U of S Student Binge Drinking Prevention Committee: July 15, 2011

University of Saskatchewan
Student Binge Drinking Prevention Campaign

PROPOSAL

Students: Paige Lawrence, Katrina Olson, Danielle Robertson-

Boersma & Katelyn Selanders

Leadership: Colleen Anne Dell, Research Chair in Substance Abuse,

Department of Sociology & School of Public Health & Peter Butt,
Faculty of Medicine

Collaborating Partners:
Jody Yanko & Nicolle Poirier, Saskatchewan Ministry of Health; Cheryl
Arratoon & Gerald Thomas, Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse,
Peter Butt, Saskatchewan Team for Research and Evaluation of
Addictions Treatment and Mental Health Services

1  
 
 U of S Student Binge Drinking Prevention Committee: July 15, 2011

1. Issue of Concern: Binge drinking is a rapidly growing health concern across

Canadian campuses. Queens University publicly announced last month that it will be
reviewing student alcohol consumption in an “effort to combat the culture of drinking on
campus”.1 This comes after the death of two students in the past year that involved the
use of alcohol on the campus. The University of Prince Edward Island Student Union
followed suit two weeks later by initiating a campus-wide binge drinking prevention
campaign.
Risky drinking behaviour is commonly referred to as binge drinking. It is difficult to
precisely define binge drinking due to the lack of consistent national criteria,2 but most
experts agree it is the consumption of 5 or more standard drinks for men† within a 2-hour
period and 4 or more standard drinks for women.2-13
The 2004 Canadian Campus Survey, which focused on risky behaviours and health
concerns of Canadian university students, found that 86% of undergraduate students had
consumed alcohol within the past year, with 77% having used alcohol within the past
month.14 A 2007/08 study undertaken by Statistics Canada relayed that within the Prairie
Provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan & Manitoba), approximately half of young adults who
drank alcohol in the past year reported risky drinking at least monthly with almost 1 in 5
(20%) once a week or more.15 On the University of Saskatchewan campus, a 2008
National College Health Assessment survey found that 67% of students reported using
alcohol on a weekly basis in the past 30 days.16 These studies reflect the reality that
university students are engaging in binge drinking and associated risky behaviours.
Emerging studies are also showing an upward trend in binge drinking among female
students as they experience an expanded gender role to the “traditional femininity
expectations dictated by society that generally call for abstinence or lower levels of
alcohol use”.17
The University of Saskatchewan does not currently have a campus-wide initiative to
reduce and prevent the number of students taking part in potentially harmful drinking
behaviour. The initiative put forth in this proposal offers an empirical-based and student
driven response to this important health concern. The aim of the proposed U of S Student
Binge Drinking Prevention Campaign is to raise awareness and increase knowledge
among the U of S campus community about the harmful consequences of binge drinking.
It is well-documented that raising awareness and increasing knowledge are the necessary
initial steps required for sustainable behaviour change.18 According to Canada’s National
Alcohol Strategy, Toward a Culture of Moderation, this requires shifting the focus from
abstinence based messaging to low risk levels of alcohol use.19 The U of S Student Binge
Drinking Prevention Campaign will involve four targeted communities: (1) the
undergraduate student body, with concentrated focus on first year students, (2) the
graduate student body, (3) campus administration and organizations, and (4) U of S
faculty and staff.
                                                                                                               
†
One standard drink = 13.6 g of alcohol. Example: 12 oz beer (15% alcohol); 5 oz wine (10-12% alcohol);
3 oz fortified wine (16-18% alcohol); 1.5 oz liquor (40% alcohol) (1.5 oz overproof liquor is about 2
standard drinks) (Low Risk Drinking Guidelines. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. Retrieved July
4, 2011 from
http://camh.net/About_Addiction_Mental_Health/Drug_and_Addiction_Information/low_risk_drinking_guidelines.html)    

2  
 
 U of S Student Binge Drinking Prevention Committee: July 15, 2011

1.1 Causes & Consequences: There are varied causes and consequences for students
binge drinking, and it is important that they are considered from multiple perspectives;
this includes socio-demographic, psychological, and social. It is also essential to
recognize that patterns of binge drinking are influenced by both individual and contextual
factors. Binge drinking typically occurs in a social context, and the environment can
influence an individual’s disposition so that they may “follow one set of rules with…
family, another with… business or professional associates, and a third on holiday
occasions…”.20
Influential socio-demographic factors on student binge drinking include gender,
ethnicity, spirituality, employment, and marital status. How a student acts within
situations of binge drinking will be influenced in part from the residual impact of their
lifetime of lived experiences (e.g., parental role modeling). Psychological factors
influencing student binge drinking include personality, expectancies, attitudes, beliefs,
and motivations.20 This takes into account associated traits such as mental health,
impulsivity, boredom/excitement seeking, and dispositional aggression.6 Accounting for
social factors, during the average four years that a student will spend on their
undergraduate degree, they will commonly experience major life transitions, have
pressures to achieve high grades along with the general stress that comes with working
towards an undergraduate degree, and may have friends that expect and/or encourage
binge drinking behaviour. For many first year students, social goals include being
involved in as many college events as possible in hopes of attaining an exciting social
life, stories to tell, and lasting friendships, and many of these events focus around the
consumption of alcohol.8 Other students may try to build up a tolerance toward alcohol,
which is believed to be a social asset and earns peer admiration.21 Where students live
and how they perceive the social drinking norms on their campus will also influence their
decisions about alcohol consumption. When a student feels that others binge drink
heavily “[they] may feel that in order to be accepted by their peers, they must match what
they perceive to be others’ use of alcohol”.22. Oftentimes, what a student perceives as
normal alcohol consumption is significantly higher than the level of alcohol that is
actually consumed.
The various causes of binge drinking can lead to harmful consequences that involve a
student’s health, safety, and finances. Under the influence, students report engaging in
unsafe/unwanted sexual practices (in particular females), being involved in violence (in
particular males), conflict with the police, and impaired driving. Neurological studies
have identified the harmful physical impacts of binge drinking, including “cognitive
impairments such as frontal lobe and working memory”22, and which are particularly
detrimental to a developing brain. There are also social harms that go beyond the
morning after hangover and friendship damage that may be difficult to repair, including
serious academic consequences (low grades, reduced classroom performance, dropping
out23), damage to relationships and friendships, and regrettable behaviours. For example,
a 2008 U of S campus survey reported that 7% of students who reported to drink alcohol
had a negative impact on their last school year (incomplete on transcript, dropped course,
low grade in assignment, exam, or overall16). The consequences of binge drinking can
also negatively impact the campus community in multiple ways. This includes, for
example, university enrollment and retention, dormitory students’ study and sleep

