769601

research-article2018
IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X18769601International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyBennett and Holloway

Article
International Journal of
Offender Therapy and
Drug and Alcohol-Related Comparative Criminology
2018, Vol. 62(14) 4489­–4509
Crime Among University © The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
Students sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0306624X18769601
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18769601
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Trevor Bennett1 and Katy Holloway1

Abstract
The aim of the article is to determine the approximate prevalence of drug and
alcohol-related crime among university students in seven universities in the United
Kingdom and to assess whether there are differences between substance users who
offend and substance users who do not offend. In total, 7,855 students submitted a
questionnaire. The results of the study show that 10% of students who used drugs
and about the same percentage who used alcohol had committed substance-related
crimes in the current academic year. The most prolific offenders in relation to both
drug and alcohol-related offending were males, those who frequently went out to
socialise, frequent users of nightclubs off campus, and those in poor physical or
mental health. The article proposes that preventative interventions should be used to
address alcohol and drug-related crime and its consequences.

Keywords
drug misuse, alcohol misuse, crime, university, student

Introduction
Research on substance misuse among university students has found that most consume
alcohol while at university and a notable proportion take illegal drugs (Bingham,
Driscoll, & De Barra, 2015; Deniozou, 2015; Johnston, Malley, Bachman, &
Schulenberg, 2012). However, less research has been conducted on the extent to which
student substance misusers are involved in the commission of alcohol- and drug-
related crime.

1University of South Wales, Pontypridd, UK

Corresponding Author:
Trevor Bennett, University of South Wales, Llantwit Road, Treforest, Pontypridd CF37 1DL, Wales, UK.
Email: trevor.bennett@southwales.ac.uk
4490 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(14)

Substance-related criminal behavior is important as it constitutes one of the harms

of alcohol and drug misuse. Alcohol-related crimes encompass interpersonal violence,
criminal damage, sexual assault, and coerced or forced rape (Lawyer, Resnick,
Bakanic, Burkett, & Kilpatrick, 2010; McCauley, Ruggiero, Resnick, Conoscenti, &
Kilpatrick, 2009; Perkins, 2002). Drug-related crimes include drug-facilitated rape,
drug dealing, and property crime (Kilpatrick, Resnick, Ruggiero, Conoscenti, &
McCauley, 2007). Substance-related crime also generates harms to the individual
offender. Drug buying and selling brings the offender into contact with the “systemic”
crime of drug markets (Goldstein, 1985; Jacobs & Wright, 2006). It also exposes the
offender to being caught and prosecuted for his or her crimes. University students are
potentially on course to embark upon successful careers. Substance-related crime and
the possible involvement of the police and the courts risks impeding or halting this
development.
To find out what is already known about substance-related crime among university
students, we conducted a brief review of the research literature. As the review was
intended primarily as a guide rather than a comprehensive summary, we based the
literature search on just two databases that commonly include publications on sub-
stance use and related outcomes (PsycInfo [PI] and Web of Science [WOS]). The
search terms (adapted for the specific database) were as follows: Alcohol: TI(alcohol*)
AND TI(student*) AND AB(fight* OR driv* OR damage* OR police OR vandal* OR
injur*) AND AB(university* OR college); and Drugs: TI(drug*) AND TI(student*)
AND AB(fight* OR driv* OR damage* OR police OR vandal* OR injur* OR drug
sell* OR drug deal* OR antisocial OR anti-social OR theft OR viol* OR assault* OR
steal Or crim*) AND AB(university* OR college).
The selection criteria were that the study should be written in English and obtain-
able through the local university bibliographic databases. The study should be based
on a cross-sectional or longitudinal survey of students in higher education, including
universities and colleges (2 and 4 years). The publication should provide results on the
association between drug use and/or alcohol use and offending, and the results should
be presented as numbers or percentages along with the total number of cases.
The attrition of cases as a result of the selection procedures and methodological
considerations was as follows: search hits: PI (alcohol = 128, drugs = 211), WOS
(alcohol = 211, drugs = 70); nonduplicates selected: PI (alcohol = 21, drugs = 13),
WOS (alcohol = 46, drugs = 10); papers obtained: PI (alcohol = 6, drugs = 2), WOS
(alcohol = 27, drugs = 4); and papers suitable for analysis: PI (alcohol = 4, drugs = 0),
WOS (alcohol = 5, drugs = 2). In addition, relevant papers already held by us were also
included: alcohol = 10 and drugs = 2. In total, 19 studies were included in the review
covering alcohol-related offending and four studies covering drug-related offending.

Alcohol Use and Crime Surveys

The main sources of information on alcohol use and offending among students come
from studies that have investigated criminal behavior as one of the negative conse-
quences of alcohol use. The most common harms mentioned encompassing criminal
Bennett and Holloway 4491

offences are fighting, driving under the influence, property damage, and other offences
leading to arrest or other involvement with the police. Although there is a substantial
literature on alcohol use and sexual assault among university students, it typically
investigates the proportion of offenders who use alcohol, rather than the proportion of
alcohol users who offend. Hence, we have not included this offence in the analysis.
The prevalence of offending among alcohol users is shown in Table 1. Looking at
the unweighted median percentages shows that the most common offences committed
among alcohol-using students were “driving under the influence of alcohol” (median
= 28.7%) followed, in no particular order, by “violence, fighting, physical aggression”
(tied median 8.3% and 11.5%), “property damage” (median 13.2%), “theft” (tied
median 6.5% and 13.8%), and “arrested for drunken behavior” (tied median 0.8% and
2.3%).
The reviewed studies also provide some information on the characteristics of alco-
hol-related offending. Castaño-Perez and Calderon-Vallejo (2014) reported that physi-
cal aggression following drinking was more common among those with alcohol
dependence and that alcohol-related fighting was associated with fighting and aggres-
sion in other contexts. Sun and Longazel (2008) investigated drink-driving among
university students and found that students with low social control and those who
engaged in sports and athletics were more likely than other students to be involved in
drink-driving. Going to parties and living off campus were also associated with
drink-driving.

