Is Rowan University's Alcohol and Other Drugs Policy effective at deterring students from possessing or using drugs and drug paraphernalia?

Rowan University Rowan University

Rowan Digital Works Rowan Digital Works

Theses and Dissertations

2-26-2015

Is Rowan University's Alcohol and Other Drugs Policy effective at Is Rowan University's Alcohol and Other Drugs Policy effective at

deterring students from possessing or using drugs and drug deterring students from possessing or using drugs and drug

paraphernalia? paraphernalia?

Amy LoSacco

Follow this and additional works at: https://rdw.rowan.edu/etd

Part of the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

LoSacco, Amy, "Is Rowan University's Alcohol and Other Drugs Policy effective at deterring students from

possessing or using drugs and drug paraphernalia?" (2015).

Theses and Dissertations

. 260.

https://rdw.rowan.edu/etd/260

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Rowan Digital Works. It has been accepted for inclusion

in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Rowan Digital Works. For more information, please

contact graduateresearch@rowan.edu.

IS ROWAN UNIVERSITY’S ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS POLICY

EFFECTIVE AT DETERRING STUDENTS FROM POSSESSING OR USING

DRUGS AND DRUG PARAPHERNALIA?

An Evaluation Study

Amy N. LoSacco

A Thesis

Submitted to the

Department of Criminal Justice

College of Humanities and Social Sciences

In partial fulfillment of the requirement

For the degree of

Master of Arts

Rowan University

February 24, 2015

Thesis Chair: Joseph Johnson, Ph.D.

Dedication

I would like to dedicate this manuscript to my family, especially Jeff.

Acknowledgements

This would not have been possible without my thesis advisor, Joe Johnson,

pushing me to find the perfect topic and seeing it through to the end. I would also like to

thank all of the committee members who took time out of their days to make my thesis

work worthwhile. I am heartily thankful for Joe Mulligan who has helped me from

developing a topic, finalizing my study, and everywhere else in between. Lastly, I offer

my sincere appreciation to all of those who have helped and supported me in the

completion of this project, including my parents who seem to think that any topic I

choose is the best one.

Abstract

Amy LoSacco

IS ROWAN UNIVERISTY’S ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS POLICY EFFECTIVE

AT DETERRING STUDENTS FROM POSSESSING OR USING DRUGS AND DRUG

PARAPHERNALIA?

2015

Joseph Johnson, Ph.D.

Master of Arts in Criminal Justice

The purpose of this thesis is to evaluate Rowan University’s current Alcohol and

Other Drugs Policy. Two surveys were distributed; one via email to all current Rowan

University students and the other via email to all students found in violation of the drug

policy between 2005 and 2011. Three hypotheses were examined. The first was that

students generally do not know about the policy and its possible sanctions. The second

hypothesis was that the potential sanctions of the drug policy do not deter the general

student population. The third hypothesis was that the imposed sanctions help to prevent

recidivism among offenders. Results showed that the first hypothesis was false; the

general student body is aware of Rowan’s drug policy and its possible sanctions. The

second hypothesis was not necessarily true or false; it was undetermined if the potential

sanctions of the drug policy deterred the general student population. After surveying

drug policy violators, the third hypothesis was also found to be false; the imposed

sanctions of Rowan’s drug policy did not help to prevent recidivism among offenders.

Recommendations for policy change and future research were given.

Table of Contents

Abstract v

List of Tables x

Chapter I: Introduction 1

Statement of the Problem 1

Significance of the Problem 5

Purpose of the Study 7

Research Questions 9

Organization of the Study 10

Chapter II: Review of the Literature 12

The Thought Behind Student Misconduct 12

The History of Student Conduct 13

Drug Free Schools and Communities Act 14

Deterrence Theory 16

Restorative Justice Practices 20

Rowan University Policies vs. Other Schools’ Policies 24

Distribution of Policies: Rowan vs. Binghamton University 29

CAS Assessment Tool 31

Summary of the Literature Review 33

vii

Table of Contents (Continued)

Chapter III: Methodology 35

Introduction 35

Context of the Study 35

Sampling 36

Instrumentation 38

Operational Definitions 41

Operationalizing Deterrence and Recidivism 42

Variables- Survey 1 44

Variables- Survey 2 52

Open-Ended Questions- Surveys 1 & 2 68

Data Analysis 69

Preliminary Data Analysis: Cross Tabulations 69

Zero-Order Correlations 70

Mann-Whitney U Tests 72

Content Analysis 75

Chapter IV: Findings 78

Introduction 78

Descriptive Statistics: Cross Tabulations 78

Research Question 1 84

viii

Table of Contents (Continued)

Zero Order Correlation 85

Mann-Whitney U Test 90

Research Question 2 94

Zero Order Correlation 95

Qualitative Content Analysis 102

Research Question 3 107

Qualitative Content Analysis 109

Other Findings 114

Chapter V: Summary, Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations 115

Summary of the Study 115

Discussion of the Findings 115

Recommendations for Practice 118

Recommendations for Further Research 123

Conclusions 125

List of References 126

Appendix A: General Student Population Survey 134

Appendix B: Student Drug Policy Violators Survey 142

Appendix C: Student Code of Conduct 154

Appendix D: Alcohol and Other Drugs Policy Guide 179

Table of Contents (Continued)

Appendix E: Correlations Table for All Variables 205

List of Tables

Table Page

Table 1 Marijuana Related Charges at Binghamton University 26

Table 1.1 Illegal Prescription Drug Charges at Binghamton University 27

Table 1.2 Other Drug Charges at Binghamton University 27

Table 2 Frequency Distributions for the Independent and Dependent Variables- 45

General Student Pop. (N = 98)

Table 3 Frequency Distributions for the Independent and Dependent Variables- 53

Drug Policy Violators (N = 18)

Table 4 Open-Ended Questions Utilized in Surveys 1 & 2 68

Table 5 Cross Tabulation for SCC Read and Gender- 79

General Student Pop. (N = 98)

Table 6 Cross Tabulation for SCC Read and Class standing- 79

General Student Pop. (N = 98)

Table 7 Cross Tabulation for Chance of caught and Gender- 80

General Student Pop. (N = 98)

Table 8 Cross Tabulation for Chance of caught and Class Standing- 81

General Student Pop. (N = 98)

Table 9 Aware of Policy and Gender- General Student Pop. (N = 98) 82

Table 10 Aware of Policy and Class standing- General Student Pop. (N = 98) 82

Table 11 Deterrence and Gender- General Student Pop. (N = 98) 83

Table 12 Deterrence and Class standing- General Student Pop. (N = 98) 84

Table 13 Correlation Coefficients Between Aware of Policy 86

and Independent Variables

Table 14 Mann-Whitney U Test for Drug Policy Awareness 93

Table 15 Correlation Coefficients Between Deterrence and Independent Variables 96

List of Tables (Continued)

Table Page

Table 16 Additional Comments in Survey 2 (N = 18) 112

Chapter 1

Introduction

Drug use in the United States has been an epidemic for several decades (Musto,

1991; McNamara, 2011). As a result of the war on drugs for the past 100 years, many

laws have been enacted to prevent the distribution and use of both drugs and drug

paraphernalia; this is mostly due to their potential overuse and harmful effects

(McNamara, 2011). The contemporary war on drugs, which began in 1971 with a

declaration from President Nixon and which is still continuing today, has focused a lot on

marijuana use, more specifically, marijuana use among college youth. Due to the on-

going war on drugs, colleges and universities have built policies to prohibit the

possession and use of both drugs and drug paraphernalia. While there are plenty of

helpful studies out there, Rowan University’s policies have not been empirically

evaluated fully (CAS, 2009a; CAS, 2009b; Johnston et al., 2008). In the subsections to

come, I will state the problem, talk about the significance of the problem, discuss the

purpose of the study and state the three research questions for this study.

Statement of the Problem

Medical historian Dr. David Musto claims that the war on drugs started roughly

100 years ago (McNamara, 2011). Cocaine became one of the most popular drugs in the

United States between 1905 and 1930 (Musto, 1991). During the 1920’s, smoking

marijuana became a great pastime for Americans and heroin became exceedingly popular

in the 1950s (Musto, 1991). There was a surge in all kinds of drug use during the 1960s

before marijuana became popular again in the 1970s (Musto, 1991). As a result of the

rise and fall in drug trends, many harsh policies against drug use have been enacted

(Musto, 1991; McNamara, 2011).

The war on drugs has consistently included or involved college students (U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, 2011; Skiba, 2000; McNamara, 2011; Musto,

1991). Although “club drugs” (stimulants and hallucinogens such as ecstasy,

methamphetamine, and ketamine) were popular in the past, marijuana and alcohol have

been at the forefront for at least the last fifteen years (Simons, Gaher, Correia, and Bush,

2005). More recently, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that in 2010,

the rate of substance abuse among 18 to 25 year-olds is almost three times higher than

that of adolescents between the ages of 12 and 17, and adults over the age of 26 (U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, 2011). Many harsh drug policies have been

created as a result of the drug use among college students.

In particular, Rowan University, located in Glassboro New Jersey, enacted a

policy that some students believe to be very severe (Simmons, 2010). The Alcohol and

Other Drugs Policy (2007) states that possession, use, manufacture, distribution or sale of

illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia is prohibited (see Appendix D).

In addition,

according to Rowan University’s drug policy, being under the influence of any illegal

drug is prohibited. If a student violates Rowan’s drug policy guidelines, they must face

judicial sanctioning. Some students consider the sanctions associated with Rowan’s

current drug policy too harsh.

In response to harsh drug policies and sanctions, grassroots movements have

The policy is formally entitled Rowan’s “Alcohol and Other Drugs Policy” but will be referred to here as

Rowan’s “drug policy.”

formed against specific laws and college/university policies. In 2011, a group of Rowan

University students, led by Eric Naroden, officially joined the national organization

“Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP)” (Students for Sensible Drug Policy, 2013).

SSDP started in 1998 because students disagreed with the “counterproductive Drug War

policies, particularly those that directly harm students and youth” (Students for Sensible

Drug Policy, 2013).

On the Facebook Fan Page associated with the Rowan University SSDP chapter,

they describe themselves as a “grassroots, student-led organization comprised of

thousands of students on hundreds of high school and college campuses across the United

States and internationally” (Simmons, 2010). One of the mission statements for the club

reads:

We recognize that the very real harms of drug abuse are not adequately addressed

by current policies… we also believe that individuals must ultimately be allowed

to make decisions for themselves as long as their actions do not infringe upon

anyone else’s freedoms or safety.

The SSDP strives to make Rowan's current policy and its sanctions less punitive and

more educational. One of the reasons why students are upset with Rowan’s current drug

policy, and why they started an SSDP chapter at Rowan, is because a student can lose

housing on their first illicit drug offense (Mulligan, 2011).

As per the Student Code of Conduct (see Appendix C), a student can get their

housing suspended if caught with any type of illegal drug or drug paraphernalia. More

specifically, the policy states that for a first violation of the drug policy, as it pertains to

the use or possession of illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia, the recommended sanction is

a $400 fine, completion of substance screening, community restitution hours, disciplinary

probation, suspension of campus housing privileges, and parent/guardian notification

(Mulligan, 2011).

On October 11, 2011 the Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) erected a

“Box City,” where students slept in cardboard boxes from 6pm-6am outside of the

Student Center (a central location on Rowan’s campus). The goal of the protest, however

unsuccessful, was to put an end to residence hall evictions due to students’ use of illegal

drugs on campus. The Students for Sensible Drug Policy at Rowan University also

believe that the policy should be changed so that it no longer allows equal punishment for

students using illegal drugs, possessing illegal drugs, and possessing drug paraphernalia

(Simmons, 2010). It is clear from testimonials that some students do not agree with the

current policy, however, there is little empirical research that examines student

satisfaction of Rowan’s drug policy (Simmons, 2010).

Some schools have in fact begun to shy away from harsh, punitive sanctions and

have integrated restorative and therapeutic justice practices into their judicial processes.

Newbery, McCambridge, and Strang (2007) conducted a study at a London college in

which students participated in motivational interviewing (MI). MI is a counseling style

that encourages participants to evaluate actual or potential behavior in accordance with

their own values and beliefs within a constructive atmosphere (Newbery, et al., 2007).

“Let’s Talk About Drugs” was the title chosen for the on-going meetings, which used MI

to focus mainly on alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use (Newbery, et al., 2007). At the

end of the study, qualitative feedback was collected from both the students and the Dean

of Students; feedback was positive (Newbery, et al., 2007). Students connected most

with the special events that were put on, however, they also enjoyed the in-class activities

and appreciated the drug education posters put up in the school (Newbery, et al., 2007).

In 2001, California Proposition 36 similarly implemented drug prevention

techniques while simultaneously focusing on therapeutic jurisprudence (Wittman, 2001).

Many other states, and specifically colleges and universities, have implemented

restorative justice techniques and lessened the sanctions for drug violations (Karp, 2013).

Rowan University has not yet done this and, therefore, it is beneficial to determine if

Rowan’s drug policy is currently effective in preventing recidivism or if other techniques

should be incorporated into the judicial hearing and sanctioning process. Surveying

students about their satisfaction with the current drug policy, whether or not they believe

the currently policy is effective, and if they think other techniques should be brought in to

take the place of the current policy, will help to gain insight on the student satisfaction of

Rowan’s current drug policy. Up to this date, little research has been done on Rowan

University’s judicial process.

Significance of the Problem

The Students for Sensible Drug Policy club at Rowan has provided anecdotal

information on student dissatisfaction, however, in addition to collecting student

perception research, the effectiveness of such policies needs further examination

(Simmons, 2010). As the literature suggests, policies and programs should be evaluated

for effectiveness (Musto, 1991). Yet, the evaluative aspect of students’ satisfaction with

college or university-wide policies and their sanctions, in addition to the policies and

sanctions effectiveness, seem to be very minimal.

The Alcohol and Other Drugs Policy Guide (see Appendix D) states that Rowan

will review the Alcohol and Other Drugs Policy and educational programs every two

years for effectiveness, to guarantee that the disciplinary sanctions are enforced

consistently, and to implement changes if needed (Rowan Student Handbook, 2011).

This will be done via a committee of faculty, staff, and students in conjunction with

Student Life and the Office of Human Resources (Rowan Student Handbook, 2011).

However, these reviews are not made publically available online and when asked if

Rowan University studied the drug policy for effectiveness, these reviews were not

mentioned. Rowan did, however, recently conduct a onetime, cross-sectional evaluation

of its drug policy in terms of recidivism rates. This was done solely by looking at the

number of students who have been found responsible, by Rowan, for violating the drug

policy more than once; that research has historically omitted the students who have

continued to violate the policy without being caught (Mulligan, 2011). This lack of full

research does not only apply to Rowan University. In fact, when asked via email in

January of 2012, many college/university administrators working in student conduct

replied that they were not aware of their policies ever being evaluated from the student

conduct perspective.

Further assessment of the drug policies at colleges and universities is much

needed. Dannells (1997: 2) discusses the importance of evaluating student conduct

policies, “First, institutional research should be done on existing disciplinary programs to

determine their present effectiveness. Like any other student development program, these

efforts should be periodically and systematically evaluated to ensure they are meeting

These schools included The College of New Jersey, Stockton University, Rider University, La Salle

University, Arcadia University, Temple University, Drexel University, West Chester University,

Kutztown University, and Pennsylvania State University.

their goals.” If Rowan’s drug policy does not meet their goals by having a deterrent

effect on its students, it should be reorganized in order to increase effectiveness and

improve the wellbeing of the students it seeks to serve. Also, the Council for the

Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (2009a: 5) states, “Not every program is

right for each campus, but through intentional programming and thorough assessment,

ineffective programs can be discarded, effective ones retained, and new programs added.”

Without proper assessment, the University will be unaware of if they need to change the

policy or maintain it. This evaluation is necessary in finding out student awareness of the

drug policy at Rowan University, their opinions of the policy, and the effectiveness of its

current punishments, in regards to the true recidivism rate.

Purpose of the Study

According to the most recent National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH,

2011: 22), “In 2010, the current use of illicit drugs was 22.0 percent among full-time

college students aged 18 to 22.” Presumably, some college students only partake in

recreational drug use; however, many students aged 18-22 are classified as drug abusers

(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2011). The NSDUH reports that in

2010, the rate of substance abuse among 18 to 25 year-olds (19.8%) is almost three times

higher than that of adolescents between the ages of 12 and 17 (7.3%) and that of adults

over the age of 26 (7%) (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2011).

College Prowler (2012) shows that the perception of Rowan University is not

much different. College Prowler is a website that offers information that is written for

students by students regarding different colleges and universities’ drug prevalence. One

of the features of this website is a letter grade that is given to colleges regarding their

level of “drug safety.” This grade is mostly based on the students’ perceptions of the

prevalence and importance of illicit drug use and underage drinking on campus, in

addition to the amount of peer pressure that is in existence regarding alcohol and other

drugs (College Prowler, 2012). Paid student authors obtain the information by

distributing surveys to their college peers (College Prowler, 2012). Additionally, students

who can verify that they are from a specific college can answer open-ended questions

about their school on the College Prowler website. The letter grade given by the website

also incorporates statistical data from the U.S. Department of Education and schools’

own websites (College Prowler, 2012).

Rowan received a drug safety score of C, which is lower than most New Jersey

schools including Montclair State University, The College of New Jersey, and Rutgers

University (College Prowler, 2012). Out of the eleven different drugs listed, the most

popular drugs at Rowan University are shown to be alcohol and marijuana (College

Prowler, 2012). According to the student survey poll on College Prowler (2012),

marijuana is just as prevalent on Rowan’s campus as alcohol.

While College Prowler shows that alcohol and marijuana are the most popular

drugs on Rowan’s campus, it is important to also look at the Clery numbers. The “Crime

Awareness and Campus Security Act,” which was later renamed to “Jeanne Clery

Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act,” mandates that

college and universities publically report data for all on-campus crime. Clery numbers

for Rowan University show similar data to that of College Prowler; the arrests for alcohol

related offenses and other drug related offenses have been extremely close in number for

2009, 2010, and 2011 (Rowan University Police, 2012). Yet, the number of referrals for

alcohol was exceedingly higher than the number of referrals for other drugs in those same

years (Rowan University Police, 2012). Unfortunately, the number of illicit drug offenses

in 2011 was much higher than the previous two years. The number of illicit drug arrests

occurring on-campus or on an adjacent public property went from 38 in 2009, to 36 in

2010, and 47 in 2011 (Rowan University Police, 2012).

The war on drugs, which has always included college students, has been prevalent

at Rowan University. Although college and university drug policies have been created as

a result of the current war on drugs, it seems that Rowan’s current drug policy may not be

limiting the number of illegal drug incidents that are occurring on Rowan’s campus. The

purpose of this study is to examine Rowan University’s Alcohol and Other Drugs Policy

because many college and university policies have not been fully evaluated (U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, 2011; Skiba, 2000; McNamara, 2011; Musto,

1991). More specifically, this study will evaluate the students’ awareness of Rowan

University’s drug policy, their satisfaction with the current drug policy, and if it is

effective, in regards to the recidivism rate, or if other techniques should be explored.

Research Questions

Throughout this study, three research questions guided the analysis:

1. Do students know about Rowan University’s drug policy and its possible

sanctions?

2. Do the potential sanctions of Rowan’s drug policy deter the general student

population?

3. Do the imposed sanctions help to prevent recidivism among offenders of

Rowan’s drug policy?

Organization of the Study

Chapter II contains the structural framework of the study. Within the literature

review, discussion begins on the background of college and university policies. The

literature review also explains the variance among college and university drug policies in

addition to the potential importance of how such policies are distributed. Deterrence

theory is thoroughly examined, as well as, the link between level of punishment, e.g.

getting evicted from on-campus housing, and perception of punishment as they pertain to

deterrence. Finally, literature on the effects of deterrence-based policies shows that there

may be a need for more restorative justice-based policies.

Chapter III describes the methodology of the study. This chapter begins by

offering context in describing the setting of the study, the study design, such as the use of

two surveys, and the sampling techniques that were used. The data analysis is described

in this chapter and shows the procedures used to operationalize recidivism and

deterrence, in order to get more accurate results. Finally, the hypotheses were thoroughly

explained.

Chapter IV provides the findings of the study. The profiles of respondents are

separated by each of the surveys. There is then discussion of the evidence found to either

support or contradict each of the three hypotheses. Chapter IV also displays some of the

open-ended answers from the respondents and shows other findings from the research.

Chapter V completes the study by providing concluding information based on the

results found. Practical recommendations are stated in order to better assist the current

practices of Rowan University. Research recommendations are also provided should

there be interest in continuing the study.

Chapter 2

Review of the Literature

The Thought Behind Student Misconduct

Researchers Karp and Allena (2004) find that student misconduct is embedded in

five different but interconnected dimensions. First, college consists of a fast and radical

loss of supervision before freshmen have developed strong internal controls that help to

regularize their behavior (Karp & Allena, 2004). Second, freshmen are generally anxious

to make friends and connections so they may feel pressured to drink underage or try

illegal drugs in order to fit in (Karp & Allena, 2004). Third, student culture differs from

the law in regards to illegal drug use and underage alcohol consumption (Karp & Allena,

2004). Fourth, since there is a lack of internal controls among college students, colleges

and universities are forced to increase surveillance and punitive sanctions in order to gain

compliance with school policies (Karp & Allena, 2004). “Fifth, because a quarter of the

student body is new each year, disciplinary approaches must be educational and ongoing

(Karp & Allena, 2004: 6).” Due in part to the loss of supervision and the need to fit in,

college students have been engaging in alcohol and illegal drug use for many years. As

the research states, student conduct must be constantly changing and focusing on

teaching the student (Karp & Allena, 2004). This idea, however, was not always the case.

In the subsections to come, I will discuss the history of student conduct, the Drug Free

Schools and Communities Act, deterrence theory, restorative justice practices, how

Rowan compares to other schools, and introducing the CAS assessment tool.

The History of Student Conduct

The approach to regulating student conduct at colleges and universities has grown

and changed over the years. The process really began with colonial colleges in which the

school acted in loco parentis (in the place of the parent) and focused on the personal and

intellectual development of the student (Karp & Allena, 2004). The punishments for

breaking a school policy were typically very violent, such as whippings or “cuffings,”

where a student would get hit on both of their ears, and occurred in front of other

classmates (Karp & Allena, 2004). Harsh and violent punishments continued until the

nineteenth century when less harsh and more educational sanctions began (Karp &

Allena, 2004). The nineteenth century also marked the beginning of the formal discipline

process within higher education as the student started to gain a little bit more respect

from the administration (Karp & Allena, 2004). This meant that there were now student

conduct offices instead of the job of disciplinarian falling onto faculty members or deans

(CAS, 2009b). The German university system began after the Civil War and continued

with mild punishments and fair discipline practices as the school focused more on

research and intellectual growth than student behavior (Karp & Allena, 2004).

Following World War II, schools had a high number of older and more mature

students due to the GI Bill and other federally funded programs, which resulted in the

administration giving the students more respect (Karp & Allena, 2004). Schools became

more diverse after the civil rights movement, during this time, and a students’ rights

movement then followed (Karp & Allena, 2004). In the 1960s, federal law mandated a

fair and consistent judicial process for students, of which put an end to in loco parentis

and once again required more punitive, as opposed to educational, punishments (Karp &

Allena, 2004; CAS, 2009b). The Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher

Education (2009b: 3) states, “In the early 1970s, the American College Personnel

Association established Commission XV, Campus Judicial Affairs and Legal Issues, to

meet the needs of this emerging [student conduct] profession.” Since then, there have

been many emerging standards and laws regarding student conduct such as the Drug Free

Schools and Communities Act.

