CORE Alcohol and Drug Survey Executive Summary 2002- Compiled by: Rachel Uffelman, Ph.D. Janice Putnam Ph.D., RN C. Jo Riggs, PhD, RN University of Central Missouri
Table of Contents Part I: Introduction and Sample Characteristics...1 The CORE Alcohol and Drug Survey Short Form...1 Sampling Procedure and Survey Administration Considerations...1 Sample Demographics...1 Comparison to National Norms...4 Part II: Alcohol Use...5 Average Drinks Per Week...5 Changes in Alcohol Use Over Time...7 High-Risk Drinking...11 Part III: Illegal Behaviors...14 Underage Drinking...14 Driving Under the Influence...16 Use of Marijuana, Cocaine, and Designer Drugs...18 Part IV: Consequences of Alcohol and Drug Use...20 Negative Consequences...20 Academic Consequences...22 Experiences of Violence...25 Part V: Perceptions of Campus Norms and Programs...26 Perceived Alcohol and Drug Use...26 Awareness and Perceptions of Campus Alcohol and Drug Programs...27 Perceptions of Alcohol and Drug Use...30 Part VI: Special Populations...31 Greek Students...31 Varsity Athletes...33 Performance Group Members...34 Recreational/Club Sport Athletes...36 Part VII: Other Analyses...38 Tobacco Use...38 On-Campus Alcohol and Drug Use...43 Incidence of Family Alcohol and Drug Problems...45 Family Alcohol and Drug Problems and Student Substance Use...46 Family Alcohol and Drug Problems and Student High-Risk Behaviors...48 Designated Drivers...48 Social Impact of Drinking...49 AlcoholEdu...49 Profile of Heavy Drinkers...51
Part I: Introduction and Sample Characteristics The CORE Alcohol and Drug Survey Short Form The CORE Campus Survey of Alcohol and Other Drug Norms was developed to assess issues related to alcohol and other drugs (AOD) among college students at two- and four-year institutions. Items measure students attitudes, perceptions, and opinions about use of alcohol and other drugs. Other items assess students use of alcohol and other drugs and consequences of use. Students perceptions about the campus climate regarding alcohol and drug issues are also assessed. The survey has been administered nationally since 1989 at over 200 universities, and demonstrates adequate reliability and validity. University of Central Missouri (UCM) has administered the CORE survey annually since the 2001-2002 school year. Sampling Procedure and Survey Administration Considerations Beginning in 2002, the CORE Survey has been administered annually at UCM during the month of March. The UCM Institutional Review Board approves the study materials and methods annually, and students are informed that their participation is voluntary and that their responses are anonymous. Surveys are administered in classrooms during regular class times by volunteers who are university employees; course instructors are not present during the administration. For the 2002 administration, stratified quota sampling was utilized to ensure selection of a representative sample. Beginning in 2003, classes to be included were randomly sampled from a list of all undergraduate courses being offered during the current semester. A total of 2,563 students have completed the CORE in the last five years. In addition to the CORE Survey, several additional items are administered and responses to the two forms are coded to allow for matching of responses. Table 1. Number of completed surveys, 2002-. 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total Number of students who completed the survey 521 474 606 493 469 2563 Sample Demographics Confidence in the findings of the survey is, in part, dependent on the degree to which the sample for each year approximates the population it is intended to represent in this case, the UCM student body in general. Sample demographics were compared to the annual statistics provided for each Fall semester by the Office of Institutional Research at UCM and other relevant campus offices. It should be noted that there may be slight inaccuracies due to the fact that the CORE survey is administered during Spring semester and many campus statistics are based on Fall semester data. Page 1
Table 2. Gender breakdown by year. Campus ratio (male/female) Sample ratio (male/female) χ 2 df = 1 p 2002 45/55 49/51 2.99.08 2003 45/55 52/48 8.07 <.01** 2004 45/55 49/51 3.24.07 2005 43/57 44/56.34.56 42/58 50/50 13.02 <.001*** Key findings: For the years 2002, 2004 and 2005, the sample is not significantly different from the UCM population in terms of gender breakdown. For the years 2003 and, the CORE sample is significantly different from the UCM population, with men being overrepresented in the CORE sample in both years. This should be considered when interpreting data from these years, as men and women typically report different rates of alcohol and drug use. Table 3. Race/ethnicity breakdown by year. White (non- Hispanic) 92% 89% 92% 90% 91% 90% 91% 90% 90% Black (non- Hispanic) 5% 6% 5% 4% 6% 5% 6% 7% 7% American Indian/ Alaskan Native 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% Asian/ Pacific Islander 1% 3% 1% 4% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% Hispanic χ 2 df = 4 p n 2% 2% 14.91 <.01** 490 2% 2% 43.70 <.001*** 461 2% 3% 5.47.24 ns 577 2% 2% 8.32.08 ns 474 2% 2% 1.56.82 ns 451 2002 Campus % Sample % 2003 Campus % Sample % 2004 Campus % Sample % 2005 Campus % Sample % Campus % Sample % 90% 6% 0% 1% Note. Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Students who identified as other on the CORE were excluded due to different definitions as compared with the UCM Headcount. Key findings: For the years 2004-, the CORE sample is representative of the UCM population in terms of race/ethnicity. In 2002 and 2003, the Asian/Pacific Islander students were overrepresented in the sample. Also in 2003, Black (non- Hispanic) students were underrepresented in the sample. However, these differences are not likely to affect the overall findings and should be considered a minor limitation to interpreting the data. Page 2