Drug Use and Crime Surveys

We obtained four studies that addressed drug use and crime among students (see Table
2). The highest proportion of drug-using offenders was found in relation to driving
offences, with close to half of drug users reporting that they had driven under the influ-
ence of, or after using, drugs (unweighted percentages). Violence and property damage
were mentioned by approximately a quarter of drug-using students and other drug-
related offences were reported by just under 10% of drug users (unweighted percent-
ages). The most common drugs mentioned were various combinations of prescription
drugs, marijuana, cocaine, Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD), methamphetamine,
and ecstasy (McCabe & Teter, 2007); marijuana, prescription pain relievers, and
cocaine (Palmer, Rounsaville, McMahon, Ball, & Moreggi, 2012); marijuana, amphet-
amines, ecstasy, and LSD (Davey, Davey, & Obst, 2005); and cannabinoids, depres-
sants, dissociative anesthetics, and hallucinogens (Kohn, Saleheen, Borrup, Rogers, &
Lapidus, 2014).

Summary of the Literature Review

Overall, the review of the literature shows that the majority of the selected publica-
tions concerned the association between alcohol use and offending. Relatively few of
the studies investigated drug use and offending among students. The overview of the
literature suggests that the most common offence committed by alcohol-using students
4492
Table 1.  Percentage of Students Who Reported Offending Following Alcohol Use.

Driving under Arrested/other

Violence/ Property the influence police involvement
fighting/ damage/ of/after using for alcohol-related
Study aggression vandalism alcohol Theft offences
Ehrlich, Haque, Swisher-McClure, and Helmkamp 26.5  
(2006)
Burns et al. (2016) 20.3a  
Neal, Corbin, and Fromme (2006) 19.6  
Helmkamp et al. (2003) 13.7  
Kahler, Strong, Read, Palfai, and Wood (2004) 11.5  
Mallett et al. (2011) 8.3  
Castano-Perez and Calderon-Vallejo (2014) 5.5  
Kypri et al. (2009) 4.8  
West, Drummond, and Eames (1990) 4.0b  
Bedendo, Monezi Andrade, Opaleye, and Noto (2017) 2.7c  
West et al. (1990) 20.0b  
Kahler et al. (2004) 13.2  
Burns et al. (2016) 10.2a  
Mallett et al. (2011) 10.1  
Wechsler, Kuo, Lee, and Dowdall (2000) 10.0  
Bedendo et al. (2017) 9.7c  
Kypri et al. (2009) 4.4  
Wechsler et al. (2000) 52.0  

(continued)
 Table 1. (continued)

Driving under Arrested/other

Violence/ Property the influence police involvement
fighting/ damage/ of/after using for alcohol-related
Study aggression vandalism alcohol Theft offences
Sun and Longazel (2008) 52.0  
Beck et al. (2010)d 47.2d  
Kahler, Strong, and Read (2005) 39.7  
Wechsler, Lee, Nelson, and Lee (2003) 35.5  
Rothman, DeJong, Palfai, and Saitz (2008) 32.0  
Burns et al. (2016) 28.7a  
Kahler et al. (2004) 25.7  
Beck et al. (2010) 23.0  
Fairlie et al. (2010) 14.9  
Mallett et al. (2011) 12.4  
Bedendo et al. (2017) 9.0c  
Kypri et al. (2009) 4.7  
Burns et al. (2016) 13.8a  
Kypri et al. (2009) 6.5  
Kahler et al. (2004) 6.3
Wechsler et al. (2000) 5.0
Burns et al. (2016) 2.3a
West et al. (1990) 0.8b
Kypri et al. (2009) 0.03

Note. “Alcohol use” is defined in several ways, including rate of use (e.g., “one or more times” and “binge drinking”) and period of use (e.g., “in the last 4
weeks” and “in the last 12 months”).
aHazardous drinkers only.
bMales only.

4493
cExcluding binge drinkers.
dStudents aged 20 years only.
4494 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(14)

Table 2.  Percentage of Students Who Reported Offending Following Drug Use.

Arrested/
Violence/ Driving under other police
fighting/ Property the influence involvement for Nonspecific
physical damage/ of drugs/after drug-related illegal
Study aggression vandalism using drugs offences activities
McCabe and Teter 9.3
(2007)
Palmer, Rounsaville, 22.0 26.0 48.0 9.0  
McMahon, Ball,
and Moreggi
(2012)
Davey (2005) 45.0  
Kohn, Saleheen, 76.2  
Borrup, Rogers,
and Lapidus (2014)

Note. “Drug use” is defined in the literature in several ways, including type of drug (e.g., cannabis and
cocaine) and period over which drugs were consumed (e.g., in the past year and before offending).

within the universities surveyed was driving under the influence. This was followed by
violence, criminal damage, theft, and (by virtue of arrest or other police involvement)
other alcohol-related offences. The most common offence committed by drug-misus-
ing students within the selected studies was also driving under the influence, followed
by criminal damage, violence, fighting, and aggression.