Drug Free Schools and Communities Act

Many schools have similar drug policies to Rowan University; this similarity is

due to the State of New Jersey regulations and the fact that Rowan’s policies are built

around policies at other institutions. The Associate Dean for Civic Involvement and

Assistant Dean of Students Joe Mulligan created the current Alcohol and Other Drug

Policy (2008) for Rowan University when Richard Jones became the Interim Associate

Vice President and Dean of Students in 2008 (Mulligan, 2011). Working within the NJ

state system, he looked at drug policies at other state institutions and tailored them to fit

the needs of Rowan (Mulligan, 2011). There are also mandatory policy disclosures that

are required under the Drug Free Schools and Communities Act that he included in the

policy (Mulligan, 2011).

Due to the illegality of drugs and underage drinking, along with their known side

effects, the Drug Free Schools and Communities Act began in 1989 and is still in effect

today (Higher Education Center, n.d.). Part 86 of the Education Department General

Administrative Regulations (Higher Education Center, n.d.) is the Drug and Alcohol

Abuse Prevention Regulations, which says:

As a condition of receiving funds or any other form of financial assistance under

any federal program, an institution of higher education must certify that it has

adopted and implemented a program to prevent the unlawful possession, use, or

distribution of illicit drugs and alcohol by students and employees.

In order to properly follow the regulations, an institution of higher education must

implement a drug prevention program that prohibits the unlawful possession, use, or

distribution of illicit drugs and alcohol by all students and staff while on campus and

participating in of any school activity (Higher Education Center, n.d.). According to the

Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention Regulations (Higher Education Center, n.d.), the

school’s drug prevention program must:

1. Annually notify each employee and student, in writing, of standards of

conduct; a description of appropriate sanctions for violation of federal, state, and

local law and campus policy; a description of health risks associated with AOD

use; and a description of available treatment programs.

2. Develop a sound method for distributing annual notification information to

every student and staff member each year.

3. Conduct a biennial review on the effectiveness of its AOD programs and the

consistency of sanction enforcement.

4. Maintain its biennial review material on file, so that, if requested to do so by

the U.S. Department of Education, the campus can submit it.

Rowan University accomplishes these tasks by creating the Student Handbook, which

includes relevant resources within the Alcohol and Other Drugs Policy Guide. As

previously stated, the Student Handbook is available both online and as part of an agenda

book which is handed out to every student. Additionally, the Associate Dean for Civic

Involvement/Assistant Dean of Students sends out an email once a semester to all

students, which discusses the Student Handbook in detail and how to access it. Even

with mandatory rules and regulations, colleges and universities are able to create their

own policies that can vary greatly between schools. Most policies are either based on

deterrence theory or the use of restorative justice practices.

Deterrence Theory

Many college and university policies, such as that of Rowan University, are based

on deterrence theory. Deterrence theory says that individuals are deterred from crime if

they believe that punishment is swift (i.e. given quickly), certain (i.e. assurance that you

will receive a punishment for committing a crime), and severe (i.e. harsh) (Beccaria,

1764/1963). According to deterrence theory, swift, certain, and severe punishments will

deter behavior both specifically and generally.

Specific deterrence refers to the criminal refraining from committing another

crime because of the fear of additional punishment. This study looked at specific

deterrence via survey two, which was a survey given out to drug policy violators, for

illegal use and/or possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia, at Rowan University (see

Appendix B). The violators were asked if they were deterred by the policy after being

caught and sanctioned for their violation. On the other hand, general deterrence refers to

others refraining from crime due to fear of receiving the same harsh punishment as the

previous offender. Specific deterrence involves an offender being deterred by their own

experience while general deterrence involves an offender’s experiences deterring others.

This study looked at general deterrence via survey one which was a survey that was given

out to current Rowan University students (see Appendix A). Survey one asked students if

they knew of anyone who had violated the drug policy before and then asked if they were

deterred by it. This helped to gain insight on the policy’s general deterrence. This study

looked at specific deterrence via survey two which was a survey that was given out to

drug policy violators from 2005-2011 (see Appendix B). Survey two asked students if

they were deterred by the policy and the sanctions that were imposed on them. In theory,

Rowan’s drug policy affects both specific and general deterrence.

There is not one deterrence theory that is universally accepted as complete

(Williams & Hawkins, 1986). Since the early 1970s researchers have found that severity

of sanctions has little to do with a person's involvement in criminal activity and that

certainty is the most important component of deterrence (Saltzman, Paternoster, Waldo,

& Chiricos, 1982). Researchers Williams & Hawkins (1986: 549) explain their findings,

“While the magnitude of the association varied across studies, investigators consistently

found a negative association between perceived certainty and self-reported involvement

in crime.” That is, if there is a high-perceived certainty of someone getting caught and

punished for their actions then that person is less likely to commit the crime. Researchers

have since been editing deterrence theory to omit certain characteristics, such as severity,

and add others, such as perception.

Researchers of perceptual deterrence think that deterrence stems from the threat

and fear of punishment as opposed to the punishment itself (Williams & Hawkins, 1986;

Saltzman, et al., 1982; Jensen, Erickson & Gibbs, 1978). This means that deterrence is a

subjective occurrence, as opposed to a calculation that can objectively be applied to every

reasonable person. Kirk Williams and Richard Hawkins (1986: 547) explain that this is

“a theory about the behavioral implications of subjective beliefs.” In order for the

perception of punishment to be close to the reality of punishment, making it a little bit

more objective, information regarding sanctions must be accurate and easily accessible to

everyone (Kleck, et al., 2005). If this does not hold true, and someone’s perception of

punishment is low, then that person’s level of deterrence will not increase with just an

increase in potential punishments (Kleck, et al., 2005).

Researchers used the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Judicial Reporting

Program (NJRP) to find the number of convictions among adults, the number of

convicted adults who received prison sentences, the average maximum sentence imposed,

and the average number of days between arrest and sentencing, in order to estimate actual

levels of certainty, severity, and swiftness of punishments in a given county (Kleck, et al.,

2005). Perception levels were measured by interviews with 1,500 adults spread between

each county represented in the NJRP. The study found that there was generally no

association between perceived and actual punishments, in regards to swiftness, certainty,

and severity, which muddles deterrence effects (Kleck, et al., 2005). This means that

increasing punishment may not increase deterrence and decreasing punishment may not

decrease deterrence, unless the perception of punishment increases or decreases as well

(Kleck, et al., 2005). This study tests perceptual deterrence among both the general

student population at Rowan and the drug policy violators by asking what they think their

chances are of getting caught/caught again for a drug policy violation and if they are

deterred by the drug policy. If a person believes that there is a high certainty of getting

caught and punished for their deviant behavior, then they will likely be deterred from the

behavior.

When looking at severe sanctioning, arrest or other serious punishments have

three main deterring components: stigmatization, attachment costs, and commitment

costs. Stigmatization is when a person is deterred from committing a criminal act

because they anticipate very negative reactions from others for committing the crime

(Williams & Hawkins, 1986). Conversely, peers may not react negatively to the crime

itself but will react negatively toward the perceived sanctions, which will deter the

individual from committing the crime (Williams & Hawkins, 1986). For instance,

college peers may think that smoking marijuana is okay but will react negatively toward a

person if they are arrested for it. The survey in this study, given to Rowan’s general

student population, included several questions regarding potential stigmatizations. For

instance, the survey asked respondents if having their parents find out would deter them

from violating the policy; a separate question asked about having their peers find out.

However, in order to get a real sense of stigmatization, we would need to know how their

parents and/or peers felt about the behavior. Attachment costs refers to the perception of

losing attachments (i.e. personal relationships) due to the punishment (legal controls) or

the criminal act itself (extralegal controls) (Williams & Hawkins, 1986). The survey

questions mentioned previously also refers to potential attachment costs. Commitment

costs refers to the perception of losing past accomplishments or jeopardizing future ones

(Williams & Hawkins, 1986). Commitment costs are especially prevalent in the

population of this study, college students, because graduation is an end goal for everyone

in the population and having too many policy violations could jeopardize that goal. In

this study, the survey given to Rowan’s general student population includes many

questions regarding various commitments, in order to get a better understanding of

deterrence. The survey asked students if they are a member of a club, a member of a

Greek organization, a member of an athletic team, and if they have a part-time or full-

time job. These are all potential commitments costs if a student violations policy. If any

of these three deterring components, stigmatization, attachment costs, and commitment

costs, are perceived to be very high by an individual, than that person may be deterred

from committing a criminal act, even if their perception of certainty of getting caught

and/or punished is low (Williams & Hawkins, 1986).

Rowan University has based their drug policy off of deterrence theory; the

punishments are swift and severe and the students are perceived to have a high level of

certainty of getting caught. Rowan’s policy is considered severe because students lose

their on-campus housing after their first drug offense involving illicit drugs; however,

studies have found that this may not be the best practice (APA, 2008). Past research has

found that removing delinquent students from school, or housing, labels students as

criminals, which could actually increase their violations (APA, 2008). Labeling theory

was originally extracted from Emile Durkheim’s book entitled Suicide written in 1951 but

made well known by Howard Becker in 1963 (Davis, 1972). This theory states that once

people are labeled as offenders, they are likely to continue offending (Davis, 1972). In

schools, people who are labeled as the “bad students” tend to lash out more than others,

due to the title alone (Davis, 1972). In order to not label students as offenders and to

offer a more educational experience for them, many schools base their policies off of

restorative justice practices.

Restorative Justice Practices

Many laws regarding student conduct at the collegiate level were recently

instated. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act was established in 1974, in

1988 the Association for Student Judicial Affairs was founded (now known as the

Association for Student Conduct Administration), and there were many Higher Education

Amendments, such as that of the Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act (CAS,

2009b). After the establishment of Commission XV, and the laws listed above, there has

been a trend of making the sanctions educational again and focusing on less legalistic

practices and more educational practices such as restorative and therapeutic justice (Karp

& Allena, 2004; CAS 2009b). However, not all schools have followed this recent trend

and continue to have harsher sanctions.

One of the relatively new approaches to sanctioning is utilizing restorative justice

practices in the college setting. Restorative justice involves viewing a specific crime as

harm done to a person or a community (Zehr, 1997). Sanctioning is a collaborative effort

between the victim/community and the offender; thus, the offender is held accountable

for his/her actions and the victim/community’s needs are met (Zehr, 1997). For instance,

there are some schools who believe that mandatory minimum fines are a deterrent to

students and others who do not think that this will decrease violations, so they utilize

educational sanctions such as community service, mandated educational courses, and

various other sanctions (Grasgreen, 2012). Restorative justice has become increasingly

popular among student conduct within colleges and universities (Karp, 2013).

Restorative justice practices aim to have the offender take responsibility for their actions,

repair the harm done to the victim/community, and reduce the risk of re-offending by

building community ties (Karp, 2013). Again, this is done with collaboration between the

victim/community, the offender, and a trained facilitator (Zehr, 1997; Karp, 2013).

There are four common restorative justice practices among student conduct within

colleges and universities: Restorative Justice Conferences, Restorative Justice Circles,

Restorative Justice Boards, and Restorative Justice Administrative Hearings (Karp,

2013). A Restorative Justice Conference is when a trained facilitator guides a discussion

between the offender and the victim to come up with sanctions on their own (Karp,

2013). A Restorative Justice Circle is the same as the conference; however, this will

involve holding an object to determine who can speak at that time (Karp, 2013). A

Restorative Justice Board is when there is a board of students, faculty, and staff members

who determine the sanctions with the offender; the victim is invited but does not need to

be present (Karp, 2013). Finally, a Restorative Justice Administrative Hearing consists of

incorporating restorative justice practices into administrative hearings; the offender and

the hearing officer will determine the harm done and how the offender can repair the

harm (Karp, 2013). Over 30 colleges and universities have begun using restorative

justice practices, and while there has not been much completed evaluative research on

this topic yet, the results are expected to be very positive (Lofton, 2010). Schools that

focus more on educational rather than punitive sanctions include but are not limited to;

Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, Southern Technical College in Florida, which

does not allow alcohol on their campus, Cabrini College in Pennsylvania, Eastern

Mennonite University in Virginia, Rutgers University in New Jersey, and Skidmore

College in New York (Trustees of Dartmouth College, 2012; Southern Technical Institute,

2012; Cabrini College, 2012; Lofton, 2010; Karp, 2013).

When discussing the implementation of drug policies, Munro and Midford (2001)

surmise that policies that include less drug education and more punitive sanctions, do not

actually affect drug use among students. It seems that Rowan students feel the same way;

the tagline for the Students for Sensible Drug Policy club at Rowan University is

“Educating and creating change to reduce drug use” (Simmons, 2010). The club

continues to push for drug education for their fellow students by sponsoring multiple

drug education workshops (Simmons, 2010). One of the studies that tested the effect of

more educational programs, although not at a college or university, is an evaluation of the

National Drug Strategic Plan in Australia from 1993-1997 (Single & Rohl, 1997). The

National Drug Strategic Plan was created in 1993 with three goals: 1. To minimize the

level of illness, disease, and injury associated with alcohol and illegal drug use, 2. To

minimize the level and impact of criminal drug offenses, drug related crime, violence,

and antisocial behavior within the community, 3. To minimize the level of personal and

social disruption, quality of life, loss of productivity, and economic costs associated with

inappropriate alcohol and illegal drug use (Single & Rohl, 1997). These goals are to be

accomplished by focusing on both prevention and rehabilitation techniques (Single &

Rohl, 1997). Some of the activities/programs that were implemented include the

development of a national statement on marijuana, public education and awareness

campaigns, the National Initiatives in Drug Education Program, new treatment services,

and more (Single & Rohl, 1997). These initiatives were tested by the distribution of

household surveys throughout the five years of 1993-1997; the results, however, were

mixed (Single & Rohl, 1997). There were decreases in tobacco use, increases in

responsible drinking, and no significant trend in relation to illicit drug use, except

however, marijuana use which slightly increased (Single & Rohl, 1997). Even with the

current research, there is a clear need for more evaluative studies of efforts to curb drug

use, especially college and university policies.

Some institutions try to make sanctioning an educational experience while other

schools are more focused on punitive punishments. There is a strong need for empirical

research as to which approach is more effective. David Lewis, M.D. (2001) believes that

most harsh punishments do not deter students from using drugs; they simply push the

crime off-campus, which is known as crime displacement. He states that school policies

that completely prohibited underage drinking and illegal drug use may not have created a

safer environment for students, or the surrounding area, because students then take their

illegal activity off-campus (Lewis, 2001). In fact, student drug use could actually

increase off-campus. This is especially true if they do not think the Student Code of

Conduct applies to students living off-campus. Illegal drug use could also increase

because off-campus students do not fear being evicted from on-campus housing, which is

the sanction that upsets the most drug policy violators who live on-campus. In terms of

sanctioning, Lewis (2001) believes that schools should focus more on disallowing

negative behavior associated with drug use (such as assault, sexual misconduct,

vandalism, etc.) and less about the drug use itself.

Rowan University Policies vs. Other Schools’ Policies

Even though many colleges and universities have a similar drug policy to Rowan

University, some students believe Rowan's policy to be very severe (Simmons, 2010).

According to the Student Handbook (2011: 49), the recommended sanction for a first

violation of the drug policy, as it pertains to illegal use and/or possession of drugs or drug

paraphernalia, is a “$400 fine, completion of substance screening, community restitution

hours, disciplinary probation, suspension of campus housing privileges, and

parent/guardian notification.” The recommended sanction for a second violation is “a

$500 fine, completion of substance screening, disciplinary probation (remainder of

academic career), University suspension and parent/guardian notification” (Rowan

Student Handbook, 2011: 50). The recommended sanction for the third violation is

“University suspension or expulsion and parent/guardian notification” (Rowan Student

Handbook, 2011: 50). The recommended sanctions are different for alcohol-related

violations. The recommended sanctions for the first violation of an alcohol-related

incident, as it pertains to underage possession or use, is “$150 fine, completion of

Alcohol and Other Drugs education program, community restitution hours, disciplinary

probation, and notification of parent/guardian” (Rowan Student Handbook, 2011: 173).

As seen, the difference between a first violation of the illegal drug use and/or possession

policy and a first violation of the underage alcohol use and/or possession policy is a $250

fine increase and the loss of campus housing privileges, which does not come until the

third violation of the underage alcohol use and/or possession policy. This study

specifically focused on the illegal drug aspect of Rowan University’s drug policy. While

many schools have similar policies to Rowan University, there are other college and

universities with differing drug policies.

Binghamton University for example, a public university in New York, takes a

different approach to punishment. Binghamton separates their drug policy sanctions by

three different drug types: marijuana related charges, illegal prescription drug charges,

and other drug charges (Office of Student Conduct, 2010b). Table 1 represents the

recommended sanctions for “possession/personal use of marijuana, possession of drug

paraphernalia with marijuana residue, and purchasing or attempting to purchase a small

amount of marijuana” at Binghamton University (Office of Student Conduct, 2010b).

Table 1

Marijuana Related Charges at Binghamton University

Recommended Sanctions

violation 1 year disciplinary probation (may include, but is not limited to,

educational sanctions, community service, and removal from housing

and/or loss of privileges) and Marijuana 101 (an online drug education

course that takes about two hours and costs $50 to complete)

violation Disciplinary probation until graduation, relocation if appropriate, loss

of visitation to appropriate area, educational sanction x 3 (Educational

sanctions “consist of writing an essay, attending and/or presenting a

workshop to a group of students, etc., with specific instructions to be

included in the sanction letter”), and parental notification if relocated

violation Final probation until graduation, removal from all university housing,

loss of visitation to all residential areas, and parental notification

Educational sanctions “consist of writing an essay, attending and/or presenting a

workshop to a group of students, etc., with specific instructions to be included in the

sanction letter” (Office of Student Conduct, 2010b). Also, disciplinary probation may

include, but is not limited to, educational sanctions, community service, and removal

from housing and/or loss of privileges (Office of Student Conduct, 2010b). According to

Binghamton University's Sanction Guidelines, removal of campus housing occurs after a

student's third drug offense (Office of Student Conduct, 2010c). Table 1.1 shows the

recommended sanctions for possession, use, purchasing, or attempting to purchase

prescription drugs prescribed to another (Office of Student Conduct, 2010b).

Table 1.1

Illegal Prescription Drug Charges at Binghamton University

Recommended Sanctions

violation

2 years disciplinary probation and educational sanction x 2

violation

Disciplinary probation until graduation, relocation if appropriate, loss of

visitation to appropriate area, educational sanction x 3, and parental

notification if relocated

violation

Final probation until graduation, removal from all university housing, loss

of visitation to all residential areas, and parental notification

Table 1.2 shows the recommended sanctions for “possession/personal use of other

drugs, possession of drug paraphernalia with residue other than marijuana, and

purchasing or attempting to purchase other drugs” at Binghamton University (Office of

Student Conduct, 2010b).

Table 1.2

Other Drug Charges at Binghamton University

Recommended Sanctions

violation Disciplinary probation until graduation, educational sanction x 3, and

parental notification

violation 1 year suspension and parental notification

violation Required reflective paper and interview, final probation until

graduation, removal from all University housing, and loss of visitation

to all residential areas

Binghamton University's policy may be different than Rowan's due to the fact that

marijuana has been decriminalized in New York. By 1979, eleven states within America

decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana, including New York

(Earleywine, 2002). Although this may be the reason for the less strict drug policy at

Binghamton, some schools in states in which marijuana is illegal have similar policies.

The University of San Francisco Division of University Life completed a program review

in 2008 for their Office of Student Conduct, Rights, and Responsibilities (USF, 2008).

Part of the program review involved collecting data from other institutions. The

institution compiled a list of sanctioning for first and second illicit drug offenses for

seven different religiously affiliated, private institutions that compare to the University of

San Francisco (USF, 2008). The seven schools that were compared to the University of

San Francisco are: Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington, Loyola Marymouth

University in Los Angeles, California, Santa Clara University in Santa Clara, California,

Boston College in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, Seattle University, in Seattle,

Washington, Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., and Loyola University of

Chicago in Chicago, Illinois (USF, 2008).

When looking at the sanctioning for all eight institutions, Boston College and

Loyola University of Chicago are the only schools that require housing suspension for a

first time illicit drug offense; even still, University of Chicago does not require housing

suspension for possessing drug paraphernalia or being in the presence of a controlled

substance (USF, 2008). For all of the other institutions, the first illicit drug offense

results in housing probation and removal from on-campus housing occurs after the

second drug offense (USF, 2008). Other sanctions for a first time illicit drug offense

include fines of up to $250 but averaging at $50, parental notification with the students

writing a letter to their parents and the office of student conduct also sending a letter

home, drug testing (only at Loyola Marymount University), and educational sanctions

(USF, 2008). The educational sanctions include behavior assessment, counseling, ethics

workshop, educational research project, enrollment in a weekly Drugs and Alcohol

seminar group, community service hours, e-toke (marijuana-specific assessment and

feedback tool), Brief Motivation Information meeting, and drug abuse assessment

program (USF, 2008). Clearly, some schools take a more educational approach to

sanctioning.

Distribution of Policies: Rowan vs. Binghamton University

In addition to the policies and sanctions, the way college and universities

distribute their policies can affect a possible deterrent effect. For example, distributing

policies through email may be an extremely effective method or not at all, depending on

if students regularly check their email or not at that institution. Without evaluating

student awareness of policies, there will be a lack of insight on whether or not

distribution methods are the most effective. Gaining data on student awareness, along

with student perception, of such policies will be very beneficial as it is a piece of

information that is currently missing.

The school’s policies and the judicial process must be easily accessible to students

(Karp & Allena, 2004). Students should understand the policies and the judicial process;

the judicial process should also remain fair and consistent (Karp & Allena, 2004). The

way policy information is distributed differs among schools. Rowan University utilizes

many different ways to communicate the current policies. First, the Student Handbook

(containing both the Student Code of Conduct and the Alcohol and Other Drugs Policy) is

located online as a part of the Office of Community Standards and Commuter Services’

website. Second, all students and parents are told about Rowan’s policies during the new

student orientations in the summer months leading up to the start of the fall semester.

Third, the Student Handbook is put in an agenda book that is given to every current

student. Fourth, Resident Assistants have floor meetings with all of their residents

(students living on-campus) and go over the policies with them. Finally, the Office of

Community Standards and Commuter Services sends an email once a semester to all

faculty, staff and students explaining the Student Handbook and giving a link to its

location on their website. Essentially, if a student does not go to freshmen orientation or

the first floor meeting held by their RA and does not read the Student Handbook (either

online or in paper form), then they will not know the Alcohol and Other Drugs Policy at

Rowan. This is how Rowan informs their students; other schools take different

approaches.

Binghamton University informs their students of policies in a different way than

that of Rowan University. In addition to distributing information through pamphlets,

orientation materials, and by Resident Assistants, Binghamton University also has a

student-run club that helps to distribute information about policies and sanctions for

policy violations (Office of Student Conduct, 2010a). The Student Conduct Outreach

Team (SCOT) promotes awareness of campus policies, discusses the philosophy of the

Student Conduct Office, talks about the judicial procedures, and encourages responsible

decision-making (Office of Student Conduct, 2010a). According to Binghamton's Office

of Student Conduct website (2010a), “You can find SCOT performing door-to-door

residential educational initiatives... educating campus constituents at various campus

events, partnering with other student organizations, and hosting conduct themed parties.”

While there are different tactics that can be used to disseminate information to a

large group of people, such tactics have also not been fully examined. The purpose of

this study was to empirically evaluate the policy’s effectiveness in terms of recidivism;

however, student awareness was also an important feature to better understanding the

policy’s possible deterrent effect and to ensure that the information was being given to

the appropriate people.