3  
 
 U of S Student Binge Drinking Prevention Committee: July 15, 2011

patterns24, motor vehicle crashes, suicide attempts, and other destructive behaviours
involving campus safety, grounds maintenance, and faculty and administration.14 Binge
drinking also has financial costs at both the individual and community levels. There is no
current study estimating these costs on the U of S campus, however a 2002 Canadian
Centre on Substance Abuse report conservatively estimated that alcohol costs the
province of Saskatchewan $509 million annually, or $503 per person (e.g., impact of law
enforcement, morbidity, loss of employment productivity).25
1.2 Past Efforts - Past efforts to address binge drinking on the U of S campus have
included initiatives administered by both the Saskatchewan Ministry of Health and the
University. Both have been evaluated to a limited extent. Saskatchewan Ministry of
Health initiatives include:
• ‘What Else Got Wasted?’ (2010), which is a series of videos directed toward high
school students depicting the negative consequences of getting ‘wasted.’24
[Evaluation not yet publicly available]
• Binge drinking TV ads and posters informing students that ‘you always have a
choice’ (2006/07) when it comes to drinking26, despite its normalization in a
university setting. [Evaluation ongoing]
• ‘Giving Away’ (2010) (a drunk friend) posters which outline the negative
qualities of friends when they drink too much. The goal of the posters is to
discourage students from becoming ‘that friend’.27 [No evaluation has been
conducted]
• ‘Rites of Passage’ (2008/09) posters aimed at youth in grades 7-12 with the
message that alcohol is not a necessary part of growing up.28 [No evaluation has
been conducted]
• From 2007 to 2010, informational packages about responsible alcohol
consumption, including the ‘What Else Got Wasted’ and ‘You Always Have a
Choice’ campaign materials, were distributed to incoming U of S students during
Welcome Week. [No evaluation has been conducted]
• The 2010 Deeks Lecture, ‘How Much is too Much? – A Conversation for Change:
Young Adults and Alcohol’ was a joint effort of the Canadian Centre on
Substance Abuse, the Saskatchewan Ministry of Health, and the Provincial
Research Chair in Substance Abuse (Dr. Colleen Anne Dell) to raise awareness
and start a campus conversation on youth binge drinking. [Evaluation ongoing]
U of S led initiatives include:
• Brochures in the Student Health Centre and sometimes distributed at campus
events. [No evaluation has been conducted]
• ‘Me on Drugs’ displays with peer educators at various times of the year and in
select university settings. [No evaluation has been conducted]
• ‘News You Can Use’ informational table-toppers in cafeterias. [No evaluation has
been conducted]
• Tips on safe alcohol consumption and personal safety available on the Campus
Safety website29. [No evaluation has been conducted]
• The Saskatchewan Tourism Education Council and the U of S Students’ Union
collaboratively deliver modified server intervention training to Louis staff and U
4  
 