Table 4. Enrollment classification breakdown by year. Freshmen Sophomores Juniors Seniors χ 2 df = 3 p n 2002 Campus % 27% 22% 21% 30% Sample % 27% 20% 26% 28% 3.96.27 471 2003 Campus % 26% 21% 23% 31% Sample % 16% 17% 28% 39% 41.54 <.001*** 457 2004 Campus % 26% 19% 23% 32% Sample % 28% 19% 28% 26% 14.50 <.01** 587 2005 Campus % 28% 19% 21% 32% Sample % 18% 19% 37% 26% 63.50 <.001*** 479 Campus % 28% 21% 20% 32% Sample % 16% 15% 33% 36% 55.31 <.001*** 466 Note. Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Students included as Exclusively Off-Schedule Enrollment in the UCM Headcount were not included as year in school data was not available. Students who identified as Not Seeking a Degree or Other on the CORE were excluded due to inconsistent definitions with the UCM Headcount. Key findings: Data from 2002 are representative of the UCM campus in terms of enrollment classification. For 2003-, juniors appear to be overrepresented in the data set as compared with the proportion of juniors in the population. For 2003, 2005, and, freshmen appear to be underrepresented in the data. Sophomores are underrepresented in 2003 and. Seniors are overrepresented in the 2003 and data, but are underrepresented in 2004 and 2005. That juniors and seniors are overrepresented in the sample may be an artifact of the sampling procedure; that is, because there are more upper-level classes offered, these classes had a greater chance of being included in the sample, which would likely result in more upperclassmen being included in the sample than expected. The finding that juniors are consistently overrepresented in the most recent four years of data may suggest that alcohol reporting is inflated (since many juniors are likely of legal drinking age), and that the 2002 data might be interpreted as the most accurate baseline. Table 5. Age breakdown by year. % under Sample Avg. Campus n Range Mode 21 age Avg. age t df p 2002 512 17-52 21 41% 22.4 22.7 -.23 511.82 2003 465 17-50 21 39% 22.2 22.6-1.13 464.26 2004 599 18-52 19 50% 21.5 22.3-5.14 598 <.001*** 2005 491 18-57 20 43% 22.0 22.4-2.04 490 <.05* 463 18-50 21 38% 22.3 22.1 -.60 462.55 Key findings: Students sampled in 2002, 2003, and were similar in terms of age to UCM students in general. In 2004 and 2005, students sampled were slightly younger than UCM students in general. Comparison of the sample to the student body in terms of legalized drinking age is not possible as these data are not provided by the university. Page 3
Table 6. Housing breakdown by year. On-campus Off-campus n UCM General Population CORE sample UCM General Population CORE sample χ 2 df = 1 p 2002 468 36% 40% 64% 60% 3.18.08 2003 435 37% 39% 63% 61%.64.42 2004 531 35% 45% 65% 55% 21.66 <.001*** 2005 429 36% 39% 64% 61% 1.57.21 412 36% 36% 64% 64%.01.94 Key findings: For all years except 2004, the distribution of on-campus and offcampus residents in the CORE sample is comparable to that of the UCM student body in general. In 2004, on-campus residents are overrepresented in the CORE sample. Table 7. Greek and student-athlete status by year. # of Greek students # of student athletes UCM CORE sample χ 2 df = 1 p UCM CORE sample χ 2 df = 1 p 2003 11% a 17.9% 22.69 <.001*** -- -- -- -- 2004 11% a 18.2% 30.32 <.001*** 4.68% a 8.0% 14.02 <.001*** 2005 11% a 12.4% 7.04 <.05* 4.68% 6.0% 1.47.23 ns 11% a 16.1% 11.77 <.05* 4.68% 8.9% 48.19 <.001*** a Estimated from 2002- aggregate campus data. Key findings: For all years, there were more Greek students in the sample than expected based on rates in the UCM student body. In 2004 and, there were more varsity student-athletes in the sample than expected based on the number of student-athletes at UCM. Comparisons to National Norms Because the CORE survey is administered annually at universities throughout the United States, UCM data can be compared to college student national norms provided by the CORE Institute. Unless otherwise noted, in this document, national norms are drawn from a random sample of 68,000 undergraduate students from 133 colleges who completed the survey in 2004 (the most recent available national norms). Page 4
Part II: Alcohol Use Table 8. Percent of drinkers a in sample. 2002 2003 2004 2005 Overall Regional b Average National Average Drinkers 88.2% 86.3% 88.4% 86.3% 88.9% 87.7% 82.6% 85.0% Non-drinkers 11.8% 13.7% 11.6% 13.7% 11.1% 12.3% 17.4% 15.0% Notes. National and regional averages are provided the by CORE Institute and are based on a random, representative sample of respondents from 2002 to 2005. a Drinker is defined as someone who had at least one drink in the past year; a non-drinker did not drink at all in the past year. b States included in the Plains region (as defined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis) are Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Key finding: Using CORE s definition of non-drinker as someone who has not had any drinks in the past year, significantly more UCM students are drinkers compared to both regional and national averages (regional: χ 2 (1) = 45.17, p <.001***; national: χ 2 (1) = 14.03, p <.001***). For the purposes of the UCM campus, non-drinker is hereafter defined as someone who drank once or less in the past year. The reason for this definition is that some students may self-identify as non-drinkers despite having consumed alcohol once in the last year (e.g., at a family celebration or for religious reasons). Table 9. Percent of drinkers in sample, alternative definition of drinker a. 2002 2003 2004 2005 Overall Drinkers 83.0% 80.9% 85.2% 81.1% 82.4% 82.7% Non-drinkers 17.0% 19.1% 14.8% 18.9% 17.6% 17.3% a Drinker is defined as someone who drank twice or more in the past year. Key finding: The majority of students report that they drank twice or more in the last year. There has been no change in the last five years in the proportion of students who are drinkers (χ 2 (4) = 4.56, p =.37, ns). Average Drinks Per Week Table 10. Average number of drinks per week, all students, 2002- aggregate data. Avg. # drinks/week All students Men Women 0 30.0% 23.4% 36.6% 1 12.3% 9.9% 14.6% 2 to 5 19.9% 14.8% 24.3% 6 to 10 14.2% 10.1% 13.7% 11 to 15 8.1% 10.0% 6.5% 16 to 20 5.0% 7.7% 2.4% 21 or more 10.6% 19.9% 1.9% Mean 7.77 11.80 3.98 Mode 0 0 0 n 2538 1166 1230 Page 5
Average drinks per week, all students 2002-5.0% 8.1% 10.6% 30.0% Average drinks per week 0 1 2 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 or more 14.2% 12.3% 19.9% Key findings: Although the greatest number of UCM students do not drink in an average week, the average number of drinks per week (7.8) is significantly greater than the national average of 6.0 drinks per week, t = 7.52, df = 2537, p <.001*. Additionally, UCM students drink more than students at other Missouri universities, who average 6.4 drinks per week (norms provided by PIP), t = 5.90, df = 2537, p <.01**. Table 11. Average number of drinks per week excluding students who do not drink, 2002- aggregate data. Avg. # drinks/week All students Men Women 0 16.0% 11.0% 21.4% 1 14.5% 11.3% 18.0% 2 to 5 23.8% 17.0% 30.2% 6 to 10 17.1% 16.7% 17.0% 11 to 15 9.7% 11.5% 8.1% 16 to 20 6.0% 8.9% 3.1% 21 or more 12.8% 23.4% 2.2% Mean 9.39 13.81 4.94 Mode 0 1 0 n 2089 993 987 Page 6
