years the legal environment has changed from the in loco parentis doctrine to
the "bystander" attitude to the 1990s establishing the "Duty Era". A number or court
cases have found that colleges and universities owe a "duty" to students under several
legal theories of liability.
"...Two basis fact patterns have resulted in defendant success:
1) When a potentially dangerous physical condition exist (such as faulty locks on dorm)
and repairs are not made,
2) When a prevailing dangerous practice is common by students (such as hazing in
pledge initiations), it is known by college officials and addressed in policy statements, but
reasonable efforts are not made to stop or limit such practices, and
3) Officials are aware of a specific dangerous activity where injury results, but do not
take reasonable steps to limit the possibility of the foreseeable danger..."
Liability theory of negligence has four elements.




the establishment of a duty
the breach of that duty
harm or injury has occurred
the breach of the duty was the proximate cause of the harm or injury
"...the courts are rightly applying reasonable care standards to colleges and universities
similar to that applicable to commercial operations in general. This reflects the reality
that colleges are not only academic centers, but have many other roles, such as landlord
with respect to student and faculty housing and that as a place open to the public where
visitors are welcomed. In those roles, courts are increasingly holding the institutions to
the reasonable care standard when duty exist under rules applicable to other business
establishments."
10
(From Colleges' Civil Liability Exposure Related to Student Safety, on the web
atcompelledtoact.com/involvement_pages/Litigation/Civil_law_an...)
* The article notes that most of the above discussion is drawn from "The Rights and
Responsibilities of the Modern University, (Carolina Academic Press, 1999), by Robert
D.Bickel and Peter F. Lake. Additionally, information was drawn from "Shared
Responsibility: The Duty to Legal Externs, by Kathleen Connolly Butler.
Therefore JMU has some legal duties to provide for a safe environment for students,
staff, faculty and visitors. At the same time JMU expects the student to be an adult and JMU
does not take on the role of “parent.”
This leads to questioning the famous “Three Strikes” policy at JMU.
2. What is the "Three Strikes" policy?
“Once the Office of Judicial Affairs has found a student responsible for an on-campus or
off-campus alcohol or drug violation, they will receive a sanction and a strike. After
being found responsible for three alcohol or drug violations, a student may be
suspended"
(On the web at: www.jmu.edu/judicial/student/studentfaq.shtml)
This policy says "may" not "shall" and therefore is not a mandatory outcome. Looking
at the data from Judicial Affairs it is clear that this is not a very frequent sanction. In the Year
7/1/2009 to 6/30/2010 the total number of "Suspended from University" was 35. (Not all of those
are for alcohol violations) That is out of 3575 sanctions and 2426 charges. So less than 1% of
the total sanctions were suspension from the University and 1.4% of the charges resulted in
suspension from the University.
The Judicial Affairs office reported that in their data base covering ten years (2000-2010)
there have been a total of 212 "three strikes" and of those who have had "three strikes" 78 have
been suspended. Judicial Affairs notes “As you can see in the end there are very few students
who receive three strikes for alcohol violations."
This shows evidence of the JMU “Institutional Enabling” the negative alcohol culture by not
holding students significantly accountable for their alcohol behavior misconduct the first time
they violate alcohol polices. For that matter over a ten year period of the 212 three strike
offenders, only 37% resulted in suspension. It seems like JMU reverts back to the in loco
parentis role when it comes to dealing with alcohol misconduct by students and a parent that
does not enforce limits.
3. JMU Strategic Plan 2014
The JMU web page has a link to their Strategic Plan, which appears to have been
developed for 2008-2014. The plan has some specific Performance Indicators dealing with
measuring the impact of change efforts on alcohol behavior of students. Below is the first goal
and performance indicator. As you review the Strategic Plan please note performance indicator
1.3, highlighted below.
JMU Student Affairs and University Planning Vision and Strategic Plan 2014
11
Goal 1: We will create and maintain campus environments that increase students’ ability
to make healthy choices in their lives.
Objectives
1.1 We will more effectively teach and engage students in the components of a life that
balances physical, spiritual, social, occupational, emotional, intellectual, cultural
and environmental aspects.
