Release Date:  November 25, 1998

RFA:  AA-99-001


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
SAMHSA Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
Department of Education

Letter of Intent Receipt Date:  February 23, 1999
Application Receipt Date:  March 23, 1999


The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), in conjunction
with the Department of Education (DOE) and the Center for Substance Abuse
Prevention (CSAP), seeks grant applications to conduct intervention-oriented
research that will ultimately lead to the reduction of alcohol-related problems
among college students.

Alcohol abuse among college students, many of whom are under the minimum legal
drinking age, is a major health problem on college campuses with serious negative
consequences for individual drinkers, those around them, and the college
environment.  National surveys have consistently found that the prevalence of
periodic heavy or high-risk drinking, as indicated by self-reports of consuming
five or more drinks on a single occasion (so called "binge" drinking), is
greatest among young adults compared to all other age groups; and among young
adults, college students have the highest prevalence of high-risk drinking.
(Gfroerer et al., 1997; Johnston et al., 1997)

The purpose of this Request for Applications (RFA) is to encourage research that
develops and/or tests interventions that have the potential of preventing or
reducing alcohol abuse and associated problems among college students.  These
prevention strategies may focus on the larger normative or cultural environment
in which drinking occurs or on drinkers as individuals or groups of persons
engaged in hazardous drinking behavior.  The interventions may include campus or
community policies that are initiated and implemented by persons or systems that
are completely independent of the research endeavor ("natural experiments"), or
they may be initiated by the research team in cooperation with a college or


The Public Health Service (PHS) is committed to achieving the health promotion
and disease prevention objectives of "Healthy People 2000," a PHS-led activity
for setting priority areas.  This RFA, Prevention of Alcohol-Related Problems
Among College Students, is related to the priority area of alcohol abuse
reduction and alcoholism prevention.  Potential applicants may obtain a copy of
"Healthy People 2000" (Full Report:  Stock No. 170-011-00474-0 or Summary Report: 
Stock No. 017-001-00473-1) through the Superintendent of Documents, Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325 (telephone 202-512-1800).


Applications may be submitted by domestic and foreign, for-profit and non-profit
organizations, public and private, such as universities, colleges, hospitals,
laboratories, units of State and local governments, and eligible agencies of the
Federal Government.  Racial/ethnic minority individuals, women, and persons with
disabilities are encouraged to apply as Principal Investigators.


Research support may be obtained through applications for a research project
grant (R01).  Investigators who wish to submit a new application that requests
$500,000 or more for direct costs in any year must obtain written approval from
the NIAAA prior to submitting the application.  Applicants also may submit
Investigator-Initiated Interactive Research Project Grants (IRPG) under this RFA. 
Interactive Research Project Grants require the coordinated submission of related
regular research project grant applications (R01s) from investigators who wish
to collaborate on research but do not require extensive shared physical
resources.  These applications must share a common theme and describe the
objectives and scientific importance of the interchange of, for example, ideas,
data, and materials among the collaborating investigators.  A minimum of two
independent investigators with related research objectives may submit concurrent,
collaborative, cross-referenced individual R01 applications.  Applications may
be from one or several institutions.  Further information on the IRPG mechanism
is available in program announcement PA-96-001, NIH Guide for Grants and
Contracts, Vol. 24, No. 35, October 6, 1995, and from the NIAAA program staff
listed under INQUIRIES.


Up to $3 million in total costs will be available for the first year of awards
under this RFA.  It is anticipated that four to eight awards will be made under
this RFA in FY 1999.  This level of support is dependent on receipt of
applications of high scientific merit.  The usual policies governing grants
administration and management, including facilities and administrative costs,
will apply.  Funding beyond the first and subsequent years of the grant will be
contingent upon satisfactory progress during the preceding years and availability
of funds.  The earliest possible award date is September 30, 1999.



