Late Night Assessment - 2003 - Student...

Late Night Assessment - 2003

INTRODUCTION Context In a report issued by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (2002), drinking is portrayed as a culture that permeates the entire college environment. The report states that “customs handed down through generations of college drinkers reinforce students’ expectations that alcohol is a necessary ingredient for social success. These beliefs and the expectations they engender exert a powerful influence over students’ behavior toward alcohol” (p.1). William Dejong (2003), Director of the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, promotes a broad set of policies and programs aimed at reducing alcohol problems among college students. He writes that “the decisions young people make about alcohol use are shaped by their environment” and therefore, “the most effective and resource-efficient way of reducing substance use problems is to change the environment from one that encourages to one that discourages high-risk and underage drinking” (p. 1). Late night programming is increasingly used as a strategy for changing the campus environment regarding alcohol use and abuse and, hence, for reducing the number of alcohol-related incidents on campus and within the campus community. Institutions including Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, University of Maryland, and West Virginia University have each committed significant staff time and financial resources to these initiatives. Using key benchmarks established by these universities, The Ohio State University initiated its own Late Night initiative during the 2000 academic year. The OSU Student Wellness Center developed the Late Night programming initiative as part of a comprehensive prevention plan to address alcohol use and abuse. In addition to Late Night programming, the plan includes policy review, environmental assessment, responsible hospitality, and social norms marketing. The goals of the comprehensive prevention plan include: increased alcohol education, increased opportunities for alcohol-free social events, a change in student, faculty, and staff perceptions of drinking prevalence on campus, a change in the campus communities’ attitude toward alcohol use, and a decrease in alcohol use. Coined “Moonlight Madness,” the mission of the Late Night Program is “to provide vibrant and fun late night programs, which create a sense of campus community, for a diverse group of students. This wide array of activities provides students with programming experience, leadership development, and social interactions.” This project was designed: 1) to reinforce campus norms that support students who do not use alcohol and other drugs by providing fun, attractive events and by promoting the events to all students and, 2) to involve campus groups in promoting more social ties that do not include alcohol and other drugs by providing funding to campus organizations to hold alcohol-free, late night events and by involving student organizations in the planning of late-night activities. A Late Night steering committee consisting of students and staff members from a variety of offices on campus (including the Student Wellness Center, the Office of Residence Life, Counseling and Consultation Services, Recreational Sports and the Office of Student Affairs Assessment) manages a grant process in which campus and campus community organizations

Student Affairs Assessment 1


apply for funding to sponsor innovative programs that are aligned with the mission of the Late Night initiative. In order to receive funding, departments are encouraged to collaborate with student organizations in planning and implementing events and are required to contribute their own funding and resources. A variety of offices and community organizations applied for and received funding to coordinate Late Night events. There were 54 events during the 2002-2003 academic year including the monthly Jericho Road Breakfast at Summit United Methodist Church, Late Night at the Wexner Center, and Late Night at the Columbus Zoo. There were diverse sponsoring organizations including the Ohio Union, the Office of Minority Affairs, the Department of Plant Pathology, and Residence Life to name a few. (See Appendix A for a listing of event co-sponsors.) The events were diverse in focus, some drawing from very specific populations (e.g., students of color, first year students); others had a more general appeal. (See Appendix B for a complete list of events.) A condition of the funding was to conduct evaluations of the events, a process supported by both Student Wellness and Student Affairs Assessment. Program sponsors were asked to distribute surveys to attendees. The resulting data included demographic information, satisfaction levels, and drinking behavior information. With these data, individual event evaluations were created to provide feedback to the corresponding event sponsors and to the Late Night committee. (See Appendix C for a summary of the event evaluations.) In addition to the event evaluations, an overall assessment of Late Night Programming was conducted at the end of the year. Purpose of the Study The primary purpose of the assessment was to examine the effectiveness of Late Night programming at Ohio State. Through the Late Night survey, we sought to provide data regarding students’ attendance at the Late Night events, their opinions and perceptions of the events, and the effect the events may have had on their drinking behavior. Study Methodology The Late Night survey was based on telephone interviews conducted in May 2003. The sample pool of 1,100 Columbus campus undergraduate students was drawn from the spring 2003 database provided by the Office of the Registrar. Initial attempts to contact students were made at their local telephone numbers. If the local number was not available or when students were no longer at the local number, attempts were made to students’ home numbers. In many cases, viable telephone numbers were called upwards of 10 times to try to reach a respondent at a time that was convenient for him or her to participate in the survey. In 5 cases the student was ineligible to participate in the survey. The remaining 1095 cases were presumed to be eligible cases with valid contact information. A total of 635 interviews were completed, for a response rate of 58 percent using the most conservative calculation suggested by the American Association for Public Opinion Research. All telephone interviews were conducted at the OSU Center for Survey Research facilities and the margin of error is 3.9%.