Performance Indicators 1.1 We will adopt a common “healthy choices” wellness
model. Staff members in all departments will know how to use the model to create and
maintain programs and services.
We will use a variety of methods to inform students about the most common issues and
concerns impacting them and will provide students with resources, assistance and
strategies to effectively address these concerns.
All graduates will participate in wellness programs in which they learn strategies and
principles related to maintaining a healthy lifestyle, as measured through the Continuing
Student Survey and an Assessment Day instrument.
1.2 We will help students assume greater responsibility for their personal safety, and we
will minimize risk in divisional programs and services.
Performance Indicators 1.2
Students will demonstrate increased knowledge and more appropriate behavior regarding
their responsibility for personal safety in such areas as sexual health, harm to self and
others, living areas, alcohol, substance abuse and transportation, as measured by
differences between reported behaviors at the time of enrollment and later reported
behaviors through departmental assessments.
Students will receive monthly communication from the university regarding timely safety
issues and each student’s own areas of responsibility (e.g., flu shots, securing apartments
during holidays, healthy alcohol choices, etc.).
All Student Affairs and University Planning (SAUP) departments will identify the risk
management and personal safety issues most relevant to their programs and services.
These departments will collaborate with other university offices to develop appropriate
interventions.
Staff in all SAUP departments will complete instruction related to recognizing and
responding to the warning signs of student behaviors that might be detrimental to
themselves and others
1.3 We will refocus and improve alcohol education and behavior management programs.
Performance Indicators 1.3
The SAUP division will engage in a comprehensive review of alcohol education and
behavior management resulting in:
 adoption of a comprehensive plan for substance abuse prevention.
 communication of a consistent university-wide position on alcohol use/abuse
12

.implementation of key strategies to increase alcohol knowledge and decrease the
negative consequences of alcohol abuse.
Students will demonstrate increased knowledge of alcohol laws and consequences, health
considerations, social norms, personal values and university expectations regarding
alcohol use.
Students will report a decrease in negative behaviors associated with alcohol use as
reported by the Core Alcohol and Drug Survey, the American College Health
Association survey and other campus reports.
All SAUP staff members and student employees will successfully complete professional
development training on college student alcohol use/abuse.
The division will develop web-based and other programming efforts to help instructional
faculty respond to student behavior that commonly causes uncertainty, concern and/or
alarm.
The data from 2008 to 2010 Core Survey clearly demonstrates that there has been a minimal
decrease in negative behaviors associated with alcohol use by JMU students. The decision by
4. BASICSScreening
and Intervention
College
Students
JMU to discontinue
using theBrief
CoreAlcohol
survey in
2011 is disappointing
as thisfor
was
the measure
that consistently demonstrated the alcohol problem at JMU. This is another indication of
JMU “Institutional Enabling.”
BASICS- (Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Student)
JMU provides an alcohol education program called BASICS. This program is evidenced
based and in use nationwide. There is an inherent assumption that in providing a program that
provides alcohol education that this equals changes in behavior. The BASICS program may be
effective in imparting knowledge about alcohol to at risk students but does it lead to change in
alcohol behavior by students? We know that society has done a good job informing students
about the association of tobacco use with lung cancer yet we still have a significant number of
students who use tobacco products, so knowledge alone does not always lead to behavior change.
Below is a description of BASICS from the JMU web site.
At James Madison University, the University Health Center’s Substance Abuse
Prevention coordinates BASICS - Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College
Students. This evidence-based program is an early intervention strategy specifically
designed for traditional college age students.
The BASICS program is designed to help students evaluate their risk and alcohol
expectancies; it is not an abstinence based program.
A.
Who is it for?
It is aimed at students who drink alcohol heavily and have experienced or are at risk for
experiencing alcohol-related negative consequences.
The BASICS program is a service available to JMU students who want to consider
changing or reducing their substance use. This may include students who:
 self-refer
 are referred by administrators, faculty/staff, coaches, or friends
 are mandated by Judicial Affairs for a JMU alcohol policy violation
 are court-mandated to complete substance abuse prevention hours
13
B.