Aim
The aim of the current research is to determine the approximate prevalence of drug and
alcohol-related crime among university students in the United Kingdom (Wales) and to
assess whether there were any differences between substance users who offend and those
who do not offend. The article also aims to identify behavioral and lifestyle factors asso-
ciated with substance-related offending that might help explain the phenomenon.

Method
Design and Procedure
All universities in Wales selected to participate in the research1 were contacted early
in September 2015 as part of the Higher Education Alcohol and Drug Survey
(HEADS) project to request their participation in a national survey of drug and alco-
hol use among students during the academic year 2015-2016. Seven of the nine uni-
versities in Wales agreed to participate. A contact person was nominated for each
university who liaised with the research team during the year. On the launch date
Bennett and Holloway 4495

(May 2016), emails were sent by the universities to all students requesting that they
participate in the survey. The email contained a link to a questionnaire held by a sur-
vey company (SmartSurvey).

Questionnaire
The questionnaire was identical for each university and covered a range of topics
including respondent demographics, living arrangements, social life, mental and phys-
ical health, alcohol use, tobacco and e-cigarette use, illegal drug use, and prescription
drug misuse. The questionnaire took an average of 15 min to complete.

Measures
The questions on the frequency of alcohol use were based on the Alcohol Use Disorder
Identification Test (AUDIT) screen (Babor, Higgins-Biddle, Saunders, & Monteiro,
2001) and included the following: “In the current academic year, how often have you
had a drink containing alcohol?” (never, monthly or less, 2-4 times per month, 2-3
times per week, 4 or more times per week). “In the current academic year, how many
drinks containing alcohol did you have on a typical day when you were drinking?”
(1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-9, 10 or more).
The questions on alcohol-related crime were based on several sources including
the Core-Institute national survey questionnaire (Core-Institute, 2012). The ques-
tions asked were as follows: “Have you driven a vehicle while under the influence
of alcohol?” “Have you been involved in a fight during or after drinking?” “Have
you damaged property or committed other acts of vandalism during or after drink-
ing?” “Have you got into trouble with the police during or after drinking?” “Have
you crashed or damaged a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol?” (No; Yes,
since starting university, but not in the current academic year; Yes, in the current
academic year).
The questions on drug use were based on the questionnaire designed for the drug use
self-completion module of the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW; Office for
National Statistics [ONS], 2017) and were phrased as follows: “Have you ever used any
of the following illegal drugs?” (“No, never used”; “Yes, used ever”; “Yes, in the current
academic year”; “Yes, in the last 3 months”; “Yes, in the last week”). Respondents were
asked to select the response category covering their most recent period of their drug use.
The first group of questions asking about drug use and offending were laid out
as a matrix comprising 10 drugs on the vertical axis (cannabis, ecstasy, LSD, magic
mushrooms, amphetamines, methamphetamine, cocaine powder, crack cocaine,
heroin, and tranquilizers) and four offences on the horizontal axis (theft, violence,
criminal damage, and other antisocial behavior). The questions were as follows: “In
the current academic year, for each illegal drug that you have used, please mark in
the boxes below whether you have been involved in any of these behaviors as a
result of using them.” A second question was asked concerning drug selling and
was phrased as follows: “In the current academic year, have you ever sold illegal
drugs?” (“Yes,” “No”).
4496 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(14)

Table 3.  Population and Sample Characteristics.

Source

Characteristic HESAa HEADSb Chi p

Gender 731.9 <.001
  Female (%) 53.8 62.3  
  Male (%) 46.2 37.7  
 Total 99,205 7,577  
Age 10.38 <.001
  Younger than 20 (%) 39.1 41.0  
  Older than 21 (%) 61.9 59.0  
 Total 99,210 7,571  
Ethnicity 17.51 <.001
  White (%) 90.8 89.4  
  Non-White (%) 9.2 10.6  
 Total 77,070 7,472  
aPopulation: HESA = Higher Education Statistics Agency.
bSample: HEADS = Higher Education Alcohol and Drug Survey.

Ethics
An ethical statement relating to the research was approved by the University Research
Committee. We ensured informed consent by providing a written statement in the
contact email (repeated in the questionnaire) on whom we were, the purpose of the
research, the names of the funding bodies, how the data would be held, as well as
information about confidentiality and anonymity. At the end of the questionnaire, we
provided information on sources of help locally available for drug use or other physi-
cal or psychological problems.

Sample
The sampling frame comprised all students currently enrolled on courses at the seven
universities and who held a university email account. There were 100,017 students
registered at the seven universities and an email was sent to each of them. In total,
7,855 students submitted a questionnaire, generating a response rate of 7.8%.
To examine the effect of the response rate on the achieved sample, we compared the
characteristics of the sample with information provided from the Higher Education
Statistics Agency (HESA) on the characteristics of students currently enrolled at each
university. This showed that the achieved sample was overrepresented in terms of
females compared with males (62.3% for the sample compared with 53.8% for the
population), students aged younger than 20 years (41.0% compared with 39.0%), and
White students compared with non-White (89.3% compared with 70.6%; see Table 3).
To compensate for these differences, the data were weighted to match more closely
the characteristics of the population. However, the data available from HESA on the
Bennett and Holloway 4497

population did not include three-way breakdowns of gender, age, and ethnicity, which
meant that we could not generate a multivariable weight. Instead, we created a single
variable weight based on gender differences. Gender was chosen on the grounds that
it showed the greatest probability of a difference between sample and population (gen-
der: Yates correction 40.09 p < .0001; age: Yates correction 5.28, p < .021; ethnicity:
Yates correction 5.19 p < .019).