 U of S Student Binge Drinking Prevention Committee: July 15, 2011

of S students serving alcohol at campus events. This training began in 2003 and is
ongoing. [No evaluation has been conducted]
Given the growing concern about binge drinking on Canadian campuses and the lack of a
robust prevention plan on the U of S campus, it is clear that additional approaches need to
be explored. Outside of Saskatchewan, and according to the latest empirical data, a
number of campaign approaches have proven to be effective:
• Regulated Alcohol Prices: the price and availability of alcohol appears to make a
difference on alcohol use levels, especially when used in conjunction with other
campaign elements.30-32
• Social Norms Campaigns: perceptions of normative drinking patterns amongst
Canadian students are very high predictors of actual drinking patterns and
intentions30. For social norms campaigns to work, however, they must be
specifically targeted33, not alienate students or promote abstinence alone,
messages must highlight positive and moderate drinking norms rather than
negative consequences or scare tactics34, and information must be credible and
believable.35-36 Without these elements, social norms campaigns may be
ineffective37-39, or simply have no effect on actual behaviour change.40
• Web-based Self-assessments: personalized, specific, information based
interventions, such as e-Chug, have proven to be effective.41-43 They are
particularly impactful when new students are required to complete them prior to
attending university for the first time.44
• Event-specific Approaches: students consume increased amounts of alcohol
during specific periods, including weekends, the beginning and end of a given
school term, Halloween, New Year’s Eve, St. Patrick’s Day and spring break; as
such, it may be useful to target campaigns around these high alcohol-consumption
periods.45
• Student-run, Multi-pronged Campaigns: campaigns must be multi-pronged46
and involve students at every level. For example, the Northern Illinois University
student run ‘Money Brothers’ social norms campaign resulted in a 16% reduction
in binge drinking.47 Moreover, students from across the US participated in a
competition for funding to create an anti-binge drinking campaign on their own
campus. This resulted in ‘The Other Hangover’48 initiative, which focused on the
social consequences of binge drinking, the ‘Less Than You Think’49 initiative
which highlighted the thin line between drinking in moderation and engaging in
regrettable behavior, and ‘The Stupid Drink’50 initiative which focused on having
the one drink that puts you ‘over the line’. Further, New Jersey’s Rutgers
University student organizers of the “RU SURE” campaign reported a great deal
of personal change as a result of working on the campaign51.
1.3 Theoretical Influences – The proposed U of S Binge Drinking Prevention Campaign
is influenced by three theoretical perspectives, with a combined focus on individual
behaviour, valuable messaging, and environmental factors. First, the Theory of Planned
Behavior has been successfully applied to understand attitudinal and motivational factors
underlying binge drinking behaviour.52 The theory suggests that students’ behaviour can
best be predicted from understanding their intention, which is determined by three

5  
 
 U of S Student Binge Drinking Prevention Committee: July 15, 2011

constructs: (1) attitude toward the behaviour; (2) subjective norm (an individual’s
perception of the social pressure to engage in the behaviour); and (3) degree of perceived
behavioural control (the ease with which the individual can carry out their behaviour in a
confident manner).52 Past studies on student binge drinking have found the three main
constructs to be significant predictors of students’ intentions to binge drink.
This coincides with the understanding of the interplay between perceived social norms
and the actual social norms, where individuals believe that their colleagues are
participating in activities, such as binge drinking, more frequently then what is true. The
individual then believes that they must participate and keep up with these perceived
social norms by consuming more drinks than necessary. This creates an environment
where the perceived social norms can turn into reality if they are not corrected.
Second, Gain-Framed Messaging, adapted from the Prospect Theory, presents the
benefits that are accrued from adopting a behaviour as opposed to loss-framed messages,
which generally convey the costs of not adopting a requested behavior and may be
interpreted as fear or scare tactics.53 A team of researchers at the University of Missouri
found that gain-framed anti-binge drinking messages featuring relationships and
academic performance were much more effective in convincing students to avoid binge
drinking than negative messages; university students want to know how an action will
help them, not how they could potentially be hurt.54
Third, the theory of Environmental Management proposes that in order to change
behaviour, the environment must likewise change. Environmental Management theory
moves beyond general awareness and education programs to identify and change factors
in the physical, social, legal, and economic environment that promote or abet alcohol and
other drug problems.55 Environmental Management theory seeks to achieve change at the
institutional, community, and public policy level in order to produce a large-scale impact
on the entire campus population, including students, faculty, staff, and administrators. It
is also understood that generating interest in environmental prevention efforts may be less
contentious when the targets are problematic environments—unhealthy and unsafe
policies and practices— rather than individuals. Actions can be taken to moderate those
environments and reduce risks for all community members.56

Research shows that health-related behaviour change is most likely to occur when
initiatives57:
•  Use a Long Term Commitment – Case studies of efforts to shift cultural norms
demonstrate that when funding for projects cease, behaviours often revert to their
previous state and campaign credibility and value dissipate as a result.
• Use Tailored Messaging – Explicit target groups should be identified and
messages should be tailored to their values, attitudes, and needs. It is important to
develop the capacity to see the problem from the perspective of multiple target
groups.
• Use Multiple Approaches – Messaging should target multiple audiences, be
delivered through multiple venues/mediums, and contain varied but reinforcing
content.

6  
 
 U of S Student Binge Drinking Prevention Committee: July 15, 2011

• Cultivate Broad Social Responsibility – Messaging should be developed in such a

way as to indicate that the solution to the problem belongs to society as a whole
rather than the relatively few that regularly engage in the behaviour. This gets
away from the tendency to blame and externalizes solutions.
• Enhance Social Support – Social support to help those who engage in the risky
behaviour to act differently should be cultivated.
• Avoid Moralizing the Behaviour – The problem must be framed in a way that
appeals to target audiences and that avoids “moralizing” the behaviour.
• Use Positive Messages – The use of humor, empathy, and other positive messages
often works better than fear-based messaging.
• Use Branding – Branding, which has been successfully used in commercial
advertising, is a powerful tool to enhance public messaging campaigns.
• Proactively Counter Competing Messages – Competing messages and norms
should be explicitly identified and countered. These can be explicit (e.g., tobacco
companies espousing freedom and personal choice to help maintain cigarette
sales) or passive from existing social norms (e.g., people driving rather than
taking the bus or walking for short trips).
• Plan Ahead and Effectively – Successful social marketing uses planning to (a)
define clear and measureable objectives; (b) identify the people who need to or
can facilitate change (targets); (c) establish how their needs can be met with
attractive “change offerings”; and (d) recognize and either cooperate with or
block the competition.  