Approach
The BASICS program is comprised of two 50-minute interview sessions.
The first session retrieves information from the student about his/her substance use, using
a self-assessment instrument.
The second session is a feedback session designed to help the student assess his/her own
behavior and potential risks, identify potential changes, and help reduce future problems
related to substance abuse.
The program’s style is empathetic, non-confrontational, and non-judgmental, making it
engaging to most college students.
C.
Confidentiality
Without the student’s consent, everything the student says in the sessions is confidential,
unless the facilitator is required, by law, to break confidentiality to protect that student or
somebody else from harm.
If you have questions about confidentiality or its limits, the facilitator will be able to
answer these questions at the first session.
D.
Scheduling BASICS
To discuss the appropriateness and scheduling of BASICS for an individual student,
please contact Tia Mann (BASICS Prevention Specialist) at manntl@jmu.edu or
540-568-5501 or 540-568-5501
E.
BASICS Effectiveness
In Fall 2009, the University Health Center’s Substance Abuse Prevention started to
formally evaluate the effectiveness of BASICS at JMU. The evaluation includes a pre-test,
1-month posttest, and 3-month posttest design.
The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) has given basics a Tier
1 classification, which includes "strategies that show evidence of effectiveness with
college students." Many research studies have shown motivational interviewing to be
effective in reducing peak BAC, typical BAC, negative consequences related to drinking,
and quantity and frequency of drinking. For a comprehensive look at these studies,
please visit http://www.motivationalinterview.org/library/outcome_files/frame.htm.
F.
Basics Presentations
Motivational Interviewing
What were the results of the BASICS program as measured by JMU?
JMU students may refer themselves to the BASICS program or be referred by JMU
administrators, faculty/staff, coaches, friends. Students may also be mandated to participate in
BASICS programming by JMU Judicial Affairs as a result of a JMU alcohol policy violation or a
court mandate to complete substance abuse prevention hours. Students who participate in
BASICS complete a mandatory pre-test, are encouraged to complete a 1-month post-test, and an
additional 3-month post-test. Each assessment contains identical measures including the Daily
Drinking Questionnaire (Collins, Parks, & Marlatt, 1985), the Alcohol Use Disorders
Identification Test (AUDIT; Babor, Biddle-Higgins, Saunders, & Monteiro, 2001; Saunders,
Aasland, Babor, de la Fuente, & Grant, 1993), the Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index (RAPI; White
& Labouvie, 1989), and the Situational Temptations Scale – short form (Maddock, Laforge, &
Rossi, 2000), and Student Make-Changes Ruler(modified from the Readiness Ruler; Center for
Evidence-Based Practices, Case Western Reserve University, 2010).
14
DETAILS IN REPORT
Table 1 presents the number of participants who completed the BASICS
assessments across the three time points. A total of 59 participants completed the BASICS
pre-test, post-test 1 month, post-test 3 months, or any combination of the three
assessments. Note that only 19 participants had complete data for the pre- post-test 1
month, and post-test 3 months items. There seems to be a major issue with participants
completing the entirety of the tests across the three test administrations. This could be an
issue of program attrition, student failure to respond to all pre- and post-test assessment
items, or incorrectly entering identification numbers across test administrations. Several
participants were removed from the data set due to invalid and missing student
identification numbers. However, the major issue seemed to be due to student ID mismatch across assessment administrations. This data merge issue indicates that students
either entered their student ID numbers incorrectly or did not complete assessments at all
three time periods. As the small sample size severely limits the analyses in this report, we
strongly encourage BASICS administrators to take steps in the future to ensure that a
larger proportion of participants complete the assessment at all three time points.
Time Point
Pre-Test
Post-Test 1
Post-Test 2
Table 1.
Sample Sizes for Pre-Test, Post-Test 1, and Post-Test 2.