Analysis
The data analysis was conducted using SPSS v.23. Most of the analyses were bivariate
based on crosstabulations using the chi-square test to determine statistical signifi-
cance, using a cutoff level of p < .05. To compensate for the clustered nature of the
data, we also conducted a random intercept logistic regression analysis on each inde-
pendent variable using the SPSS generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) procedure.
Discrepancies between the tests in terms of significance were adjusted in favour of the
GLMM.
The choice of factors to analyze was based on previous research and theory,
including “opportunity theory” (access to alcohol, bars, and clubs), “social control”
(absence of parental control, marriage, employment), “demographic factors” (gen-
der and age), “dispositional factors” (physical and mental health), “strain theory”
(academic pressures to succeed), “subcultural theory” (socialising patterns), and
“psychopharmacological factors” (drinking patterns and drug effects). These fac-
tors have been shown in the research literature to contribute to a general propensity
to criminal behavior (e.g., demographic and dispositional factors; Gottfredson,
Nagine, Farrington, & Moffitt, 1990; Sampson & Laub, 2005) and the opportunities
for offending (e.g., opportunity theory and routine activities theory; Clarke, 1983;
Cohen & Felson, 1979).

Results
Drug-Related Crimes
In total, 10% of students who had used illegal drugs in the last year reported drug-
related crimes over the same period. The most common offences were drug selling
(reported by 7% of users) followed by other antisocial behavior (3%) and violence
(2%; see Table 4).
The drugs most frequently associated with crime were mephedrone (28% of users
reported offending), tranquilizers (25%), LSD (24%), amphetamines (22%), and ket-
amine (21%). The drug least frequently linked to crime was cannabis (8%). Looking
at the combinations of specific drugs and specific offences shows that the highest
ranking drug for the offence of drug selling was tranquilizers (22% of users reported
offending) and the highest ranking drug for other antisocial behavior was ecstasy
(5.4%). The highest ranking drug relating to violence, theft, and criminal damage was
mephedrone (5.9%, 3.9%, and 2.0%, respectively).
4498 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(14)

Table 4.  Percentage of Drug Users Who Reported Committing Drug-Related Offences in
the Current Academic Year by Type of Drug.

Other
Drug Criminal antisocial Total
sellinga Violence Theft damage behavior Total usersb

  % % % % % % n
Amphetamines 17.6 1.8 1.8 0.6 3.1 21.8 165
Cannabis 6.6 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.7 7.8 1,678
Cocaine powder 11.6 3.9 0.2 0.5 2.0 15.4 610
Ecstasy 11.5 4.3 0.5 1.6 5.4 13.1 884
Ketamine 18.5 1.2 0.8 0.8 3.2 21.3 249
Lysergic Acid 21.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.6 23.7 186
Diethylamide (LSD)
Mephedrone 19.6 5.9 3.9 2.0 3.9 27.5 51
Tranquilizersc 21.8 2.1 0.5 0.5 1.6 25.0 188
Total usersb 6.5 2.3 0.7 0.6 2.6 10.1 1,868
a“Drug selling” includes selling traditional illegal drugs and prescription drugs.
b“Total users” refers to users of the eight drugs listed.
cTranquilizers refer here to drugs from unknown sources purchased on the black market. Tranquilizers

diverted from legitimate prescription holders to another known person were discussed in a separate
section of the survey questionnaire.

Overall, the table shows that a notable proportion of student drug users (ranging
from 8% to 28% of users) committed drug-related crime. The most common crimes
were drug-selling, other antisocial behavior, and violence.

Alcohol-Related Crimes
In total, 9.3% of students who had consumed a drink containing alcohol in the cur-
rent academic year reported committing one or more alcohol-related crimes during
the year (see Table 5). Students who drank alcohol frequently were more likely than
those who drank infrequently to report involvement in alcohol-related crime: 19%
of those who used alcohol four or more times per week compared with 3% of those
who used alcohol monthly or less (χ2 = 225.0; p < .001). The offences most fre-
quently reported were “being involved in a fight” (6% of users) followed by “acts
of vandalism” (3% of users) and “driving under the influence of alcohol” (2% of
users). These percentages were higher among students who drank four or more
times a week, with 11% of frequent users reporting involvement in a fight, 9%
reporting vandalism, and 5% reporting driving under the influence of alcohol.
Overall, the findings show that about one tenth of students who used alcohol, and
one fifth of those who drank regularly, committed one or more alcohol-related crimes
in the current academic year. The most common offences were being involved in a
fight and vandalism.
Bennett and Holloway 4499

Table 5.  Percentage of Alcohol Users Who Reported Committing Alcohol-Related

Offences in the Current Academic Year by Alcohol Use Frequency.
Committed Crashed or
Driven Been acts of damaged a
a vehicle involved in a vandalism motor vehicle
under the fight during during Got into under the
How often influence of or after or after trouble with influence of Total any Total
have you had a alcohol drinking drinking police alcohol offence users
drink containing
alcohol? % % % % % % n

Monthly or less 0.7 1.8 0.9 0.5 0.2 2.7 1,430

2-4 times per 1.7 3.9 1.8 0.5 0.1 6.4 2,358
month
2-3 times per 3.1 9.3 4.7 1.4 0.1 13.7 2,176
week
4 or more times 5.4 11.3 9.0 2.5 0.3 19.4 630
per week
Total 2.3 5.9 3.2 1.0 0.2 9.3 6,594