CAS Assessment Tool

One valuable assessment tool comes from the Council for the Advancement of

Standards in Higher Education (CAS). This council created self-assessment guides for

forty-three different departments/services within a college or university. The two self-

assessment guides of the most importance to this study are for Alcohol, Tobacco, and

Other Drug Programs and Student Conduct Programs. All of the CAS guides are

comprised of fourteen parts for assessment: Mission, Program, Leadership, Human

Resources, Ethics, Legal Responsibilities, Equity and Access, Diversity, Organization and

Management, Campus and External Relations, Financial Resources, Technology,

Facilities and Equipment, and Assessment and Evaluation (CAS, 2009a; CAS, 2009b).

The assessments are to be completed by a task force made up of faculty members, full-

time staff members, and students (USF, 2008). Completing a CAS self-assessment can

offer very beneficial information about a school’s department or program.

Stephen F. Austin State University (SFA), a public institution in Nacogdoches,

Texas, completed the CAS self-assessment for Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug

Program in 2009. One specific question on the assessment states, “What evidence is

available to confirm achievement of program goals? (2009: 4)” and SFA concluded,

“Currently little evidence is available based on our assessments” (SFA, 2009: 4). Results

of the self-assessment also showed SFA that there is not a strong effort to educate

students on the consequences of violating the school’s policies, along with a lack of

educating students on the dangers of unsafe drinking and drug use (SFA, 2009).

University of San Francisco (USF), a private institution in San Francisco, California,

completed a CAS self-assessment on their Office of Student Conduct, Rights, and

Responsibilities in November of 2008. While USF (2008) found a multitude of strength

areas, there were also areas that needed to be improved. Some of the items to maintain or

improve upon include continuing to “evaluate the effectiveness of educational sanctions”

(p. 3), increasing the quantity and quality of student learning outcome evaluations,

expanding on programming, re-evaluating the use of conduct boards, and providing more

follow-up with students and the community (USF, 2008). Clearly, the CAS self-

assessments provide helpful information that will only improve a department or program;

however, the assessments still lack crucial information.

While it would be extremely constructive for Rowan to complete a CAS self-

assessment for its Community Standards Office, there are still missing components to that

particular evaluation. For instance, it asks if “the campus community is informed of the

judicial programs” (part 1 section 2.11) but it does not ask how that information is being

distributed and if their efforts of distributing information is effective (USF, 2008). In

addition, sanctions are not discussed and recidivism rates are not calculated (USF, 2008).

The self-assessment generally focuses on if the department or program is upholding the

institution’s mission statement, if they are meeting all of the requirements, if the students

are learning and growing, and if the department or program needs more resources to be

able to function better (USF, 2008). The assessment does not focus on if specific

sanctions are effective, if students are knowledgeable of the policies, and what students’

perceptions of the policies are, all of which are very important aspects of evaluative

student conduct studies (USF, 2008). There is a strong need for a more in-depth

evaluation of institutions’ student conduct departments, especially that of Rowan

University’s Community Standards Office.

Summary of the Literature Review

Karp and Allena (2004) find that student misconduct, such as alcohol and illegal

drug use, is embedded in five different dimensions: 1. There is a lack of supervision

before students have developed controls, 2. Students feel pressured to drink alcohol

underage or do illegal drugs in order to fit in, 3. Student culture is at odds with

mainstream society, 4. Colleges and universities are forced to increase surveillance and

punitive sanctions, 5. Disciplinary approaches must be educational and ongoing.

According to various studies, drug use among college students is still very prevalent

today (CAS, 2009; Johnston et al., 2008).

The history of college and university policies shows that they have gone from

violent and harsh to more educational (Karp & Allena, 2004; CAS, 2009b). Today, there

are regulations to such policies to ensure effectiveness. One of these regulations is the

Drug Free Schools and Communities Act (Higher Education Center, n.d.). In order to

receive federal funding, the school must: 1. Notify each employee and student of

standards of conduct, description of sanctions, and the health risks associated with

alcohol and illegal drug use including available treatment programs, 2. Develop a method

of distributing information to every student and staff member, 3. Conduct a biennial

review on the effectiveness of its programs and the consistency of sanction enforcement,

and 4. Keep all of that information on file. While there are some regulations for college

and university policies, each school can have very different drug policies. The policies

are usually deterrence based or based on the use of restorative justice practices.

This literature review discussed the differences between deterrence-based policies

and restorative justice-based policies. Deterrence theory says that individuals are

deterred from crime if they believe that punishment is swift, certain, and severe

(Beccaria, 1764/1963). Restorative justice, on the other hand, involves viewing a specific

crime as harm done to a person or a community and focuses on more educational

punishments (Zehr, 1997). Rowan University’s drug policy is deterrence-based, while

schools like Binghamton University have restorative justice-based policies. Up until this

point, there is a lack of research on which type of policies are more effective. While

there have been great evaluative measures created, such as the CAS assessment tool,

there is still a need for further research. This study researched Rowan’s drug policy in

order to determine its effectiveness, along with student awareness and satisfaction of the

policy.

Chapter 3

Methodology

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to begin to evaluate Rowan University’s Alcohol

and Other Drugs Policy. Evaluative research is intended to determine if a policy is

accomplishing what it aims to, which in this case was deterrence (Kleck, et al., 2005).

This study, amongst other things, attempted to answer whether or not students were

aware of the policy and if they were deterred by it. A mixed method approach was used

to gain the most amount of information from the two surveyed populations. In the

subsections to come, I will describe the context of the study, sampling procedures,

instrumentation, operational definitions, how I operationalized deterrence and recidivism,

the variables used, and how the data was analyzed.

Context of the Study

This study took place at Rowan University. Rowan is a four-year, public,

suburban, coed, college located primarily in Glassboro, New Jersey (NJ) with a smaller

satellite campus in Camden, NJ (Rowan University Media and Public Relations, 2012).

According to the Rowan Fast Facts 2012-2013 website (2012), the University is

considered medium-sized with 12,183 enrolled students (10,750 undergraduate students

and 1,383 graduate students). Since Rowan University currently has a faculty of 1,049,

the class sizes can typically be kept at an average of twenty students (Rowan University

Media and Public Relations, 2012). Rowan awards fifteen degrees within the colleges of

“Business, Biomedical Sciences, Communication & Creative Arts, Education,

Engineering, Graduate and Continuing Education, Humanities & Social Sciences,

Medicine, Performing Arts and Science & Mathematics (Rowan University Media and

Public Relations, 2012). The current price tag for tuition, fees, room and board, as of

August 14 2012, is $23,352 per year for in-state students and $31,158 per year for out-of-

state students, however, 7,883 students received financial assistance in the 2010-2011

academic year (Rowan University Media and Public Relations, 2012).

Sampling

Since this policy had already been in effect, I conducted a cross-sectional study

where I surveyed students in order to examine the potential effectiveness, awareness and

satisfaction of Rowan’s alcohol and drug policy, at one given time (Creswell, 2008;

Ruane, 2005); there was no attempt to follow up with the same respondents. Awareness

and effectiveness of the policy was based on two different populations: the general

student population and those students who have been found in violation of Rowan’s

Alcohol and Other Drugs Policy for possession and/or use of illicit drugs or drug

paraphernalia between 2005 and 2011.

Our target population for the first survey (See Appendix A) was all of Rowan

University’s current students and I was able to send the first survey to that entire

population, although not everyone responded. First, I sent the survey to June Ragone,

Research Analyst for Rowan University’s Institutional Effectiveness, Research and

Planning Department. She then created a SurveyMonkey link to which the survey could

be accessed online. We were able to send our survey to that entire population, about

12,183 students, via the “Rowan Announcer.” The Rowan Announcer is a daily email

that is sent to all current students’ Rowan email addresses. In order to post to the Rowan

Announcer, one must be affiliated with a club or organization at Rowan University,

therefore, I partnered with Students for Sensible Drug Policy and they posted the survey

on the Rowan Announcer. The survey was sent out via the Rowan Announcer on specific

days: January 29

, February 5

, February 12

and February 17

; however, the survey

remained open from January 29, 2013 until February 28, 2013. The only certain thing

that all of the participants in this first survey had in common was their enrollment in

Spring 2013 courses at Rowan University. Although we were able to send the first survey

to the entire Rowan student population, the response rate was not very high. We had 98

respondents and while some completed the entire survey, many did not answer all of the

questions. June Ragone explained that Rowan students had received a lot of surveys in

their email at that time and perhaps they were over-surveyed.

For the second survey (See Appendix B), a purposive sampling technique was

employed in order to reach all of the students found responsible for violating Rowan’s

drug policy for possession and/or use of illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia between the

years of 2005 and 2011, which consisted of 349 students but only 224 with listed email

addresses. In order to reach out to these students, Joe Mulligan, the Associate Dean for

Civic Involvement and Assistant Dean of Students, gave me a list of Rowan email

addresses for everyone who had violated Rowan’s drug policy from 2005-2011. Mr.

Mulligan heads the Office of Community Standards and Commuter Services at Rowan

University, which is the office that processes all of the student conduct cases. I created a

second survey, again using SurveyMonkey, and sent it out electronically using an email

address that I specifically made for distributing this survey. Some of the people in this

population may have been attending classes at Rowan at the time of the survey and some

were not, however, all were students at Rowan University at one time between 2005 and

2011. While the entire second population was sent the survey, there was still not a high

response rate. There were 18 respondents to the second survey and, again, many chose

not to answer every question. This lack of response could be due to many reasons; such

as, people no longer checking their Rowan email after graduating/leaving Rowan or

perhaps not wanting to bring up past incidents.

Instrumentation

Research shows that self-reporting can be extremely helpful in gaining

information on delinquency and criminal activity (Thornberry & Krohn, 2000). There

should be multiple question types used in self-reports including frequency response sets

and open-ended questions (Thornberry & Krohn, 2000). For this study I employed a

mixed methodological approach. The surveys were broken down into four main response

types: yes/no, Likert scale (coded as Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree and

Strongly Disagree), demographic questions and open-ended questions, which allowed for

more opinion-based student input. The questions focused primarily on students’

awareness of the policy and deterrence effects; however, the surveys also included

perception questions, opinion questions, and more. The questions used in both surveys

were adapted from the 2011 National Association of Student Personnel Administrators

(NASPA): Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, Assessment &

Knowledge Consortium, along with The Effects of Sanctioning on Underage and

Excessive Drinking on College Campuses (NASPA Student Affairs Administrators in

Higher Education, 2011; Gehring, Lower & Palmer, 2012).

NASPA is a national organization made up of student affairs administrators in

higher education. This organization has an Assessment and Knowledge Consortium

which is a grouping of surveys that a college or university could purchase and use to

assess their different student affairs departments and compare their results to those of

other colleges and universities. One of the Consortium studies, the Student Conduct

Benchmark, was used to help shape the surveys used for this study. This Student

Conduct Benchmark was written by NASPA in conjunction with another national

organization entitled the Association for Student Conduct Administration (ASCA). It is a

survey designed to collect data on student “awareness of student conduct policies,

outcomes of participating in the judicial affairs process and perceptions of institutional

rules, policies and procedures” for those colleges and universities that sign up to use it

(NASPA Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, 2011). I looked at all of the

questions from the NASPA survey and, for those that applied to student awareness and/or

deterrence, I specifically tailored the questions to fit Rowan University’s drug policy. For

instance, survey one included a grouping of yes/no questions regarding student

knowledge of the different steps of the judicial process at Rowan and about Rowan’s drug

policy, which was adapted from NASPA’s survey (NASPA Student Affairs Administrators

in Higher Education, 2011). Additionally, the next grouping of questions asked about the

students’ perception of Rowan’s policies and procedures and specifically whether or not

they perceived them to be appropriate, fair and educational (NASPA Student Affairs

Administrators in Higher Education, 2011). There was also a ranking question regarding

Rowan’s drug policy that was adapted from NASPA’s survey and questions regarding the

students’ own admission of violating Rowan’s alcohol and other drug policy and the

sanctioning that followed (NASPA Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education,

2011). In addition to NASPA’s survey, Gehring, Lower & Palmer (2012) created a

national survey that was also utilized in the creation of the two surveys used in this study.

ASCA, in conjunction with The Century Council and The National Judicial

College, created a survey to gain insight into students’ views of effective alcohol

sanctions on college campuses (Gehring, et al., 2012). After reading the results of the

national study, I reached out to the authors to attain a copy of the actual survey used. The

survey’s questions focus on students’ views of sanctioning for alcohol violations, which I

tailored to fit illegal drug violations at Rowan University. For instance, a grouping of

deterrence-based questions, touching on attachment costs and perception of punishment,

was adapted from this survey (Gehring, et al., 2012). Since survey two was given to

people who were already found responsible of violating Rowan’s drug policy, additional

questions regarding beliefs before violating the policy, details of the policy violation,

beliefs after violating the policy, and details of the sanctioning were included (Gehring, et

al., 2012). The questions were made up of multiple levels of measurement and were all

adapted from Gehring, Lower & Palmer’s survey (2012). There were also open-ended

questions regarding sanctioning and deterrence that were adapted from this national

survey (Gehring, et al., 2012).

It is important to note that the Institutional Review Board approved both of these

surveys. Each survey should have taken students roughly 10-15 minutes to complete. All

of the people surveyed were made aware that the survey was both optional to them and

anonymous to the researcher.

Operational Definitions

1. “Standard Sanctions for Substance Abuse-Related Violations-- Use or possession

of illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia. First violation: $400 fine, Completion of

Substance Screening, Community Restitution Hours, Disciplinary Probation,

Suspension of Campus Housing Privileges, Notification of Parent/Guardian

(Dependent student) (Rowan Student Handbook, 2011: 169).”

2. “Drug paraphernalia-- All equipment, products, and materials of any kind which

are used or intended to use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing,

harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing,

preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing,

concealing, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a

controlled dangerous substance… including… roach clips… bongs… pipes

(Rowan Student Handbook, 2011: 198).”

3. “Disciplinary Probation-- A defined period of time (minimum of one semester)

indicating that a student is no longer in good social standing with the university.

Any subsequent violation, while in this status, will likely result in suspension or

expulsion from the university (Rowan Student Handbook, 2011: 165).”

4. “Suspension of Residence Privileges-- The student’s privilege to live in

University-owned housing, and to visit the residence areas of the campus, is

suspended on a temporary or permanent basis. The student is not entitled to any

refund of campus housing and/or meal plan fees (Rowan Student Handbook,

2011: 165).”

Operationalizing Deterrence and Recidivism

One major criticism of cross-sectional deterrence studies is that the temporal

order is usually reversed (Saltzman, Paternoster, Waldo, & Chiricos, 1982; Williams &

Hawkins, 1986). In fact, most studies are actually measuring experiential effects and not

deterrence effects (Saltzman, et al., 1982). In order to measure a true deterrent effect, a

person's perceptions must influence their behavior; in most cases, however, past behavior

has influenced perception (Williams & Hawkins, 1986). For example, if you have

committed a crime and did not get caught, your perception of certainty will greatly

decrease (Williams & Hawkins, 1986). In order to get a true deterrent effect two different

techniques were used. The first asked respondents about their perceptions before they

violated policy and the second asked respondents about future behavior. Although,

Williams & Hawkins (1986) stated that these techniques may not be completely accurate.

Researchers Williams & Hawkins (1986) point out that people may not be able to

accurately remember their perception of punishment prior to their criminal activity,

moreover, there could be a disconnect between what people say they will do and what

they actually do.

I recognize that there could be other factors deterring Rowan students from

possessing and/or using illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia that were not accounted

for in this study, but this was a cross-sectional preliminary analysis/evaluation. In

addition to Rowan University’s Alcohol and Other Drugs Policy, there were many other

factors that were analyzed to see if they in fact helped to deter students from breaking

Rowan's drug policies. These factors included moral commitments, the greater federal

laws, and the perception and degree of parental (or family) disapproval. In this specific

case of marijuana use among college students, peers may not disapprove of the behavior

but may disapprove of some of the sanctions imposed if caught (Williams & Hawkins,

1986). Past researchers agree that if a student refrains from smoking marijuana because

they feel that they may be caught and arrested, which their friends would not approve of,

then this would be an example of general deterrence with legal sanctions as the source

(Williams & Hawkins, 1986). Both surveys included general and specific deterrence.

In the past, recidivism has been examined by looking at which students were

found in violation of the drug policy, as it pertains to illegal drugs, for the second (or

more) time (Mulligan, 2011). This number will never be completely accurate because it

does not include students who have continued to commit a crime but have not been

caught by the university. This study looked at recidivism by factoring in students who

have violated the policy again but have not been caught or found responsible. In other

words, recidivism was examined through the responses from the students who have

previously been found responsible for violating the drug policy at Rowan University. It

was determined from the question, “I have possessed drug paraphernalia, drugs, or used

drugs, after being caught,” with the possible answers being “yes, multiple times, yes,

once, or no.” As long as the students were honest in answering these surveys, the

descriptive statistics of recidivism became more accurate. It should be noted, however,

that the low response rate could have affected the results.

Studies show that people are in fact honest when answering surveys (Farrington,

1999; Jolliffe, Farrington, Hawkins, Catalano, Hill, & Kosterman, 2003; Williams &

Hawkins, 1986; Walsh, 1968). David Farrington (1999: 293) tests the value of all

measuring instruments on “traditional psychometric criteria such as questionnaire

content, administration procedures, norms for various populations, internal consistency,

retest stability, and concurrent and predictive validity;” he found that self-reported data

held up in all of those criteria. Research was also conducted on the validity of self-

reports according to different races; the conclusion was that all races had very high levels

of validity in self-reports with the only exception being Asian females (Jolliffe, et al.,

2003). Many researchers have proven the validity of self-reports and self-reports are

extremely widely used, especially in delinquency research (Williams & Hawkins, 1986;

Walsh, 1968).

Variables- Survey 1

The variables for survey one included a set of demographic and contextual

variables with the purpose of better understanding student awareness, satisfaction and the

deterrent effect of Rowan’s drug policy. Table 2 provides the independent and dependent

variables and frequency distributions for the general student population (N = 98). The

inclusion of these variables was based off of theory and prior research (Kleck, et al.,

2005; NASPA Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, 2011; Davis, 1972;

Gehring, Lower & Palmer, 2012).

Table 2

Frequency Distributions for the Independent and Dependent Variables- General Student Pop.

(N = 98)

Variable Value N Percent

Demographics

Gender Male 66 67

Female 32 33

Race Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0

Black/African American 4 5

Latino(a)/Hispanic 6 6

Middle Eastern 0 0

Native American 0 0

White/Caucasian 82 83

Multiracial 6 6

Religion Atheist 27 28

Wiccan, or some other Celtic, nature-

based, Pagan religion

1 1

Hindu 0 0

Buddhist 0 0

Jewish 6 6

Shinto 0 0

Islam 0 0

Agnostic 13 13

Catholic 23 23

Protestant Christian 5 5

None 18 19

Other 5 5

Strong religion Yes 65 66

No 33 34

Class standing Freshman 23 23

Sophomore 30 31

Junior 12 12

Senior 29 31

Graduate student 3 3

Living situation On-campus housing 51 52

Off-campus within 5 miles of Rowan 28 28

Commuting more than 5 miles from

Rowan

19 20

Table 2 -- CONT.

Frequency Distributions for the Independent and Dependent Variables- General Student

Pop. (N = 98)

Variable Value N Percent

Member of club Yes 68 69

No 30 31

Athlete Yes 14 14

No 84 86

Member of Greek Yes 15 15

No 83 85

Work (full or part time) Yes 62 63

No 36 37

International student Yes 3 4

No 95 96

Transfer Yes 23 24

No 75 76

GPA Below 2.0 1 1

2.0-2.4 5 5

2.5-2.9 10 10

3.0-3.4 41 42

3.5-4.0 41 42

Other Independent Variables

SCC on-campus

Yes 97 99

No 1 1

SCC off-campus Yes 83 85

No 15 15

Find SCC Yes 55 56

No 43 44

Read SCC Yes 35 36

No 63 64

Notifying guardians Yes 78 80

No 20 20

Peer student hearing Yes 49 50

No 49 50

Judiciary panel hearing Yes 85 87

No 13 13

Not a serious problem Strongly Agree 33 34

Agree 28 29

Disagree 12 12

Strongly Disagree 25 25

a. SCC stands for “Student Code of Conduct”

Table 2 -- CONT.

Frequency Distributions for the Independent and Dependent Variables- General Student Pop.

(N = 98)

Variable Value N Percent

Policies are appropriate Strongly Agree 22 22

Agree 16 16

Disagree 27 28

Strongly Disagree 33 34

Process is fair Strongly Agree 11 11

Agree 9 9

Disagree 43 44

Strongly Disagree 35 36

Process is educational Strongly Agree 20 20

Agree 17 17

Disagree 23 24

Strongly Disagree 38 39

Understand the process Strongly Agree 23 24

Agree 21 21

Disagree 31 31

Strongly Disagree 23 24

Chance of caught I don’t violate Rowan’s drug policy 28 29

Very unlikely 53 54

Somewhat unlikely 10 10

Fairly likely 2 2

Very likely 5 5

Possessed drug paraphernalia Yes, multiple times 42 43

Yes, once 8 8

No 48 49

Possessed drugs Yes, multiple times 45 46

Yes, once 8 8

No 45 46

Used drugs Yes, multiple times 50 51

Yes, once 6 6

No 42 43

Been caught Yes, multiple times 3 3

Yes, once 9 9

No 45 46

I have never violated any drug laws 41 42

Broke policy after caught Yes, multiple times 12 100

Yes, once 0 0

No 0 0

Table 2 -- CONT.

Frequency Distributions for the Independent and Dependent Variables- General Student Pop.

(N = 98)

Variable Value N Percent

Aware of negative effects Not at all aware 1 1

Not very aware 0 0

Somewhat aware 6 6

Very aware 46 47

Extremely aware 45 46

More cautious Yes 80 82

No 18 18

Parents knowing Yes 36 37

No 62 63

Police involvement Yes 81 82

No 17 18

Morals Yes 26 26

No 72 74

Know violated Yes and they were caught by Rowan 12 13

Yes and they were not caught by

Rowan

17 17

Yes, some people were caught by

Rowan and others were not

61 62

Dependent Variables

Aware of policy Strongly Agree 48 48

Agree 46 47

Disagree 4 5

Strongly Disagree 0 0

Deterrence Yes 49 50

No 49 50

Survey one asked thirteen demographic questions. As can be viewed in Table 2,

the majority of the respondents were male (67%) while the rest were female (33%). Also,

the majority of respondents identified as white/Caucasian (83%) while the remaining

were Latino(a)/Hispanic (6%), multiracial (6%) and black/African American (5%). Most

respondents were Atheist (28%), followed by Catholic (23%), 19% did not identity with

any religion, 13% were Agnostic, 6% were Jewish, 5% were Protestant Christian and 1%

were Wiccan or some other Celtic, nature-based, Pagan religion. We did not have any

respondents who identified as Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, or Islam. The majority (66%) felt

strongly in their religion while the rest did not feel strongly (34%). Sophomores were the

main respondents (31%) followed by seniors (30%), freshmen (23%), juniors (13%), and

then graduate students (3%). About half (52%) lived in on-campus housing, while 28%

lived off-campus within 5 miles of Rowan and 20% lived off-campus and commuted

more than 5 miles to Rowan. The majority of the respondents (69%) were a member of

at least one club or organization, 14% were on an athletic team, 15% were a member of a

Greek fraternity/sorority and 63% worked either full or part-time. Only 4% of the

students were international students. Only about a quarter of the respondents (24%) had

transferred to Rowan. As can be seen in Table 2, there was a mix of GPAs ranging from

3.5-4.0 (42%), 3.0-3.4 (42%), 2.5-2.9 (10%), 2.0-2.4 (5%) and below 2.0 (1%).