A 1993 national survey of students at 140 colleges (Wechsler et al., 1994) found
that almost half (44 percent) of the respondents had engaged in "binge" drinking
over the last two weeks (defined for men as consuming five or more drinks in a
single setting and for women as consuming four or more drinks) and that 19
percent of the respondents frequently engaged in such behavior.  Moreover, the
study showed a strong, positive relationship between the frequency of "binge"
drinking and a variety of other alcohol-related problems:  failing to use
protection when having sexual intercourse, engaging in unplanned sexual
intercourse, getting into trouble with campus police, damaging property, drinking
and driving, and getting hurt or injured.  These data also indicated that the
majority of students who do not engage in "binge" drinking still experience
adverse consequences or "secondary binge effects" from the drunken behavior of
others.  These ranged in seriousness from nuisances, such as having studying
interrupted or having to "baby sit" a drunk student, to assault and rape.  On
campuses where "binge" drinking is more prevalent, non-"binge" drinkers are more
likely to experience such secondary effects.  (Wechsler et al., 1995)

In response to increased public and private concern about campus alcohol
problems, administrators and education, health, and public safety officials are
seeking guidance in developing policies and programs that will prevent and reduce
student "binge" drinking.  Unfortunately, there is relatively little research
specifically focused on preventive interventions in college settings, and
existing campus efforts to reduce abusive drinking have not had benefit of a body
of rigorously tested interventions from which to draw. In response to this need
for guidance in developing college alcohol policies, the Department of Education
has taken leadership in disseminating information on "model" programs through its
support of the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention. 
These programs are based on theory, consensus of experts, and practical
experience.  However, resources have not been available to rigorously assess
their effectiveness, and scientifically grounded research in this area is
urgently needed.

Environmental factors underlying high-risk drinking by college students.  There
is strong evidence that environmental factors play a major role in promoting and
supporting excessive drinking. Campuses differ in the amount of "binge" drinking
that takes place, and although there may be some self-selection at work þ
students already intent on heavy drinking deliberately selecting "party schools"
- it is clear that campus norms shape the drinking practices of individual
students.  Lower levels of "binge" drinking are found among students attending
"commuter" colleges where the majority of students live off-campus.  (Chaloupka
and Wechsler, 1996) Students who live at home drink less than those who live in
dorms or apartments, and students who live alone drink less than those with
roommates (Gfroerer et al., 1997).

Identification of environmental factors that predict campus-wide differences in
alcohol use and "binge" drinking could provide strong direction for intervention
development, but there have been few scientific studies of this nature.  In one
exception, data from the 1993 campus drinking survey by Wechsler and colleagues
were analyzed in conjunction with other campus and State-level information
(Chaloupka and Wechsler, 1996). The investigators found that alcohol
availability, as indicated by the number of outlets within one mile of campus and
the presence of a bar on campus, correlated positively with levels of drinking
and "binge" drinking on campus.  Analogously, an index of the restrictiveness of
State drunk driving laws targeting youth and young adults was inversely related
to measures of drinking, especially among males.  It has been argued that the
demonstrated effectiveness of some environmental interventions in the general
population (e.g., reduced alcohol availability; increased enforcement of drunk
driving laws; lowered blood alcohol limits (zero tolerance) for minors is an
indication of their potential to reduce college alcohol problems (Hingson et al.,
1997); and the findings from this study support that view.

Many studies find that fraternity and sorority members drink more frequently and
consume more alcohol than do their non-Greek peers, and that members of the Greek
system accept as normal high levels of alcohol consumption and associated
problems (Baer, 1994).  The effects on student drinking from high-risk alcohol
use norms within the Greek system appear to extend well beyond membership, and
the mere presence of at least one fraternity or sorority is associated with
higher campus-wide levels of drinking and "binge" drinking (Chaloupka and
Wechsler, 1996).

Individual factors underlying high-risk drinking.  Although research on
interventions to reduce college alcohol problems is limited, there have been
studies that describe student alcohol use practices; and a number of correlates
and predictors of episodic heavy or "binge" drinking by college students have
been identified.  Many of these, such as individual characteristic variables that
students "bring with them" when they arrive on campus, are not subject to
manipulation, or they are not causal. Nevertheless, they can serve as markers of
risk to identify individuals or groups for whom more intensive intervention may
be appropriate; and those with strong predictive ability should be controlled in
the evaluation of intervention outcomes.  Demographic variables and previous
drinking experience are prime examples.  High-risk drinking is more prevalent
among white students than African American or Asian students, but race and
ethnicity do not "cause" drinking problems.