2. Statement of Work – Drawing on the existing theoretical and empirical literature,

the goal of the U of S Student Binge Drinking Prevention Campaign is to create an
effective, multi-pronged, sustainable, and macro-level initiative to reduce binge
drinking among the student population and its associated harms on the U of S campus.
Focus is on preventing and reducing student binge drinking by increasing awareness
and knowledge within the global campus community.

A necessary beginning point to develop an effective U of S Student Binge Drinking

Prevention Campaign is assessing the current extent of binge drinking behaviour, risk and
harms, awareness, perceptions, knowledge, and contexts on the U of S campus, as well as
thoroughly engaging with the student and broader campus community to develop the
campaign from a community-grounded approach. A repeat of the 2008 National College
Health Assessment survey would greatly inform this initiative. Currently, however,
without this in the plans at the U of S, rapid assessments† is an effective and efficient tool
to engage with the community at a variety of levels (e.g., social context, resources,
needs). 57-63 A rapid assessment will be undertaken on the U of S campus with the goal to:
(1) identify the characteristics of the target populations; (2) develop campus partnerships;
                                                                                                               
†
“RAP uses intensive team interaction in both the collection and analysis of data instead of prolonged
fieldwork and iterative data analysis and additional data collection to quickly develop a preliminary
understanding of a situation from the insider’s perspective.” Accessed June 20, 2011 from
http://www.rapidassessment.net.

7  
 
 U of S Student Binge Drinking Prevention Committee: July 15, 2011

and, (3) engage students and the campus community. This will inform a campaign that is
developed by and for the U of S campus community, and at the same time serve as a
mechanism to recruit a volunteer base for the initiative (approximately 15).

Prior to the rapid assessment meetings will be held with potential campus partners to
share this proposal (see Appendix B for a list of proposed partners). The aim is to recruit
the potential partners’ support, feedback, and advice for moving the initiative forward.

Informed from this generated knowledge, alongside the empirical literature and available
data, the rapid assessment process will involve (ethics application currently before the
Behavioral Research Ethics Board):

(1) Street interceptions with approximately 1000 U of S students on campus (5

questions that will take no longer than 5 minutes to answer);
(2) An environmental risk assessment of on-campus activities and policies that
implicitly and/or explicitly support student binge drinking;
(3) Interviews with key informants (e.g. Student Union, Health Services) on the U of
S campus about their: (a) knowledge of binge drinking and its consequences by U of
S students, and (b) thoughts on the development of an effective U of S student binge
drinking prevention campaign;
(4) Focus groups with U of S students about their: (a) knowledge of binge drinking
and its consequences by U of S students, and (b) thoughts on the development of an
effective U of S student binge drinking prevention campaign.

In addition to the rapid assessment activities, it is necessary to conduct a baseline survey

of current awareness and knowledge of binge drinking on the U of S campus, given that
the aim of the initiative is to raise awareness and increase knowledge. It is proposed
that this questionnaire will be distributed through the U of S campus email using Survey
Monkey. Ten baseline questions will be asked, and the survey will take approximately
five minutes to complete. It is important to note that the campaign is to be
implemented in accumulative stages, with raised awareness and increased
knowledge leading to long-term behaviour change.

To create an effective, multi-pronged, and macro-level campaign, a close working

relationship will need to be developed with the student population specifically and U of S
community broadly. This is required to both inform and implement the prevention
initiative and will include, for example, input into developing messaging, tag lines, a
campaign logo, and the initiative website. Several key features that will guide the U of S
community engagement process are:
• Collaboration with a diverse body of students;
• Collaboration with the university community, including faculty, staff, and
administration;
• Potential collaboration with industry, including, for example, liquor producers and
vendors; and
• Development of a ratified campus club specific to binge drinking prevention.

8  
 
 U of S Student Binge Drinking Prevention Committee: July 15, 2011

Drawing on the proposed campaign’s integrated focus on individual behaviour, valuable

messaging, and environmental factors, key features of the U of S Student Binge Drinking
Prevention Campaign will include:

Individual Behaviour
• Implement an existing web-based self-assessment tool, such as e-Chug , to work ϒ

toward long-term personal behaviour change of students on campus.

• Involve students directly in the development and implementation of a campaign,
creating in turn awareness and personal reflection.

Valuable Messaging
• Focus on moderate alcohol consumption and positive messaging rather than
abstinence and scare tactics.
• Develop targeted social norms messaging.
• Offer practical advice to students.
• Develop a memorable and engaging tag line and logo that does not dilute the
seriousness of binge drinking.
• Develop a message retention plan.
• Message through a wide variety of mediums including social networking sites,
online videos, and iPhone/Blackberry/Smart phone engagement.

Environmental Factors
• Examine campus-wide policies (or lack thereof), including price, availability,
college student group contracts with local bars, university related alcohol events
both on and off campus (e.g., pub crawls), and the advertisement and promotion
of alcohol.
• Keep our messaging broad enough so that we can involve all individuals on our
campus, including faculty, administration and staff. The message can be taken
home to families, and at the same time support the change in the environment
both within and surrounding the campus.

3. Work Plan – This proposed campaign fits with the U of S Third Integrated Plan’s
(2012-2016) proposed focus on an enhanced student experience. Please see Appendix A
for a staged work plan. Once again, a staged work plan (3.5 years) is necessary in that
raised awareness and increased knowledge lead to sustainable long-term behaviour
change, and the need to evaluate this.