The first four contextual variables stood for those general student population

members who knew that there was a Student Code of Conduct that applies to students

living on-campus (99%), who knew that it applied to students living off-campus (83%),

who knew where to find the Student Code of Conduct (55%) and those who actually read

it (35%). Students were then asked if they knew about specific procedures that Rowan

follows during the hearing process. The majority of the students (80%) knew that Rowan

would notify parents/guardians of drug charges. Only half (50%) of the students knew

that there is the possibility of a peer student hearing while many more students (87%)

knew of the possibility of a judiciary panel hearing. As stated previously, College

Prowler gave Rowan University a C grade for drug safety on its campus (College

Prowler, 2012). Survey one asked the students to agree or disagree to the statement, “The

use or possession of drugs is NOT a serious problem at Rowan University.” The majority

of students agreed that drugs are not a serious problem at Rowan (63%) and the rest felt

that it is a serious problem (37%).

As seen in Table 2, the next set of variables was created to gain information on

student’s perceptions of Rowan’s policies and procedures. The first was if students feel

that Rowan’s policies are appropriate; 38% of students agreed and 62% disagreed. The

second question was if the process is fair; 20% of students agreed and 80% disagreed.

The third question was if the process is educational; 37% of students agreed and 63%

disagreed. The fourth question was if students actually understood the process; 45%

agreed that they understood the process and 55% disagreed. Students were then asked

how likely they believe they are to get caught for violating Rowan’s drug policy. While

28.6% indicated that they do not violate policy, 20.4% felt that it was very unlikely that

they would be caught, 10.2% felt that it was somewhat unlikely, 7.1% felt neutral, 2% felt

that it was fairly likely that they would be caught for violating policy and 5.1% felt that it

was very likely.

The next set of variables were regarding each person’s own admittance of

violating Rowan’s drug policy. Rowan’s drug policy is made up of three components,

possessing drug paraphernalia, possessing drugs and using drugs. As seen in Table 2,

about half of the student population violated the policy at least once by possessing drug

paraphernalia (51%), possessing drugs (54%) and using drugs (57%). While it seems that

about half of the population violates Rowan’s drug policy, only 12% of the student

population had been caught for violating it. Out of the 12% who were caught for

violating policy, out of the possible 98 students, all of them recidivated (i.e. violated the

policy after being caught). Survey one also asked how aware the students were of the

negative effects that drugs could have on their behavior, health and safety. One student

was not aware at all, 6% were somewhat aware and the vast majority of students (93%)

were either very or extremely aware of the negative effects drugs could have. The

students were then asked if they believe that Rowan’s disciplinary sanctions simply made

the students more cautious when violating the policy the next time so that they do not get

caught; 82% felt that this was true.

As shown in Table 2, the next variables were based directly around deterrence

theory. Deterrence researchers say that people calculate attachment costs before

committing a crime (Williams & Hawkins, 1986). In the case of violating Rowan’s drug

policy, attachment costs to a student could be disappointing their parents, having the

police involved and therefore losing a potential job in the future or losing peer

connections and going against their morals or values (Williams & Hawkins, 1986). Table

2 shows that 37% students self-described as being deterred by the possibility of their

parents knowing of the incident and/or disciplinary sanctions. In addition, 82% of

students were deterred by the possibility of police involvement and/or breaking a federal

law. Also, 26% were deterred by their morals and values. Perception of punishment

plays a very important role in deterrence theory (Kleck, et al., 2005). If there is a low

perception of punishment then the person is less likely to be deterred (Kleck, et al.,

2005). Many times, perception of punishment comes from someone knowing another

person who has violated a policy or law and has not been punished for it. The next

question asked if students knew someone who violated Rowan’s drug policy in the past;

13% of students knew someone who violated the policy and they were caught by Rowan,

17% of students knew someone who violated the policy and they were not caught by

Rowan and 62% of students knew people who violated the policy and some were caught

while others were not. Only 8% had not known anyone who violated Rowan’s drug

policy.

The two dependent variables for this study were “aware of policy” and

“deterrence.” The first dependent variable, aware of policy, referred to the question, “I

am aware of the policies related to drug paraphernalia, possession and/or use.” Table 2

shows that policy awareness, or aware of policy, was measured on a Likert scale using

strongly agree (48%), agree (47%), disagree (5%) and strongly disagree, which no one

selected (again, neutral has been recoded). The second dependent variable, deterrence,

referred to the question, “Does the possibility of getting disciplinary sanction from

Rowan University deter you from violating the drug policy?” Table 2 shows that while

50% of the respondents said they were deterred, 50% said they were not.

Variables- Survey 2

Table 3 provides the variables and frequency distributions for Rowan’s drug

policy violators, as it pertains to illegal drugs, from 2005-2011 (N = 18). The inclusion

of the variables was based off of theory and prior research (Kleck, et al., 2005; NASPA

Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, 2011; Davis, 1972; Gehring, Lower

& Palmer, 2012). Although survey two was evaluated qualitatively, descriptive statistics

were still important in helping to understand the population. I felt it necessary to note all

of the missing data for in order to get a better understanding of the population.

Table 3

Frequency Distributions for the Independent and Dependent Variables- Drug Policy

Violators (N = 18)

Variable Value N Percent

Demographics

Gender Male 12 66

Female 0 0

Transgender 0 0

Did not answer 6 34

Race Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0

Black/African American 0 0

Latino(a)/Hispanic 0 0

Middle Eastern 0 0

Native American 0 0

White/Caucasian 11 61

Multiracial 2 12

Did not answer 5 27

Religion Atheist 3 16

Wiccan, or some other Celtic,

nature-based, Pagan religion

1 6

Hindu 0 0

Buddhist 1 6

Jewish 1 6

Shinto 0 0

Islam 0 0

Agnostic 1 6

Catholic 3 16

Protestant Christian 1 6

None 2 12

Other 1 6

Did not answer 5 25

Strong religion Yes 7 38

No 4 24

Did not answer 7 38

Class standing Freshman 0 0

Sophomore 1 6

Junior 6 34

Senior 3 16

Graduate student 0 0

Not a current student 3 16

Other 0 0

Did not answer 5 28

Table 3 -- CONT.

Frequency Distributions for the Independent and Dependent Variables- Drug Policy

Violators (N = 18)

Variable Value N Percent

Member of club Yes 7 38

No 6 34

Did not answer 5 28

Athlete Yes 2 12

No 10 54

Did not answer 6 34

Member of Greek Yes 1 6

No 12 66

Did not answer 5 28

Work Yes 5 28

No 8 44

Did not answer 5 28

International student Yes 0 0

No 13 73

Did not answer 5 27

Transfer Yes

No 10 56

Did not answer 6 32

GPA Below 2.0 0 0

2.0-2.4 1 6

2.5-2.9 3 16

3.0-3.4 6 32

3.5-4.0 2 12

I don’t have one 1 6

Did not answer 5 27

Other Independent Variables

SCC on-campus Yes 17 94

No 0 0

I don’t know 1 6

SCC off-campus Yes 15 83

No 2 11

I don’t know 1 6

Find SCC Yes 11 61

No 7 39

Read SCC Yes 10 56

No 8 44

Table 3 -- CONT.

Frequency Distributions for the Independent and Dependent Variables- Drug Policy

Violators (N = 18)

Variable Value N Percent

Notifying guardians Yes 15 83

No 1 6

I don’t know 2 11

Peer student hearing Yes 8 44

No 9 50

I don’t know 1 6

Judiciary panel hearing Yes 13 72

No 4 22

I don’t know 1 6

Not a serious problem Strongly Agree 5 28

Agree 8 44

Neutral 1 6

Disagree 1 6

Strongly Disagree 3 16

Policies are appropriate Strongly Agree 0 0

Agree 0 0

Neutral 0 0

Disagree 7 39

Strongly Disagree 11 61

Process is fair Strongly Agree 1 6

Agree 0 0

Neutral 4 22

Disagree 4 22

Strongly Disagree 9 50

Process is educational Strongly Agree 0 0

Agree 1 6

Neutral 4 22

Disagree 3 16

Strongly Disagree 10 56

Understand the process Strongly Agree 6 34

Agree 4 22

Neutral 4 22

Disagree 3 16

Strongly Disagree 1 6

Table 3 -- CONT.

Frequency Distributions for the Independent and Dependent Variables- Drug Policy Violators

(N = 18)

Variable Value N Percent

Possessed drug paraphernalia Yes, multiple times 11 61

Yes, once 0 0

No 6 34

Did not answer 1 6

Possessed drugs Yes, multiple times 12 67

Yes, once 2 11

No 3 16

Did not answer 1 6

Used drugs Yes, multiple times 13 72

Yes, once 1 6

No 3 16

Did not answer 1 6

Incident location On-campus 9 50

Off-campus 4 22

Did not answer 5 28

Living during incident On-campus 11 61

Off-campus within 5 miles of

Rowan

1 6

Commuting more than 5 miles

from Rowan

0 0

Did not answer 6 34

Responsible for Possession of drug paraphernalia 8 44

(Select all that apply) Possession of marijuana 8 44

Possession of illicit prescription

drug

0 0

Possession of drugs not listed

above

0 0

Use of marijuana 3 16

Use of illicit prescription drugs 0 0

Use of drugs not listed above 0 0

Other 2 11

Did not answer 6 34

Have violated Yes 9 50

No 3 16

Did not answer 6 34

Table 3 -- CONT.

Frequency Distributions for the Independent and Dependent Variables- Drug Policy Violators

(N = 18)

Variable Value N Percent

Knowledge of policy I did not think Rowan had a drug

policy

0 0

I thought Rowan had a drug

policy but didn’t know what it

was

5 27

I somewhat knew Rowan’s drug

policy

7 39

I knew Rowan’s drug policy

extremely well

0 0

Did not answer 6 34

Knowledge of behavior Not at all knowledgeable 0 0

Not very knowledgeable 3 16

Somewhat knowledgeable 3 16

Very knowledgeable 3 16

Extremely knowledgeable 2 12

Did not answer 7 40

Negative effects Not at all aware 3 16

Not very aware 0 0

Somewhat aware 1 6

Very aware 4 22

Extremely aware 4 22

Did not answer 6 34

Punishments issued Fine 8 44

(Select all that apply) One meeting with a counselor 7 39

Multiple meetings with a

counselor

3 16

Disciplinary probation 7 39

Participation in a drug education

program

7 39

Community service 0 0

Eviction from on-campus housing 8 44

Suspension from Rowan for up to

one year

0 0

Suspension from Rowan for at

least one year

0 0

Participation in a drug treatment

program

1 6

Other 2 12

Did not answer 8 44

Table 3 -- CONT.

Frequency Distributions for the Independent and Dependent Variables- Drug Policy Violators

(N = 18)

Variable Value N Percent

Effective punish Not at all effective 9 50

Somewhat effective 1 6

Extremely effective 0 0

Did not answer 8 44

Punish deter Yes 0 0

No 11 61

Did not answer 7 39

Other punish Yes 4 22

No 6 34

Did not answer 8 44

Parents knowing Yes 2 12

No 8 44

Did not answer 8 44

Morals Yes 1 6

No 9 50

Did not answer 8 44

Police notified Yes 9 50

No 1 6

Did not answer 8 44

Arrested Yes 8 44

No 2 12

Did not answer 8 44

Court Yes 8 44

No 2 12

Did not answer 8 44

Jail Yes 0 0

No 10 56

Did not answer 8 44

Involvement deter Yes 0 0

No 10 56

Did not answer 8 44

Police involvement Yes 2 12

No 9 50

Did not answer 7 38

Broke policy after caught Yes, multiple times 10 56

Yes, once 0 0

No 0 0

I was never caught by the police 1 6

Did not answer 7 38

Table 3 -- CONT.

Frequency Distributions for the Independent and Dependent Variables- Drug Policy Violators

(N = 18)

Variable Value N Percent

Current status Expelled from Rowan 0 0

Withdrew from Rowan

temporarily

0 0

Withdrew from Rowan

permanently

0 0

Transferred to another

College/University

1 6

Student at Rowan 10 56

Graduated from Rowan 2 12

Did not answer 5 26

Labeled Strongly Agree 4 22

Agree 1 6

Neutral 3 16

Disagree 0 0

Strongly Disagree 2 12

Did not answer 8 44

Negatively impacted Strongly Agree 2 12

Agree 5 26

Neutral 1 6

Disagree 0 0

Strongly Disagree 2 12

Did not answer 8 44

Stopped classes Strongly Agree 1 6

Agree 0 0

Neutral 1 6

Disagree 0 0

Strongly Disagree 8 44

Did not answer 8 44

Prevent job Strongly Agree 0 0

Agree 1 6

Neutral 5 28

Disagree 1 6

Strongly Disagree 3 16

Did not answer 8 44

Table 3 -- CONT.

Frequency Distributions for the Independent and Dependent Variables- Drug Policy Violators

(N = 18)

Variable Value N Percent

Sanctions unfair Strongly Agree 6 34

Agree 2 12

Neutral 1 6

Disagree 1 6

Strongly Disagree 0 0

Did not answer 8 44

Drug treatment Yes, it was required by Rowan 6 34

Yes, but not required by Rowan 1 6

No 4 22

Did not answer 7 38

Treatment effective Not at all effective 7 100

(of those who went) Somewhat effective 0 0

Extremely effective 0 0

Treatment more aware Yes 1 14

(of those who went) No 3 43

Did not answer 3 43

Incident more aware Yes 2 12

No 9 50

Did not answer 7 38

Awareness deter Yes 0 0

(of those who became more aware) No 2 100

Chance of getting caught I don’t violate Rowan’s drug

policy anymore

1 6

Very unlikely 7 38

Unlikely

Somewhat unlikely 1 6

Neutral 1 6

Fairly likely 0 0

Very likely 1 6

Did not answer 7 38

Chance of caught again I don’t violate Rowan’s policy

anymore

1 6

Very unlikely 7 38

Somewhat unlikely 1 6

Neutral 1 6

Fairly likely 0 0

Very likely 1 6

Did not answer 7 38

Survey two asked thirteen demographic questions in order to gain insight on the

population that was surveyed. As can be viewed in Table 3, all of the people who

responded were male (66%) but many chose not to answer the question (44%). Also, the

majority of respondents identified as white/Caucasian (61%) while the remaining were

multiracial (12%), or chose not to answer (27%). Most respondents were Atheist (16%)

or Catholic (16%), followed by not identifying with any religion (12%) and then

Buddhist, Jewish, Agnostic, Protestant Christian, Wiccan, or some other Celtic, nature-

based, Pagan religion, or other (6%) and some chose not to answer (25%). We did not

have any respondents who identified as Hindu, Shinto, or Islam. Many felt strongly in

their religion (38%) while many, again, chose not to answer (38%). Juniors were the

main respondents (34%) followed by seniors (16%), not being a current student (16%),

sophomores (6%) and there were no graduate students or freshmen. In addition, 38%

were a member of at least one club or organization, however, 28% did not answer. Also,

12% were on an athletic team but 34% did not answer. Additionally, 6% were a member

of a Greek fraternity/sorority but 28% did not answer. Some respondents worked either

full or part-time (28%) but, again, there was missing data (28%). Most respondents said

that they were not an international student (73%) and the rest did not answer the question

(27%). Only 12% had transferred to Rowan but 32% did not answer. As can be seen in

Table 3, there was a mix of GPAs ranging from 3.0-3.4 (32%), 2.5-2.9 (16%), 3.5-4.0

(12%), 2.0-2.4 (6%) and I don’t have one (6%); 27% chose not to answer.

The next set of variables stood for those who knew that there was a Student Code

of Conduct that applies to students living on-campus (94%), those who knew that it

applied to students living off-campus (83%), those who knew where to find the Student

Code of Conduct (61%), and those who had read the Student Code of Conduct (56%).

The drug policy violators were then asked if they knew about specific procedures that

Rowan follows during the hearing process. The majority (83%) knew that Rowan would

notify parents/guardians of drug charges. Less than half (44%) of the respondents knew

that there was the possibility of a peer student hearing while many more respondents

(72%) knew of the possibility of a judiciary panel hearing. Survey two asked the students

to agree or disagree to the statement, “The use or possession of drugs is NOT a serious

problem at Rowan University.” The majority of students (72%) thought that drugs were

not a serious problem at Rowan, while much fewer (22%) felt that it was a serious

problem, and one person (6%) felt neutral about the topic.

The next four questions were related to Rowan’s policies and procedures. The

first was if respondents felt that Rowan’s policies were appropriate and 100% disagreed.

The second question was if the process was fair; 6% of respondents agreed, 72%

disagreed and 22% were neutral. The third question was if the process was educational;

6% of respondents agreed, 72% disagreed and 22% were neutral. The fourth question

was if they understood the process; 56% agreed that they understood the process, 22%

disagreed and 22% were neutral.

The next grouping of questions were regarding the respondent’s own admittance

of violating Rowan’s drug policy. It is at this point in the survey that many people

stopped answering all of the questions; this could have been due to the sensitive nature of

the questions. Rowan’s drug policy is made up of three components, possessing drug

paraphernalia, possessing drugs and using drugs. Over half of the respondents violated

the policy multiple times by possessing drug paraphernalia (61%), some have never

possessed drug paraphernalia (34%) and one person did not answer (6%). Over half of

the respondents possessed drugs multiple times (67%), some had only possessed drugs

once (11%), some have never possessed drugs (16%) and one person did not answer

(6%). Many of the respondents used drugs multiple times (72%), one person had only

used drugs once (6%), some have never used drugs (16%) and one person did not answer

(6%). Survey two then asked the location of the drug policy violation. Half of the

respondents violated Rowan’s drug policy on-campus (50%), while 22% violated

Rowan’s drug policy off-campus and 28% chose not to answer the question. The

following question asked where they were living at the time of the incident. The majority

of those surveyed were living on-campus (61%), one was living off-campus within five

miles of Rowan (6%) and the rest did not answer the question (34%). Next, the drug

violators were asked to “check all that apply” for which part of Rowan’s drug policy they

were found responsible for violating. Although Rowan’s policy is only made up for

possessing drug paraphernalia, possessing drugs and using drugs, research shows that

other schools more specifically define their drug policy by breaking it down even further

(Office of Student Conduct, 2010b). This question on survey two asked about specific

drug use to better match what other institutions are looking for (Office of Student

Conduct, 2010b). Possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of marijuana are the

most common violations (44%), followed by use of marijuana (16%) and other charges

not listed (11%). The written responses for “other charges not listed” were “failure to

give up CDS” and “being in the same car as marijuana.” No one was found in violation of

possession of illicit prescription drug, possession of other drugs not listed, use of illicit

prescription drug and use of drugs not listed above, however, 34% chose not to answer

this question. Survey two then asked the respondents if they felt their behavior did in fact

violate Rowan’s drug policy, 50% felt that it did violate Rowan’s drug policy, 16% felt

that it did not and 34% chose not to answer.

Williams & Hawkins (1986) say that a person’s past behavior could influence

their beliefs and perceptions. Therefore, you must account for this by asking a person’s

beliefs and perceptions prior to their behavior (Williams & Hawkins, 1986). The next

three questions were regarding a person’s thoughts before they violated policy. First, the

drug policy violators were asked about their knowledge of Rowan’s drug policy prior to

being round responsible for violating it. The respondents were almost split between

somewhat knowing the policy (39%) and knowing that Rowan had a policy but not

knowing what it was (27%). No one said that they didn’t think Rowan had a policy but

no one said that they knew it extremely well either; 34% did not answer the question.

Second, the drug policy violators were asked how knowledgeable they were that their

behavior violated Rowan’s drug policy. There was an exact three-way divide between

being not very knowledgeable, somewhat knowledgeable and very knowledgeable (16%),

some felt extremely knowledgeable (12%), and many chose not answer (40%). No one

answered that they were not at all knowledgeable. Third, the drug policy violators were

asked how aware they were of the negative effects drugs could have on their behavior,

health and safety, before the incident occurred. Again, there was a split between being

very aware and extremely aware (22%), some were not at all aware (16%), one person

was somewhat aware (6%), many people chose not to answer (34%), and no one was not

very aware.

Table 3 shows that there were four questions asked regarding the punishments that

were issued to the drug policy violators. The most common punishments issued were

fine (44%), eviction from on-campus housing (44%), one meeting with a counselor

(39%), disciplinary probation (39%), participation in a drug education program (39%),

multiple meetings with a counselor (16%), other (12%) and participation in a drug

treatment program (6%). No one received community service, suspension from Rowan

for up to one year, suspension from Rowan for at least one year, but 44% failed to answer

the question. The “other” responses consisted of one person saying that he had to stay on

someone else’s couch for two months, which could mean that his housing was suspended

for that period of time and another person who said that they had a “400 fine for being in

proximity of drug.” The respondents were then asked if their punishments were effective

in deterring them from violating policy again; half said that they were not at all effective

(50%), one person found the punishment(s) to be somewhat effective (6%) and many

chose not to answer (44%). The respondents were also asked if they think that

punishments issued by Rowan deter students from violating the drug policy. Everyone

who answered the question said no (61%) but many chose not to answer (39%). The

drug policy violators were then asked if they thought there were other punishments that

may be more effective in deterring them from violating the drug policy again; 34% said

no, 22% said yes and 44% chose not to answer. There were three comments provided;

one person said “on campus counseling,” another person said “counseling and

disciplinary probation as opposed to being kicked off campus,” and the third person did

not feel that anyone should be punished for smoking marijuana.

Survey two then asked how many students were deterred by the possibility of

their parents knowing of the incident and/or disciplinary sanctions; 44% said no, 12%

said yes and 44% did not answer. The survey also asked if students were deterred by

their morals and values; 50% said no, 6% said yes, 44% did not answer. The next five

questions were regarding police involvement. The responses showed that the police were

notified of the incident half of the time (50%), arrests and having the case go to court

occurred frequently (44%), no one had to spend time in jail and no one was deterred from

repeating the behavior by the police involvement they had. There were 44% missing

responses for each of those questions. However, some were deterred by the possibility of

police involvement in the future and/or the idea of breaking a federal law (12%). There

were 38% missing responses for that question. Respondents were then asked if they

broke policy after being caught by the police (i.e. recidivated). The majority continued to

violate Rowan’s drug policy multiple times (56%), one person could not answer because

the police did not catch him/her, (6%) and many failed to respond to the question (38%).

The respondents were asked their current status and a majority were current

students at Rowan (56%), followed by graduates of Rowan (12%) and one who

transferred to another College/University (6%); some chose not to answer (26%). Then

the next five questions were based on their beliefs of Rowan after being found

responsible for violating the drug policy. First, 28% felt that Rowan labeled them as a

criminal, 12% disagreed, 16% were neutral and 44% did not answer. Second, 38% felt

that the sanctions imposed negatively impact their future, 12% disagreed, 6% were

neutral and 44% did not answer. Third, 6% stopped attending classes after being found

responsible for violating Rowan’s drug policy, 44% did not, 6% felt neutral and 44% did

not answer. Fourth, 6% felt that the sanctions imposed prevented them from getting a

job, 22% disagreed, 28% were neutral and 44% did not answer. Fifth, 46% felt that the

sanctions imposed on them were unfair, 6% disagreed, 6% were neutral and 44% did not

answer.