Research is encouraged on the development and testing of interventions that will
lead to significant reductions in the incidence and prevalence of alcohol
problems on college campuses by preventing and reducing high-risk and abusive
drinking among college students.  The ultimate goal of all alcohol-problem
preventive interventions is to prevent underage drinking and influence individual
and group behavior regarding alcohol use in ways that reduce risks to drinkers
and those around them.  Environmental interventions seek to achieve this goal by
changing external contingencies that promote or inhibit drinking, or the cost-
risk-benefit matrix within which drinking decisions are made.  For example,
reductions in the availability of alcohol increase the amount of effort (i.e.,
cost) necessary to obtain alcohol; enforcement of drunk driving laws increases
the risk associated with drinking and driving; and alcohol-free activities
provide alternative ways to achieve the benefit of socializing with peers.

In contrast, individual-focused interventions affect drinking behavior by
influencing the knowledge, attitudes, and skills of the individual.  These
approaches often focus on increasing awareness and understanding of risks
associated with heavy or "binge" drinking, developing refusal skills, or
providing more realistic perceptions of attitudes toward drinking held by peers
(reducing perceived drinking benefit).  While individuals' understanding of costs
and potential consequences associated with high risk drinking, as well as their
behavioral skills, may be increased, the "real world" external contingencies
associated with drinking are not directly changed by these interventions.

Under this RFA, environmental interventions will be emphasized.  These may
involve changes in campus or community policies and practices to directly address
factors contributing to abusive drinking, such as reductions in alcohol
availability and increased sanctions against alcohol misuse; or they may involve
changes in campus systems or structures to promote non-drinking norms.  Examples
of environmental interventions include:

o  Community-level policies that reduce alcohol availability to students, such
as restricting hours of operation of alcohol beverage outlets, providing server
training, and enforcing laws against sales to underage individuals;
o  Community-level policies related to sanctions against alcohol misuse, such as
changes in the enforcement of laws against DUI, and in the disposition of
alcohol-related misdemeanors, e.g., vandalism, fighting, noise, and public
o  Campus disciplinary responses to alcohol-related rule infraction offenses,
including parental notification regarding alcohol-related infractions; Provision
of alcohol-free environments, such as "dry" dorms which students may self-select
or "dry" campuses;
o  Restrictions on alcohol availability on campus and at college sponsored
events, including responsible beverage service at campus-sponsored events; and
Restrictions on alcohol promotion, such as ads in student newspapers and event

Although interventions should address the overall incidence and prevalence of
college alcohol problems, applicants are not restricted to testing interventions
that are directed toward the entire campus population (i.e., universal prevention
approaches).  Selective interventions, which are delivered to specific
populations known to be at higher than average risk, and indicated interventions,
delivered to individuals or groups who have exhibited signs of abusive and risky
drinking, may also be tested.  However, selective and indicated interventions
must be justified on the basis of their potential effects on campus-wide alcohol-
related problems.  That is, can it be reasonably argued that a reduction in
alcohol misuse, including "binge" drinking, within the target group will affect
overall campus norms or the incidence of serious alcohol-related problems? 
Examples of selective and indicated preventive interventions include:

Interventions directed to campus groups with known high-rates of alcohol misuse,
such as fraternities and sororities or athletes;
Interventions directed to specific environments where alcohol misuse often takes
place, such as dorms, stadium parking lots, or parties; and Interventions for
students screened for risk and found to be in need of more intensive preventive
intervention than that provided for the general student population.

Individual-focused interventions are not excluded, but their rationale should
address cost of delivery, feasibility for large scale delivery, and their
expected effects on recipients and overall campus drinking norms.  Resource-
intensive intervention approaches are expected to yield larger effects on direct
recipients than less intense interventions, and applications should include a
plan for maximizing campus-wide benefit through delivery to selected or indicated
populations. The per capita cost for implementation of universal intervention
approaches should be much lower.  Examples of individual-focused interventions

o  Promoting parental involvement in communicating non-drinking and non-"binge"
drinking policies and standards to incoming students;
o  Motivational interviewing or brief counseling for problem drinkers; Normative
feedback to promote realistic perception of drinking by other students; and
o  Other information-based approaches.

College settings provide unique opportunities to reach at-risk populations, and
applicants are encouraged to make use of campus or community organizations and
systems to increase the efficiency of their intervention efforts.  Both
environmental and individual-focused interventions may effectively incorporate
features of college systems in their intervention strategies.  Examples include:

o  Integration of alcohol prevention material into academic curricula; Use of
student health services for screening and intervention delivery to problem
o  Collaborative agreements with campus and community police departments through
which alcohol-related infractions are reported to an appropriate administrative
office for disciplinary action and/or intervention referral; and
o  Social marketing approaches utilizing campus media (e.g., student newspapers,
campus radio stations, e-mail, etc.).