Characteristics of Offenders
Drug users who offend.  An important research question is whether there are differences
between drug and alcohol users who offend and those users who do not offend. If there
were differences, these might suggest possible explanations for the link between drug
use and offending. Table 6 shows that male drug users were significantly more likely
than female drug users to report offending (12.4% male, 7.8% female). Drug users
who went out to socialise frequently were also significantly more likely than those
who went out less often to report drug-related offences (16.6%, 8.8%). There were
four other significant differences among drug users in terms of offending behavior.
Drug users who reported poor physical health, poor mental health, originated from
England rather than Wales or elsewhere, and frequently visited off campus nightclubs
were more likely than their counterparts to report drug-related offences.

Alcohol users who offend.  The results relating to alcohol use indicate that male alcohol
users were more likely than female alcohol users to report alcohol-related offences
(15.1%, 5.8%). They also showed that younger alcohol users (aged 17-20 years) were
significantly more likely than older alcohol users (aged 21-76 years) to report offend-
ing. All other comparisons between demographic and behavioral characteristics were
also statistically significant. Alcohol users who were in their first year of study, living
in halls of residence, socialised frequently, were single, had bad physical health, had
bad mental health, a family home in England rather than Wales or elsewhere, were in
part-time employment, lived with three or more other students, frequently used a pub/
bar, frequently visited a nightclub, and frequently consumed a large number of alcohol
units on a single occasion were all more likely than other students to report alcohol-
related crime.
4500 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(14)

Table 6.  Percentage of Drug Users and Alcohol Users Who Reported Committing
Substance-Related Offences in the Current Academic Year by Demographic and Behavioral
Characteristics.

Drug users who Alcohol users who

offend offend

  n = 187 Significant p n = 610 Significant p

Gender
 Male 12.4 15.1  
 Female 7.8 .001 5.8 .001
Year of study  
  Year 1 10.7 13.8  
  Year 2 10.2 9.6  
  Year 3 9.3 7.6  
 Postgraduate 8.0 ns 3.9 .001
Age
 17-20 10.2 12.7  
 21-76 9.5 ns 6.7 .001a
Accommodation  
  Hall of residence off campus 8.5 15.7  
  Hall of residence on campus 10.1 13.5  
  Rented off campus 10.4 7.9  
  Family home 10.1 6.0  
  Owned off campus 0.0 ns 4.5 .001
How often went out to socialise?  
  Monthly or less 8.8 3.2  
  2-4 times a month 7.6 7.8  
  2-3 times a week or more 10.5 14.3  
  4 or more times a week 16.6 .005 24.3 .001
Marital status  
  Married/civil partnership 7.2 3.2  
 Single 10.1 ns 9.9 .001
Physical health  
  Very good 6.3 7.3  
 Good 8.2 8.6  
 Fair 12.7 10.4  
 Bad 14.7 15.4  
  Very bad 22.2 .001 15.2 .001
Mental health  
  Very good 8.5 6.4  
 Good 8.1 8.6  
 Fair 9.1 9.8  
 Bad 14.7 12.9  
  Very bad 14.3 .009 12.6 .001

(continued)
Bennett and Holloway 4501

Table 6. (continued)
Drug users who Alcohol users who
offend offend

  n = 187 Significant p n = 610 Significant p

Family home  
 England 11.3 11.0  
 Wales 7.9 8.0  
 Elsewhere 8.0 .02 6.2 .001
Part-time employment  
 Employed 9.6 10.4  
  Not employed 10.2 ns 8.4 .006
Living arrangements  
  3 or more other students 10.3 11.1  
  3 or more other nonstudents 12.1 8.7  
 Parents/guardians 9.3 8.4  
  1-2 other students 7.4 6.8  
 Alone 13.6 6.8  
 Other 10.1 5.4  
  1-2 other nonstudents 6.2 ns 5.0 .001
Use of pub/bar on campus  
  Monthly or less 9.2 7.0  
  2-4 times per month 12.1 15.9  
  2-3 times a week or more 9.1 ns 18.4 .001
Use of pub/bar off campus  
  Monthly or less 10.4 4.7  
  2-4 times per month 8.6 9.8  
  2-3 times a week or more 11.8 ns 18.3 .001
Use of nightclub on campus  
  Monthly or less 9.6 7.5  
  2-4 times per month 11.2 17.0  
  2-3 times a week or more 11.1 ns 24.5 .001
Use of nightclub off campus  
  Monthly or less 8.0 4.5  
  2-4 times per month 10.3 12.9  
  2-3 times a week or more 12.7 .044 24.1 .001
Had 6+ units if female or 8+ units if  
male on a single occasion
 Never 6.3 1.1  
  Less than monthly 7.8 3.9  
 Monthly 11.0 8.9  
 Weekly 9.6 19.7  
  Daily or almost daily 18.9 ns 32.9 .001

Note. The following variables were not significantly associated with either drug or alcohol-related
offending: ethnicity, sexual orientation, university attended, and religion.
aThe association was nonsignificant when analyzed using the random intercept logistic regression procedure,

which adjusts for the clustered nature of the data. Hence, the significance of this finding is uncertain.
4502 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(14)