The next three variables, as shown in Table 3, were regarding drug treatment

programs. First, the respondents were asked if they went to a drug treatment program;

34% went because it was required by Rowan, 22% did not go at all, 6% went but it was

not required by Rowan, and 38% chose not to answer the question. Those who went to a

treatment program were asked if they found it to be effective in deterring them from

repeating the behavior; everyone who went said that it was not at all effective in deterring

them. Those who went to a treatment program were also asked if the program made them

more aware of the negative effects that drugs can have on their behavior, health and

safety; 43% did not feel that the treatment program made them more aware, 14% felt that

it did and 43% chose not to answer. The respondents were then asked if the incident

made them more aware of the negative effects; 50% said no, 12% said yes and 38% did

not answer. The 12% who said yes were then asked if that awareness deterred them from

violating the drug policy again and all said no.

In order to gain more information on the perception of punishment, all of the

respondents were asked what they thought the chance of getting caught again was. Most

felt that it was very unlikely (38%), some felt that it was somewhat unlikely, neutral, or

very likely (6%), one respondent said that they do not violate Rowan’s drug policy

anymore, (6%) and the rest did not answer (38%).

Open-Ended Questions- Surveys 1 & 2

Qualitative data was used to examine research question three. The third research

question revolved around whether or not Rowan’s drug policy, as it pertains to illegal

drugs, helped to prevent recidivism among offenders. The open-ended questions in both

surveys are shown in Table 4. In addition to the questions shown in Table 4, each survey

also included a space for additional comments, which were analyzed qualitatively.

Table 4

Open-Ended Questions Utilized in Surveys 1 & 2

Question Utilized in Survey 1 Utilized in Survey 2

Why are you not deterred by

Rowan’s disciplinary sanctions?

Yes Yes

What disciplinary sanctions do you

believe would be most effective in

deterring students from violating

Rowan’s drug policy?

Yes Yes

In your opinion, what programs,

policies, or actions could Rowan

have in place to deter drug policy

violations?

Yes Yes

What, if any, follow-up has Rowan

had with you after you completed

the disciplinary sanction regarding

your drug violation?

No Yes

Are there other punishments that

you believe may be more effective

in deterring you from repeating the

behavior in the future?

No Yes

Data Analysis

This study examined three hypotheses in addition to collecting other helpful

information. The hypotheses were: 1. Students generally do not know about Rowan’s

drug policy and its possible sanctions, 2. The potential sanctions of the drug policy do not

deter the general student population and 3. The imposed sanctions for violating Rowan’s

drug policy helped to prevent recidivism among offenders. In order to examine the three

hypotheses, two separate surveys were utilized and the data were analyzed with a

statistical package entitled SPSS. The first survey was given to the general student

population at Rowan (N = 98) and the second survey was given to people who violated

Rowan’s drug policy for possession and/or use of illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia

from 2005 to 2011 (N = 18). In the following subsections I will describe my analysis

procedures, including an examination of Cross Tabulations, Zero-Order Correlations,

Mann-Whitney U Tests, and Content Analysis, which consisted of analyzing responses

from open-ended questions within each of the surveys.

Preliminary Data Analysis: Cross Tabulations. I began preliminary data

analysis with Cross Tabulations using the responses from survey one respondents. Cross

Tabulations were used to show categorical data in a matrix format in order to find

potential relationships or associations between the study variables. Relationships among

variables cannot be statistically confirmed with just Cross Tabulations (Grover & Vriens,

2006; Hellevik, 1988; Zeisel, 1957). Bivariate Cross Tabulations, which uses only two

variables, are the simplest form of associative data analysis and one of the most widely

used techniques (Grover & Vriens, 2006). It is widely used because it displays data in a

way that is very easy to read and interpret (Grover & Vriens, 2006). It was important to

use Bivariate Cross Tabulations for the present study in order to help summarize the data

in a clear way and really convey what each population looked like. Cross Tabulations are

used as the start of many cause and effect analyses; however, they do not definitively

show a relationship between two or more variables (Hellevik, 1988; Zeisel, 1957). While

it may look as if two variables are associated with each other after looking at the Cross

Tabulations, this must be tested using another statistical measure (Hellevik, 1988; Zeisel,

1957). For this reason, the preliminary analysis of Zero-Order correlations was used after

Cross Tabulations were explored.

Zero-Order Correlations. Zero-Order correlations are a measure of association

between two or more variables without any controls/constants (Explorable, 2010). Zero-

Order correlations show if there are any preliminary relationships or associations between

two or more variables, the direction of the relationship, and whether these associations

are statistically significant. The value of the correlation can range from -1 to 1 (Kim,

2002). A correlation value of -1 is a perfect negative relationship while a value of 1 is a

perfect positive relationship; this means that as one variable increases, the other variable

either increases or decreases at the same rate (Kim, 2002). Zero-Order correlations

however do not justify a cause and effect relationship; this technique tells us simply

whether a preliminary association exists between two variables (Elliott & Woodward,

2007). While a Zero-Order correlation is a basic statistical procedure, the Spearman’s rho

correlation fits the present data well, based on the assumptions.

For this study I chose to use Spearman’s rho correlations as opposed to Pearson’s

correlations for a few reasons. First, outliers easily influence Pearson’s correlation while

Spearman’s rho minimizes the effects of outliers; therefore it gives a clearer measure of

association when outliers are involved (Elliott & Woodward, 2007). Second, the data in

survey one contains variables that are measured on a continuous scale and also an ordinal

scale. Spearman’s rho can accommodate both types of variables (Elliott & Woodward,

2007). Finally, when there is a small sample size, such as in this study (N = 98 and N =

18), Spearman’s rho is more appropriate to use (Elliott & Woodward, 2007). There are

two assumptions for Spearman’s rho. First, as previously stated, the variables must be

measured on an ordinal, interval, or ratio scale, which these variables meet. Second, the

relationship between the two variables is monotonic, meaning that the variables increase

and decrease together; this needs to be proven before the Zero-Order correlation could be

run via a scatterplot (Explorable, 2010). Therefore, I made sure to check the scatterplots

for each variable to ensure that the data was monotonic, which they were.

Spearman’s correlation was first utilized to examine the possible association

between the dependent variable “I am aware of the policies related to drug paraphernalia,

possession and/or drug use” and all independent variables (See Appendix E for full table).

This is important in determining which variables have some form of a preliminary

association for potential policy purposes. Spearman’s correlation was also used to gain

more insight into the possible association of the dependent variable “Does the possibility

of getting disciplinary sanctions from Rowan University deter you from violating the

drug policy” and all of the independent variables (See Appendix E for full table). In

knowing which independent variables have at least a preliminary association with

deterrence, Rowan University could get a better understanding of their drug policy’s

deterrent effect.

While Spearman’s correlation shows if there is a preliminary association between

the independent and dependent variables, Mann-Whitney U Tests were also used to

determine whether or not there are any statistically significant differences between groups

and the dependent variable. This offered more insight into students’ awareness of

Rowan’s drug policy.

Mann-Whitney U Tests. The Mann-Whitney U Test is one of the most

commonly used nonparametric tests for two independent samples (Bachman and

Paternoster, 1997). The Mann-Whitney U Test compares the means of two independent

samples but, unlike other tests, does not assume any specific shape or distribution of the

means (Black, 2011 & Bayens and Roberson, 2010). There are two assumptions that

must be met before carrying out the Mann-Whitney U Test (Black, 2011). First, the two

samples must be independent from one another (Black, 2011). Second, the dependent

variable must be at least ordinal (Black, 2011). There is no requirement for distribution,

which means that the number of students (in this case) in both of the groups can be

unequal. Once the assumptions are met, the two different groups should be distinct and

well defined. The data from both of the groups will then be combined and ranked from

highest to lowest (Bayens and Roberson, 2010). The rankings from each group are then

totaled and compared to see if there are any differences between the two separate groups

(Bayens and Roberson, 2010).

In this study, Mann-Whitney U Tests determined whether or not there were

differences in students’ awareness of Rowan’s drug policy between two separate groups.

All of the data was taken from survey one, which was Rowan’s general student

population. The Mann-Whitney U Test was first used to determine whether awareness of

the drug policy (measured at an ordinal level) differed among students who read the

Student Code of Conduct and those students who did not read the Student Code of

Conduct. This was a particularly important independent variable because Rowan’s drug

policy was listed in the Student Code of Conduct. This test determined if there was a

difference in awareness among the two groups or, in other words, whether or not reading

the Student Code of Conduct makes that group of students understand the drug policy

more than the other group of students who did not read it.

Next, the Mann-Whitney U Test was used to determine whether awareness of the

drug policy differed among class standing. The data was, again, taken from the general

Rowan student population and, since there needs to be two distinct groups, the

independent variable of class standing was coded as “freshmen” and “non-freshmen.”

The distinction of the two groups was made this way because all freshmen learn about

Rowan’s drug policy during a mandatory freshman orientation (Mulligan, 2010). This

data tells us if there were any potential differences in awareness of the policy between

those students who most recently went through freshman orientation (i.e. freshmen) and

those who have not gone through orientation in at least the past year (i.e. sophomores,

juniors, seniors, and graduate students).

The Mann-Whitney U Test was also used to determine whether awareness of the

drug policy differed based on the student’s living situation. The data was, again, taken

from the general Rowan student population and the independent variable of living

situation was coded as “living on-campus” and “living off-campus,” in order to create

two distinct groups. This distinction was due to the fact that students who live on-

campus have Resident Assistants (RAs) who are required to hold regular floor meetings,

which give additional information on Rowan’s policies (Mulligan, 2010). Students who

live off-campus, whether it is with a family member, roommate, or by themselves, do not

have RAs to give them additional information. This test offers data on whether or not

there was a difference between the two groups in regards to awareness of Rowan’s drug

policy.

Next, the Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine whether awareness of the

drug policy differed based on gender. This told us if there was a difference in awareness

of Rowan’s drug policy between males and females. The Mann-Whitney U Test was also

used in a series of tests to determine whether or not drug policy awareness differed

among varying degrees of student involvement. The dependent variable remained drug

policy awareness (measured at an ordinal level) while the independent variables were

member of a club vs. non-member of a club, athlete vs. non-athlete, member of Greek life

vs. non-member of Greek life, and work (either part or full-time) vs. don’t work.

Next, the Mann-Whitney U Test was used to determine whether or not drug policy

awareness differed among international students and domestic students. Finally, it was

used to determine whether or not drug policy awareness differed among transfer students

and non-transfer students. Both international students and transfers go through a slightly

different orientation process to the university than their counterparts. This test was one

small step (this test alone will not give a definitive answer) to help determine if their

orientation processes were just as effective in making students aware of the policies.

In addition to knowing the potential associations between our data and

understanding the possible differences between a variety of groups, I felt that there was a

need to delve deeper into understanding the two separate populations that were surveyed;

the general student population at Rowan and the past drug policy violators. In order to

gain more insight into these populations, including their opinions of policy and

procedure, content analysis was performed using qualitative data from both surveys but

specifically focusing on survey two.

Content Analysis. Some of the questions in both surveys were more sensitive in

nature as they encompassed information on past violations and sanctions. Research has

provided mixed results on whether or not open-ended questions are more beneficial than

closed-ended questions, when dealing with sensitive information (Ivis, Bondy, & Adlaf,

1997). Past research has shown that open-ended questions are preferable for sensitive

topics; however, it has also shown that closed-ended questions are easier for the

respondent to answer in that it does not make them feel as pressured to give exact

information in their own words (Ivis, Bondy, & Adlaf, 1997). Due to this reason,

qualitative data was utilized in both surveys and were analyzed in order to gain a better

insight on the quantitative results that were found.

Content analysis using qualitative data involves identifying and interpreting

common themes among the data (Burke, 1969; Loftland & Loftland, 1995). There are

two different techniques for qualitative data analysis; confirmatory which is hypothesis-

driven and exploratory which is content-driven (Guest, MacQueen, & Namey, 2012).

The confirmatory technique consists of the researcher predetermining themes or codes

that they will look for when reviewing their qualitative data (Guest, et al., 2012). The

codes are predetermined based off of the hypotheses and past research (Guest, et al.,

2012). This technique is less common and typically uses already existing data, as

opposed to original research (Guest, et al., 2012). The more common approach is

exploratory (Guest, et al., 2012). The exploratory technique consists of the researcher

reading over the qualitative data and determining themes or codes based on that data

(Guest, et al., 2012). In other words, the codes are not predetermined. I used an

exploratory approach to my content analysis. I followed the proper protocol by using

original research from a purposive sample and created themes based on that data (Guest,

et al., 2012).

As seen previously in Table 4, there were three open-ended questions asked in

survey one and five open-ended questions asked in survey two. These open-ended

questions were used to gain more information in answering research questions two and

three. The following open-ended questions were used to help answer research question

two and were given to both populations via the two surveys.

Both populations were asked if they were deterred by Rowan’s disciplinary

sanctions. If they answered no, they were then asked an open-ended question of why

they were not deterred by Rowan’s disciplinary sanctions. Both populations were also

asked what disciplinary sanctions they believed would be most effective in deterring

students from violating Rowan’s drug policy. This specific question used a mixed-

method approach as they were given 15 different choices and the opportunity to select

“Other” and write in their own response. The “Other” responses were analyzed

qualitatively. Additionally, both populations were asked what programs, policies, or

actions Rowan could have in place to deter students from violating the drug policy. I

analyzed the open-ended answers of both surveys in order to find common themes among

the data collected and to get a deeper understanding of hypothesis two.

There were two additional open-ended questions that were asked of the drug

policy violators in survey two, in order to gain information for research question three.

The drug policy violators were asked what, if any, follow-up Rowan had with them after

they completed the disciplinary sanctions regarding their drug violation. Additionally,

the drug policy violators were asked if there were other punishments that they believed

might be more effective in deterring them from repeating the behavior in the future. I

analyzed these responses by finding common themes and using them to help answer

research question three. Once the survey results were calculated for each of the three

hypotheses, the findings were used to offer recommendations for the future.

Chapter 4

Findings

Introduction

This is an evaluation study of the drug policy at Rowan University, a medium-

sized institution in South Jersey. The drug policy at Rowan University applies to all

students, including graduate students and students who live off-campus or commute. For

this reason, survey one was distributed to all current students (12,183 enrolled at Rowan

University at the time of distribution) via an emailed online survey link. The survey was

live from January 29, 2013 until February 28, 2013 and during that time a total of 98

students responded. In order to get a different perspective, a second survey was

distributed via an emailed online survey link to all students (224 in total) who have been

found responsible for violating Rowan’s drug policy for possessing and/or using illegal

drugs or drug paraphernalia between 2005 and 2011. From January 3

until January 29

18 people completed the second survey. In the subsections to come, I will show how I

used the data to begin answering the three research questions in this study. I also looked

at the descriptive statistics for both surveys and more closely examined the variables

using Spearman’s correlations, Mann Whitney U test, and qualitative information.

Descriptive Statistics: Cross Tabulations

As seen previously in Table 2, the first four contextual variables in survey one

represents those general student population members who knew that there was a Student

Code of Conduct that applies to students living on-campus (99%), who knew that it

applied to students living off-campus (83%), who knew where to find the Student Code

of Conduct (55%) and those who actually read it (35%). In order to get more

information on who actually read the Student Code of Conduct, bivariate cross

tabulations were examined. Table 5 shows that the majority of males (58%) and the

majority of females (76%) did not read the Student Code of Conduct. According to this

sample, more males read Rowan’s Student Code of Conduct than females.

Table 5

Cross Tabulation for SCC Read and Gender- General Student Pop. (N = 98)

Read SCC Did not Read SCC

Total

Male 42% 58%

100%

Female 24% 76%

100%

Additionally, Table 6 provides the reader with a bivariate cross tabulation of class

standing and reading the Student Code of Conduct. Table 6 shows that the majority of

freshmen (70%), sophomores (77%), juniors (79%), and seniors (79%) did not read the

Student Code of Conduct but that all graduate students did read it.

Table 6

Cross Tabulation for SCC Read and Class standing- General Student Pop. (N = 98)

Read SCC Did not Read SCC

Total

Freshman 30% 70%

100%

Sophomore 23% 77%

100%

Junior 21% 79%

100%

Senior 21% 79%

100%

Graduate Student 100% 0%

100%

Survey one asked students how likely they thought that they would get caught for

violating Rowan’s drug policy. Previously, Table 2 showed that while 28.6% indicated

that they do not violate policy, 20.4% felt that it was very unlikely that they would be

caught, 10.2% felt that it was somewhat unlikely, 7.1% felt neutral, 2% felt that it was

fairly likely that they would be caught for violating policy and 5.1% felt that it was very

likely. Table 7 shows that males most commonly believed that there was a very unlikely

chance that they would get caught for violating the policy (25%) while females more

commonly do not violate the policy at all (54%). If males believed that there was a very

unlikely chance of them getting caught then that could lower the deterrence effect of the

policy (Beccaria, 1764/1963; Kleck, et al., 2005).

Table 7

Cross Tabulation for Chance of caught and Gender- General Student Pop. (N = 98)

I don’t violate

Rowan’s drug

policy

Very

unlikely

Somewhat

unlikely

Fairly

likely

Very

likely

Total

Male 20% 25% 14% 4% 9%

100%

Female 54% 26% 10% 0% 0%

100%

When looking at class standing in Table 8, freshmen most commonly did not

violate Rowan’s drug policy at all (45%) but if they did, they thought that it was very

unlikely that they would be caught (32%). Sophomores (52%), juniors (49%) and seniors

(60%) also most commonly believed that it was very unlikely that they would be caught.

All of the graduate students surveyed did not violate Rowan’s drug policy. The belief

that these students (freshmen through seniors) wouldn’t get caught for violating Rowan’s

drug policy could, again, affect deterrence (Beccaria, 1764/1963; Kleck, et al., 2005).

Table 8

Cross Tabulation for Chance of caught and Class Standing- General Student Pop.

(N = 98)

I don’t violate

Rowan’s drug

policy

Very

unlikely

Somewhat

unlikely

Fairly

likely

Very

likely

Total

Freshman 45% 32% 6% 0% 17%

100%

Sophomore 30% 52% 12% 6% 0%

100%

Junior 17% 49% 17% 0% 17%

100%

Senior 28% 60% 11% 0% 0%

100%

Graduate Student 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

100%

The two dependent variables for this study were “aware of policy” and

“deterrence.” The first dependent variable, aware of policy, refers to the question, “I am

aware of the policies related to drug paraphernalia, possession, and/or use.” Table 2

shows that policy awareness, or aware of policy, was measured on a Likert scale using

strongly agree (48%), agree (47%), disagree (5%) and strongly disagree, which no one

selected. In regards to gender, Table 9 shows that females tended to either strongly agree

(53%) or agree (47%) that they were aware of the policies while males mostly strongly

agreed (46%) or agreed (48%) with a small portion that disagreed (6%). This means that

both genders most commonly believed that they were very aware of Rowan’s drug policy.

Table 9

Aware of Policy and Gender- General Student Pop. (N = 98)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly

Disagree

Total

Male 46% 48% 6% 0%

100%

Female 53% 47% 0% 0%

100%

In regards to class standing, Table 10 shows that all of the classes either

completely strongly agreed or agreed that they were aware of the policy, except for

sophomores, where a small portion (5%) disagreed.

Table 10

Aware of Policy and Class standing- General Student Pop. (N = 98)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly

Disagree

Total

Freshman 50% 50% 0% 0%

100%

Sophomore 60% 40% 0% 0%

100%

Junior 50% 45% 5% 0%

100%

Senior 31% 69% 0% 0%

100%

Graduate Student 55% 45% 0% 0%

100%

The second dependent variable, deterrence, referred to the question, “Does the

possibility of getting disciplinary sanction from Rowan University deter you from

violating the drug policy?” Table 2 shows that while 50% of the respondents said they

were deterred, 50% said they were not. Table 11 shows that in regards to gender, females

were more commonly deterred by the possibility of getting sanctions (66%) from Rowan

while males more commonly did not feel deterred (56%). As stated previously, this could

be due to the fact that males had a lower perception of getting caught than females did

(Beccaria, 1764/1963; Kleck, et al., 2005).

Table 11

Deterrence and Gender- General Student Pop. (N = 98)

Yes No

Total

Male 44% 56%

100%

Female 66% 34%

100%

Deterrence was then examined in regards to class standing. Table 12 shows that

freshmen (70%), seniors (69%) and graduate students (100%) were more commonly

deterred while, on the contrary, most sophomores (73%) and juniors (67%) were not.

Sophomores and juniors had a low perception of getting caught, which could affect

deterrence (Beccaria, 1764/1963; Kleck, et al., 2005). However, seniors also had a low

perception of getting caught and they still seemed to be deterred by the drug policy. This

could be because their attachment costs were higher as they were getting ready to finish

their degree (Williams & Hawkins, 1986).

Table 12

Deterrence and Class standing- General Student Pop. (N = 98)

Yes No

Total

Freshman 70% 30%

100%

Sophomore 27% 73%

100%

Junior 33% 67%

100%

Senior 69% 31%

100%

Graduate Student 100% 0%

100%

Research Question 1

The first research question examined was, “Do students know about Rowan

University’s drug policy and its possible sanctions?” Several questions were asked to the

general student population (N = 98) in order to help begin to answer this research

question. Descriptively speaking, Table 2 shows that the general student population

seems to understand that Rowan’s Student Code of Conduct encompasses both students

who were living on and off-campus; however, not all students actually read the Student

Code of Conduct. For instance, as seen in Table 5, males read the Student Code of

Conduct more than females. Table 6 also shows that graduate students read the Student

Code of Conduct much less than every other year in school. The data also shows that

most of the general student population at Rowan was aware of the drug policy. Tables 9

and 10 show that the majority of both genders and all class standings said they were

aware of the policy. It was expected, however, that there could have been a difference in

policy awareness based on factors such as if they had read the Student Code of Conduct,

if they lived on-campus or not, etc. Zero-Order correlations were run in order to get more

information regarding any preliminary associations between these variables.

Zero-Order Correlations. The purpose of Zero-Order correlations in this study

were to examine the data for any preliminary relationships or associations between two or

more variables, the direction of the relationship, and whether those associations were

statistically significant. First, a Spearman’s correlation was run with the dependent

variable, aware of policy (see Appendix E for full table). As seen in Table 13, there were

associations between being aware of Rowan’s drug policy and seven independent

variables.

Table 13

Correlation Coefficients Between Aware of Policy and Independent Variables

Variables R

P Strength

Aware of Policy and SCC on-campus -0.057 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and SCC off-campus 0.255

0.05 Relatively weak

Aware of Policy and Find SCC 0.357

0.01 Relatively weak

Aware of Policy and Read SCC 0.398

0.01 Relatively weak

Aware of Policy and Possessed drug

paraphernalia

-0.124

--- ---------------

Aware of Policy and Possessed drugs -0.109 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and Used drugs -0.102 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and Know violated -0.026 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and Member of club -0.009 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and Athlete -0.090 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and Member of Greek -0.087 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and Work 0.041 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and Class standing 0.028 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and Gender -0.017 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and Religion -0.183 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and Strong religion -0.086 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and Living situation 0.139 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and Race -0.180 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and International student -0.111 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and Transfer -0.041 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and GPA -0.110 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and Not a serious

problem

-0.188 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and Policies are

appropriate

0.065 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and Process is fair 0.176 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and Process is

educational

0.004 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and Understand the steps 0.418

0.01 Somewhat weak

Aware of Policy and Been caught -0.169 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and Chance of caught 0.103 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and Notifying guardians 0.281

0.01 Relatively weak

= Correlation coefficient

P = Significance

*p ≤ .05

** p ≤ .01

Table 13 -- CONT.