Limitations Inherent to survey research are limitations of imprecision and sampling error. All surveys are subject to potential sources of imprecision and bias which may be associated with the question wording and/or ordering, the response rate, and the quality of the interviewers. Two limitations specific to this survey are the number of students who attended Late Night events and the timing of data collection. The number of students who actually attended events limits our ability to speak with confidence about attendance trends and opinions of subpopulations of students. While a total of 635 persons were sampled, 191 (30.1%) had at least attended one Late Night event since they were initiated in the fall quarter of 2000. Regarding the timing of data collection (in May), Late Night events were still being held, thus reducing the opportunity to investigate attendance at and opinions about these events. Finally, given the nature of sampling, certain groups were slightly over and under-represented in the sample when compared to the population. For example, students under 21 were over-represented while students 21 and older were under-represented. (See Appendix D for further detail.) Description of the Sample A random sample of OSU undergraduate students was surveyed. Late Night programming, while open to all students, is targeted toward undergraduates as evidence has shown that they are more likely to exhibit high-risk drinking behavior than are graduate students. The demographics of the students who participated in the survey were as follows (n=635):

• GENDER: 47.4% were female; 52.6% were male • RANK: 16.9% were first year; 25.0% were second year; 20.9% were third year; 37.2%

were fourth year • GPA: 50.9% had a GPA between 3.0 and 4.0; 40.2% had between 2.0 and 2.99; 9.0%

had less than 2.0 • AGE: 50.2% were under 21 years of age; 49.8% were 21 or over • RACE/ETHNICITY: 76.1% were Caucasian/White; 9.1% were African

American/Black; 7.9% were Asian/Pacific Islander; 1.6% were Hispanic/Latino(a); 0.6% were American Indian/Alaskan Native; 4.7% were “other”

• RESIDENCE: 32.8% lived on-campus; 67.2% lived off-campus References Dejong, W. (2003). NASPA’s Net Results. A prevention blueprint: a review of NIAAA’s a call to action.

Retrieved July 18, 2003, from http://www.naspa.org/netresults/article.cfm?ID=1073 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2002). A call to action: Changing the culture of drinking at

U.S. colleges. Retrieved July 18, 2003, from http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/Reports/TaskForce/TaskForce_TOC.asp



FINDINGS

Knowledge of and Attendance at Late Night Events When students were asked if they had heard of the Late Night initiative and if they had attended events, we found that of the 635 respondents:

• Almost 80% (compared to 72.2% in 2002 and 63.2% in 2001∗) had heard of Late Night events (see Chart 1.0).

• Including only the events pertaining to the particular school year, 25.2% (compared to 15.0% in 2002 and 17.2% in 2001) had attended at least one event in 2003 (see Chart 1.1).

• Including all possible events since the beginning of the Late Night initiative in 2000, 30.1% (compared to 17.0% in 2002 and 18.6% in 2001) had attended at least one event (data not shown).

Chart 1.0: Have you ever heard of Late Night Events?

63.272.2

79.5

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03

Perc

enta

ge

Stu

∗ T20

n=635

Chart 1.1: Have you attended a Late Night event?

17.215.0

25.2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03

Perc

enta

ge
n=635
dent Affairs Assessment 4

hroughout this report the years 2003, 2002, and 2001 refer to the year in which the data was collected. Hence, 03 refers to the 2002-2003 academic year.


In Table 1.0, attendance rates for specific events are presented based on the number of students who reported that they attended Late Night events during 2002-03 (n=160).