Discussion
Observations on the Results
One of the aims of the study was to identify differences in the nature of substance use
and the characteristics of users to help describe and explain substance-related offend-
ing among students.
In relation to the nature of substance use, the results have shown substantial varia-
tions by type and frequency of consumption. Cannabis users were less likely than
other drug users to report offending (8%), whereas mephedrone users were most likely
(28%). Alcohol users who drank monthly or less were less likely to report offending
(3%) and users who drank four times per week were most likely (19%). Hence, there
is some indication that features relating to the characteristics of substance use are con-
nected to the likelihood of offending.
In relation to the characteristics of drug users, male students were significantly more
likely than female students to report offending. Offending rates were higher among drug
users who socialised frequently, had poor physical and mental health, originated from
England rather than Wales, and frequently visited off campus nightclubs. Overall, the
results suggest that offending is most prolific among the most extreme substance users in
terms of potency of the substance and frequency of its use and in terms of the most active
users in terms of the frequency of going out and visiting nighttime venues.
These characteristics are consistent with several of the theories of substance use and
criminal behavior mentioned earlier. Frequent involvement in the nighttime economy
generates opportunities for obtaining alcohol and drugs, provides access to an environ-
ment of weakened social control, and allows space for alternative subcultures to develop
and thrive. They are also consistent with demographic predictors of criminal behavior,
especially in relation to offending among males and the relationship between age and
offending, and psychopharmacological theories that associate frequency or volume of
substance use with aggression and violence, risk-taking, and disinhibition.

Comparing the Current Results With the Reviewed Studies

Drug-related crime. Comparing the results of the current study with the research
described in the literature review shows some differences in terms of prevalence of
offending. The current survey based in the United Kingdom found that 0.6% to 6.5%
of drug-using students reported offending in the current academic year depending on
the type of offence, compared with 9% to 76% in the reviewed studies. Controlling for
offence type shows that the single review study reporting on violence found that 22%
of drug users reported this offence compared with 2% in the current study. The study
also found that 26% of student drug users reported property damage compared with
1% in the current research.

Alcohol-related crime.  Our research found that 9% of students who used alcohol at least
once in the current academic year reported at least one alcohol-related offence. The
most common were being involved in a fight (6%), vandalism (3%), and driving under
Bennett and Holloway 4503

the influence of alcohol (2%). These percentages were higher when considering stu-
dents who drank four or more times (involved in a fight, 11%; vandalism, 9%; and
driving under the influence of alcohol, 5%). However, the results of the U.S. studies
again showed higher prevalence rates overall than those in the United Kingdom. Look-
ing at the most frequent drinkers in the two countries over the past year showed that
involvement in a physical fight was reported in the two U.S. studies as 13.7% and
26.5%, respectively. This compares with 11% in the U.K. study. The prevalence of
reporting driving a car while intoxicated among the most frequent drinkers was 39.7%
in the U.S. study that, investigated, compared with 5% in the U.K. study.
It is unknown whether these differences are spurious or reflect real variations. The
current study was not designed to make such comparisons and would require a more
substantial review of the literature including a meta-analysis across both countries to
provide valid estimates. That said, it is possible to consider some of the possible rea-
sons. The student sample and the universities investigated might not be comparable for
various reasons, including differences in the student cohorts and features of the univer-
sities, local neighbourhoods, and student subcultures. The year of the research might
also influence the findings. The current study was conducted in 2016, whereas the
reviewed studies were published between 2000 and 2014. During that time, there have
been substantial reductions in drug use among young people in the United Kingdom
(ONS, 2017). The fact that the majority of the studies included in literature review
were conducted in the United States, whereas the current study was conducted in the
United Kingdom might also be a factor. There could be various reasons why these
country differences might influence the results, including the possibility of differences
in student drug and drinking cultures as well as variations in the administration of the
universities and local areas.

Limitations
One problem with the research method is that the response rate was low. This raises
the question of the representativeness of the achieved sample. We ameliorated this to
some extent by weighting the data by gender to match more closely the student popu-
lation. However, the sample and the population are likely to remain different in other
ways as a result of unmeasured variables. A low response rate creates the problem that
there might be differences between respondents and nonrespondents in terms of the
dependent variable under test (i.e., the prevalence of substance-related criminal behav-
ior). That said, it was not a primary goal of the research to achieve a valid prevalence
estimate that could be extrapolated to the general population. This would have required
a more substantial and specially designed research project. Instead, it was the aim of
the research to obtain information on the approximate scale and nature of the sub-
stance use and crime connection among students in Wales and to investigate factors
that might influence the association between the two.
There is also a problem in determining the nature of the behavior presented in the
questionnaire and whether it really constitutes a criminal act. The question is inter-
preted by the respondent and again by the researcher analyzing the data. The problem
4504 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(14)

has been tackled to some extent by selecting behaviors that are most likely to be inter-
preted as crimes. Furthermore, the questions asked in relation to drug offences were
presented in semilegal terms (e.g., drug-selling, antisocial behavior, violence, theft,
and criminal damage). In most cases, the behaviors described following alcohol use
are also phrased in a way that refer to a criminal offence. However, it is accepted that
under some circumstances they might not be recordable offences. “Getting into trou-
ble with the police” might be for a nonarrestable offence and “acts of vandalism”
might be too minor to result in a conviction in court (the ultimate arbiter of whether a
form of behavior is a crime).