Correlation Coefficients Between Aware of Policy and Independent Variables

Variables R

P Strength

Aware of Policy and Peer student hearing 0.201

0.05 Relatively weak

Aware of Policy and Judiciary panel

hearing

0.140 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and Negative effects -0.419

0.01 Somewhat weak

Aware of Policy and Deterrence -0.016 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and More cautious 0.034 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and Parents knowing -0.145 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and Police involvement 0.049 --- ---------------

Aware of Policy and Morals -0.048 --- ---------------

= Correlation coefficient

P = Significance

*p ≤ .05

** p ≤ .01

Table 13 shows that there was not a significant association between knowing that

the Student Code of Conduct applies to students living on-campus and being aware of

Rowan’s drug policy (r

= -0.057). However, there was a significant association between

knowing that the Student Code of Conduct applies to students living off-campus and

being aware of Rowan’s drug policy (r

= 0.255, p ≤ 0.05). This indicates that the more

someone knew that the Student Code of Conduct applies to students living off-campus

the more aware they were of Rowan’s policies. As seen in Table 2, more students knew

that the Student Code of Conduct applies to students living on-campus than off-campus.

In the same regard, if students were more aware of the policies then they would better

understand that the policies apply to all students.

Also, as shown in Table 13, Spearman’s rho for aware of policy and find SCC

= 0.357, p ≤ 0.01) indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship. This

means that those students who knew where to find the Student Code of Conduct appear to

be more likely to be aware of Rowan’s drug policy. Similarly, Spearman’s rho for aware

of policy and read SCC (r

= 0.398, p ≤ 0.01) shows a statistically significant relationship

which indicates that if a student reads the Student Code of Conduct they are more aware

of Rowan’s drug policy. Again, Table 5 shows that males read the Student Code of

Conduct more than females, which means males were aware of the policy more than

females; although, Table 9 shows that both genders feel they are aware of the policy. I

could also draw the conclusion that the Student Code of Conduct was at least somewhat

easy to understand since policy awareness was positively correlated with reading the

Student Code of Conduct.

Table 13 shows that based on Spearman’s correlation, aware of Rowan’s drug

policy was not statistically significant association between the variables: possessed drug

paraphernalia (r

= -0.124), possessed drugs (r

= -0.109), used drugs (r

= -0.102), know

violated (r

= -0.026), member of club (r

= -0.009), athlete (r

= -0.090), member of

Greek (r

= -0.087), work (r

= 0.041), class standing (r

= 0.028), gender (r

= -0.017),

religion (r

= -0.183), strong religion (r

= -0.086), living situation (r

= 0.139), race

= -0.180), international student (r

= -0.111), transfer (r

= -0.041), GPA (r

= -0.110),

not a serious problem (r

= -0.188), policies are appropriate (r

= 0.065), process is fair

= 0.176) and process is educational (r

= 0.004). However, Spearman’s rho for aware

of policy and understand the steps of the judicial process (r

= 0.418, p ≤ 0.01) shows a

statistically significant relationship, which indicates that the more students were aware of

the policy the more they understood the steps of the judicial process. Rowan wants to

make sure that students understand the judicial process, which is listed in the Student

Code of Conduct. There was not a statistically significant association between aware of

policy and been caught (r

= -0.169) and aware of policy and chance of caught

= 0.013). However, Spearman’s rho between aware of policy and notifying guardians

= 0.281, p ≤ 0.01) shows a statistically significant relationship, which indicates that

the more a student knew that Rowan’s drug policy required notifying parents of any

violation the more they were aware of the policy. Likewise, Spearman’s rho between

aware of policy and peer student hearing (r

= 0.201, p ≤ 0.05) similarly indicates a

statistically significant association. This means that the more a student knew that

Rowan’s drug policy could include a peer student hearing the more they were aware of

the policy. Interestingly, the association between aware of policy and judiciary panel

hearing was not found to be statistically significant (r

= 0.140).

As seen in Table 13, the last significant association was between aware of policy

and negative effects of drugs. Spearman’s rho between aware of policy and the negative

effects of drugs (r

= -0.419, p ≤ 0.01) provides a statistically significant relationship,

indicating that the more a student was aware of the policy the less a student was aware of

the negative effects of drugs. Conversely, the more a student understood the negative

effects of drugs the less they were aware of the policy. This could mean that the policy

did not offer enough information about the negative effects that drugs could have on your

health or that the students who were aware of the negative effects of drugs did not know

Rowan’s drug policy because they did not need to know, i.e. they did not want to violate

the policy. Policy awareness was not statistically significant with any of the remaining

independent variables; deterrence (r

= -0.016), more cautious (r

= 0.034), parents

knowing (r

= -0.145), police involvement (r

= 0.049), and morals (r

= -0.048).

Mann-Whitney U Tests. The purpose of the Mann-Whitney U Test was to

examine the data for any statistically significant differences between two groups on the

dependent variable of policy awareness, for the purpose of testing hypothesis one. A

Mann-Whitney U test was first run to determine if there were differences in policy

awareness between students who read the Student Code of Conduct (SCC) and those

students who did not read it. As seen in Table 14, there was a statistically significant

difference in policy awareness between students who read the SCC (M =1.00) and those

who did not read it (M =2.00, U = 605.5, p ≤ .05). That is that students who read the

Student Code of Conduct had much more awareness of the drug policy than those who

did not read it. This is concurrent with the data in Table 13 and suggests that the Student

Code of Conduct is easy to read and understand. When looking at class standing, Table 6

shows that many people in all class standings have read the Student Code of Conduct,

with the exception of graduate students. The conclusion could then be drawn that

graduate students do not have as high of a level of policy awareness as the other class

standings have. Perhaps this could be due to fact that graduate students do not get the

same orientation that undergraduate students do. The undergraduate orientations,

including the transfer orientations, focus on the policies of the university, including where

to read the policies, while graduate students do not have an orientation of that nature.

There were then many tests run using data from the demographic questions. First,

a Mann-Whitney U test was run to determine if there were differences in policy

awareness between students who are freshmen and students who are non-freshmen (i.e.

sophomores, juniors, seniors, and graduate students). As seen in Table 14, there was no

statistically significant difference in policy awareness between freshmen (M =1.66) and

non-freshmen (M =1.66), U = 812.5, p > .05. This means that both groups had roughly

the same amount of drug policy awareness, which was concurrent with the data in Table

10. As seen in Table 14, there was also no statistically significant difference in drug

policy awareness between students living on-campus (M =1.60) and students living off-

campus (M =1.66), U = 982.5, p > .05.

A Mann-Whitney U test was then run to determine if there were differences in

policy awareness between males and females. As seen in Table 14, there was no

statistically significant difference in policy awareness between males (M =1.66) and

females (M =1.30), U = 999.5, p > .05. This aligns with the data in Table 9 that shows

that males and females feel that they are both aware of the policy. There was also no

statistically significant difference in policy awareness between students who are members

of a club (M =1.66) and the students who are non-members (M =1.80), U = 1016.5,

p > .05.

I then wanted to determine if there were differences in policy awareness between

students who are athletes and students who are non-athletes. As seen in Table 14, there

was no statistically significant difference in policy awareness between students who are

athletes (M =2.00) and the students who are non-athletes (M =1.66), U = 507, p > .05.

There was also no statistically significant difference in drug policy awareness between

students who are members of a Greek organization (M =1.66) and the students who are

non-members (M =1.66), U = 608, p > .05.

A Mann-Whitney U test was also run to determine if there were differences in

policy awareness between students who work (either full or part time) and students who

do not work at all. As seen in Table 14, there was no statistically significant difference in

policy awareness between students who work (M =1.66) and students who don’t work at

all (M =1.66), U = 1072.5, p > .05. Additionally, there was no statistically significant

difference in policy awareness between international students (M =1.00) and domestic

students (M =1.66), U = 52.5, p = .062 (exact significance).

Finally, a Mann-Whitney U test was run to determine if there were differences in

policy awareness between transfer students and non-transfer students. As seen in Table

14, there was no statistically significant difference in policy awareness between transfer

students (M =1.00) and non-transfer students (M =1.66), U = 742, p > .05.

Table 14

Mann-Whitney U Test for Drug Policy Awareness

Group N Median U

Read SCC 35 1.00 605.5*

Didn’t read SCC 65 2.00

Freshman 23 1.66 812.5

Non-freshman 75 1.66

Living on-campus 51 1.60 982.5

Living off-campus 47 1.66

Male 66 1.66 999.5

Female 32 1.30

Member of a club 68 1.66 1016.5

Non-member of a club 30 1.80

Athlete 14 2.00 507

Non-athlete 84 1.66

Member of Greek life 15 1.66 608

Non-member of Greek life 83 1.66

Work 62 1.66 1072.5

Don’t work 36 1.66

International student 3 1.00 52.5

Domestic student 95 1.66

Transfer 23 1.00 742

Non-transfer 75 1.66

*p ≤ .05

In sum, Table 2, along with the Cross Tabulations, show that students generally

feel that they are aware of Rowan’s drug policy and have a good understanding of the

different nuances of the drug policy. The Zero-Order correlations show that their level of

awareness has at least preliminary associations with other factors. Additionally, the

Mann-Whitney U Tests show that out of the independent variables tested, one variable

had a statistically significant difference in drug policy awareness between its two groups,

meaning that students who read the Student Code of Conduct had more awareness of the

drug policy than those who did not read the Student Code of Conduct.

Research Question 2

The second research question was, “Do the potential sanctions of Rowan’s drug

policy deter the general student population?” In order to help begin to answer this

question, students were asked if they have ever “possessed drug paraphernalia,”

“possessed drugs,” or “used drugs” while enrolled at Rowan University. As seen

previously in Table 2, about half of the general student population had broken the drug

policy in each of those three ways. All students were then asked outright if the

possibility of getting disciplinary sanctions from Rowan deterred them from violating the

drug policy. Also seen in Table 2, there was an exact split between the amount of

students who were deterred by the possibility of getting sanctions from Rowan and those

students who were not deterred. In regards to gender, Table 11 shows that females were

generally more deterred by the possibility of getting sanctions than males were. This

could be true for a multitude of reasons including that females feel that they have more to

lose, that females have a lower perception of punishment than males do, etc. In order to

get more information, gender and deterrence were later explored more. When looking at

class standing, Table 12 shows that freshmen, seniors, and graduate students were more

commonly deterred while sophomores and juniors were not. This was also a variable that

was later explored more.

The first follow-up question was what students thought the chances were of them

getting caught for violating the drug policy. Table 2 previously showed that while many

respondents do not violate Rowan’s drug policy, that majority of students felt that it was

very unlikely that they would be caught. More specifically, Table 7 shows that males

believe there was an unlikely chance that they will get caught while females more

commonly just did not violate the policy at all. Table 8 shows that in regards to class

standing, freshmen thought that it was unlikely that they would get caught, sophomores,

juniors, and seniors all believed that they would get caught and none of the graduate

students violated the drug policy. The data shows that perception of punishment is low

for two reasons. First, many respondents are violating policy and not getting in caught.

Second, many students see others violate the drug policy and not get caught.

Zero-Order Correlations. Correlations examine the data for any preliminary

associations between two variables. Spearman’s correlations were run with the

dependent variable deterrence (see Appendix E for full table). As seen in Table 15, there

were associations between deterrence and sixteen independent variables.

Table 15

Correlation Coefficients Between Deterrence and Independent Variables

Variables R

P Strength

Deterrence and SCC on-campus 0.091 --- ---------------

Deterrence and SCC off-campus 0.239

.05 Relatively weak

Deterrence and Notifying guardians -0.051 --- ---------------

Deterrence and Peer student hearing 0.180 --- ---------------

Deterrence and Judiciary panel hearing 0.102 --- ---------------

Deterrence and Find SCC 0.072 --- ---------------

Deterrence and Read SCC 0.075 --- ---------------

Deterrence and Aware of policy -0.016 --- ---------------

Deterrence and Not a serious problem -0.350

.01 Relatively weak

Deterrence and Policies are appropriate 0.553

.01 Somewhat weak

Deterrence and Process is fair 0.507

.01 Somewhat weak

Deterrence and Process is educational 0.432

.01 Somewhat weak

Deterrence and Understand the steps 0.074 --- ---------------

Deterrence and Possessed drug paraphernalia -0.496

.01 Somewhat weak

Deterrence and Possessed drugs -0.479

.01 Somewhat weak

Deterrence and Used drugs -0.471

.01 Somewhat weak

Deterrence and Been caught -0.279

.01 Relatively weak

Deterrence and Negative effects 0.098 --- ---------------

Deterrence and More cautious -0.275

.01 Relatively weak

Deterrence and Parents knowing 0.422

.01 Somewhat weak

Deterrence and Police involvement 0.403

.01 Somewhat weak

Deterrence and Morals 0.431

.01 Somewhat weak

Deterrence and Chance of caught 0.250

.05 Relatively weak

Deterrence and Know violated -0.033 --- ---------------

Deterrence and Member of club -0.137 --- ---------------

Deterrence and Athlete -0.125 --- ---------------

Deterrence and Member of Greek -0.230

.05 Relatively weak

Deterrence and Work 0.059 --- ---------------

Deterrence and Class standing -0.095 --- ---------------

Deterrence and Gender -0.254

.05 Relatively weak

Deterrence and Religion -0.294

.01 Relatively weak

Deterrence and Strong religion -0.081 --- ---------------

Deterrence and Living situation -0.148 --- ---------------

Deterrence and Race -0.006 --- ---------------

Deterrence and International student 0.058 --- ---------------

Deterrence and Transfer 0.100 --- ---------------

Deterrence and GPA -0.189 --- ---------------

= Correlation coefficient *p ≤ .05

P = Significance **p≤ .01

Table 15 shows that there was not a significant association between knowing that

the Student Code of Conduct applies to students living on-campus and deterrence

= 0.091). However, there was a significant association between knowing that the

Student Code of Conduct applies to students living off-campus and deterrence (r

= 0.239,

p ≤ 0.05). This indicates that the more someone knew that the Student Code of Conduct

applied to students living off-campus the more they were deterred by Rowan’s policies.

Deterrence did not have statistically significant associations with the next set of variables:

notifying guardians (r

= -0.051), peer student hearing (r

= 0.180), judiciary panel hearing

= 0.102), find SCC (r

= 0.072), read SCC (r

= 0.075) and aware of policy

= -0.016). However, the following four variables were significantly associated with

deterrence. Spearman’s rho for deterrence and not a serious problem (r

= -0.350,

p ≤ 0.01) indicates that the students who did not think that drugs were a serious problem

on Rowan’s campus were generally less likely to be deterred by Rowan’s drug policy. On

the other hand, the more a student believed that drugs were a serious problem on Rowan’s

campus, the more they were deterred by the policy. It would seem that they had a better

grasp on the seriousness of the policy violation and did not want to violate the policy.

Next, Spearman’s rho between deterrence and policies are appropriate

= 0.553, p ≤ 0.01) indicates that the more a student believed Rowan’s drug policy was

appropriate the more they were deterred by it. Similarly, Spearman’s rho between

deterrence and process is fair (r

= 0.507, p ≤ 0.01) indicates that the more a student

believed Rowan’s judicial process for violating the drug policy was fair the more they

were deterred by it. Also, Spearman’s rho between deterrence and process is educational

= 0.432, p ≤ 0.01) indicated that the more a student believed that the judicial process at

Rowan was educational the more they were deterred by the drug policy. These all mean

that the more a student believed that Rowan’s drug policies were appropriate, and

Rowan’s process was fair and educational, the more they were deterred by the possibility

of getting sanctions. This could be due to understanding the seriousness of the policy and

process. It also means that Rowan should work to increase knowledge of the policy and

the process as a whole. This will hopefully mean that students would then be more

deterred by the possibility of getting sanctions. Interestingly, the association between

deterrence and understand the steps was not statistically significant. However,

statistically significant associations were found between deterrence and violating the drug

policy in all three different ways.

As seen in Table 15, Spearman’s rho between deterrence and possessed drug

paraphernalia (r

= -0.496, p ≤ 0.01), possessed drugs (r

= -0.479, p ≤ 0.01) and used

drugs (r

= -0.471, p ≤ 0.01) all indicate that if a student violated Rowan’s drug policy at

all (possessed drug paraphernalia, possessed drugs, or used drugs) then they were less

likely to be deterred by the possibility of sanctions. This could be because students do

not think that they will get caught for violating the policy or because the students who

filled out this survey are not deterred by the drug policy whether they choose to violate it

or not.

Spearman’s rho between deterrence and been caught (r

= -0.279, p ≤ 0.01)

directly relates to deterrence theory as specific deterrence. It seems that specific

deterrence is lacking in this population. This negative correlation could be because

students do not think that they will get caught again or that maybe they already were

caught for violating the policy and the sanctions were not bad so they wouldn’t mind

getting them again, or perhaps they were only concerned about one sanction, like losing

on-campus housing, and since they already received it, it didn’t matter if they were

caught again.

Table 15 shows that there was not a statistically significant association between

deterrence and negative effects (r

= 0.098). It also shows that Spearman’s rho between

deterrence and more cautious (r

= -0.275, p ≤ 0.01) indicates that the more a student felt

that disciplinary sanctions from Rowan simply make students more cautious so they don’t

get caught in the future, the less they were deterred by Rowan’s drug policy. This could

be because students do not take the drug policy seriously at Rowan and therefore are not

deterred by the potential sanctions.

The next three variables in Table 15 are directly related with deterrence theory

(Williams & Hawkins, 1986). First, Spearman’s rho between deterrence and parents

knowing (r

= 0.422, p ≤ 0.01) indicates that the more a student was deterred by their

parents knowing of their drug policy violation the more they were deterred by Rowan’s

drug policy. Second, Spearman’s rho between deterrence and police involvement

= 0.403, p ≤ 0.01) indicates that the more a student was deterred by the possibility of

police involvement the more they were deterred by Rowan’s drug policy. Third,

Spearman’s rho between deterrence and morals (r

= 0.431, p ≤ 0.01) indicates that the

stronger a student’s morals and values were the more they were deterred by Rowan’s drug

policy. The possibility of parents knowing, the possibility of police involvement, having

strong morals were all positively correlated with being deterred by the possible sanctions.

This directly aligns with deterrence theory. Deterrence theory says that a person takes

100

into account attachment costs before deciding to commit a crime (Williams & Hawkins,

1986). Attachment costs refer to the perception of losing attachments such as personal

relationships due to the punishment or the crime itself (Williams & Hawkins, 1986). If

their parents found out that they violated a policy it could hinder their relationship and

they could lose an attachment. Likewise, a student’s relationship with their parents or

peers could change if the police had to get involved and they got a judicial record because

of the policy violation. Also, if a student has strong morals then they likely will not want

to go against their moral compass by violating a policy.

Additionally, Table 15 shows that Spearman’s rho between deterrence and chance

of caught (r

= 0.250, p ≤ 0.05) indicates that the more a person believed that they have a

high chance of getting caught the more they were deterred by the possibility of getting

sanctions. This is the basis of perceptual deterrence as part of deterrence theory. A

punishment must be perceived as “swift, certain, and severe” in order to have general

deterrence effects (Beccaria, 1764/1963; Kleck, et al., 2005). Having a punishment that

is “certain” means that if a person believes that there is a high certainty of getting caught

and punished for their deviant behavior, then they will likely be deterred from the

behavior (Beccaria, 1764/1963; Kleck, et al., 2005).

The next variable in Table 15, know violated, was not significantly associated

with deterrence (r

= -0.033). The last group of variables is from the demographic

questions and there were statistically significant associations found. Being a member of a

club or being an athlete was not significantly associated with deterrence (r

= -0.125) but

being a member of a Greek organization was statistically significant (r

= -0.230,

p ≤ 0.05). Spearman’s rho between deterrence and member of Greek indicates that if

101

someone was a part of a Greek organization then they were less likely to be deterred by

the possibility of sanctioning. This could be true for a multitude of reasons. Members of

a Greek organization tend to know a lot of students because the organizations are fairly

large and close-knit. Perhaps students know many people who violated Rowan’s drug

policy and didn’t get caught so their perception of punishment is very low. In another

vain, maybe drug paraphernalia and drug possession or use is more accepted within their

Greek organization. If violating the policy is more accepted then their attachment cost

for peers is low.

Table 15 shows that there was not a statistically significant association found

between deterrence and work (r

= 0.059). There was also not a statistically significant

relationship between deterrence and class standing (r

= -0.095), even though Table 12

found that freshmen, seniors, and graduate students were more commonly deterred than

sophomores and juniors. However, Spearman’s rho between deterrence and gender

= -0.254, p ≤ 0.05) indicates that males were correlated with deterrence more than

females. These results were different from the survey results by Rowan students.

Meaning, Table 11 shows that females feel more deterred by the possible sanctions than

males. However, perhaps males are deterred by the policy for different reasons than just

the possible sanctions. There are a number of reasons why males may actually be more

deterred by the policy than females. Males could have more attachment costs than

females in college. For example, maybe there are more males who are involved on

campus (in organizations, athletic teams, larger friend groups) so they have a higher

attachment to peers. They could also have a higher attachment to a job, family, church,

etc. than females do. In another regard, females may know more people who violate the

102

policy and do not get caught while males know more people who got caught, making

their perception of punishment very different. Also, males may be more aware of the

policy, process and sanctions so are therefore more deterred by them than females.

As seen in Table 15, Spearman’s rho between deterrence and religion (r

= -0.295,

p ≤ 0.01) was significant. This could be true because different religions have more or

less strict “rules” in regards to drug use. Drug use is a part of ceremonies in some

religions while other religions are very against it. Religion could also be an attachment

for some people and/or could influence a person’s morals, which we know are also

correlated with deterrence. Deterrence did not have any statistically significant

associations with the rest of the variables: strong religion (r

= -0.081), living situation

= -0.148), race (r

= -0.006), international student (r

= 0.058), transfer (r

= 0.100),

and GPA (r

= -0.189).

In sum, the descriptive statistics show that about half of the general student

population was deterred by Rowan’s drug policy and the other half was not. Correlations

show that deterrence has preliminary associations with many different factors. I

examined the qualitative data in order to get more information on the deterrence level of

the general student population at Rowan.

Qualitative Content Analysis. For this evaluation study, I used the exploratory

technique for analyzing qualitative data, which requires determining themes or codes

based on the data (Guest, et al., 2012). For research question two, I was specifically

looking for why students are deterred or not determined by Rowan’s drug policy. There

were several themes that I discovered after reviewing all of the qualitative data in survey

103

one.

All of the students were asked an open-ended question of why Rowan’s possible

sanctions did not deter them from violating the drug policy. Some students chose to

answer that question and gave a more detailed response as to why they are not deterred

by Rowan’s policies and sanctions (34%). One common response was that students do

not violate the drug policy anyway so the possible sanctions do not deter them at all

(10%). Another common theme found in the responses was that they do not agree with

the drug policy and chose not to follow laws that they do not believe in (55%). Students

see this as choosing to stand up for what they believe in, even if that means violating

certain laws or policies. Many students stated that they did not agree with how smoking

marijuana is treated. For instance, some think that there should be different levels of the

drug policy with possessing and/or smoking marijuana being the lowest level (14%). In

fact, some students wrote that they do not agree with Rowan punishing students for

smoking marijuana at all, especially if they smoke off-campus (17%). This student talks

about standing up for what they believe in and what they think Rowan’s policy should

generally look like:

Students will smoke pot. Our generation faces exponentially more stress (loans,

weak economy, crumbling state of the world) and find it relaxing and insightful to

smoke. It doesn't carry the health implications that cigarettes, alcohol, or

prescription pills have. Our generation has a strong tendency to do what we

believe is right and just, regardless of the opinions of others. I believe rowan

should provide a safe and educational setting for students to behave as they will,

without fear that some cop will creep up and enforce policy, stripping students of

their housing, scholarships, and burying them in debt with no means of

completing their degree. Rowans drug policy needs to be progressive, as the

majority of the country begins to realize that drug users are not criminals to be

categorized with murderers and rapists, but ordinary people.