Multi-component interventions that combine several environmental and/or
individual-focused interventions may be tested.  For example, social marketing
and media campaigns might be combined with the institution of new policies or
changes in enforcement of existing policies.  Individual-focused interventions
might combine universal, selective, and indicated components.

Study Designs and Methods

Tests of interventions must employ sound experimental designs or, when justified,
quasi-experimental designs.  Both within-campus and multi-campus designs will be
considered.  Although random assignment to condition is preferred, it is
recognized that this is not always possible, especially when comparisons are
being made across campuses or among naturally occurring groups within campuses
(e.g., dorms, fraternities).  Some groups may self-select for intervention by
initiating alcohol problem reduction activities independently of the investigator
(natural experiments) or groups recruited by an investigator may be unwilling to
agree to randomization.  In these cases, comparison groups must be selected. 
Careful attention should be paid to ensure equivalency between intervention and
comparison groups, which may require matching.

Outcome measures must include alcohol-related behaviors or events.  Examples
include incidence or prevalence of drinking, high-risk drinking, alcohol-related
public disturbances, vandalism, accidents, violence, date rape, emergency room
admissions, arrests, and car crashes.  Cognitive or attitudinal changes may be
of interest as indicators of mediation processes, but are not sufficient
indicators of outcome.  Careful attention must be paid to the identification of
outcome measures that are valid, reliable, and sensitive to change.  This may be
problematic for campus-wide or community indicators of alcohol problems that have
a low baseline frequency and/or may not be reported consistently (e.g., assaults;
car crashes; accidents).  Measurement of outcome variables may be especially
challenging for evaluations of policy effects or campus-wide initiatives,
especially in the case of "natural experiments" when investigators may not have
sufficient lead time to collect their own baseline data.  Archival data may be
used, but unless their scientific quality can be assured, additional outcome
measures will be needed.  The use of pre-existing survey databases is another
possibility, provided appropriate sampling techniques have been used.

Measurement of the independent variables (interventions) can be problematic when
naturally occurring or program-driven interventions are being evaluated (e.g.,
policy changes, multi-component campus-wide activities, coalitions).  In these
cases the program actually delivered þ what really takes place on the campus þ
may differ considerably from the formal program plan.  Similarly, program
implementation may follow a very different time line than that represented in the
program plan and formal status reports.  The collection of retrospective data and
the use of key informants are possible approaches to this problem.

Feasibility And Methods Development Studies.  Research focused solely on
describing college drinking practices, identifying risk and protective factors,
and developing models of the etiology of drinking problems will not be supported
under this RFA.  However, it is recognized that in some cases the existing
knowledge base may not support implementation and evaluation of full scale
prevention trials.  In these cases feasibility and methods development studies
will be considered; but they must be specifically linked to potential
intervention approaches and should be presented within the context of planned
intervention efforts.  Such studies may appear as an initial development phase
in a larger intervention study, or they may be submitted as small separate
studies.  In the latter case, no more than two years of funding should be
requested, and the applicants should indicate plans and capacity for conducting
subsequent intervention research.

Collaborations.  The proliferation of campus efforts to reduce abusive drinking
is an indicator of the pressing need for research-based programs with
demonstrated effectiveness.  Often program planners do not have technical or
material resources needed for state-of-the-art scientific evaluations; and social
and behavioral scientists may not have access to administrative channels needed
for university-wide cooperation or to resource networks important for program
development, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination.  Thus, collaborations
among program planners, educators, and researchers are encouraged.  Where
appropriate, collaborations between or among campuses are also encouraged.


It is the policy of the NIH that women and members of minority groups and their
subpopulations must be included in all NIH supported biomedical and behavioral
research projects involving human subjects, unless a clear and compelling
rationale and justification is provided that inclusion is inappropriate with
respect to the health of the subjects or the purpose of the research.  This
policy results from the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 (Section 492B of Public
Law 103-43).

All investigators proposing research involving human subjects should read the
"NIH Guidelines For Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical
Research," which have been published in the Federal Register of March 28, 1994
(FR 59 14508-14513) and in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts, Volume 23,
Number 11, March 18, 1994.

Investigators also may obtain copies of the policy from the program staff listed
under INQUIRIES.  Program staff may also provide additional relevant information
concerning the policy.