• Of the students who attended Late Night events, the Late Night at the Ohio Union events were the most highly attended with 58.5% reporting that they had attended at least one of these events.

• COSI After Dark, a single-night event, was attended by 22.6% of the respondents. Table 1.0: What events have you attended? (percentages exceed 100% because some students attended more than one event) Name of Event Percent Attending

(n=160) Late Night at the Wexner Center* 15.1 Jericho Road Breakfast* 26.4 Late Night at the Ohio Union* 58.5 Residence Hall FREE Events* 41.8 COSI After Dark 22.6 Late Night BuckeyeThon 22.0 *multiple events In Table 1.1, data are presented that show the attendance patterns of various subpopulations.

• A greater percentage of students under 21 (33.2%) attended Late Night events in 2003 than those 21 and over (17.1%).

• Students under 21 increased their attendance by 12.8 percentage points from 20.4% in 2002 to 33.2% in 2003. Students 21 and over only increased their attendance by 3.5 percentage points.

• African American/Black (41.4%) and Asian/Pacific Islander∗ (34.0%) students were more inclined to attend Late Night events than were Caucasian/White students in 2003 (23.4%).

• In 2003, students with a GPA of a 3.0 or higher were more likely to attend Late Night events than those with lower GPA’s.

• On-campus students were much more likely to attend an event in 2003 than off-campus students (44.7% compared to 15.7%).

• The percentage increase of on-campus students attending events was 18.6 between 2003 and 2002 while the increase for off-campus students was only 2.7.

• In 2003, men (27.5%) were more inclined to attend Late Night events than were women (22.6%).

∗ The sample sizes of other racial/ethnic groups were too small to allow sound statistical comparisons.



Table 1.1: 2003 Attendance at Late Night events by Age, Race/Ethnicity, GPA, Residence and Gender Subpopulation (Only the 2003 sample counts are shown)

2003 Percent Attending

2002 Percent Attending

Under 21 (n=319) 33.2 20.4 21 and over (n=316) 17.1 13.6 Caucasian/White students (n=483) 23.4 17.3 African American/Black students (n=58) 41.4 NA Asian/Pacific Islander students (n=50) 34.0 NA GPA 0-1.99 (n=57) 21.1 12.9 GPA 2.00-2.99 (n=255) 21.2 15.3 GPA 3.00-4.00 (n=322) 28.9 19.4 On-campus residents (n=208) 44.7 26.1 Off-campus residents (n=427) 15.7 13.0 Men (n=334) 27.5 18.0 Women (n=301) 22.6 15.9 Students were asked how many events they had attended since the beginning of fall quarter, 2002. Chart 1.2 contains the number of events attended by students who had at least attended one event (n=160).

• The mean for the number of events attended was 3.1 (data not shown). • The majority of students (76.3%) attended more than one event. • Almost 16% (15.6%) of students attended 5 or more events.

Chart 1.2: Number of Events Attended

23.8 24.4

20.016.3 15.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 or more

Perc

enta

ge

Sthoasspall

Stu

n=160

udents who attended Late Night events during the 2002-03 school year (n=160) were asked w they had learned about the events. The Late Night committee sought to promote the events a unified program occurring throughout the year to create cohesiveness. Both the event onsors and the Late Night committee used a variety of methods to promote the events, and not events were advertised in the same ways (see Table 1.2). • The most common way students learned about Late Night Events was through flyers

(56.3%). This is a jump of 12.6 percentage points since 2002 and 19.7 percentage points since 2001 (data not shown).

• Almost 32% (31.9%) of students reported that they had learned about the events from another student.



• Residence Hall staff (20.6%) and clubs/organizations (9.4%) were also frequently cited as sources for Late Night promotion.

Table 1.2: How did you learn about Late Night Events? (percentages exceed 100% due to multiple response options) (n=160) Percentage Flyers 56.3 Another Student 31.9 Residence Hall Staff 20.6 Club or Organization 9.4 The Lantern 7.5 OSU Web page 6.9 Another OSU event 4.4 Something else 13.8 Event Quality Students were asked to rate certain aspects of the events: the overall quality, the variety of events offered, the quality of activities and entertainment, the food and drinks available, the interaction with other students at events, and the location of events (see Table 2.0).

