Campus Law Enforcement’s Role
With the support of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Fisher College’s Center for Leadership in Public Service explored the role, challenges, and effectiveness of student life and law enforcement personnel in addressing dangerous over consumption of alcohol on campus. The research project was completed in Fall 2010.
Learn more about the findings
The Role and Effectiveness of Campus Law Enforcement and Student Affairs in Combating Overconsumption on College Campuses
> Research Summary
> Full Report
Key highlights include:
While student affairs professionals tend to have a more optimistic view than campus police of drinking on college campuses, the majority maintain the opinion that neither underage drinking nor binge drinking was getting better or worse on their campus. Overconsumption is considered a priority problem on ever campus, and one that can spill over into the entire community.
A majority of respondents reported that overconsumption is more of a problem among students under the age of 21 than among those of legal drinking age. Furthermore, the survey revealed that the majority of alcohol-related violations do not involve repeat offenders.
Eight out of ten campus police (82%) have received special training regarding alcohol-related issues. Activities performed by campus police in tackling alcohol-related incidents on campus include patrolling outdoor campus property, facilities and academic buildings, and conducting alcohol education programs. Student affairs professionals reported tackling alcohol-related issues most commonly by patrolling residence halls and student housing, searching rooms, and conducting optional alcohol educational programming.
According to campus police and student affairs personnel the most common interventions for alcohol-related sanctions were probation, parental notification, and referral to counseling services. The most effective interventions according to survey respondents were suspension/dismissal, specialized assessment of repeat offenders, and individual motivational interviews. While the least effective interventions were community service, a computer-based educational programs, and monetary fines.