Average drinks per week, only students who drink 2002-6.0% 9.7% 12.8% 16.0% 14.5% Average drinks per week 0 1 2 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 or more 17.1% 23.8% Key finding: Among students who are drinkers, most average two to five drinks per week. Overall, the average number of drinks per week among drinkers is 9.4, with men drinking more than women. Changes in Alcohol Use Over Time Table 12. Two-way ANOVA: Average drinks per week by year and gender. Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p Between Year 990.08 4 247.52 1.98.10 Gender 36171.83 1 36171.83 289.49 <.001*** Year x Gender 716.19 4 179.05 1.43.22 Within 443628.90 2387 185.85 Total 481507.00 2396 Page 7
Average drinks per week by gender All students 16 14 Gender Male Female Average # drinks per week 12 10 8 6 4 2 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Error bars: 95.00% Confidence Interval Key findings: Across all five data years and including all students, men report consuming a significantly higher average number of drinks per week than women, t (2394) = 17.51, p <.001***. Specifically, men report drinking an average of 11.80 (SD = 14.86) drinks per week and women report drinking an average of 3.98 (SD = 5.98) drinks per week. There were no significant changes over the five-year span in average drinks per week for either gender. Table 13. Two-way ANOVA: Average drinks per week by year and gender, only students who drink (n = 1971). Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p Between Year 933.47 4 233.37 1.73.14 Gender 38513.18 1 38513.18 284.91 <.001*** Year x Gender 1042.91 4 260.73 1.93.10 Within 439806.44 1961 135.18 Total 480296.00 1970 Page 8
Average drinks per week by gender Only students who drink Average # drinks per week 18 15 12 9 6 Gender Male Female 3 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Error bars: 95.00% Confidence Interval Key findings: When considering only students who report that they are drinkers, across all five data years, men report consuming a significantly higher average number of drinks per week than women, t (1969) = 16.90, p <.001***. Specifically, men report drinking an average of 13.81 (SD = 15.22) drinks per week and women report drinking an average of 4.94 (SD = 6.19) drinks per week. There were no significant changes over the five-year span in average drinks per week for either gender. Table 14. Two-way ANOVA: DV = average drinks per week by class (all undergraduate students). Source Sum of Squares df Mean square F p Between Year 438.75 4 109.69.76.54 Class 1459.51 3 486.50 3.44 <.05* Year x Class 6535.19 12 544.60 3.85 <.001*** Within 496097.55 2421 204.91 Total 504531.00 2440 Page 9
Average number of drinks per week by class All students Mean Avg # drinks per week 12 10 8 6 4 2 Class Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Key findings: For all students totaled across all five years, seniors drank significantly more than freshmen, but there were no significant differences between the other classes. For all students, there is no significant change in average number of drinks per week over time. Other statistically significant findings: In 2002, there was no difference among the classes in terms of average number of drinks per week. In 2003, sophomores and juniors drank significantly more than freshmen. In 2004, juniors and seniors drank more than freshmen, and seniors also drank more than sophomores. In 2005, sophomores drank more than juniors. In, seniors drank more than sophomores and juniors. Page 10
High-Risk Drinking Students who drink, 2002- aggregate data. Percent of students who drink who engaged in high-risk drinking* in previous two weeks High-risk drinking no yes 34.7% 65.3% * 5 or more drinks in a sitting Percent of drinkers who engaged in high-risk drinking in past two weeks 100.00 % engaged in high-risk drinking 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 2002 2003 2004 Year 2005 Key findings: Among UCM students who drink, significantly more students engage in high-risk drinking than those who do not. When considering all students, 54.5% of UCM students engaged in high-risk drinking in the previous two weeks, as compared with 48.8% of students nationally, and this difference Page 11
was statistically significant (χ 2 (1) = 32.80, p <.001***). The proportion of high-risk drinkers to total drinkers has not changed significantly over the last five years (χ 2 (4) = 5.19, p =.27, ns). Frequency of high-risk* drinking in last two weeks Drinkers only Count 600 500 400 300 200 High-risk drinking incidents in last 2 weeks None Once Twice 3-5 times 6-9 times 10+ times 100 0 2002 2003 2004 Year 2005 *5 or more drinks in a sitting Key finding: For the last five years, there has been no significant change in the frequency of high-risk drinking among UCM students who drink (χ 2 (20) = 16.06, p =.71, ns). High-risk* drinkers by gender 400 Gender Male Female 300 Count 200 100 *5 or more drinks in a sitting 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Page 12
Key finding: Over the last five years, the proportion of male to female drinkers who engaged in high-risk drinking has not changed significantly (χ 2 (4) = 2.81, p =.59, ns). High-risk* drinkers by legal drinking age 400 AGE UNDER 21 21 OR OVER 300 Count 200 100 *5 or more drinks in a sitting 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Key finding: Among drinkers, the proportion of high-risk drinkers by legal age has changed significantly over time (two-way χ 2 (4) = 29.50, p <.001***). In, 33.5% of high-risk drinkers were under age 21, as compared with 51.3% in 2004. Page 13
Part III: Illegal Behaviors Underage drinking Proportion of drinkers who are underage 2002-2005 aggregate data AGE UNDER 21 21 OR OVER 41.8% 58.2% Proportion of underage students who drink 2002-2005 aggregate data Drinker? no yes 19.0% 81.0% Page 14