Prevention
A common university-based drinking and drug misuse intervention used mainly in the
United States is the social norms approach. Research has shown that students tend to
overestimate the substance misuse of other students and underestimate their own use
(Kilmer et al., 2006). This in turn might lead to students drinking more or using drugs
more often in the belief that higher use was the norm. To counteract this, some preven-
tion programs have introduced measures for correcting social norm misperceptions
(Perkins, 2002). Their main approach is to communicate realistic student norms
through student news articles, radio programs, lectures, campus poster campaigns, and
advertising at other public places (Berkowitz, 2004).
Other prevention programs have been used less frequently in a university context.
It has been proposed, for example, that university drug prevention programs might
draw on developments in the use of extracurricular activities to bring about behavioral
change (Polymerou, 2007). Studies have shown that increases in student activities are
associated with decreases in drinking on campus (Murphy-Parker & Martinez, 2005).
It has also been suggested that brief motivational interviewing might be used to
reduce campus alcohol use and drug misuse (Polymerou, 2007). McCambridge and
Strang (2004) conducted a randomized controlled trial of a brief motivational inter-
viewing session targeted at drug misuse among students in further education colleges
in London. The study found that students assigned to receive motivational interview-
ing had lower rates of reported drug consumption at the 3-month follow-up compared
with the comparison group (Larimer, Kilmer, & Lee, 2005).
A method used by universities in the United States for tackling drug misuse is
through health screening and monitoring (Werch et al., 1996). Monitoring methods
can be used to identify students at risk as well as providing appropriate responses. A
study by Amaro et al. (2010) evaluated a brief alcohol screening intervention for col-
lege students, which involved students agreeing on outcome goals for reducing their
drinking or drug use and devising strategies for achieving their targets.
Some authors have concluded that there is a need for better clinical guidance on the
treatment of drug use (Miotto, Striebel, Cho, & Wang, 2013). One proposal is that
clinicians should be made more aware of drug misuse as a possible explanation for
patients presenting with unexplained psychoses (Kasick, McKnight, & Klisovic,
2012).
Bennett and Holloway 4505

However, the harms of substance-related crime are much broader than this and
can have potentially damaging consequences for the victims of crimes, the life
course of the offender, and the wider community. Prevention programs need to
address these wider issues. The research literature conducted in the United States
provides several proposals for university-based social interventions. There is sub-
stantial discussion on the role of beliefs in rape prevention, including mispercep-
tions among male university students about the attitudes and behavior of their
peers, which they might assume to be accepting of forced sex (Abbey, 2002).
Another method proposed is bystander intervention programs that encourage indi-
viduals to intervene before, during, and after an assault occurs (Hines, Armstong,
Reed, & Cameron, 2007). The role played by campus-based drinking outlets and
the promotion of alcohol use by the alcohol industry might also be considered in
designing programs to prevent campus crime.
One of the largest potential prevention programs is contained in the provisions
of the Clery Act (1990) in the United States. The Act followed the rape and murder
of Jeanne Clery in April 1986 at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, which was
one of 38 violent crimes recorded at the university in the past 3 years. Her parents
argued that, had the university’s crime record been known, Clery would not have
attended the university. The Clery Act (1990) requires universities to keep and
disclose information about crime on and near their campuses (Sloan & Fisher,
2014). Such interventions have the potential to reduce campus crime through the
shaming effect of the published data on universities (see, for example, The
Complete University Guide, 2017, in the United Kingdom). Universities with
especially high publicly available student crime and victimisation rates might be
encouraged to take action through the methods described above to reduce drug and
alcohol-related offending on their campuses and surrounding areas to encourage
potential students to apply.

Conclusion
The research contributes to current knowledge by presenting the findings of one of the
first studies in the United Kingdom to investigate alcohol- and drug-related crime on
university campuses. The problem of excessive alcohol and drug use among university
students is well-known. It is less well-known that a proportion of student substance
misusers go on to commit criminal offences related to their use.
The main practical implication of the study is that it highlights the importance of
including criminal behavior as one of the harms of student substance misuse.
Universities are in the prime position to take responsibility for harmful behavior
among its students and to take on a lead role in its prevention.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
4506 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(14)

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

Note
1. Aberystwyth University, Bangor University, Cardiff University, Cardiff Metropolitan
University, Glyndwr University, Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama, Swansea
University, University of South Wales, and University of Wales Trinity Saint David.

References
Abbey, A. (2002). Alcohol-related sexual assault: A common problem among college students.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 14, 118-128.
Amaro, H., Reed, E., Rowe, E., Picci, J., Mantella, P., & Prado, G. (2010). Brief screening
and intervention for alcohol and drug use in a college student health clinic: Feasibility,
implementation, and outcomes. Journal of American College Health, 58, 357-364.
doi:10.1080/07448480309595719
Babor, T. F., Higgins-Biddle, H., Saunders, J., & Monteiro, M. G. (2001). The alcohol use dis-
orders identification test. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Beck, K. H., Kasperski, S. J., Caldeira, K. M., Vincent, K. B. O., Grady, K. E., & Arria, A. M.
(2010). Trends in alcohol-related traffic risk behaviors among college students. Alcoholism:
Clinical and Experimental Research, 34, 1472-1478.
Bedendo, A., Monezi Andrade, A. L., Opaleye, E. S., & Noto, A. R. (2017). Binge drinking: A
pattern associated with a risk of problems of alcohol use among university students. Revista
Latino-Americana de Enfermagem, 25, Article e2925. doi:10.1590/1518-8345.1891.2925
Berkowitz, A. D. (2004). An overview of the social norms approach. In L. Lederman, F. Stewart,
F. Goodhart, & L. Laitman (Eds.), Changing the culture of college drinking: A socially situ-
ated prevention campaign. New York, NY: Hampton Press.
Bingham, T. O., Driscoll, C., & De Barra, G. (2015). National student drug survey 2015.
Retrieved from http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/24807/1/National%20Student%20Drug%20
Survey%202015.pdf
Burns, S., Jancey, J., Crawford, G., Hallett, J., Portsmouth, L., & Longo, J. (2016). A cross
sectional evaluation of an alcohol intervention targeting young university students. BMC
Public Health, 16, Article 610. doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3314-4
Castaño-Perez, G. A., & Calderon-Vallejo, G. A. (2014). Problems associated with alcohol con-
sumption by university students. Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem, 22, 739-746.
doi:10.1590/0104-1169.3579.2475
Clarke, R. V. (1983). Situational crime prevention: Its theoretical basis and practical scope.
Crime and Justice, 4, 225-256. doi:10.1086/449090
Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity
approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608.
The Complete University Guide. (2017). Crime in student cities and towns. Retrieved from https://
www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/crime-in-university-towns-and-cities/#howwecompile
Core-Institute. (2012). Core alcohol and drug survey: Key findings from students at multiple
selection. Phoenix, IL: Core Institute.
Bennett and Holloway 4507