Total Sample
Complete Responses
Matched Pre and Post
65
56
N/A
68
67
21
59
59
1
Of the 65 participants only 19 (29%) completed all three phases of the evaluation of effectiveness of the
BASICS program. The report says "…the analyses are exploratory in nature and the results should be interpreted
with caution." Using the data from the 2009-2010 Judicial Affairs report this would mean that out of the 3575
sanctions, 135 students were referred to the BASICS program. The Pre-Test group was 65. So even if all 65
participants in BASICS were from Judicial referrals there is already a drop out of 70 students (52%) prior to the
start of the BASICS program. With complete data sets on only 19 of the 65, the effectiveness of JMU's BASICS
program is really unknown at this time. This is a very small number of students considering the number of
sanctions and the size and scope of the negative alcohol culture at JMU. This is another indicator of JMU
“Institutional Enabling.”
4. Environmental Scan Study:
JMU spent some large amount of money in 2007 to have a consultant conduct an
Environmental Scan Study about JMU’s alcohol situation. Below are several of the study
findings:

It is our belief that the students' behavior regarding the use of alcohol at JMU are very
risky and are approaching dangerously high levels. Data collected from the NCHA and
Core Alcohol and Drug Survey reflect these risky patterns and related consequences. The
most striking and consistent result of the environmental scan is because of its availability,
lack of enforcement and social acceptance, alcohol is easy for JMU students to
abuse. This creates a "campus environment" that encourages excessive drinking. (page1)
15






There is a perception among many administrators, faculty, staff and community members
that there is not a problem with student's use of alcohol. From what we understand from
NCHA, Core Alcohol and Drug Study and interviews conducted these perceptions are
incorrect. There are considerable "town-gown" opportunities for positioning JMU to
address and educate the community about the effects alcohol is having on its campus. (B
on page 4)
During our interviews with staff and senior leadership it became apparent that
communication and understanding of the alcohol culture at JMU voids are prevalent and
undermine JMU's ability to work seamlessly to implement creative policies to address the
alcohol culture. There appears to be many "rumors" and "jokes" about the alcohol culture
at JMU and this creates a dysfunctional relationship among some university staff and
community members. (D on page 4)
There are no clearly defined policies and enforcement regarding the use and abuse of
alcohol. The ambiguities inherent in JMU's judicial and legal policies and procedures
regarding alcohol have led to tension among community police, campus police and city
officials and students. As a consequence, students do not fear being fined or prosecuted
for alcohol violations and contribute to the ongoing abuse. (F on page 4)
During our visit, we heard multiple examples of inconsistent enforcement of alcohol
related policies. Interviewees reported that more times than not, students were not cited
with an alcohol violation although strong evidence existed. Students also believed that
the alcohol judicial and police processes allowed them to deny violating policies and that
students "took turns taking a strike," to avoid further sanctions. Several interviewees
believed the use of preponderance and the "strike" policy created a culture that promoted
and rewarded dishonesty. In addition, several believed that the lack of consistent and
stringent enforcement created an environment that promoted alcohol abuse. (H page 5)
It is believed by numerous interviewees that campus administration is afraid to
implement and enforce strict policies on alcohol use which may have a negative impact
on satisfaction rates and potential financial contributions. The unresolved perceptions of
JMU's alcohol related incidences and the University's desire to maintain a high level of
student, alumni and parental satisfaction raise serious questions about the preparedness of
JMU to adopt a long-term plan that will address alcohol abuse issues (L page 5)
"...It is clear from our brief visit to JMU that current data recording practices are quiet
inadequate to enable the nature and scale of alcohol related incidences to be assessed with
any degree of accuracy. This lack of reliable and valid data makes objective evaluation
of initiatives aimed at the reduction of alcohol related problems very difficult...” (N page
6)
The environmental scan study made the following recommendations:



Research and Conduct Comprehensive Study: "...Recommend that JMU research and
conduct an extensive study to clearly define and determine the effects of alcohol related
incidences on and off campus. This study should include a complete inventory of
existing alcohol programming and intervention strategies.
Develop Systematic and Consistent Methods for Defining, Recording, Analyzing and
Collection of Data for Alcohol Related Incidences. "...It is clear from our visit that
enhancements to the present data collection are required if more meaningful conclusions
concerning alcohol's negative impact on JMU's campus can be drawn.