• When asked about the overall quality of the events, 98.8% responded that the events were either “very good” or “good.”

• Nearly 96% (95.6%) stated that the variety of events was either “very good” or “good.” • Approximately 96% (96.2%) stated that the quality of activities and entertainment at

the events were either “very good” or “good.” • The food and drinks at the events received the lowest rating with 10.4% responding that

the quality was “poor.” However, 89.6% still rated the food and drinks as either “very good” or “good.” (Not all events provided food and drinks.)

• When asked about student interaction, 93.0% responded positively with either a “very good” or “good” rating.

• Almost 97% (96.9%) of students responded that the location of the events was either “very good” or “good.”

Table 2.0: Student ratings of event quality. (n=160) Very good Good Poor Very Poor Overall quality 29.4 69.4 0.6 0.6 Variety of events 34.2 61.4 3.2 1.3 Quality of activities 19.8 76.4 3.8 0.0 Food and drinks 26.6 63.0 10.4 0.0 Student interaction 40.1 52.9 7.0 0.0 Location 33.8 63.1 3.1 0.0 Late Night Programming and Alcohol Consumption As part of the comprehensive alcohol prevention plan, Late Night programming provides alcohol-free activities with the goal of reducing the amount of alcohol use. As such, a series of questions were asked that address the relationship between the consumption of alcohol and attendance at Late Night events.



In Tables 3.0 and 3.1, the relationship between high-risk drinking∗ and attendance at Late Night events is explored.

• Low-risk drinkers attended Late Night events at a higher rate than high-risk drinkers – 28.5% and 21.0% respectively.

• Of the students who attended events, there was a 39.2% high-risk drinking rate compared to 46.7% for all students and 49.2% for non-attendees.

Table 3.0: Attendance rates of non high-risk and high-risk drinkers Percentage of those

attending Late Night Non high-risk drinkers (n=337) 28.5 High-risk drinkers (n=295) 21.0 Table 3.1: Drinking behavior of attendees and non-attendees Non high-risk drinkers High-risk drinkers Attendees at event(s) (n=160) 60.8 39.2 Non-attendees (n=475) 50.8 49.2 Total (n=635) 53.3 46.7 In addition to examining the relationship between high-risk drinking and attendance at Late Night events, students who drink (n=129) were asked about their drinking behavior the night they attended events (data not shown).

• 71.3% (compared to 76.9% in 2002) stated that they did not drink any alcohol before the event.

• 100% (compared to 97.1% in 2002) stated that they had nothing to drink during the event.

• 78.7% (compared to 77.1% in 2002) stated that they did not drink alcohol after the event. Students who had attended a Late Night event in any year (n=191) were asked how Late Night programming affected their drinking habits (see Chart 2.0):

• Over a third (37.4%) stated that they drank less than they normally would have. • Almost 29% (28.9%) stated that they drank about the same as they normally would have. • Only 1.1% stated that they drank more than they normally would have. • Another 32.6% stated they do not drink.

∗ High-risk drinking is defined as having five or more drinks in one sitting within a two-week period.



Chart 2.0: Alcohol use and Late Night attendance

37.4

28.9

1.1

32.6

0

10

20

30

40

Drank less Drank same Drank more Don't drink

Perc

enta

ge

Tadr

TaBy

DrDrDrDo St Innestuasan StNi

Stu

n=191

ble 3.2 contains data from three years concerning how Late Night events affected students’ inking behavior.

• The results depict an increase over time in the percentage of students who reported that they drank less on the nights they attended Late Night events from 32.0% in 2001 to 37.4% in 2003.

• Between 2002 and 2003, there was a 12.0 percentage point jump in students responding that they don’t drink.

ble 3.2: Alcohol use and Late Night Attendance percentage 2003

(n=191) 2002

(n=104) 2001

(n=123) ank less 37.4 34.0 32.0 ank same 28.9 42.3 45.9 ank more 1.1 3.1 1.6 n’t drink 32.6 20.6 20.5

udents’ Perceptions of Late Night Programming

this section students who had at least heard of Late Night events (n=505), but may not have cessarily attended an event, were asked about their perceptions of Late Night events. First, dents were asked about how the events contribute to the campus. Second, students were

ked whether they thought Late Night programming results in less drinking among its attendees d then, why or why not.

udents were asked a series of questions concerning their perceptions and opinions of Late ght events (see Table 4.0).