4. Evaluation – As mentioned, a rapid assessment will be undertaken to assess the

current level of binge drinking, awareness, perceptions, knowledge, and contexts on the
U of S campus, while at the same time engaging the university community. During the
Summer and Fall 2011 academic term, a baseline assessment will take place, involving
(as mentioned): (1) interviews with U of S key informants, (2) street interceptions with U
                                                                                                               
ϒ
 http://www.echeckuptogo.com/can/  

9  
 
 U of S Student Binge Drinking Prevention Committee: July 15, 2011

of S students, (3) focus groups with U of S students, and (4) an online U of S campus
survey. The survey will be redistributed at the end of first term in December, 2011, and
the end of second term in April, 2012.
5. Partnerships and Our Expertise - In order for the proposed initiative to have a
positive and sustainable impact on the U of S campus, it is necessary to have the support
of the majority of the U of S administration and campus clubs. This includes the U of S
Students’ Union, college student associations, the university President, and the university
colleges and schools (see Appendix B for a list of potential partners). Once we have
become established as a campaign on campus, we would like to branch out to the
surrounding community. In order to do this we will need the support of locally
established businesses and agencies. Future partnership interests include: Mother’s and
Students’ Against Drunk Driving (MADD, SADD), Saskatoon Regional Health
Authority, local radio stations and city media, SGI, Saskatchewan Health/Kids Help
Phone, and Canada Health.
An Advisory Committee consisting of members of the Saskatchewan Ministry of Health,
the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, and the U of S Saskatchewan Team for
Research and Evaluation of Addiction Treatment and Mental Health Services
(specifically Dr. Peter Butt) is overseeing this initiative. The U of S faculty lead is the
provincial Research Chair in Substance Abuse—Dr. Colleen Anne Dell. This initiative is
an extension of Dr. Dell’s 2011 U of S class assignment for SOC 398 & PUBH 398:
Studies in Addictions, in which the class collaboratively identified binge drinking as a
key health concern on the U of S campus.

The current student team brings various skills and expertise to the U of S Student Binge
Drinking Prevention Campaign. With educational backgrounds in psychology, sociology,
and social work, we have the necessary academic tools to design, implement and evaluate
the initiative. We also have an array of experience with work and volunteer experiences,
including working with disenfranchised youth at Egadz; sexual and gender-related
violence survivors; student government, campus clubs, student recruitment and retention;
academic advising; health research; and student event and campaign planning. Essential
to the student team is their deep roots within and commitment to the U of S student
community because of their undergraduate student status. This is a significant strength of
the initiative – the campaign is being created by students for students.

6. Budget (August, 2011 – April, 2012) - At this early stage in the development of the U
of S Binge Drinking Prevention Campaign, the associated material costs are only
projected, with some costs unknown until the campaign is fully developed. It is important
to note that in-kind commitment has been secured from the Saskatchewan Ministry of
Health and the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. Further monetary and in-kind
contributions from the prospective U of S partners will ideally be secured for the
campaign to be fully implemented and achieve maximum effectiveness. Funding to cover
the cost of student salaries (2 ½ time & 2 ¼ time positions) to initiate the project in April,
2011 (until August, 2011) was provided by the Saskatchewan Team for Research and
Evaluation of Addictions Treatment and Mental Health Services and an University of
Saskatchewan Summer Student Employment Grant (USTEP). (Appendix C for the

10  
 
 U of S Student Binge Drinking Prevention Committee: July 15, 2011

proposed budget).

11  
 
 U of S Student Binge Drinking Prevention Committee: July 15, 2011

APPENDIX A: WORK PLAN

12  
 
 U of S Student Binge Drinking Prevention Committee: July 15, 2011

APPENDIX B: POTENTIAL PARTNERS

Student based
• Select Campus Clubs
o Prairie Party Planners (PPP)
• College based student’s unions
o St. Thomas More College Students’ Union (STMSU)
o Aboriginal Law Students Association (ASLA)
o Law Students’ Association (LSA)
o Western Canadian Veterinary Students’ Association (WCVSA)
o Aboriginal Business Students Society (ABSS)
o Edwards Business Student Society (EBSS)
o Arts & Science Students’ Union (ASSU)
o Educations Students’ Society (ESS)
o Saskatoon Engineering Students’ Society (SESS)
o Kinesiology Student Society (KSS)
• Husky Sports Teams
• University of Saskatchewan Students’ Union
o USSU Childcare Centre
o USSU Food Centre
o USSU Help Centre
o USSU Pride Centre
o USSU Women’s Centre
• The Associated Residence Community (ARC)
• The Sheaf
University of Saskatchewan
• Campus Safety Department
• College Administration:
o Arts & Science
o Edwards School of Business
o Agriculture
o Engineering
o Pharmacy
o Medicine
o Nursing
o Dentistry
o St. Thomas More
o Kinesiology
• Health Education Coordinator (Rita Mireles)
• Marketing & Student Recruitment (Experience US, Orientation)
• Student Enrolment Services Division
• University of Saskatchewan’s Board of Ethics
• University of Saskatchewan Student Health & Counseling

13  
 
 U of S Student Binge Drinking Prevention Committee: July 15, 2011

Province of Saskatchewan
• Government of Saskatchewan
• Saskatchewan Ministry of Health
Nationally
• Canadian Center on Substance Abuse (CCSA)

14  
 
 U of S Student Binge Drinking Prevention Committee: July 15, 2011

APPENDIX C: PROPOSED BUDGET (August, 2011 – April, 2012)

Initiative Component Purpose Within the Initiative Estimated Cost

Website A website will be used to raise awareness

about the campaign, distribute information
to increase knowledge, and link to related
information on other websites. $ 1,500.00