Develop an Inclusive Alcohol Prevention and Research Center: "JMU should consider
developing an inclusive Alcohol Prevention and Research Center that has one
organizational unit that will plan and guide a comprehensive alcohol abuse program.
16

Review, Revise and Assess Police and Judicial Processes: "JMU should review and
assess its police and judicial processes including establishing more stringent policies and
sanctions regarding alcohol use and abuse. It is highly recommended that these policies
be consistently and strongly enforced to create a culture where students understand there
are consequences to their illegal use and abuse of alcohol." (page 14, 15 and 16)
In reviewing JMU’s current policies and practices it appears that few of the recommendations
from the consultant have been implemented. This is perhaps the most glaring example of
“Institutional Enabling” by JUM. It spent the money to get the answers to the problem and then
failed
to effectivelyPLAN
implement
recommendations
of the consultant
and the problem
has
5.
SUGGESTED
FOR the
JMU
TO END “INSTITUTIOAL
ENABLING”
OF THE
continued unabated.
NEGATIVE
ALCOHOL CULTURE
Institutional Enabling:
“The collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional
service in that it creates policies and practices in which the alcohol abuser can
comfortably continue unacceptable behavior”
The Harrisonburg community is not only pointing out the JMU Negative Alcohol Culture
and the ineffectiveness of JMU efforts to change JMU student alcohol behavior but is being
constructive in suggesting a plan for ending JMU “Institutional Enabling” and using effective
interventions to reclaim civility, law abiding behavior and a JMU-Community positive
relationship.
JMU-Harrisonburg is not the first University-Community that has had to face a Negative
Alcohol Culture. We don’t have to “Reinvent the Wheel” with this issue. We can learn from
other similar communities and Universities. We can learn from the national and JMU data and
apply that knowledge to help solve our problems. It is necessary to use the pronoun “We”
frequently in our discussions as the solution to this issue is going to require the joint
collaboration, political will and persistence of both the JMU and Harrisonburg communities.
The plan offered below is a DRAFT. It is a place to start. It will require input, revisions,
refinements, changes and improvements. It will require the best that both the JMU and the
Harrisonburg communities have to offer.
OPTON 1:
What would motivate JMU students to change their alcohol use behavior? Is there a
"silver bullet"? As it turns out this issue has been put to the students directly. In a JMU research
survey students were asked:
 What might make you less likely to drink excessively and engage in risky behavior?
The Answer: 33.3% answered that "suspension" makes students less likely to drink.
The students were asked another question:
 What might make your friends less likely to drink excessively and engage in risky
behavior?
17
The Answer: 34.4% answered that "suspension" makes their friends less likely to drink.
Both of the answers were the most frequent responses to the questions.
(see "Alcohol and Drug Use Among James Madison University Students" by Laurie Gabriele,
research assistant, The Office of Substance Abuse Research, JMU 2008. (available at the JMU
web site)
As the data noted previously JMU suspended only 37% of “three strike” offenders over a
ten year period.
POLICY: JMU
1. Implement a “one-strike” alcohol offense mandatory suspension for one semester policy.
OPTION 2:
The “Drunk Bus” This is one of the controversial items with mixed feelings form students.
From the Environmental Scan Study the following comments were made my students:
18
From an enabling standpoint there is no debate. The “Drunk Bus” – a combined effort of JMU
and the City of Harrisonburg- creates policies and practices in which the alcohol abuser can
comfortably continue unacceptable behavior.
POLICY: JMU-City of Harrisonburg
1. Eliminate the “drunk bus” effective immediately.
OPTION 3:
Both the University of Delaware and the University of Nebraska (Lincoln) have implemented
programs that were effective in dealing with the alcohol problem on their campuses. JMU
implement an effective program.
POLICY: JMU
1. JMU must demonstrate the political will at the highest levels of administration to
engage in a proven program of meaningful and effective intervention program that is a
collaborative effort with the Harrisonburg community. JMU must be willing to tolerate
some alumni being offended by the effort to change the JMU Negative Alcohol Culture
19