Table 15. Underage drinking, 2002- aggregate data. Number of students in sample under 21 who drink Number of students in sample under age 21 % 2002 178 214 83.2% 2003 135 178 75.8% 2004 253 302 83.8% 2005 171 209 81.8% 134 176 76.1% Total 871 1079 80.7% Percentage of students under age 21 who drink 100.00 80.00 % of students under 21 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 2002 2003 2004 Year 2005 Key finding: The number of UCM students under the age of 21 who drink has not varied over time (χ 2 (4) = 8.12, p =.09, ns). Table 16. Two-way ANOVA: Average number of drinks per week by legal age (all undergraduate students). Source Sum of Squares df Mean square F p Between Year 603.95 4 150.99 1.05.38 Legal Age 834.47 1 834.47 5.82 <.05* Year x Legal Age 2310.20 4 577.55 4.03 <.001*** Within 497851.38 2410 206.58 Total 501600.00 2419 Page 15
Average Drinks Per Week by Legal Age All Undergraduate Students 12 10 AGE UNDER 21 21 OR OVER Average Drinks Per Week 8 6 4 2 0 2002 2003 2004 Year 2005 Key findings: Overall, students aged 21 or over reported consuming more drinks per week than students under 21, and this was driven by significant differences in 2004 and. In 2002, 2003, and 2005, there were no significant differences in average number of drinks per week between those under 21 years of age and those 21 or over. Students under age 21 did not change in terms of the number of drinks per week across these five years. For students aged 21 or higher, there was a significant increase in the number of drinks per week in from 2002 to 2004, and a significant decline between 2004 and 2005. Driving Under the Influence Percentage of students who drink who have driven under the influence once or more in the past year Drove after drinking in the last year? yes no 56.9% 43.1% Page 16
Percentage of male students who drink who have driven under the influence once or more in the past year Percentage of female students who drink who have driven under the influence once or more in the past year 51.4% Drove under the influence in the last year? yes no 35.9% Drove under the influence in the last year? yes no 48.6% 64.1% Percentage of students who drink who drove under the influence once or more in the last year 100.00 % who drove after drinking in last year 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 2002 2003 2004 Year 2005 Page 17
Percentage of students who drink who drove under the influence once or more in the last year by gender % who drove after drinking in last year 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 Gender Male Female 0.00 2002 2003 2004 Year 2005 Key findings: When considering only students who drink, over the last five years, there has been no significant change in the number of students who have driven under the influence at least once in the past year (χ 2 (4) = 1.50, p =.83, ns). This finding is also true when considering men (χ 2 (4) = 3.13, p =.54, ns) and women (χ 2 (4) =.34, p =.99, ns) separately. When all students (including non-drinkers) are included, 43.1% of UCM students have driven a car after drinking once or more in the past year, as compared with 30.5% of students nationally, and this difference is statistically significant (χ 2 (1) = 188.91, p <.001***). Use of Marijuana, Cocaine, and Designer Drugs Table 17. Percent of students who have used any of three drugs in the last month and last year, 2002- aggregate data. Used in last 30 days Used in last year All Men Women National Average All Men Women National Average Marijuana 15.2% 18.9% 12.5% 18.8% 26.7% 31.4% 23.0% 32.8% Cocaine 1.8% 3.0% 0.8% 2.7% 5.3% 7.8% 3.3% 6.0% Designer Drugs 0.9% 1.6% 0.2% 1.1% 3.9% 5.0% 3.2% 3.7% Any of these 15.5% 19.3% 12.7% -- 27.1% 31.7% 23.3% -- Page 18
Use of three types of drugs in the last year, 2002- % of students 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 Used marijuana in last year Used cocaine in last year Used designer drugs (e.g., ecstasy) in last year 20.00 0.00 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Key findings: For all three drug types, self-reported usage in the last year has not changed over the last five years (marijuana: χ 2 (4) = 6.36, p =.17, ns; cocaine: χ 2 (4) = 2.84, p =.58, ns; designer drugs: χ 2 (4) = 2.99, p =.56, ns). For all five years, a significantly greater number of students used marijuana than used either cocaine or designer drugs. Fewer UCM students have used marijuana in the last year as compared with students in the Plains region (26.7% vs. 33.3%). Page 19
Negative Consequences Part IV: Consequences of Alcohol and Drug Use Table 18. Negative consequences experience in the past year as a result of alcohol and/or drug use, all students, summed across five years. % Rank Consequence (occurred once or more in the last year) experienced in last year National % 1 Had a hangover 69.4% 64.3% 2 Got nauseated or vomited 57.4% 55.7% 3 Driven a car while under the influence 43.1% 30.5% 4 Done something I later regretted 42.4% 39.1% 5 Missed a class 40.6% 32.9% 6 Got into an argument or fight 38.2% 34.0% 7 Had a memory loss 38.0% 34.4% 8 Been criticized by someone I know 33.9% 31.1% 9 Performed poorly on a test or other important project 30.9% 24.2% 10 Been in trouble with police, residence hall, or other college authorities 15.4% 14.4% 11 Been hurt or injured 15.2% 16.2% 12 Thought I might have a drinking or other drug problem 11.7% 11.2% 13 Have been taken advantage of sexually 11.4% 10.8% 14 Damaged property, pulled fire alarm, etc. 9.4% 7.8% 15 Tried unsuccessfully to stop using 5.5% 5.9% 16-t Have taken advantage of another sexually 4.0% 3.5% 16-t Seriously thought about suicide 4.0% 4.9% 18 Been arrested for DWI/DUI 2.5% 1.6% 19 Seriously tried to commit suicide 1.3% 1.5% The above consequences were grouped into logical categories based on consultation with health, wellness, and psychological services personnel. The item been criticized by someone I know was not included in the groupings due to probable variations in how this item is interpreted by respondents. Page 20
