Alcohol is the most commonly used drug among U.S. college students, and alcohol-related harms remain substantial for both drinkers and those around them. Prior research has evaluated individual- and environmental-level prevention strategies, and evidence syntheses highlight population-level “best buys” (e.g., higher alcohol excise taxes, restrictions on alcohol advertising exposure, and limits on physical availability), which have informed college-focused guidance such as CollegeAIM. However, many campus alcohol policies and sanctions that colleges actually use are not well covered or sufficiently evaluated in existing guidance. To address this gap, the present study systematically collects and analyzes campus alcohol policies (CAPs) from a diverse sample of 45 U.S. institutions to identify the most prevalent CAPs and assess their likely effectiveness and clarity for students, as well as differences by institutional characteristics.
This study drew on IPEDS data to select U.S. colleges with residential housing using a stratified, probability-proportional-to-size sampling approach by region and institution type. Campus alcohol policy (CAP) documents were collected from institutional websites and coded using a standardized protocol covering 35 policies and 13 sanctions. Policy effectiveness was quantified through a composite CAP score based on established ratings, policy clarity was assessed using Flesch reading ease scores, and compliance with federal EDGAR Part 86 requirements was summarized as a compliance score. Associations between institutional characteristics (e.g., size, control, and region) and CAP effectiveness, clarity, and compliance were examined using bivariate Poisson regression for EDGAR scores and general linear models for CAP and Flesch scores, with CAP analyses stratified by wet versus dry campus type.
Most institutions were fully compliant with EDGAR Part 86 requirements; however, campus alcohol policy (CAP) materials were generally written at a level that is difficult for students to read, with readability varying by institution type, control, and size. Overall CAP strength differed by campus type, with higher mean CAP scores on “dry” campuses than on “wet” campuses. Alcohol-permitting (“wet”) campuses most commonly implemented effective policies including mandatory registration of school events with alcohol (87.1%), prohibition of alcohol in public spaces (83.9%), and explicit mention of on-campus consequences for off-campus violations (83.9%), while alcohol-prohibiting (“dry”) campuses primarily used explicit mention of on-campus consequences for off-campus violations (92.9%), explicit mention of police sharing student information (64.3%), and prohibition of alcohol in stadiums (42.9%). However, effective policies such as prohibiting alcohol delivery to campus or off-campus patrols were underutilized, and both campus types used student organization sanctions, housing dismissal, and revocation of organization privileges as primary consequences, though parental notification was least utilized. Geographically, wet campuses in the Northeast had the weakest policies, and for dry campuses, greater housing capacity was associated with stronger policy implementation.
Takeaway: While CAPs at universities nationwide demonstrate relatively satisfactory compliance with federal regulations, the readability and adoption rates of evidence-based effective policies remain areas requiring improvement, necessitating regular strengthening and revision of policies to enhance the campus drinking environment.