104

The student quoted above talks about how Rowan’s drug policy should be progressive

and changing with the greater federal and state laws. While marijuana is still illegal in

New Jersey, many states have decriminalized it. He/she also mentions that Rowan is an

educational setting and should not enforce policy by evicting students from on-campus

housing, taking away scholarships and giving students large fines. As stated previously,

there are some colleges and universities that take a more educational approach to

sanctioning (Binghamton, 2010; USF, 2008). More research is needed on which policies

and processes are more effective.

The data also showed a pattern that students do not think that they will be caught

for violating Rowan’s drug policy (35%); some because they live off-campus and believe

it is less likely that they will be caught. Many of the responses were very similar to that

of this student’s:

I'm not deterred because the drug I've mainly used at Rowan University is

marijuana. I believe with occasional marijuana use I can still be a functioning

member of the Rowan community, and I believe making Dean's List for three

straight semesters helps reflect that. During the time I lived on campus, I

occasionally, and very carefully possessed marijuana. I was not deterred because

a) I did not feel like I was committing a serious offense and b) I felt confident in

my ability not to get caught.

This student’s reasoning aligns with deterrence theory in a couple of ways. First,

deterrence theory says that people calculate their attachment costs before committing a

crime (Williams & Hawkins, 1986). If students do not feel that they are committing a

serious crime then they are not afraid of losing attachments such as personal

relationships, a job, education, etc. Second, punishment for a crime needs to be “swift,

certain and severe” in order to deter someone from committing it (Beccaria, 1764/1963).

105

Based on the open-ended responses and previous data from Table 12, students do not feel

that punishment is certain for violating Rowan’s drug policy because there is a low

perception of people actually getting caught. One student also said in survey one that

“they [administrators at Rowan University] don’t seem to take it as seriously as they say

they do,” perhaps implying that students are not easily found responsible for violating the

drug policy or that the sanctions are not as severe as they explain.

Instead of just focusing on their own level of deterrence, or lack thereof, the

students were also asked about what could change in the future to increase deterrence for

others. For example, the survey asked an open-ended question of what disciplinary

sanctions did they believe would be most effective in deterring students from violating

Rowan’s drug policy and offered an “other” response to which some students chose to

write in their own responses (8%). Another open-ended question asked was what policies

or programs could be put in place in order to deter students from violating the policy.

Many students chose to answer this open-ended question (42%) and the results were

fairly similar among respondents. There were many common themes that I found after

reviewing all of the qualitative data.

Some of the more common responses were giving violators fines (16%),

community service hours (6%) and drug education (16%) (i.e. “truthful data on substance

use and substance abuse”). Some students also felt that notifying parents and/or the

police could deter others from violating Rowan’s drug policy (10%). Counseling (4%)

and probation (6%) were also mentioned on more than one occasion. Additionally, there

were some students who felt that the sanctions should change based on the number of

times you have broken policy in addition to the nature of the policy violation (14%).

106

Below is an example of a student who offered the idea of changing the sanctions based on

the number of offenses:

I think the university should offer classes on drug safety and a probationary

period rather than immediately escalating to evicting their students in the instance

of drug policy violations. Fines should be distributed after the second offense

along with community service. The third offense should result in eviction or

suspension from the university.

It seems that this student is saying that a student will be deterred by a policy that

incorporates tiered educational punishments rather than just the same punitive sanctions.

Another student agreed by saying that a student’s educational success should also be

considered. This particularly student also thought it would be a good idea if the sanctions

could get more or less harsh depending on how a student is doing academically.

Interestingly, there was a mixed opinion or whether or not students should be

evicted from on-campus housing for an illegal drug policy violation. While more

students wrote comments about eviction being unfair for certain illegal drug violations

(10%), there were some students who felt that it would at least deter students from

violating the policy and help keep the residence halls and apartments safe and

comfortable for everyone (6%). Some students also believed that eviction of on-campus

housing was a good deterrent but that it should only occur after multiple violations (6%).

To summarize, Table 2 shows that when looking at the research question of

whether or not the general student body is deterred by Rowan’s drug policy and its

possible sanctions, half of the students were deterred and the other half were not. In

addition to looking at the correlations in Table 15, the data from the open-ended

responses and the data in Table 2 offer the possibility of students not being deterred

107

because they do not agree with the policy, or do not agree with the fact that marijuana is

illegal in New Jersey, and choose to break the policy. In addition, the data in Table 2

shows that students generally do not think that there is a high likelihood of getting caught

for violating Rowan’s drug policy. Table 15 shows that the perception of getting caught

has a preliminary association with deterrence. Likewise, the open-ended responses also

showed a common theme in that students are not deterred by Rowan’s drug policy

because they do not think that they will get caught anyway.

Research Question 3

The third research question is, “Do the imposed sanctions help to prevent

recidivism among offenders of Rowan’s drug policy?” The second survey, given to

Rowan’s drug policy violators (N = 18), aimed to answer the third research question of

whether or not Rowan’s drug policy reduces students’ recidivism rates by way of basic

quantitative close-ended and more in depth open-ended questioning.

Survey two asked drug policy violators if they continued to break policy after they

were found responsible for violating the policy by Rowan University. Table 3 previously

showed that half of the students who answered this question felt that the punishments

they received from Rowan were not at all effective in deterring them from repeating the

behavior that violated the University's drug policy. Part of the reasoning behind students

not feeling that their sanctions were effective could be that Rowan did not offer any type

of follow-up with the student after they completed their sanctions. All of the drug policy

violators were asked an open-ended question of what type of follow-up Rowan had with

them after they completed their sanctions and all respondents said that Rowan did not

108

make any attempt to follow-up with them. Following up with the student afterward could

make sanctioning a more educational experience rather than just being punitive.

The drug policy violators were then asked if they believe that there are more

effective sanctions that Rowan could use in order to deter students from violating the

drug policy. As shown previously, Table 3 shows that 34% of the responders felt that

there were not more effective punishments while the rest (22%) felt that there were better

options. As a follow up question, the responders were asked which disciplinary sanctions

they believe would be the most effective in deterring other students from violating Rowan

University’s drug policy. There were a total of 15 different choices and then the option to

select “Other” and write in their own response. Out of the 13 people who responded, the

most selected choices were a warning not to repeat the behavior and community service,

followed by participation in a drug education program, disciplinary probation, fines,

writing a research paper, creating a bulletin board or program, participation in a drug

treatment program, notification of parents and suspension from Rowan University. One

person felt that notification of the police and eviction of on-campus housing would be

effective. It should be noted that while some people felt that participation in a drug

treatment program would be effective, an earlier question asked if respondents had

participated in a drug treatment program and those who answered “yes” were asked how

effective that program was in deterring them from repeating the behavior in the future.

All of the respondents answered with “Not at all effective.”

As seen in Table 3, every respondent who was caught by the police violated the

drug policy multiple times after that, meaning that there was 100% of self-reported

recidivism (keeping in mind that the response rate was very low). Beccaria (1764/1963)

109

say that a punishment must be “swift, certain, and severe” in order to have a deterrent

effect. However, researchers now believe that severity of sanctions has little to do with a

person's involvement in crime (Saltzman, Paternoster, Waldo, & Chiricos, 1982). The

low perception of punishment could be hindering the deterrent effect. As seen previously

in Table 3, respondents were asked what they thought the chances were of them getting

caught again for violating Rowan’s drug policy. The most selected response was “very

unlikely” and only one person felt that it was likely that they would get caught again.

Qualitative Content Analysis. This survey employed a qualitative component by

asking drug policy violators open-ended questions regarding disciplinary sanctions. I

again analyzed the qualitative data by reviewing the responses to the open-ended

questions and looking for common themes. One of the open-ended questions asked, “Are

there other punishments that you believe may be more effective in deterring you from

repeating the behavior in the future?” Only three people responded, however, the more

common theme for this question was mandating counseling. The first response stated,

“Counseling and disciplinary probation as opposed to being kick off campus.” The

second response stated, “On campus counseling.” The third response has been omitted

due to irrelevant content.

Another one of the open-ended question states, “Which disciplinary sanctions do

you believe would be the most effective in deterring other students from violating Rowan

University’s drug policy?” Again, three people chose to write in an open-ended response

to this question and two out of the three focused on Rowan’s changing its

policies/procedures to better match other colleges/universities. The first response, while

110

incorrectly implying that Rowan has a three strikes policy for alcohol violations, suggests

that Rowan University should look into what other colleges and universities are doing.

The way your university handles possession of marijuana is LAUGHABLE.

Especially when compared to other universities in the state, and across the nation.

You have a no-tolerance policy for simple marijuana possession, but if kids are

found black-out drunk in a pool of their own vomit they get three strikes? What is

more detrimental to a students health? Are we as students and graduates of an

institute of higher learning supposed to completely dismiss logic, reasoning, and

scientific evidence when it comes to marijuana?

The second response stated, “You need to differentiate between alcohol, marijuana,

prescription drugs, and harder drugs such as cocaine and heroin to start.” This idea is in

fact true of other institutions. While Rowan only differentiates between alcohol and

drugs, Binghamton University, for example, had marijuana related charges, illegal

prescription drug charges and other drug charges (Office of Student Conduct, 2010b).

There are now other institutions that distinguish between drugs, as well.

The third response is similar to the responses that were seen among the general

student population at Rowan. This person suggests that they personally do not agree with

New Jersey state laws regarding marijuana and therefore do not agree with how Rowan

University handles such incidents.

The real issue is that it is not entirely possible to just stop somebody from using

drugs by imposing mandated disciplinary sanctions. A drug user, unless easily

scared straight, does not always want to just stop using. For me, it was marijuana,

and I believe it should be legal to use marijuana as long as the person is above a

certain age. For that reason, I am not really deterred from using unless it is MY

personal sanction to stop using. I don't like the fact of anybody controlling me or

stopping me from using a "drug" that I truly do not find to fit that label. Other

drugs (which are truly addictive and can cause extremely detrimental problems to

a user's health) I believe should have more serious consequences, but again, I

don't believe a user will stop using unless they personally want to.

111

The idea that a student does not follow a policy because they do not agree with it has

been a common theme throughout both surveys one and two.

Survey two also asked the drug policy violators, “…what programs, policies, or

actions could Rowan have in place to deter drug policy violations (such as the one you

were cited for) before they happen?” Six people chose to write in responses for this

question. One person suggested having more police on campus as a deterrent. Another

person said that it might be beneficial to bring in a drug abuser to speak at freshman

orientation. The common theme found in all responses, which was also brought up in a

previous question, was that Rowan should look into changing their policies/procedures

and that nothing would deter students from violating the drug policy as it is now. This is

because, according to the responses, students see violating the drug policy as a personal

choice that the university should not interfere with. They also commonly think that the

sanctions should not be as harsh as they are now.

The survey concluded with an opportunity to write in additional comments before

asking demographic questions. There were seven people who chose to write in additional

comments and their responses are listed in Table 16.

112

Table 16

Additional Comments in Survey 2 (N = 18)

Responses

1. Students are going to abuse intoxicants. If they don't feel safe using it on campus, they

won't do it. The way Rowan dealt with my violation was unprofessional. They called my

parents with out my consent (and before I could talk to them), kicked me out of my

housing with no place to go, and labeled me a criminal.

2. I think my other comments pretty much sum it up. Your University and its drug policy

is a JOKE. Especially when it comes to marijuana. How on earth can you have the same

punishments in place for someone caught cooking meth compared to someone caught

with a couple grams of marijuana? Its nonsensical. Get off your moral high horses and

stop treating your students like dirt. Of all the people I’ve told about how I was treated by

Rowan University for marijuana possession, not one of them could actually believe it.

Nor had any of them experienced anything even REMOTELY relatable to being thrown

out of campus housing in the middle of a semester with no previous warnings or offenses

for possession of one gram of marijuana. There are places in this country where

possession of marijuana is now completely LEGAL. Yet, you continue to treat your

marijuana smoking student body like crack head criminals? …Your politics are

reactionary and absurd.

3. I was only in the same car as weed and the perpetrator left rowan the next day never to

return but the other 3 of us I the car who had no drug were fined 400 each and kick out of

housing just for involvement

4. Rowan University has an incredibly unfair drug policy that is counter-productive to the

school’s stated goal of furthering the educational of its members. It puts a financial strain

on students already struggling from economic hardship, it evicts them from their homes

with no concern with how they could possibly continue their educational without so

much as a place to live, and uses inexcusable scare tactics and misinformation about the

effects of benign substances such as marijuana in order to attempt to bully a population

seeking to further their education and enhance their future. Rowan University’s drug

policy is quite simply ineffective and even harmful, potentially ruining otherwise

promising lives and careers in the process.

5. Legalize it

6. The incident I previously described as my first incident was during my first week at

Rowan as a freshman. I was naïve and unintelligent since I was arrested for smoking

marijuana in between Beau Apartments were bike cops are abundant. I haven’t had

another issue with Rowan’s Drug Police since then despite continually using.

113

Table 16 -- CONT.

Additional Comments in Survey 2 (N = 18)

Responses

7. This survey, I'm sorry to say, is awful and biased. You can't just lump every single

drug into one group. Alcohol kills yet is only a fine for Rowan students, yet marijuana

can't and you can get kicked out of school on the first offence.

Table 16 shows further proof of the common themes that were previously

identified. These themes include changing the drug policy so that it is separated by drug

type and making the judicial process more educational. Responses 2, 3 and 7 show that

students would like the drug policy to be tiered either by type of drug, type of violation,

or number of violations. Responses 1 and 4 show that people believe that there is a fault

of some kind with Rowan’s judicial procedures and that they would like for it to be more

educational. Table 16 also reinforces the fact that there is a low perception of getting

caught. Response 6 shows a student perspective where they do not believe that they will

be caught again for continuously violating Rowan’s drug policy, therefore lowering any

deterrence effect. All of the responses in Table 16 have fit into common themes

throughout the study.

To summarize, coding for the responses from the open-ended questions on both

surveys found that the majority of the student population at Rowan and the drug policy

violators believe that the sanctions for violating Rowan’s drug policy do not need to be

harsher in order to have a better deterrent effect. In fact, the majority believes that the

severity should be lessened. Many respondents, as shown in the open-ended responses in

114

both surveys including those in Table 16, believe that Rowan should look into changing

their drug policy to better match those of other institutions and to make the sanctioning

more educational. For example, one common theme is the opinion that Rowan should

separate its policy by types of illegal drugs (e.g. “marijuana and all other drugs” or such

as how Binghamton University separates marijuana, prescription drugs and all other illicit

drugs). Descriptive statistics also show that students and drug policy violators do not

think that they have a high chance of getting caught for violating Rowan’s drug policy. I

believe it is due to this lack of certainty that the deterrent effect is low and, in some cases,

nonexistent. This reinforces the idea that severity may not be a priority (since it may not

affect deterrence) and brings up the idea again that perhaps the drug policy sanctions for

violators could be less punitive and more educational.

Other Findings

The data from survey two were also used to gain insight on other information as

well. As mentioned in Chapter 2, labeling theory is the idea that once people are labeled

as offenders, they are likely to continue offending (Davis, 1972). This theory was tested

with Rowan’s drug policy violators. It was intended to add a quantitative component by

using a Chi-Square Test for Independence in order to find out if there is a correlation

between people who felt labeled by Rowan University and whether or not they violated

Rowan’s drug policy after being caught (i.e. recidivated). However, all respondents

recidivated so the test could not be run.

115

Chapter 5

Summary, Discussion, Recommendations and Conclusions

Summary of the Study

This study looked at Rowan University’s Alcohol and Other Drugs Policy. It

focused on student perception of the policy and additionally included information on

whether or not students knew of the policy, agreed with the policy or were deterred by the

policy. Very helpful information was found and can be used for any future research that

is found necessary. In the subsections to come, I will discuss the findings, give

recommendations for practice, give recommendations for future research and conclude

the study.

Discussion of the Findings

Three hypotheses were tested. The first was that students generally did not know

of the policy and its possible sanctions. This hypothesis was formed because if a student

does not go to freshman orientation, does not attend the first floor meeting held by their

RA (if they live on-campus) and does not read the Student Handbook, then they will not

know the drug policy at Rowan. This hypothesis was proved wrong; results showed that

the general student body was aware of Rowan’s drug policy and its possible sanctions.

This is most likely due to their knowledge of the Student Code of Conduct, which houses

the drug policy. It seems that the Student Code of Conduct is easy for students to

understand because finding and reading that document and being aware of the policies

was positively correlated. A Mann-Whitney U Test also showed that there was a

statistically significant difference in drug policy awareness between students who read

116

the Student Code of Conduct and those who did not read it. It was also found, via

Spearman’s correlations, that the more a student is aware of the policy, the more they

know that it applies to students living off-campus, that their parents/guardians will be

notified for all policy violations, that there could be a judiciary panel hearing for policy

violations and the more they understand the steps of the judicial process. These all mean

that the Rowan Student Code of Conduct offers a lot of good information regarding

Rowan’s policies and procedures. On the other hand, correlations helped to discover that

the more a student is aware of the policy the less a student is aware of the negative effects

of drugs. In order to combat this, Rowan should offer more information regarding the

negative effects of drugs, and statistics on drug use should be more widely spread among

Rowan students, perhaps even starting to include this in the Student Code of Conduct.

The second hypothesis was that the potential sanctions of the drug policy did not

deter the general student population. This hypothesis was not necessarily true or false. In

fact, there was an exact split between students who were deterred by the policy and

students who were not deterred by the policy at all. As stated previously, there were

many variables that had a preliminary association with deterrence. For instance, there

were three demographic variables that were correlated with deterrence: being a member

of a Greek organization, gender and religion. While these variables seem to affect

deterrence for different reasons, this emphasizes the importance of educating all types of

students about the drug policy, the negative effects of drugs, etc.

Also, the more a student knows that the Student Code of Conduct applies to

students living off-campus the more they are deterred by the policy. By understanding

the drug policy applies to all students, not just those living on-campus, students perhaps

117

find it more serious or at least take it more seriously. Also, the more a student believes

that the policies and procedures are appropriate, fair and educational the more they are

deterred by them. This reinforces the idea that sanctions for violating Rowan’s drug

policy could be less punitive and more educational.

Deterrence theory was also very present within students’ qualitative comments.

First, the more a student knows of the possibility of their parents knowing of the incident

or the possibility of police involvement, the more they are deterred. In addition, the

stronger a student’s morals and values are the more they are deterred by Rowan’s drug

policy. Finally, the higher the chance of getting caught, from the student’s perspective,

the more they will be deterred. However, if a student has actually been caught they are

less likely to be deterred. This could be because they do not think that they will be

caught again, since correlations also showed that violating the drug policy on any level

made students less deterred by the policy. In the same regard, the more a student thinks

that the drug policy just makes students more careful not to get caught, the less they are

deterred by the policy, implying that they do not take it seriously.

The original belief used to form this hypothesis was that if students had a low

level of perception of punishment, then it would not allow for any major deterrence from

the policy. After reviewing both the quantitative and qualitative data, it seems as though

this reasoning is true. The chance of getting caught is positively correlated with

deterrence. In addition, if someone has been caught for the violating the policy in the

past they are less likely to be deterred by the possibility of sanctions. I surmise that this

is because the perception of being caught and punished another time is very low. The

open-ended responses for survey one clearly stated that numerous students did not

118

believe that there was a high chance of getting caught for violating Rowan’s drug policy,

as it pertains to possession and/or use of illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia. With a low

level of perception of punishment the deterrent effect is not as strong, if present at all. It

should also be stated that the open-ended responses showed a pattern of students

choosing not to follow Rowan’s drug policy because they did not agree with it. Many

students felt that the policy should separate marijuana from other illegal drugs because of

their perceptions of the low dangers of the drug.

The third hypothesis was that the imposed sanctions help to prevent recidivism

among offenders. After surveying drug policy violators, this was also found to be false.

Respondents felt that Rowan’s sanctions did not deter them from repeating the behavior.

In addition, everyone who responded that the police caught them for violating Rowan’s

drug policy for possessing and/or using illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia said that they

have repeated the behavior multiple times since being caught. An analysis of qualitative

data showed that the drug policy violators were not deterred by Rowan’s drug policy and

its sanctions for the same reasons that the general student population was not deterred.

These reasons were because they did not feel that there was a likely chance of them being

caught again and because they disagreed with New Jersey drug laws and/or Rowan’s drug

policy and procedures and, therefore, chose to engage in the illegal behavior anyway.

Recommendations for Practice

There is an incredibly low level of perception of punishment for violating the drug

policy. In order to combat this way of thinking, perhaps Rowan could be more proactive

with explaining what will happen if the students are caught using illegal drugs or display

119

the numbers of illegal drug violations (on fliers, emails, etc.) around campus. One of the

students in an open-ended response suggested that an educational and proactive

component could be added by having a student who violated Rowan’s drug policy in the

past, speak to the current students. This could potentially increase both the awareness of

the policy, awareness of the negative effects of drugs and increase deterrence among the

students who attend the event.

Due to the fact that a lot of students are not deterred from violating Rowan’s drug

policy because they do not agree with New Jersey state laws, it may be a good idea for

Rowan to advertise information on the statewide laws. For instance, information could

be better distributed on the New Jersey laws regarding illicit drugs, the federal laws

regarding illicit drugs, and the negative effects of illegal substances. This would be

especially helpful because Munro and Midford (2001) argue that policies that focus on

punitive sanctions instead of drug education are ineffective. This information could be

distributed via email, posters hung up around campus, or an outreach team such as that of

Binghamton University (Office of Student Conduct, 2010a). This outreach team of

students, or administrators, could speak of the statewide laws, the negative effects of

illicit drug use and discuss Rowan’s policy and possible sanctions. This will ensure that

every student knows the policy and sanctions, understands the laws and is aware of the

negative effects of illicit drug use. This may subsequently increase students’ certainty of

being caught.

Based on the data from drug policy violators, there is a need for a change in the

judicial process. According to the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher

Education (2009b: 4), “The primary role of student conduct administrators is that of an

120

educator.” Yet, Table 13 shows that 72% of respondents to the survey given to drug

policy violators said that they did not feel that the process was educational. Also, all of

the respondents said that they did not receive any form of follow-up from Rowan after

completing their required disciplinary sanctions. Following up with students post-

sanctioning will offer them guidance and may help them feel less like they were labeled

by the university, treated unfairly, or not given any helpful information (all of which were

concerns of the drug policy violators). This follow up could be as simple as sending an

email out to all students found in violation of the drug policy to let them know of

different resources that may be helpful; such as the contact information for the counseling

center, off-campus apartments nearby Rowan (if the student was evicted from on-campus

housing), and any other information deemed helpful. If Rowan had an outreach team

made up of students, such as SCOT at Binghamton University, then the follow up could

be done peer to peer instead of via email. A member out of the outreach team could

follow up with the student found in violation of the drug policy to see if they needed any

additional resources from the University. Another idea would be to have the counseling

center follow up with that student. In fact, the qualitative data from the drug policy

violators show that they think mandatory counseling is a good idea. Dannells (1997: 2)

states, “…today's codes of conduct tend to be heavy on process and light on real guidance

for the student. It is time for colleges and universities to rethink their purposes for

engaging in student discipline and fashion rules and processes that follow logically.” If

the purpose of engaging in student discipline is to repair the harm done, punish the

offender and reduce recidivism, then Rowan should look into offering restorative justice

practices, such as Restorative Justice Administrative Hearings instead of conduct boards

121

and following up with students after sanctioning.