QR Barcodes Ability to link an individual scanning the

code to the campaign website or other
social media outlets with the message
attached.
3 codes @ $60 x 3 time periods $180.00

Web Based Self- Annual subscription. These assessments

Assessments – e-Chug allow the participant to asses and monitor
their drinking behaviour. $959.62

Focus Groups Ability to gain specific insight into the U

of S campus.
3 events @ $200 $600.00

Volunteer Appreciation Bi-annual event to keep volunteers excited

and engaged with the initiative.
2 events @ $250 $500.00

Volunteer Honorariums 15 volunteers @ $200 per term x 2 terms $6,000.00

-$3,000 provided by Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse)

Project coordinator 308 hr x $13.35 (7 hr/week for 44 weeks

& 13% benefits) $4,646.33

-$2,000 provided by the Research Chair in Substance Abuse

-$2,000 provided by the Saskatchewan Team for Research and Evaluation
of Addictions Treatment and Mental Health Services

Print Materials Materials to be handed out at events like

‘Welcome Week’ with campaign
information. $1,500.00

Province of Saskatchewan to provide in-kind professional expertise in the

development of the products

Welcome Week Initiatives I Pod Touch & I Pad draws to attract

student attention and encourage $275.00
involvement. $550.00

Total: $9,710.95

15  
 
 U of S Student Binge Drinking Prevention Committee: July 15, 2011

REFERENCES
1. Ferguson, Elliot (2011, June 1). “Queen’s reviews student alcohol use.” The
Kingston Whig Standard. Retrieved from
http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3148733.
2. Crego, A., Holguin, S. R., Parada, M., Mota, N., Corral, M., & Cadaveira, F.
(2009). “Binge drinking affects attentional and visual working memory
processing in young university students.” Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental
Research. 33(11): 1870-1879
3. The Psychology Foundation of Canada, Staying on Top of Your Game Program
4. Carey, Kate B., Scott-Sheldon, Lori, A. J., Elliott, Jennifer C., Bolles, Jamie R., &
Carey, Michael P. (2009). “Computer-delivered interventions to reduce college
student drinking: A meta-analysis.” Addiction. 104: 1807-1819.
5. Ahern, Nancy R. & Sole, Mary Lou. (2010). “Drinking games and college
students: Part 1: Problem description.” Journal of psychosocial nursing. 48(2):
17-20.
6. Carlson, Scott R., Johnson, Season C., & Jacobs, Pauline C. (2010) “Disinhibited
characteristics and binge drinking among university student drinkers.” Addictive
Behaviors 35: 242-251.
7. Howland, Jonathan, Rohsenow, Damaris J., Greece, Jacey A., Littlefield, Caroline
A., Almeida Alissa, Heeren, Timothy, Winter, Michael, Bliss, Caleb A., Hunt,
Sarah, & Hermos, John. (2010) “The effects of binge drinking on college
students’ next-day academic test-taking performance and mood state.” Addiction
105: 655-665.
8. Patrick, Megan E., Morgan, Nicole, Maggs, Jennifer L., & Lefkowitz, Eva S.
(2011). “I got your back: Friends’ understandings regarding college student spring
break behavior.” J Youth Adolescence 40: 108-120.
9. Fairlie, Anne M., DeJong, William, Stevenson, John F., Lavigne, Andrea M., &
Wood, Mark D. (2010). “Fraternity and sorority leaders and members: A
comparison of alcohol use, attitudes and policy awareness.” The American
Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 36: 187-193.
10. Bélanger, Charles H., Leonard, Valorie M., & Lebrasseur, Rolland. (2011).
“Alcohol use and the effects on university business students.” Tertiary Education
and Management 17(1): 17-30.
11. Peralta, Robert L., Steele, Jennifer L., Nofziger, Stacey, & Rickles, Michael.
(2010). “The impact of gender on binge drinking behavior among U.S. college
students attending a Midwestern university: An analysis of two gender measures.”
Feminist Criminology 5(4): 355-379.
12. Martens, Matthew P., Pedersen, Eric R., Smith, Ashley, E., Stewart, Sherry H., &
O’Brien, Kerry. (2011). “Predictors of alcohol-related outcomes in college
athletes: The roles of trait urgency and drinking motives.” Addictive Behaviors
36: 456-464.
13. LaBrie, Joseph W., Lac, Andrew, Kenny, Shannon R., & Mirza Tehniat. (2011).
“Protective behavioral strategies mediate the effect of drinking motives on alcohol
use among heavy drinking college students: Gender and race differences.”
Addictive Behaviors 36: 354-361.