It is the policy of NIH that children (i.e., individuals under the age of 21)
must be included in all human subjects research, conducted or supported by the
NIH, unless there are scientific and ethical reasons not to include them.  This
policy applies to all initial (Type 1) applications submitted for receipt dates
after October 1, 1998.

All investigators proposing research involving human subjects should read the
"NIH Policy and Guidelines on the Inclusion of Children as Participants in
Research Involving Human Subjects" that was published in the NIH Guide for Grants
and Contracts, March 6, 1998, and is available at the following URL address:


Prospective applicants are asked to submit, by February 23, 1999, a letter of
intent that includes a descriptive title of the proposed research, the name,
address, and telephone number of the Principal Investigator, the identities of
other key personnel and participating institutions, and the number and title of
the RFA in response to which the application may be submitted.

Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter
into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains
allows NIAAA staff to estimate the potential review workload and to avoid
conflict of interest in the review.

The letter of intent is to be sent to:

Office of Scientific Affairs
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
6000 Executive Boulevard, Room 409, MSC 7003
Bethesda, MD  20892-7003
Telephone:  (301) 443-4375
FAX:  (301) 443-6077


The research grant application form PHS 398 (rev. 4/98) is to be used in applying
for these grants.  These forms are available at most institutional offices of
sponsored research and from the Division of Extramural Outreach and Information,
National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, MSC 7910, Bethesda, MD
20892-7910, telephone 301/710-0267, Email:

The RFA label available in the PHS 398 (rev. 4/98) application form must be
affixed to the bottom of the face page of the application.  Failure to use this
label could result in delayed processing of the application such that it may not
reach the review committee in time for review.  In addition, the RFA title and
number must be typed on line 2 of the face page of the application form and the
YES box must be marked.  Page limits and limits on size of type are strictly
enforced.  Non-conforming applications will be returned without being reviewed.

Submit a signed, typewritten original of the application, including the checklist
and three signed photo copies in one package to:

6701 ROCKLEDGE DRIVE, ROOM 1040 - MSC 7710
BETHESDA, MD  20892-7710
BETHESDA, MD  20817 (for express/courier service)

At the time of submission, two additional copies of the application must also be
sent to:

Office of Scientific Affairs
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
6000 Executive Boulevard, Room 409, MSC 7003
Bethesda, MD  20892-7003
Rockville, MD  20852 (for express/courier service)

Applications must be received by March 23, 1999.  If an application is received
after that date, it will be returned to the applicant without review.


Upon receipt, applications will be reviewed for completeness by the Center for
Scientific Review (CSR) and for responsiveness by the NIAAA.  Incomplete
applications will be returned to the applicant without further consideration. 
If the application is not responsive to the RFA, CSR staff may contact the
applicant to determine whether to return the application to the applicant or
submit it for review in competition with unsolicited applications at the next
review cycle.

Applications that are complete and responsive to the RFA will be evaluated for
scientific and technical merit by an appropriate peer review group convened by
the NIAAA in accordance with the review criteria stated below.  As part of the
initial merit review, a process will be used by the initial review group in which
applications receive a written critique and undergo a process in which only those
applications deemed to a have the highest scientific merit, generally the top
half of the applications under review, will be discussed, assigned a priority
score, and receive a second level review by the National Advisory Council on
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

Review Criteria

The goals of NIH-supported research are to advance our understanding of
biological systems, improve the control of disease, and enhance health.  In the
written comments, reviewers will be asked to discuss the following aspects of the
application in order to judge the likelihood that the proposed research will have
a substantial impact on the pursuit of these goals.  Each of these criteria will
be addressed and considered in assigning the overall score, weighting them as
appropriate for each application.  Note that the application does not need to be
strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact and
thus deserve a high priority score.  For example, an investigator may propose to
carry out important work that by its nature is not innovative but is essential
to move a field forward.

Significance:  Does the study address the goals of the RFA?  If the aims of the
study are achieved, how will scientific knowledge be advanced?  Will the study
advance the concepts or methods that drive this field?

Approach:  Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately
developed, well-integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the project?  Does the
applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative designs?

Feasibility:  Can the design be implemented (including recruitment of subjects,
cooperation of relevant organizations, and/or collection of necessary data)?

Innovation:  Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches, theories, or

Investigator:  Are the principal investigator and key research personnel
appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work?