In addition, students may feel more positively about the judicial process with

different sanctions. For instance, qualitative data shows that both students and drug

policy violators feel that community service hours would help to deter students from

repeating the behavior, however, none of the respondents were actually sanctioned with

community service. Supporters of restorative justice techniques in a college setting

believe that sanctioning should focus on restoring harm and suggest that communal harm

could be repaid through community service (Karp & Allena, 2004).

The sanction of on-campus eviction after the first violation of the drug policy for

possessing and/or using illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia should be further examined.

Some students surveyed were evicted from their on-campus housing after being found

responsible for violating Rowan’s drug policy, however, Colleges and Universities today

are trying to shy away from suspending a student from on-campus housing on their first

illegal drug offense because it is not advantageous to the student’s learning and due to the

fact that other punitive sanctions can be given in replacement (USF, 2008). The

qualitative data from both the general student population and the drug policy violators

show that most do not agree with evicting students from on-campus housing based solely

on one illegal drug charge. Implementing educational sanctions or following up with

students post sanctioning could potentially alleviate this problem.

More educational sanctions could replace removal from on-campus housing.

“Sanctions should be guided by the objectives of restoration and reintegration so that

harm is repaired and offenders can become productive community members” (Karp &

Allena, 2004: 8). Instead of losing on-campus housing, more appropriate sanctions

122

would focus on the entire student, such as requiring academic advising or counseling

(Karp & Allena, 2004). In fact, Karp and Allena (2004) argue that students should only

be evicted from their on-campus housing if a student poses a threat to the community or

fails to attend judicial hearings and/or complete judicial sanctions. Otherwise, the goal of

sanctioning should be to reintegrate the student through personal development, including

accepting responsibility for their crime (Karp & Allena, 2004). Second, by having a staff

member follow up with students after their sanctions are complete, which according to

the drug policy violators is not currently happening, the students could be encouraged to

remain enrolled in classes, told how they could move forward from the policy violation

and be given any other beneficial advice that they may need. By implementing different

sanctions, the judicial process could potentially be both punitive and educational.

Based on this study, Rowan is doing very well at distributing policy information,

but may need to distribute more educational information (i.e. the negative harms of illicit

drug use, what NJ law states, the seriousness of violating the drug policy, etc.). In order

to make the sanctioning process more educational, Rowan should also reconsider the

sanctions associated with the drug policy. Most importantly, Rowan University should

continue to assess the Office of Community Standards, the student conduct policies and

the effectiveness of the implementation of such policies. It would be extremely helpful

for Rowan to complete a CAS self-assessment guide for the Office of Community

Standards and the Alcohol and Other Drugs Policy. This will offer another layer of

assessment that is needed.

123

Recommendations for Future Research

There is the opportunity for many follow-up assessments if Rowan University

implements any recommended changes. These changes could include but are not limited

to, distributing policy information differently, changing the policy so that marijuana and

other illegal drugs are separated, gaining more educational sanctions, etc. If Rowan

makes any of these changes, another study would be beneficial to gain additional

information on whether or not students’ attitudes have changed regarding the policy or if

they are more or less deterred by the policy.

This study also used a very general term of “drugs” when asking questions

regarding possession or use. The reason for the use of this general term is because

Rowan University groups all drugs together in their policy. For more helpful

information, however, the questions could separate that category into alcohol, marijuana,

and all other illegal drugs. Data showed that Rowan students do not agree with the

current drug policy and sanctions and therefore choose not to follow it. However,

agreeing or disagreeing with the policy and/or sanctions could actually depend on which

drugs were involved in the incident. For instance, students may be against eviction from

on-campus housing for the first violation of smoking marijuana but agree with eviction

from on-campus housing for the first violation of using heroin. Separating the drug

policy by alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs would be very helpful in analyzing

student opinions.

Additionally, it would be beneficial to add a question asking if students agreed or

disagreed with New Jersey drug laws. Again, many students said that they do not agree

with the policy and therefore choose not to follow it. It would be very helpful to know if

124

they disagree with Rowan’s specific policy or if the students disagree with the federal

and/or state laws in general. For example, perhaps students will never agree with

sanctioning a student for smoking marijuana because they believe that it should be

decriminalized.

Finally, future research should make a stronger effort to gain a higher response

rate and there should be an emphasis placed on completing each question. A substantial

limitation of this study is the potential selection bias with such small sample sizes.

Selection bias refers to not properly representing an entire population. For instance, the

general Rowan students who chose to answer my survey may have been the “more

responsible” students who do not violate the drug policy often, already understand the

processes and protocols, etc. On the other hand, the drug policy violators who chose to

answer my survey may have been the more opinionated people out of that group.

Perhaps drug policy violators do not generally feel negatively toward Rowan’s drug

policy and sanctions but all of the respondents of this survey did. Due to the potential

selection bias, the results of this study are not generalizable to the entire populations (the

general student population at Rowan and the drug policy violators). One way of

potentially gaining more responses in future research is to combine different surveying

methods. If a student population does not check their email regularly then perhaps the

surveys could be distributed by hand. More responses can only further solidify the

findings of this study and future studies.

125

Conclusions

Research shows us that the war on drugs is continuing and consistently pertains to

college students (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2011; Skiba, 2000;

McNamara, 2011; Musto, 1991). The current Rowan University college student

population does not seem to agree with the current drug laws, in particular, the New

Jersey drug laws pertaining to marijuana, which affects deterrence. However, there are

still ways to increase deterrence among the Rowan student population. Rowan

University should look into different ways of distributing more educational information

and incorporating more educational sanctions.

The ability to survey an entire population is unique and this study was able to

survey two different populations (the current Rowan University student body and

everyone who violated Rowan’s drug policy for possessing and/or using illegal drugs or

drug paraphernalia from 2005-2011) in their entirety. However, there was a limitation in

that not everyone in the populations responded. While the data from this study is not

generalizable to either population, it still offers a lot of helpful and insightful information.

In future research, different methods of surveying should be considered.

In sum, this study shows that Rowan University succeeded at making students

aware of the policies and their possible sanctions but was not as effective at deterring

them from violating such policies. Additional research on Rowan’s judicial process and

sanctions will help to gain information on how to properly deter students from violating

policies while lowering the recidivism rate. With ongoing research and an opportunity

for change, Rowan University can continue to increase the effectiveness of Student

Conduct on its campus.

126

References

American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force (APA). (2008). Are

Zero-Tolerance Policies Effective in Schools?: An evidentiary review and

recommendations. The American Psychologist, 63(9), 852-862.

Arcadia University. (2011). Student Handbook. Retrieved from

http://gargoyle.arcadia.edu/handbook/regpro/cc-code-conduct.htm

Bachman, R. & Paternoster, R. (1997). Statistical Methods for Criminology and Criminal

Justice. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bayens, G. & Roberson, C. (1997). Criminal Justice Research Methods: Theory and

Practice, Second Edition. Florida: Taylor & Francis Group.

Beccaria, C. (1963). On Crimes and Punishments. (H. Paolucci, Trans.). Michigan:

Bobbs-Merrill. (Original work published 1764)

Black, K. (2011). Business Statistics: For Contemporary Decision Making. USA: John

Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Blischke, W. R., Rezaul Karim, M., & Prabhakar Murthy, D. N. (2011). Warranty Data

Collection and Analysis. London, England: Springer.

Burke, K. (1969). A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley, California: University of California

Press.

Cabrini College. (2012). Student Handbook and Code of Conduct. Retrieved from

http://www.cabrini.edu/Student-Life/Student-Resources-and-Services/Student-

Handbook-and-Code-of-Conduct/

College Prowler. (2012). Drug Safety. Retrieved from http://collegeprowler.com/rowan-

university/drug-safety/

127

Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS). (2009a). CAS

self-assessment guide for alcohol, tobacco, and other drug programs.

Washington, D.C.: Author.

Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS). (2009b). CAS

self-assessment guide for student conduct programs. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS). (2013). Welcome

to the CAS Online Store. Retrieved from https://store.cas.edu/catalog/index.cfm

Creswell, J. (2008). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods

Approaches. California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Dannells, M. (1997). From Discipline to Development: Rethinking Student Conduct in

Higher Education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 25(2).

Davis, N. (1972). Labeling Theory in Deviance Research: A Critique and

Reconsideration. The Sociological Quarterly, 13(4), 447-474.

Division of Student Affairs at La Salle University. (2012). Student Guide to Resources,

Rights, and Responsibilities. Retrieved from

http://www.lasalle.edu/students/dean/divpub/manuals/sgrrr/index.php?accordion_

num=2&vn2_accordion_num=2&content=comm&anchorID=rule

Drexel University. (2012). Student Handbook. Retrieved from

http://drexel.edu/studentlife/community_standards/studentHandbook/

Earleywine, M. (2002). Understanding Marijuana: A New Look At The Scientific

Evidence. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Elliott, A. & Woodward, W. (2007). Statistical Analysis Quick Reference Guide: With

SPSS examples. California: SAGE Publications, Inc.

128

Explorable. (2010). Partial Correlation Analysis. Retrieved

from https://explorable.com/partial-correlation-analysis

Farrington, D. P. (1999). Editorial: Validity of self-reported delinquency. Criminal

Behaviour and Mental Health: CBMH, 9(4), 293-293.

Gehring, D., Lowery, J., & Palmer, C. (2012). The Effects of Sanctioning on Underage

and Excessive Drinking on College Campuses [Survey]. Retrieved via e-mail.

Grasgreen, A. (2012). Conduct Gets Costly. Retrieved from

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/02/24/university-student-codes-

conduct-include-fines-violations

Grossman, M., Chaloupka, F., & Shim, K. (2002). Illegal Drug Use and Public Policy.

Health Aff, 21(2), 134-145.

Grover, R., & Vriens, M. (2006). The Handbook of Marketing Research: Uses, Misuses,

and Future Advances. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Productions, Inc.

Guest, G., MacQueen, K., & Namey, E. (2012). Applied Thematic Analysis. Los Angeles,

CA: SAGE Productions, Inc.

Higher Education Center. (n.d.). Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (DFSCA) and

Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention Regulations. Retrieved from

http://www.higheredcenter.org/mandates/dfsca

Hellevik, O. (1988). Introduction to Casual Analysis: Exploring Survey Data by Cross-

Tabulation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ivis, F., Bondy, S., & Adlaf, E. (1997) The Effect of Question Structure on Self-Reports

of Heavy Drinking: Closed-Ended versus Open-Ended Questions, Journal of

Studies on Alcohol, 622-624.

129

Jensen, G., Erickson, M., & Gibbs, J. (1978). Perceived risk of punishment and self-

reported delinquency. Social Forces, 57, 57-78.

Johnston, L., O’Malley, P., Bachman, J., & Schulenberg, J. (2011). Monitoring The

Future: National Results in Adolescent Drug Use. Sponsored by The National

Institute on Drug Abuse National Institutes of Health. Retrieved from

http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/mtf-overview2011.pdf

Jolliffe, D., Farrington, D. P., Hawkins, J., Catalano, R. F., Hill, K. G., & Kosterman, R.

(2003). Predictive, concurrent, prospective and retrospective validity of self-

reported delinquency. Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health, 13(3), 179-197.

Karp, D. & Allena, T. (2004). Restorative Justice on the College Campus: Promoting

Student Growth and Responsibility, and Reawakening the Spirit of Campus

Community. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher, Ltd.

Karp, D. (2013). Restorative Justice @ Colleges & Universities. Retrieved from

http://www.skidmore.edu/campusrj/index.php

Kim, S. (2002). Correlate, Correlation- Zero Order. Retrieved from

http://sociologyindex.com/correlation_zero_order.htm

Kleck, G., Wever, B., Li, S., & Gertz, M. (2005). The missing link in general deterrence

research. Criminology, 43, 623–660.

Kraut, R. (1976). Deterrent and Definitional Influences on Shoplifting. Social Problems,

23, 358-368.

Kutztown University. (2009). Student Code of Conduct. Retrieved from

http://thekey.kutztown.edu/codeOfConduct.aspx

Lewis, D. C. (2001). Urging college alcohol and drug policies that target adverse

behavior, not use. Journal Of American College Health, 50(1), 39-41.

130

Lofland, J. & Lofland, L. H. (1995). Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative

Observation and Analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Lofton, B. (2010). Use of Restorative Justice Improves Campus Behavior. Retrieved from

http://emu.edu/now/news/2010/04/use-of-restorative-justice-improves-campus-

behavior/

McNamara, J. D. (2011). The hidden costs of Americas war on drugs. Journal of Private

Enterprise, 26(2), 97-115.

Mulligan, J. (2011). Student Handbook and Planner. Retrieved from

http://www.rowan.edu/studentaffairs/main_office/publications/documents/Addend

um%20Spring%202011.pdf

Munro, G., & Midford, R. (2001). 'Zero tolerance' and Drug Education in Australian

Schools. Drug & Alcohol Review, 20(1), 105-109.

Musto, D. (1991). Drug use in history. OAH Magazine of History, 6(2), 12-15.

NASPA Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education. (2011). [Survey for the

Assessment & Knowledge Consortium 2011]. The Student Conduct Benchmark.

Retrieved from

http://www.studentvoice.com/p/Project.aspx?q=4c42ff19a8b40be440c3e1272b1a

caeb92e1edbf9235cd5a425b838ae325132f7d8a10ea056dccc0385a9b79d17655fc

&r=51d8f56b-b89c-4be2-98a5-61cc3205c7e0

National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). (2011). Summary of National

Findings. Retrieved from

http://www.samhsa.gov/data/nsduh/2k11results/nsduhresults2011.htm

Newbery, N., McCambridge, J., & Strang, J. (2007). “Let's Talk About Drugs”: Pilot

study of a community-level drug prevention intervention based on motivational

interviewing principles, Health Education, 107(3), 276-289.

131

Office of Student Conduct. (2010a). About the student conduct outreach team (SCOT).

Retrieved from http://www2.binghamton.edu/student-conduct/scot/

Office of Student Conduct. (2010b). Student Conduct Sanctions. Retrieved from

http://www2.binghamton.edu/student-conduct/sanctions.html#q3

Office of Student Conduct. (2010c). Sanctioning Guidelines. Retrieved from

http://www2.binghamton.edu/student-conduct/pdfs/sanction_guidelines.pdf/

Pennsylvania State University. (2012). Code of Conduct. Retrieved from

http://studentaffairs.psu.edu/conduct/codeofconduct/

Provost at Temple University. (2009). Student Code of Conduct. Retrieved from

http://policies.temple.edu/getdoc.asp?policy_no=03.70.12

Richard Stockton College. (2012). Office of Rights and Responsibilities. Retrieved from

http://intraweb.stockton.edu/eyos/page.cfm?siteID=225&pageID=26

Rider University. (2011). Student Handbook- The Source. Retrieved from

http://www.rider.edu/offices/more-services/handbooks-policies

Rowan University Media and Public Relations. (2012). Rowan Fast Facts 2012-2013.

Retrieved from http://www.rowan.edu/open/fastfacts/

Rowan Student Handbook. (2011). Rowan University 2012-2013 Student Handbook.

Retrieved from

http://www.rowan.edu/studentaffairs/communitystandards/handbook.html

Rowan University Police. (2012). Clery Offenses. Retrieved from

http://www.rowan.edu/safety/crime/Clery_Offenses_2008_2010.pdf

Ruane, J. (2005). Essentials of Research Methods: A Guide to Social Science Research.

United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.

132

Saltzman, L., Paternoster, R., Waldo, G. & Chiricos, T. (1982). Deterrent and Experiential

Effects: the Problem of Causal Order in Perceptual Deterrence Research. Journal

of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 19(2), 172-189.

Skiba, R. (2000). Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary

practice. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~safeschl/ztze.pdf

Simons, J., Gaher, R., Correia, C., & Bush, J. (2005). Club Drug Use among College

Students. Addictive Behaviors, 30, 1619-1624.

Simmons, P. (2010). Rowan Students for Sensible Drug Policy. Facebook [Fan Page].

Retrieved from

http://www.facebook.com/RowanSSDP?sk=wall#!/RowanSSDP?sk=info

Single, E., & Rohl, T. (1997). The National Drug Strategy: Mapping the future. An

evaluation of the National Drug Strategy 1993-1997. Canberra: Australian

Government Publishing Service.

Southern Technical Institute. (2012). STC’s Drug and Alcohol Abuse Policy. Retrieved

from http://southerntech.edu/consumer-info.php

Stephen F. Austin State University (SFA). (2009). Alcohol, tobacco, and other drug

programs. Nacogdoches, TX: Author.

Students for Sensible Drug Policy. (2013). Students For Sensible Drug Policy. Retrieved

from http://ssdp.org/

The College of New Jersey. (n.d.). Student Conduct Code. Retrieved from

http://conduct.pages.tcnj.edu/files/2011/08/Student-Conduct-Code-FINAL-

APPROVED-07.12.2011.pdf

Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2000). The self-report method for measuring

delinquency and crime. Criminal justice, 4(1), 33-83.

133

Trustees of Dartmouth College. (2012). Student Handbook. Retrieved from

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~deancoll/student-handbook/

University of San Francisco Division of University Life (USF). (2008). Program review

materials. San Francisco, CA: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (2008). College Academic Performance and Alcohol and

Other Drug Use. http://www.higheredcenter.org/files/product/fact_sheet2.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2011). Results from the 2010 National

Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings.

http://www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2k10Results/Web/PDFW/2k10Results.pdf

Walsh, W. (1968). Validity of Self Report: Another Look. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 15(2), 180-186.

West Chester University. (n.d.). Student Code of Conduct. Retrieved from

http://wcupa.edu/_services/stu.lif/ramseyeview/policies/conduct_code.asp

Williams, K. & Hawkins, R. (1986). Perceptual Research on General Deterrence: A

Critical Review. Law and Society Review, 20(4), 545-572.

Wittman, F. (2001). Prevention, Community Services, and Proposition 36. J Psychoactive

Drugs, 33(4), 343-352.

Zehr, H. (1997). Restorative Justice: The Concept. Corrections Today, 59(7), 68-70.

Zeisel, H. (1957). Say it with Figures. Harper Collins Div.

134

Appendix A: General Student Population Survey

Student Conduct Policies at Rowan University

I am conducting a study on Rowan University's Alcohol and Other Drugs Policy to

complete my master's thesis. If you wish to participate in this study, please complete the

survey that appears below. You must be at least 18 years old to complete this survey. It

should take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. Please do not put your name on

this form since all responses will be kept anonymous. We cannot trace your email

address back to your identity. Your participation in this study is voluntary. You may

choose not respond to any question or to not participate in the study as a whole with no

penalty to you. If you have any questions my name, along with my advisor's contact

information, appear below:

Amy LoSacco (Student) [email protected]

Joseph Johnson (Advisor) [email protected]

Do you believe that Rowan University has any of the following?

Yes No I don't know

Student Code of Conduct that is applied to students living

ON-campus

Student Code of Conduct that is applied to students living

OFF-campus

Policy for notifying parents/guardians of policy violations

Peer student hearing

Judiciary panel hearing

I know where to find a copy of Rowan's Student Code of Conduct.

Yes

I have read Rowan's Student Code of Conduct.

Yes

135

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements.

Strongly

agree

Agree Neutral

Disagree

Strongly

disagree

I am aware of the policies related to

drug paraphernalia, possession,

and/or use.

The use or possession of drugs is

NOT a serious problem at Rowan

University.

The policies related to student

conduct are appropriate for students

attending Rowan University.

I believe that the process for

addressing potential student

misconduct at Rowan University is

fair.

I believe that the process for

addressing potential student

misconduct serves an educational

purpose.

I understand the steps in the

hearing/student conduct process.

I have possessed drug paraphernalia while enrolled at Rowan University.

Yes, multiple times

Yes, once

I have possessed drugs while enrolled at Rowan University.

Yes, multiple times

Yes, once

136

I have used drugs while enrolled at Rowan University.

Yes, multiple times

Yes, once

I have been CAUGHT (by the police) for possession of drug paraphernalia,

possession of drugs, or drug use, while enrolled at Rowan University.

Yes, multiple times

Yes, once

I have never violated any drug laws

I have possessed drug paraphernalia, drugs, or used drugs, AFTER being caught

(by the police).

Yes, multiple times

Yes, once

The possible sanctions related to Rowan's drug policy have deterred me

from: (select all that apply)

Possessing drug paraphernalia

Possessing drugs

Using drugs

They have NOT deterred me at all

How aware are you of the negative effects drugs could have on your behaviors,

health, and safety?

Not at all aware

Not very aware

Somewhat aware

Very aware

Extremely aware

137

Does the possibility of getting disciplinary sanctions from Rowan University deter

you from violating the drug policy?

Yes

Why are you not deterred by Rowan's disciplinary sanctions?

Do you believe disciplinary sanctions from Rowan simply make students more

cautious so they don't get caught in the future?

Yes

What disciplinary sanctions do you believe would be most effective in deterring

students from violating Rowan's drug policy? (select all that apply)

A warning not to repeat the behavior

Disciplinary probation

Participation in a drug education program

Completion of a research paper pertaining to drugs

Creating a bulletin board display or conducting a program designed to education

others about drugs

A fine of $1-$50

A fine of $50-$200

A fine of more than $200

Community Service

Eviction of on-campus housing

Suspension from Rowan University

Participation in a drug treatment program

Notification of parents

Notification of police

None of these sanctions would be effective

Other (please specify)

138

Does the possibility of your parents knowing about an incident and/or its

disciplinary consequences deter you from violating the drug policy?

Yes

Does the possibility of police involvement (arrest, jail time, etc.) and/or breaking a

federal law deter you from violating the drug policy?

Yes

Do your morals/beliefs deter you from violating the drug policy?

Yes

What do you think the chances are of you getting caught for violating Rowan's drug

policy?

I don't violate Rowan's drug policy

Very unlikely

Somewhat unlikely

Neutral

Fairly likely

Very likely

Do you know anyone who has violated Rowan's drug policy (possessed and/or used

drugs or drug paraphernalia)?

Yes and they were caught by Rowan

Yes and they were NOT caught by Rowan

Yes, some people were caught by Rowan and some were not

No I don't know anyone who violates Rowan's drug policy

139

Please rank the following illegal behaviors according to seriousness; 1 being the

most serious behavior and 5 being the least serious behavior.

Possessing drug paraphernalia

Possessing drugs

Using drugs

Drinking alcohol underage

Serving alcohol to minors

In your opinion, what programs, policies, or actions could Rowan have in place to

deter drug policy violations?

Please write any additional comments below.

Please answer the following about yourself.

Yes No

Are you a member of at least one club or organization on campus, not

including a Greek organization?

Are you a member of at least one athletic team on campus?

Are you a member of a Greek organization on campus?

Do you work either full or part-time?

140

What is your current class standing?

Freshman

Sophomore

Junior

Senior

Graduate Student

Other (please specify)

What is your age?

What is your current gender identity?

Male

Female

Transgender

What is your religion?

Atheist

Wiccan, or Some Other Celtic, Nature-Based, Pagan Religion

Hindu

Buddhist

Jewish

Shinto

Islam

Agnostic

Catholic

Protestant Christian

I don't associate with any religion

Other (please specify)

141

Are you a strong believer in this said faith (or lack thereof)?

Yes

What is your living situation while attending Rowan University?

On-campus housing

Off-campus housing, within 5 miles of Rowan

Commuting, MORE than 5 miles away from Rowan

With which category do you most identify with?

Asian/Pacific Islander

Black/African American

Latino(a)/Hispanic

Middle Eastern

Native American

White/Caucasian

Multiracial

Are you an international student?

Yes

Did you transfer to Rowan University?

Yes

What is your current Grade Point Average (GPA)?

Below 2.0

2.0-2.4

2.5-2.9

3.0-3.4

3.5-4.0

Thank you for completing this survey.

142

Appendix B: Student Drug Policy Violators Survey