Table 19. Negative consequence groupings, 2002- aggregate data. Category Physical Problems Illegal Behaviors/ Disciplinary Actions Academic Problems Violence Against Persons Items Hangover Got nauseated or vomited Memory loss Been in trouble with police, residence hall, or other college authorities Damaged property, pulled fire alarm, etc. Been arrested for DWI/DUI Driven a car while under the influence Performed poorly on a test or project Missed a class Got into an argument or fight Was taken advantage of sexually Took advantage of another sexually Been hurt or injured % experienced once or more 74.1% 48.1% 46.7% 44.8% Regrets Done something I later regretted 42.4% Substance Abuse Indicators Thought I might have a drinking/drug problem 37.4% Suicidality Tried unsuccessfully to stop using Seriously thought about suicide Seriously tried to commit suicide 4.1% Consequences experienced in the last year as a result of AOD use 2002- aggregate data % of students experiencing once or more 100.00 90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 CONSEQUENCE Physical Problems Illegal Behaviors/ Disciplinary Actions Academic Problems Violence Toward Persons Regrets Substance Abuse Indicators Suicidality 0.00 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Page 21
Key findings: In the last five years, the most common negative consequence of AOD use was physical problems (such as nausea, vomiting, memory loss, hangover), experienced by 74.1% of the sample. The next most common type of problem was illegal behaviors or disciplinary actions, which includes trouble with police or college authorities, damaging property, being arrested for DUI/DWI, and driving under the influence. This was experienced by 48.1% of the sample. Academic consequences such as missing a class or performing poorly on an important test or project were experienced by 46.7% of the sample. In terms of violent experiences, 44.8% reported this occurring once or more in the past year. The number of students experiencing these consequences has not changed over the last five years. Academic Consequences Table 20. Correlations (Spearman s rho) between substance use and grade point average. GPA Frequency of high-risk drinking 1 in the last 30 days (all students) -.18** Frequency of high-risk drinking 1 in the last 30 days (drinkers only) -.16** Frequency of marijuana use in the last 30 days -.13** Frequency of marijuana use in last year -.14** 1 Five or more drinks in a sitting; ** p <.01 Key findings: These negative correlations suggest that more frequent use of alcohol and/or marijuana is associated with lower GPA. When comparing students who have used marijuana in the last year with those who have not, it is found that non-users report a significantly higher GPA range than students who have used (χ 2 (11) = 62.06, p <.001***). For example, 16.5% of students who did not use marijuana in the past year reported that their GPA is equivalent to a C+ or lower, but 27.0% of marijuana users reported having grades in this range. Page 22
Overall grades by marijuana use 25.0% 20.0% Used marijuana in the last year? yes no % of students 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% F D D+ C- C C+ B- B B+ A- A A+ Grades Key findings: When comparing students who have used marijuana in the last year with those who have not, it is found that non-users report a significantly higher GPA range than students who have used (χ 2 (11) = 62.06, p <.001***). For example, 16.5% of students who did not use marijuana in the past year reported that their GPA is equivalent to a C+ or lower, but 27.0% of marijuana users reported having grades in this range. It can be seen in the above chart that there are more students who use marijuana earning grades of B- or lower, while more students who do not use marijuana earn grades of B or higher. Page 23
Negative academic consequences resulting from AOD use All students % reporting this once or more in past year 100 80 60 40 20 0 Performed poorly on test or other important project Missed class 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Key findings: The percentage of students who missed class at least once in the past year due to AOD use ranged from 37.7% to 43.5% within the last five years. There was no significant change in the number of students who reported missing class due to AOD use in the last five years (χ 2 (20) = 29.36, p =.08, ns). The percentage of students who reported performing poorly on a test or important project due to AOD use at least once in the last year ranged from 29.8% to 34.1%. Again, there was no significant change in the number of students who reported poor academic performance due to AOD use in the last five years (χ 2 (20) = 11.75, p =.92, ns). Negative academic consequences resulting from AOD use Drinkers only 100 % reporting this once or more in past year 80 60 40 20 0 Performed poorly on test or other important project Missed class 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Page 24
Key findings: Considering only students who drink, the percentage of students who missed class at least once in the past year due to AOD use ranged from 49.5% to 57.0% in the last five years. In terms of missing class due to AOD use, there was a significant increase over the last five years (χ 2 (20) = 33.88, p <.05*), with the greatest number of students reporting this in 2003. The percentage of students who drink and who reported performing poorly on a test or important project due to AOD use at least once in the last year ranged from 37.6% to 47.3%. There was no significant change in the number of students who reported poor academic performance due to AOD use in the last five years (χ 2 (20) = 16.59, p =.68, ns). Experiences of Violence Experiences of violence in the lat year resulting from AOD use by year 100.00 % experiencing once or more 90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 ARGUMENT/ FIGHT TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF SEXUALLY TOOK ADVANTAGE OF ANOTHER SEXUALLY HURT OR INJURED 10.00 0.00 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Key findings: The most frequently reported type of violence experienced as a result of AOD was getting into an argument or fight. There was no change in the number of students experiencing any of these types of violence over the last five years. Page 25