16  
 
 U of S Student Binge Drinking Prevention Committee: July 15, 2011

14. Adlar, Edward M., Demers, A., & Gliksman, L. (Eds.) (2005). Canadian Campus
Survey 2004. Toronto: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health: 1-114.
15. Statistics Canada. (2007-2008). Canadian Community Health Survey
16. American College Health Association. (2008) American College Health
Association-National College Health Assessment: University Saskatchewan
Executive Summary Spring 2008. Baltimore: American College Health
Association.
17. Peralta, Robert L., Steele, Jennifer L., Nofziger, S., & Rickles, M. (2010) “The
impact of gender on binge drinking behaviour among U.S. college students
attending a Midwestern university: An analysis of two gender measures.”
Feminist Criminology. 5, 4: 355-379.
18. Demmel, R., Beate, B., Richter, D., & Reker, T. (2004) “Readiness to change in a
clinical sample of problem drinkers: Relation to alcohol use, self-efficacy, and
treatment outcome.” European Addiction Research. 10: 133-138.
19. Finnerty, M., Perron, M., & Pieterson, B. (2007) “Reducing alcohol-related harm
in Canada: Toward a culture of moderation.” Recommendations for a national
alcohol strategy.
20. Demers, Andree. (2002). “Multilevel Analysis of Situational Drinking among
Canadian Undergraduates.” Social Science & Medicine. Vol. 22, pp. 415-424.
21. Martinez, Julia A., Steinley, Douglas, & Sher, Kenneth J. (2010). “Deliberate
induction of alcohol tolerance: Empirical introduction to a novel health risk.”
Addiction 105: 1767-1770
22. França, Lionel Riou, Dautsenberg, Bertrand, & Reynaud, Michel. (2010). “Heavy
episodic drinking and alcohol consumption in French colleges: The role of
perceived social norms.” Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 34(1):
164-174.
23. Johannessen, K., Collins, C., Mills-Novoa, B., & Gilder, P. (1999). A practical
guide to alcohol abuse prevention: A campus case study in implementing social
norms and environmental management approached. Tucson, Arizona: Campus
Health Service, The University of Arizona
24. Government of Saskatchewan (2007). “What else got wasted?” Alcohol & Drug
Social Marketing Campaign. Retrieved March 8th, 2011, from
http://www.health.gov.sk.ca/what-else-got-wasted-campaign
25. Rehm, J., Baliunas, D., Brochu, S., Fischer, B., Gnam, W., Patra, J., Popora, S.,
Sarnocinska-Hart, A. & Taylor, B. (2002). “The Costs of Substance Abuse in
Canada.” Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. Retrieved June 15 from
http://www.ccsa.ca/2006%20CCSA%20Documents/ccsa-011332-2006.pdf
26. Government of Saskatchewan (2007). “”Binge Drinking” Alcohol & Drug Social
Marketing Campaign. Retrieved May 26th, 2011 from
http://www.health.gov.sk.ca/binge-drinking
27. Government of Saskatchewan (2007). “Giving Away” Alcohol & Drug Social
Marketing Campaign. Retrieved May 26th, 2011 from
http://www.health.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=8e8983ca-50b7-42a1-a612-
776737dfe006

17  
 
 U of S Student Binge Drinking Prevention Committee: July 15, 2011

28. Government of Saskatchewan (2007). “Rites of Passage” Alcohol & Drug Social
Marketing Campaign. Retrieved May 26th, 2011 from
http://www.health.gov.sk.ca/campaign-rites-of-passage  
29. University of Saskatchewan, Campus Safety (1994-2011). “Alcohol & Drugs”
Personal Safety. Retrieved May 26th, 2011 from
http://www.usask.ca/campussafety/personal-safety/alcohol.php  
30. Chaloupka, F. J., (1993). "Effects of price on alcohol-related problems." Alcohol
Health & Research World 17.1: 46+. General OneFile.
31. Scribner, R. A., Theall, K. P., Mason, K., Simonsen, N., Schneider, S. K.,
Towvim. L. G., & DeJong, W. (2011). “Alcohol Prevention on College
Campuses: The Moderating Effect of the Alcohol Environment on the
Effectiveness of Social Norms Marketing Campaigns.” Journal of Studies on
Alcohol and Drugs, 72:232-239.
32. Wechsler, H. & Nelson, T. F. (2008). “What We Have Learned From the Harvard
School of Public College Alcohol Study: Focusing Attention on College Student
Alcohol Consumption and the Environmental Conditions That Promote It”
Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 69:000-000.
33. Perkins, H. W. (2007). “Misperceptions of Peer Drinking Norms in Canada:
Another look at the “reign of error” and its Consequences Among College
Students.” Addictive Behaviors Vol. 32:11, 2645-2656.
34. Perkins, H. W., & Criag, D. W., (2006). “A successful social norms campaign to
reduce alcohol misuse among college student-athletes” Journal of Studies on
Alcohol, Vol. 67:6, 880-90.
35. Ricciardelli, L. A., & McCabe, M. P. (2008). “University students’ perceptions of
the alcohol campaign: “Is Getting Pissed Getting Pathetic? (Just Ask Your
Friends”.” Addictive Behaviours, Vol. 33, 366-372.
36. Park, H. S., Smith, S. W., Klein, K. A., & Martell, D. (2011) “College Students’
Estimation and Accuracy of Other Students’ Drinking and Believability of
Advertisements Featured in a Social Norms Campaign.” Journal of Health
Communication, Vol. 16:5, 504-518.
37. Thombs, D. L., Dotterer, S., Olds, R. S., Sharp, K. E., & Raub, C. G., (2004). “A
Close Look at Why One Social Norms Campaign Did Not Reduce Student
Drinking.” Journal of American College Health, Vol. 53:2, 61-68.
38. Werch, C. E., Pappas, D. M., Carlson, J. M., DiClemente, C. C., Chally, P. S., &
Sinder, J. A., (2000). “Results of a Social Norm Intervention to Precent Binge
Drinking Among First-year Residential College Students.” Journal of American
College Health, Vol. 49, 85-92.
39. DeJong, W., Schneider, S. K., Towvim, L. G., Murphy, M. J., Doerr, E. E.,
Simonsen, N. R., Mason, K. E., & Scribner, R. A., (2009). “A Multisite
Randomized Trial of Social Norms Marketing Campaigns to Reduce College
Student Drinking: A Replication Failure.” Substance Abuse, Vol. 30, 127-140.
40. Clapp, J. D., Lange, J. E., Russell, C., Shillington, A., Voas, R. B. (2003). “A
Failed Norms Social Marketing Campaign.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Vol.
64, 409-414.

