D573 Task 2 Prevention Program Plan Example

One Conversation Before the First Party Weekend Is Over: A Brief Motivational Alcohol Intervention Plan for First-Year Students at a Composite State University

Student Name

Leavitt School of Health, Western Governors University

D573: Understanding Substance Abuse and Addiction, Task 2

Course Instructor

Month Day, Year

One Conversation Before the First Party Weekend Is Over: A Brief Motivational Alcohol Intervention Plan for First-Year Students at a Composite State University

Introduction

The first weeks of college are a period of high risk for heavy drinking. Students are newly independent, overestimate how much their peers drink and are forming habits that can last through college. This paper proposes an evidence-based prevention program for first-year students at a composite public university: a brief, individual motivational intervention with personalized feedback, offered to students who screen positive for heavy drinking during their first semester. It describes the target population and the problem, the evidence for the chosen approach, implementation steps, expected outcomes and how the program will be evaluated.

Target Population and Problem

Great Lakes State University, a composite public university of 21,000 students, admits about 4,300 first-year students each fall, most living in residence halls. The university's last campus health survey found that 34% of first-year students reported at least one episode of binge drinking, defined as four or more drinks for women or five or more for men on one occasion, in the previous two weeks. First-year students also accounted for 61% of alcohol-related emergency transports from campus last year. Survey data showed that students believed the typical first-year student drank about twice as much on a weekend night as students actually reported drinking.

The problem is both individual and environmental: a period of transition, peer norms that are overestimated, and easy access to alcohol at off-campus parties. A prevention program needs to reach students early, correct misperceptions and help those already drinking heavily reduce harm before patterns set.

Choosing an Evidence-Based Approach

Brief motivational interventions for college drinkers have one of the strongest research records in campus prevention. In a randomized trial, high-risk students who received a single individualized motivational session with personalized feedback in their first year showed significant reductions in drinking rates and harmful consequences over two years compared with a control group (Marlatt et al., 1998). This approach later became known as Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students, or BASICS. A meta-analysis of 62 studies with 13,750 participants found that students receiving individual-level interventions drank less than controls over follow-ups of up to six months and reported fewer alcohol-related problems over longer periods, and that face-to-face interventions using motivational interviewing and personalized normative feedback predicted greater reductions in problems (Carey et al., 2007).

The approach fits this population well. It is brief, so it can reach many students; it is nonjudgmental, which matters for students who do not see their drinking as a problem; and its normative feedback directly targets the overestimation found in the campus survey.

Program Components

Screening. During the second week of the fall semester, all first-year students complete a short online wellness check as part of a required orientation module. It includes a validated three-item alcohol screen along with questions on sleep, stress and nutrition, so no student is singled out.

Brief intervention. Students who screen positive are invited to two 50-minute sessions with a trained counselor or graduate clinician. The first session collects a detailed baseline of drinking patterns, consequences and beliefs. The second session, two weeks later, reviews a personalized feedback report showing the student's drinking compared with actual campus norms, estimated blood alcohol levels on heavy nights, money spent on alcohol, and risks the student has already experienced. The counselor uses a motivational interviewing style, exploring the student's own reasons for change and offering harm reduction strategies such as alternating drinks with water, setting a limit before going out and never leaving a friend alone.

Universal messaging. All first-year students receive a short social norms campaign in residence halls, using actual survey data to show that most first-year students drink less than their peers assume. Correcting inflated perceptions of peer drinking is the core idea of the social norms approach to campus prevention (Perkins, 2002).

Implementation Plan

The program will be run by the Student Health and Counseling Center with the Office of Residence Life. Steps: train eight counselors and six graduate clinicians in the intervention protocol during the summer, a two-day training followed by recorded practice sessions reviewed by a supervisor; add the wellness check to the orientation module by August; send invitations through the student portal and by text; offer sessions in person and by video; and hold monthly supervision to keep delivery consistent. Based on the survey, an estimated 1,400 students will screen positive; the goal is to deliver both sessions to at least 700 in the first year. Estimated first-year cost is $62,000, mostly clinician time and training, funded through the student health fee.

Expected Outcomes and Evaluation

Primary outcomes at three and six months: reduced average drinks per week and fewer binge drinking episodes among participants, measured through follow-up surveys. Secondary outcomes: fewer alcohol-related consequences, more accurate perceptions of peer drinking, and a decline in alcohol-related emergency transports among first-year students compared with the previous three years. Process measures will track screening completion, invitations accepted and sessions completed. Because random assignment of students who screen positive would withhold an effective service, the evaluation will compare participants with eligible students who declined, while acknowledging that the two groups may differ in motivation.

Ethical and Equity Considerations

Screening results are confidential and are not shared with residence life staff or conduct offices; students will be told this in writing. Messages will use nonjudgmental, person-centered language. Sessions will be available in Spanish, and video sessions will support commuter and working students who live off campus.

Students who screen negative will still receive the universal norms messaging and a list of campus supports, so no one leaves the wellness check with nothing. Staff will also track whether students from any group, such as first-generation or commuter students, decline sessions at higher rates, and adjust outreach if they do.

Conclusion

A brief motivational intervention with personalized feedback, supported by universal norms messaging, is a practical, evidence-based way to reduce heavy drinking among first-year students at the point when habits form. The plan identifies the population and problem, rests on randomized and meta-analytic evidence, and sets measurable outcomes for judging whether it works.

References

Carey, K. B., Scott-Sheldon, L. A. J., Carey, M. P., & DeMartini, K. S. (2007). Individual-level interventions to reduce college student drinking: A meta-analytic review. Addictive Behaviors, 32(11), 2469-2494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.05.004

Marlatt, G. A., Baer, J. S., Kivlahan, D. R., Dimeff, L. A., Larimer, M. E., Quigley, L. A., Somers, J. M., & Williams, E. (1998). Screening and brief intervention for high-risk college student drinkers: Results from a 2-year follow-up assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(4), 604-615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.66.4.604

Perkins, H. W. (2002). Social norms and the prevention of alcohol misuse in collegiate contexts. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Supplement 14, 164-172. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.164