Part V: Perceptions of Campus Norms and Programs Perceived Alcohol and Drug Use Table 21. Perceptions of substance use by the average UCM student. Most students THINK that the average UCM Most UCM students ACTUALLY: student uses: Tobacco 5 times a week or less have never used tobacco (53.3%) Alcohol 3 times a week or less use alcohol once a week or less (68.6%) Marijuana Twice a month have never used marijuana (73.0%) Cocaine Once a year have never used cocaine (94.6%) Amphetamines 6 times a year or less have never used amphetamines (90.8%) Sedatives Once a year or less have never used sedatives (96.6%) Hallucinogens Once a year or less have never used hallucinogens (97.1%) Opiates Never have never used opiates (98.9%) Inhalants Never have never used inhalants (99.3%) Designer drugs Once a year or less have never used designer drugs (96.1%) Steroids Once a year or less have never used steroids (99.3%) Other drugs Once a year or less have never used other drugs (98.1%) Additional findings: o Most students (53.7%) drink an average of 3 or less in a week; 66.8% drink 7 or less per week. o Most men (50.9%) drink 6 or less in a week; 66.8% drink 13 or less per week. o Most women (51.2%) drink 1 or less in a week; 65.6% drink 3 or less per week. Page 26
Awareness and Perceptions of Campus Alcohol and Drug Programs Awareness and perceptions of campus alcohol and drug programs by year All students 100 % of students responding "yes" 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 Campus has alcohol & drug policies Campus alcohol & drug policies are enforced Campus has alcohol & drug prevention program Campus is concerned with alcohol & drug prevention I am involved in preventing alcohol & drug problems on campus 20 10 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Key findings: Among all students, awareness of campus AOD policies and prevention programs increased in the last five years (χ 2 (8) = 171.65, p <.001***; χ 2 (8) = 782.43, p <.001***). However, the perception that campus AOD policies are enforced and that the campus is concerned about AOD prevention decreased over time (χ 2 (8) = 28.12, p <.01**; χ 2 (8) = 20.73, p <.05*). Also, student involvement in prevention of AOD problems on campus declined over the last five years (χ 2 (8) = 583.49, p <.001***). Page 27
Awareness and perception of campus AOD programs Drinkers only % of students responding "yes" 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Campus has alcohol & drug policies Campus alcohol & drug policies are enforced Campus has alcohol & drug prevention program Campus is concerned with alcohol & drug prevention I am involved in preventing alcohol & drug problems on campus 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Key findings: Considering only students who drink, awareness of campus AOD policies and prevention programs increased in the last five years (χ 2 (8) = 169.46, p <.001***; χ 2 (8) = 691.66, p <.001***). However, the perception among students who drink that campus AOD policies are enforced and that the campus is concerned about AOD prevention decreased over time (χ 2 (8) = 29.37, p <.01**; χ 2 (8) = 20.07, p <.01**). Also, involvement by students who drink in prevention of AOD problems on campus declined over the last five years (χ 2 (8) = 552.61, p <.001***). Page 28
Awareness and perception of campus AOD programs Freshmen only % of students responding "yes" 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Campus has alcohol & drug policies Campus alcohol & drug policies are enforced Campus has alcohol & drug prevention program Campus is concerned with alcohol & drug prevention I am involved in preventing alcohol & drug problems on campus 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Key findings: Considering only freshmen, awareness of campus AOD policies and prevention programs increased in the last five years (χ 2 (8) = 26.45, p <.01**; χ 2 (8) = 52.99, p <.001***). However, freshmen involvement in prevention of AOD problems on campus declined over the last five years (χ 2 (8) = 23.69, p <.01**). The perception among freshmen that campus AOD policies are enforced and that the campus is concerned about AOD prevention demonstrated no change over time (χ 2 (8) = 6.57, p =.58, ns; χ 2 (8) = 10.15, p =.26, ns). Page 29
Perceptions of Alcohol and Drug Use Table 22. Perceptions of campus AOD use and self-reported AOD use. Self-reported frequency of use in last year Perception of avg. student frequency Designer drugs Steroids Other of use Tobacco Alcohol Marijuana Cocaine Amphetamines Sedatives Hallucinogens Opiates Inhalants Tobacco -.05** -.04 -.03 -.01 -.02 -.01 -.01.02.02.00.01.01 Alcohol -.05**.06** -.01.03.03.02 -.01.03.04 -.01.00.01 Marijuana -.05**.11**.15**.11**.10**.08**.07**.09**.06**.09**.03.07** Cocaine -.01.02.05*.10**.09**.05*.01.03.01.08**.03.05* Amphetamines -.04 -.04.00.02.19**.04 -.01 -.01.01.03.03.01 Sedatives -.05** -.04*.01.03.08**.09**.02.02.05*.05*.04*.05* Hallucinogens -.04 -.02 -.01.03.06**.03.03.04.02.04*.03.04 Opiates -.08** -.07** -.06**.00.02 -.03 -.03.04.00 -.01.02.00 Inhalants -.08** -.08** -.08** -.03.01 -.03 -.06**.01.04* -.04.04* -.01 Designer drugs -.03.01.02.05*.06**.04.02.02.02.07**.03.03 Steroids -.12** -.06** -.06** -.03.04 -.02 -.04* -.02 -.01 -.03.04* -.01 Other drugs -.10** -.04* -.07** -.01.03.00 -.04.00.01 -.01.04.05* * p <.05, ** p <.01. Key findings: Notable significant correlations (Spearman s rho) are highlighted in the table above. Self-reported use of tobacco in the last year is negatively related to perceptions of use of steroids and other illegal drugs by the average student at UCM, such that the belief that the typical student uses steroids and other drugs more frequently is associated with lower frequency of tobacco use. Conversely, students who perceive that the average UCM student uses marijuana more frequently are more likely to have used alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, and amphetamines in the last year. Similarly, students who believe that the average student uses cocaine or amphetamines more frequently are more likely to have used the same drug in the past year. This suggests that use of some drugs is related to perceptions that the typical UCM student also uses these drugs. Page 30
Part VI: Special Populations Greek Students Average drinks per week Greek Students 20 Average # of drinks per week 15 10 5 0 2003 2004 Year 2005 Key finding: There has been no change over the last five years in terms of the average number of drinks per week among Greek students, F(3,313) =.89, p =.44, ns. Key finding: Considering only drinkers, Greek students at UCM drink an average of 16.4 drinks per week as compared with 9.4 drinks per week among the general UCM population, and this difference is statistically significant, t (300) = 7.76, p <.001***. Key finding: Greek students are less likely than non-greek students to agree that Greek life is accurately portrayed on television, t (1359) = -23.15, p <.001***. Page 31