• Almost 86% (85.6%) stated that they either “strongly agree” or “somewhat agree” that Late Night programs contribute positively to the Ohio State environment.

• Almost 90% (89.9%) stated that Late Night programming is a good example of how one can have fun without alcohol.

• Approximately 81% (81.3%) responded that they either “strongly agree” or “somewhat agree” that Late Night events made it easier to meet other students.



• Nearly 65% (64.7%) stated that they either “strongly disagree” or “somewhat disagree” that there is a negative stereotype associated with Late Night events. However, 21.5% stated that they agree that a negative stereotype exists.

Table 4.0: Perceptions of Late Night programming Do you think Late

Night programs contribute positively to the Ohio State environment? (n=500)

Do you think Late Night programming is a good example of how you can have fun without alcohol? (n=495)

Do you think Late Night activities make is easier to meet other students? (n=495)

Do you think there is a negative stereotype associated with those who attend Late Night events? (n=493)

Strongly agree 30.8 48.4 36.0 4.7 Somewhat agree 54.8 41.5 45.3 16.8 Neutral 11.2 6.9 11.1 13.8 Somewhat disagree

2.6 2.0 6.3 34.8

Strongly disagree 0.6 1.2 1.4 29.9

Students (n=505) who had heard of Late Night events, but not necessarily attended, were asked if they thought Late Night activities result in less alcohol use among students (see Chart 3.0) and then, why or why not.

• A majority of respondents (57.7%) stated that they thought Late Night programming results in less drinking among students who attended these events.

Chart 3.0: Do you think Late Night Programming results in less drinking among those who attend these events?

57.7

35.9

6.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Yes No Don't Know

perc

enta

ge

Stu

n=505



Students who thought that the Late Night events reduced alcohol use gave a variety of reasons for the change in behavior. (Note that multiple responses were possible therefore percentages will not equal 100%).

• 42.2% stated that people would attend Late Night events instead of drinking, • 39.1% stated that the events are a good alternative, • 15.6% stated that the events cut down on drinking hours, • 12.9% stated that the events capture the attention of people so that they do not think of

drinking, • 7.8% stated that alcohol is not served at the events, • 2.4% stated that people might bring along friends who might go elsewhere to drink, • 1.0% stated that the events are free, and • 5.4% provided other reasons for the effectiveness of Late Night events reducing alcohol

abuse. Of those who believed that Late Night programming does not reduce alcohol consumption, there were also a variety of reasons given. (Note that multiple responses were possible therefore percentages will not equal 100%).

• 70.1% stated that students would still drink before and after the events, • 21.3% stated that students would drink on other nights, • 8.0% stated that the activities don’t keep the attention of students, • 6.9% stated that that students who drink don’t attend the events, and • 8.6% provided other reasons for the ineffectiveness of Late Night events reducing alcohol

abuse.



APPENDIX A Late Night Sponsors Community Organizations

• Coca-Cola • Indianola Presbyterian Church • St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church Campus Ministry • Student Multi-Media & Entertainment Group • Summit United Methodist Church

OSU Departments, Offices, and Committee

• Campus Dining Services • Counseling and Consultation Services • Department of Plant Pathology • Department of Recreational Sports • Department of Theatre • Multicultural Center

o Asian American Student Services

o African American Student Services

o GLBT Student Services • Off-campus Student Services • Office for Disability Services

• Office of Housing and Residence Education

• Office of International Affairs and Area Studies Center

• Office of International Education • Office of Minority Affairs • Office of Vice President for Student

Affairs • Ohio Union—Student Activities and

Campus Programs • OSU Police • Scholars Program

Residence Halls

• Buckeye Village • Jones Graduate Tower • Morrison Tower • Park Hall Council • Smith Hall Council • Steeb Hall Council • Stradley Hall Council • Substance Free Floor in Morrill Tower