Environment:  Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done
contribute to the probability of success?  Does the proposed research take
advantage of the unique features of the scientific environment or employ useful
collaborative arrangements?  Is there evidence of institutional support?

Budget: Is the requested budget and estimation of time to completion of the study
appropriate for the proposed research?

In addition, plans for the recruitment and retention of subjects will be
evaluated as well as the adequacy of plans to include both genders and minorities
and their subgroups and children as appropriate for the scientific goals of the

The initial review group will also examine the provisions for the protection of
human subjects and the safety of the research environment.


Applications recommended for approval by the National Advisory Council on Alcohol
Abuse and Alcoholism will be considered for funding on the basis of the overall
scientific and technical merit of the proposal as determined by peer review,
NIAAA programmatic needs and balance, and the availability of funds.


Inquiries concerning this RFA are encouraged.  The opportunity to clarify any
issues or questions from potential applicants is welcome.

Direct inquiries regarding applications under this RFA to:

Gayle M. Boyd, Ph.D.
Division of Clinical and Prevention Research
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
6000 Executive Boulevard MSC 7003
Bethesda, MD  20892-7003
Telephone:  (301) 443-8766
FAX:  (301) 443-8774

Lavona Grow
Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
1250 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Suite 604
Washington, DC  20202-6123
Telephone:  (202) 708-4850
FAX:  (202) 260-7767

Barbara D. Wagner
Office of Policy and Planning
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
5600 Fishers Lane, Rockwall II, Room 920
Rockville, MD  20857
Telephone:  (301) 443-2325
FAX:  (301) 443-9140

Direct inquiries regarding fiscal matters to:

Linda Hilley
Grants Management Branch
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
6000 Executive Boulevard MSC 7003
Bethesda, MD  20892-7003
Telephone:  (301) 443-0915
FAX:  (301) 443-3891


This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, No.
93.273.  Awards are made under the authorization of the Public Health Service
Act, Sections 301 and 464H, and administered under the PHS policies and Federal
Regulations at Title 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Part 74.  This program is not
subject to the intergovernmental review requirements of Executive Order 12372 or
Health Systems Agency Review.

The PHS strongly encourages all grant recipients to provide a smoke-free
workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public
Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain
facilities (or in some cases, any portion of a facility) in which regular or
routine education, library, day care, health care or early childhood development
services are provided to children. This is consistent with the PHS mission to
protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.


Baer, J.S. (1994)  Effects of college residence on perceived norms for alcohol
consumption:  An examination of the first year in college.  Psych Addict. Behav.,
8 (1), 43-50.

Chaloupka, F.J. and Wechsler, H.  (1996)  Binge drinking in college:  The impact
of price, availability, and alcohol control policies.  Contemporary Economic
Policy, 14 (4), 112-124.

Geller, E.S., Kalsher, M. & Clarke, S.W.  (1991) Beer versus mixed-drink
consumption at fraternity parties:  A time and place for low-alcohol
alternatives.  JSA, 52 (3), 197-204.

Gfroerer, J.C., Greenblatt, J.C. & Wright, D.A.  (1997)  Substance use in the US
college-age population:  Differences according to educational status and living
arrangement.  AJPH, 87, 62-65.

Hingson, R., Berson, J. and Dowley, K. (1997) Interventions to reduce college
student drinking and related health and social problems.  In Plant, M.,
Single, E., and Stockwell, T. (eds.) Alcohol:  Minimising the Harm, What
Works?  New York:  Free Association Books.

Johnston, L.D., O'Malley, P.M., & Bachman, J.G.  (1997)  National survey
results on drug use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1995, Vol.2,
College students and young adults.  USDHHS, NIDA, NIH Pub. No. 98-4140.

Wechsler, H., Davenport, A., Dowdall, G. Moeykens, B., & Castillo, S.  (1994) 
Health and behavioral consequences of binge drinking in college.  JAMA, 272
(21), 1672-1677.

Wechsler, H., Moeykens, B., Davenport, A., Castillo, S., & Hansen, J.  (1995) 
The adverse impact of heavy episodic drinking on other college students.  JSA,
56 (6), 628-634.

Return to Volume Index

Return to NIH Guide Main Index

Office of Extramural Research (OER) - Home Page Office of Extramural
Research (OER)
  National Institutes of Health (NIH) - Home Page National Institutes of Health (NIH)
9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, Maryland 20892
  Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) - Home Page Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) - Government Made Easy

Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files.