18  
 
 U of S Student Binge Drinking Prevention Committee: July 15, 2011

41. Walters, S., Miller, E., & Book, P. (2005). “Wired for Wellness: e-Intervnetions
for Addressing College Drinking.” Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, Vol.
29:2, 139-145.
42. Doumas, D. M., McKinley, L. L., & Book, P. (2009). “Evaluation of two Web-
based alcohol interventions for mandated college students” Journal of Substance
Abuse Treatment Vol. 36:1, 65-74.
43. Walters, S. T., Vader, A. M., & Harris, R. (2007). “A Controlled Trial ofWeb-
Based Feedback for Heavy Drinking College Students,.” Prevention Science, Vol.
8, 83–88.
44. Hustada, J. T. P., Bernetta, N. P., Borsarib, B., & Jackson, K. M., (2010). “Web-
based alcohol prevention for incoming college students: A randomized controlled
trial” Addictive Behaviors Vol. 35:3, 183-189.
45. Neighborsa, C., Walters, S. T., Lee, C. M., Vader, A. M., Vehige, T., Szigethy,
T., and DeJong, W. (2007). “Event-specific prevention: Addressing college
student drinking during known windows of risk.” Addictive Behaviors Vol. 32:11,
2667-2680.
46. Larimera, M. E., & Cronce, J. M., (2007). “Identification, prevention, and
treatment revisited: Individual-focused college drinking prevention strategies
1999–2006.” Addictive Behaviors, Vol. 32:11, 2439-2468.
47. Haines, Michael P. (1996). “A Social Norms Approach to Preventing Binge
Drinking at Colleges and Universities” The Higher Education Centre for Alcohol
and Other Drug Prevention. Retrieved May 19th, 2011 from
http://socialnorms.org/pdf/socnormapproach.pdf  
48. The Other Hangover, University of Minnesota (2010). Visit
http://www.theotherhangover.com/
49. Less Than You Think, University of Alabama (2010). Visit http://www.ltut.org/
50. Author unknown, (2009). “The Stupid Drink” Disco Fries: A collection of pop
culture, science and sarcasm. Retrieved May 26th, 2011 from
http://discofries.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/the-stupid-drink/
51. Rutgers, (2008). “Projects: RU SURE?” Centre for Communication and Health
Issues. Retrieved May 19th 2011 from
http://commhealthissues.rutgers.edu/rusure.html
52. Maguire, L., & Woolfson, L.M., (2010). “Binge Drinking in a Sample of Scottish
Undergraduate Students.” Journal of Youth Studies, Vol. 13:6, 647-659.    
53. Salovey, P., & Williams, P.P., (2004). “Field Experiments in Social Psychology:
Message Framing and the Promotion of Health Protective Behaviors.” American
Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 47:5, 488-502.  
54. Hurst, N., (2011). “Positive Anti-Binge Drinking Messages Most Effective”.
Medical News Daily. Retrieved June 3rd 2011 from
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/227252.php  
55. DeJong, W., Vince-Whitman, C., Colthurst, T., Cretella, M., Gilbreath, M.,
Rosati, M., and Aweig, K. (1998). “Environmental Management: A
Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Alcolhol and Other Drug Use on College
Campuses.” Newton, Massachusetts: Higher Education Center for Alcohol and
Other Drug Prevention.  

19  
 
 U of S Student Binge Drinking Prevention Committee: July 15, 2011

56. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. (2009).
“College Alcohol Risk Assessment Guide: Environmental Approaches to
Prevention.” Washington, D.C.: Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other
Drug Prevention  
57. Stead, Gordon & Holme et al., 2009  
58. Salovey, P., & Williams, P.P., (2004). “Field Experiments in Social Psychology:
Message Framing and the Promotion of Health Protective Behaviors.” American
Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 47:5, 488-502.  
59. Abell, N., Springer, D. W., & Kamata, A. (2009). Developing and Validating
Rapid Assessment Instruments. Oxford University Press: NY.
60. Beebe, J., (2001). Rapid Assessment Process: An Introduction. AltaMira Press:
Walnut Creek, CA.
61. World Health Organization - Substance Abuse Department (1998) “The Rapid
Assessment and Response Guide on Injecting Drug Use” (Eds. G.V.Stimson,
C.Fitch and T.Rhodes) Retrieved May 20th, 2011 from
http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/en/IDURARguideEnglish.pdf
62. Trotter, R. T., & Needle, R. H. (2000). “RARE Project Field Assessment Training
Methods Workbook” Retrieved May 20th, 2011 from
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/rtt/pdf%20format%20pubs/Trotter%202000%20pdf%20Pu
bs/RARE%20Methods%20Resource%20Guide%202000.pdf
63. Trotter, R. T., Needle, R. H., Goosby, E., Bates, C. & Singer, M., (2001). “A
Methodological Model for Rapid Assessment, Response, and Evaluation: The
RARE Program in Public Health” Field Methods, 13:137. Retrieved May 20th
2011 fromhttp://fmx.sagepub.com/content/13/2/137.full.pdf+html  

20