Student Organizations

• African Youth League • Agriculture and Natural Resources

Forum • Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority • Colours • Common Ground • Council of Graduate Students • FUSION • GLBT Law Association • Graffiti Artists • Iota Phi Theta Fraternity • Jewish Queers • Organization of Study Abroad Alumni

• OSU Breakdancers • OSU Idol Group • Ohio Union Activities Board • Out in Business • PHARM Forum • Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc. • PSE • Residence Halls Advisory Council • Step Masters Honor Society • The Underground—OSU Student Radio • Vietnamese Student Association



APPENDIX B Event Title Date # Surveyed Attendance Annual Late Night Games Sept 26 85 700 Late Night at the Wexner Center Sept 27 Not Surveyed 2450 Student Affairs Post-Game BBQ (Indiana Game) Sept 28 76 500 Jericho Road Breakfast Oct 4 45 750 Late Night at the Ohio Union Oct 11 309 1200 St. Stephen’s Late Night Meal Oct 18 62 175 Just Up the Road from Jericho Road Breakfast Oct 25 110 225 FREE Fall Fest Oct 25 89 200 Student Affairs Post-Game Meal (PSU Game) Oct 26 Not Surveyed 100 Jericho Road Breakfast Nov 1 Not Surveyed 950 Late Night Film Screening Nov 7 117 450 Late Night at the Ohio Union Nov 8 84 700 FREE Get in the Game Nov 16 145 500 Student Affairs Post-Game Meal (Michigan Game) Nov 23 Not Surveyed 400 Jericho Road Breakfast Dec 6 Not Surveyed 350 FREE Late Night Bowling Dec 6 124 300 Hale Center Late Night Breakfast Dec 7 76 300 International New Year’s Eve Party Dec 31 159 800 COSI After Dark Jan 10 443 2200 Jericho Road Breakfast Jan 10 Not Surveyed 450 Late Night Ice Breaker Jan 11 98 500 Late Night at the Ohio Union Jan 24 49 250 FREE Ice Skating/Ice Soccer Jan 25 139 300 BuckeyeThon Jan 31 42 250 Jericho Road Breakfast Feb 7 Not Surveyed 750 FREE Get in the Game Feb 8 61 200 Drag Show Extravaganza/My Funny Valentine Feb 14 63 1200 Just up the Road from Jericho Road Breakfast Feb 21 82 260 St. Stephen’s Late Night Meal Feb 28 39 175 FREE Luau at Larkins Feb 28 77 150 Jericho Road Breakfast March 7 57 820 Late Night at the Ohio Union March 7 76 1729 Hale Center Mid-night Breakfast March 15 72 218 La Noche Latina April 4 49 400 Jericho Road Breakfast April 4 Not Surveyed 750 Ice Breaker April 5 Not Surveyed 425 FREE Get in the Game VI April 11 116 300 Late Night wit the VSA April 26 Not Surveyed 350 USG and FREE 3 on 3 Barbeque April 26 226 800 Jericho Road Breakfast May 2 32 800 FREE Lil Sibs Carnival May 3 Not Surveyed 500 World Flag Festival May 3 178 550 St. Stephen’s Late Night Meal May 9 55 140 Big Free Concert May 9 136 8000 Late Night at the Wexner Center May 10 Not Surveyed 500 Amateur I – Movie Student Film Festival May 15 92 225 African Night May 16 50 250 OSU Idol May 16 109 175 Just Up the Road from Jericho Road Breakfast May 16 139 370 Late Night at the Columbus Zoo May 17 88 1500 Late Night at the Ohio Union May 30 41 250 Spring Fest June 6 272 2500 Jericho Road Breakfast June 6 Not Surveyed 600 Hale Center Mid-night Breakfast June 7 94 258

Fall Quarter 1481 11050 Winter Quarter 1298 9452 Spring Quarter 1677 19643

TOTAL 4456 40145



APPENDIX C Late Night Evaluation Report The Office of Student Affairs Assessment in conjunction with the Student Wellness Center conducted on-site event evaluations at 41 of the 54 Late Night events held during the 2002-2003 academic year. The information in this appendix reports students’ perceptions of the Late Night programs including demographic information, satisfaction ratings, and alcohol use. The 4,456 student responses received through these evaluations constitute a rough portrayal of the overall student attendees’ perception of Late Night events, but the responses cannot be generalized to the entire population of attendees. Only the phone survey, as reported on in the body of this document, allows for population inferences. Demographics