Greek Students' Use of Designated Drivers in the last academic year 47.1% 27.9% 8.8% 4.4% 7.4% 1.5% How often did you use a DD after drinking? Always (100% of the time) Almost always (75% to 99% of the time) More than half of the time (51% to 74% of the time) Half of the time (50% of the time) Less than half of the time (25% to 49% of the time) Almost never (1% to 24% of the time) Never (0% of the time) 2.9% Key finding: Among Greek students, 75.0% report that they always or almost always used a designated driver after drinking in the past academic year. Only 2.9% of Greeks said they never used a designated driver, and this was significantly lower than the number of non-greek students who did not use a designated driver (18.3%; χ 2 (6) = 17.57, p <.01**). Use of three types of drugs in the last year Greek Students % of Greek students 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 Used marijuana in last year Used cocaine in last year Used designer drugs (e.g., ecstasy) in last year 20.00 0.00 2003 2004 2005 Year Page 32
Key findings: Greek students most frequently reported having used marijuana during the previous year. Specifically, 38.3% report having used marijuana in the past year, compared with 23.8% of students who are not in a fraternity or sorority, and this difference was statistically significant (χ 2 (1) = 28.98, p <.001***). Likewise, 8.7% of Greek students have used cocaine in the last year, compared with 4.4% of non-greek students. Again, this difference was significant (χ 2 (1) = 10.28, p <.01**). Finally, 5.6% of Greek students have used designer drugs (e.g., ecstasy) in the last year, compared with 3.2% of non-greek students. This difference was also statistically significant (χ 2 (1) = 4.52, p <.05*). Over the last four years, there was no change in the percentage of Greek students who have used any of these three drugs. Varsity Athletes Average drinks per week Varsity Athletes 10 Average # of drinks per week 8 6 4 2 0 2004 2005 Year Key finding: There has been no change over the last three years in terms of the average number of drinks per week among varsity athletes, F(2,118) =.25, p =.78, ns. Key finding: Varsity student athletes at UCM drink an average of 7.8 drinks per week as compared with 7.8 drinks per week among the general UCM population, and this difference is not statistically significant, t (120) =.07, p =.95, ns. Page 33
Use of three types of drugs in the last year Varsity Athletes % of varsity athletes 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 Used marijuana in last year Used cocaine in last year Used designer drugs (e.g., ecstasy) in last year 0.00 2004 2005 Year Key findings: Varsity athletes most frequently reported having used marijuana during the previous year. Over the last four years, there was no change in the percentage of athletes who have used any of these three drugs. Performance Group Members Average drinks per week Performance Group Members 7 6 Average # of drinks per week 5 4 3 2 1 Page 34 0 2004 2005 Year
Key finding: There has been no change over the last three years in terms of the average number of drinks per week among members of performance groups, F(2,55) =.34, p =.71, ns. Key finding: Members of performance groups at UCM drink an average of 4.7 drinks per week as compared with 7.8 drinks per week among the general UCM population, and this difference is statistically significant, t (57) = -3.23, p <.01**. When considering only students who drink, performance group members drink an average of 6.6 drinks per week as compared with 9.4 drinks per week among the general UCM population. Again, this difference was statistically significant, with performance group members drinking less, t (40) = -2.25, p <.05*. Use of three types of drugs in the last year Performance Group Members % of performance group members 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 Used marijuana in last year Used cocaine in last year Used designer drugs (e.g., ecstasy) in last year 0.00 2004 2005 Year Key findings: Performance group members most frequently reported having used marijuana during the previous year. Over the last four years, there was no change in the percentage of performance group members who have used any of these three drugs. Page 35
Recreational/Club Sport Athletes Average drinks per week Recreational/Club Sport Participants 15 Average # of drinks per week 12 9 6 3 0 2004 2005 Year Key finding: There has been a significant change over the last three years in terms of the average number of drinks per week among club/recreational sport participants, F(2,257) = 3.44, p <.05*. Specifically, there was a statistically significant decrease in average drinks per week, from 14.4 in 2005 to 8.9 in. Key finding: Considering only drinkers, recreational/club sport participants at UCM drink an average of 13.2 drinks per week as compared with 9.4 drinks per week among the general UCM population, and this difference is statistically significant, t (231) = 3.95, p <.001***. Note: Of all students who are recreational/club sport participants, 27.1% are also members of a fraternity or sorority. Thus, there is not a high degree of overlap in the membership of these two groups. However, among the 71 students in the sample who were both a fraternity/sorority members and participated in recreational/club sports, the average number of drinks per week was 20.10 (as compared with 8.87 drinks/week for students who are only in recreational/club sports and 14.29 for students who are only Greek), suggesting that students who are part of both groups are among the heaviest drinkers at UCM. Page 36
Use of three types of drugs in the last year Recreational/Club Sport Participants % of recreational/club sport participants 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 2004 2005 Year Used marijuana in last year Used cocaine in last year Used designer drugs (e.g., ecstasy) in last year Key findings: Recreational/club sport participants most frequently reported having used marijuana during the previous year. Over the last four years, there was no change in the percentage of these students who have used any of these three drugs. Page 37