• RANK: 35.5% of students surveyed were first year students; 19.4% were second year; 15.4% were third year; 14.3% were fourth year; 10.9% were graduate or professional; and 4.5% reported “other”

• GENDER: 47.0% were female; 53.0% were male • AGE: 65.2% were under 21 years of age • SEXUAL ORIENTATION: 93.9% were heterosexual; 5.9% were GLBT • RACE/ETHNICITY: 58.1% were Caucasian; 16.9% were African-American;

7.3% were Asian-American/Pacific Islander; 5.8% were International; 3.7% were Multi-racial; 3.3% were Hispanic; 0.9% were American Indian-Alaskan Native; and 4.0% self-reported as “other”

• RESIDENCE: 58.8% lived on campus; 28.6% lived in an off-campus apartment; 9.0% lived at home; and 3.5% lived in Greek housing

Student Ratings

• Approximately 95% (95.3%) of students surveyed stated that they were either “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied” with the overall quality of the event(s) they attended.

• Approximately 94% (94.1%) of stated that they were either “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied” with the quality of activities offered at the event(s).

Table 6.0: Students’ Rating of the Event Quality

Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

Overall quality 64.5 30.8 3.8 0.9 Quality of activities 62.4 31.7 4.5 1.4 Student interaction 54.1 35.7 8.4 1.8 Location 71.2 23.2 4.3 1.3



Future Events • Almost 94% (93.9%) of students surveyed stated that they would either be “very

likely” or “somewhat likely” to attend other Late Night events • Approximately 93% (93.1%) stated that they would either be “very likely” or

“somewhat likely” to tell their friends about future Late Night events.

Table 7.0: Students’ likelihood to attend other Late Night events and/or tell friends other Late Night events Very Likely Somewhat

Likely Somewhat Unlikely

Very Unlikely

Attend other Late Night events 64.4 29.5 4.4 1.7 Tell friends about Late Night 67.1 26.0 5.3 1.7

Advertising Students were asked how they learned of the Late Night event. The responses were as follows: (Note: Because students provided multiple responses, the percentages exceed 100%.)

• 39.9% from another student • 31.6% from flyers • 15.4% from residence hall staff • 8.8% from The Lantern • 8.6% from departmental webpage • 7.8% from a club or organization • 7.0% from another OSU event • 18.6% from “Other” sources

Drinking Behavior Students were asked about their high-risk drinking behavior. Specifically, they were asked how many times they had five or more drinks at a sitting over the past two weeks.

• 60.1% reported no instances of high-risk drinking within the past two weeks of the event

• 11.6% reported one instance • 8.6% reported two instances • 19.7% reported 3 or more instances

When asked if they thought late night programming resulted in reductions of their own drinking behavior:

• 42.0% stated that it did • 22.5% stated it did not • 35.5% stated they do not drink




APPENDIX D

Demographic Comparisons

In Table 5.0, the demographics of the population are presented along with the demographics of the Late Night survey sample. When comparing the population to the students who participated in the Late Night survey, we find that generally the sample was representative of the population with the exception of two areas – Rank 2 and age. Rank 2 students and students under the age of 21 were more highly represented in the sample than in the population. When comparing students who attended the Late Night events to the population, we find the following: Table 5.0: Comparisons between population parameters and the Late Night survey Percentage Population (n=34,852 – Spring 03) Survey Sample (n=635)

Gender Male 52.1 52.6 Female 47.9 47.4

Rank 1 14.7 16.9 2 20.6 25.0 3 21.4 20.9 4 39.7 37.2 Other 3.6 NA

Race White 77.5 76.1 African American/Black 8.2 9.1 Asian/Pacific Islander 5.5 7.9 Non resident Alien 4.3 NA Hispanic 2.2 1.6 American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.5 0.6 Unknown 1.8 NA

Age Under 21 44.5 50.2 Over 21 55.5 49.8

Late Night Assessment - 2003 - Student...

Documents

Transcript of Late Night Assessment - 2003 - Student...