Part VII: Other Analyses Tobacco Use Students who have, or have never, used tobacco, 2002- aggregate data 35.1% yes 64.9% no Used tobacco in the last month? yes no Key findings: Student usage of tobacco in the last month has not changed significantly in the last five years, with an average of 35.1% of students having used tobacco in the past month (across all five years) (χ² (4) = 6.57, p=.16, ns). However, use within the last year has decreased significantly from 2002 to. In 2002, 48.6% of students reported having used tobacco in the past year; by this figure dropped to 41.2% of students (χ² (4) =9.89, p<.05*). A possible explanation is that more students completely abstain from tobacco (i.e. have not used it at all in the past year) than in the past, while the same number of students use tobacco occasionally (i.e. have used in the last month) as in the past. Comparison of daily and non-daily use of tobacco, 2002 and 60.0% 50.0% Used tobacco daily? non-daily daily 40.0% Percent 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 2002 year Page 38
Key finding Tobacco usage patterns were examined; social tobacco use was defined as non-daily use, and compared to daily use which is indicative of addiction. Between 2002 and, a significant decrease in daily tobacco use was identified (χ²=4.921, p=.027). Although social use of tobacco also decreased, this change was not statistically significant (χ²=.793, p=.37). This may indicate that students continue to use tobacco in a social pattern. Current tobacco use by gender, 2002- aggregate data 1,000 800 Gender Male Female Count 600 400 200 0 0 DAYS 1-2 DAYS 3-5 DAYS 6-9 DAYS 10-19 DAYS 20-29 DAYS PAST 30 DAYS USE:TOBACCO ALL 30 DAYS Key findings: Tobacco within the past 30 days was significantly higher for male (n=1161) than female (n=1232) students (Chi-squared=84.674, p<.000). Fortyfour percent of male students reported using tobacco, compared to 26.6% of female students. Some of this difference may be the result of the use of chew tobacco by male UCM students. Age of first tobacco use, 2002- aggregate data 30.0% 25.0% Percent 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Under 10 10-11 12-13 14-15 16-17 18-20 21-25 26+ Age of first tobacco use Page 39
Key findings: The majority of students who reported having used tobacco report trying their first tobacco between the ages of 12-20 (1395 or 1560 students; 89.4%). A number of students report that they first used tobacco between the ages of 18 and 20 - typical ages of freshman and sophomore college students (269 of 1560 students; 17.24%). Tobacco use by student class, 2002- aggregate data Count 300 250 200 150 100 50 Classification Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior 0 1.00 Used tobacco in last 30 days Key findings: Tobacco use among seniors was significantly higher than that among freshmen (37.8% and 31.8%, respectively; Chi-square=59.879, p<.000). This finding may reflect student use of tobacco to cope with college-age issues such as socialization, stress management, or weight. Experimentation with tobacco during college may also lead to increased usage among senior students. Tobacco use by marital status, 2002- aggregate data 80.0% 60.0% Marital status Single Married Percent 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0 DAYS 1-2 DAYS 3-5 DAYS 6-9 DAYS 10-19 DAYS 20-29 DAYS ALL 30 DAYS PAST 30 DAYS USE:TOBACCO Key findings: The majority of students (90%) reported being single. The majority of single students reported abstaining from use or social tobacco use (defined as Page 40
less than daily use). Comparatively, married students were more likely to report abstaining from tobacco use or being a daily user. Tobacco use by residence, 2002- aggregate data 70.0% 60.0% Residence On campus Off campus 50.0% Percent 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% No use Used Tobacco use in past 30 days Key findings: Those students who live off campus are more likely to be tobacco users than those living on campus Overall grades of tobacco users, 2002- aggregate data 25.0% Used tobacco in the last 30 days? No use Used 20.0% Percent 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% F D D+ C- C C+ B- Grades B B+ A- A A+ Page 41
Key findings: Those students reporting GPA s of B and C level are more likely to use tobacco than those with an A GPA. Less than 5% of all students surveyed reported GPA s of less than C-. The significance of this finding is unclear. Locations of tobacco use among student who had used tobacco in past 30 days (n=891), 2002- aggregate data Where used Percentage reported Used at on-campus events 31% Used in residence halls 38% Used in fraternity/sorority 26% Used in a bar/restaurant 77% Used at a private party 75% Used where lived 72% In car 77% Other 37% Key findings: Tobacco is used by students more off campus than on campus. The most common places to use tobacco include bar/restaurants, private parties and in their car. These results may suggest popular key environmental factors in tobacco use. Page 42
Tobacco users by ethnic group, 2002- aggregate data 50.0% 40.0% past30.00 1.00 Percent 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Amer Ind/AK native Hispanic Asian/Pac Isl Black (non- Hisp) Other Ethnic origin Key findings Although not well represented in the survey, the number of students with a non-white ethnic origin that report the use of tobacco (indicated by a 1.00 in the above graph) show a need for programs designed for the ethnic tobacco user. On-Campus Alcohol and Drug Use Table 23. Use of alcohol and drugs on- and off-campus. Used at on-campus events Used in residence hall Used in fraternity/ sorority Used in a bar/restaurant Alcohol Marijuana Cocaine Designer drugs 7.8% 1.4% 0.2% 0.1% 37.5% 5.6% 0.5% 0.4% 24.7% 3.0% 0.4% 0.3% 63.4% 2.5% 0.7% 2.0% Used in a car 29.4% 17.8% 1.8% 0.9% Used at a private party 70.0% 25.5% 5.8% 4.5% Key findings: The most popular substance used on-campus is alcohol. Alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, and designer drugs are used by more students off-campus than on-campus. Page 43
Table 24. Drinkers use of alcohol on-campus a by legal drinking age. Age % used alcohol on-campus in last year Under 21 47.8% 21 or over 52.2% a In a residence hall, at fraternity or sorority house, and/or at on-campus event(s). Use of alcohol on-campus by legal drinking age All students 1,000 AGE UNDER 21 21 OR OVER 800 Count 600 400 200 0 NO YES USED ALCOHOL ON CAMPUS? Use of alcohol on-campus by legal drinking age Drinkers only 700 600 AGE UNDER 21 21 OR OVER 500 Count 400 300 200 100 0 NO YES USED ALCOHOL ON CAMPUS? Page 44