Davey, J. D., Davey, T., & Obst, P. L. (2005). Drug and drink driving by university stu-
dents: An exploration of the influence of attitudes. Traffic Injury Prevention, 6, 44-52.
doi:10.1080/15389580590903168
Deniozou, T. (2015). Student health and lifestyle survey. Edinburgh, Scotland: University of
Edinburgh.
Ehrlich, P. F., Haque, A., Swisher-McClure, S., & Helmkamp, J. (2006). Screening and brief
intervention for alcohol problems in a University student health clinic. Journal of American
College Health, 54, 279-287. doi:10.3200/JACH.54.5.279-288
Fairlie, A. M., Quinlan, K. J., DeJong, W., Wood, M. D., Lawson, D., & Witt, C. F. (2010).
Sociodemographic, behavioral, and cognitive predictors of alcohol-impaired driving
in a sample of U.S. college students. Journal of Health Communication, 15, 218-232.
doi:10.1080/10810730903528074
Goldstein, P. (1985). The drugs/violence nexus: A tripartite conceptual framework. Journal of
Drug Issues, 39, 143-174.
Gottfredson, M., Nagine, D., Farrington, D. P., & Moffitt, T. E. (1990). Life-course trajectories
of different types of offenders. Criminology, 33, 111-139. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1995.
tb01173.x
Helmkamp, J. C., Hungerford, D. W., Williams, J. M., Manley, W. G., Furbee, P. M., Horn,
K. A., & Pollock, D. A. (2003). Screening and brief intervention for alcohol problems
among college students treated in a University hospital emergency department. Journal of
American College Health, 52, 7-16. doi:10.1080/07448480309595718
Hines, D. A., Armstong, J. L., Reed, K. P., & Cameron, A. Y. (2007). Predictors of sexual
coercion against women and men: A multilevel, multinational study of university students.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 403-422.
Jacobs, B., & Wright, R. (2006). Street justice: Retaliation in the criminal underworld. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Johnston, L. D. O., Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2012). Monitoring the
future: National survey results on drug use: 1975-2011: Volume II: College students and
adults ages 19-50. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan.
Kahler, C. W., Strong, D. R., & Read, J. P. (2005). Toward efficient and comprehensive mea-
surement of the alcohol problems continuum in college students: The Brief Young Adult
Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire. Alcoholism-Clinical and Experimental Research,
29, 1180-1189. doi:10.1097/01.alc.0000171940.95813.a5
Kahler, C. W., Strong, D. R., Read, J. P., Palfai, T. P., & Wood, M. D. (2004). Mapping the
continuum of alcohol problems in college students: A Rasch model analysis. Psychology of
Addictive Behaviors, 18, 322-333. doi:10.1037/0893-164X.18.4.322
Kasick, D. P., McKnight, C. A., & Klisovic, E. (2012). “Bath salt” ingestion leading to severe
intoxication delirium: Two cases and a brief review of the emergence of mephedrone use.
The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 38, 176-180. doi:10.3109/00952990.2
011.643999
Kilmer, J. R., Walker, D. D., Lee, C. M., Palmer, R. S., Mallett, K. A., & Fabiano, P. (2006).
Misperceptions of college student marijuana use: Implications for prevention. Journal of
Studies on Alcohol, 67, 277-281.
Kilpatrick, D. G., Resnick, H. S., Ruggiero, K. J., Conoscenti, L. M., & McCauley, J. (2007).
Drug-facilitated, incapacitated, and forcible rape: A national study. Charleston, SC:
National Crime Victims Research & Treatment Center.
4508 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(14)

Kohn, C., Saleheen, H., Borrup, K., Rogers, S., & Lapidus, G. (2014). Correlates of drug use
and driving among undergraduate college students. Traffic Injury Prevention, 15, 119-124.
doi:10.1080/15389588.2013.803221
Kypri, K., Paschall, M. J., Langley, J., Baxter, J., Cashell-Smith, M., & Bourdeau, B. (2009).
Drinking and alcohol-related harm among New Zealand university students: Findings from
a national web-based survey. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 33, 307-
314. doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.2008.00834.x
Larimer, M. E., Kilmer, J. R., & Lee, C. M. (2005). College student drug prevention: A review
of individually-oriented prevention strategies. Journal of Drug Issues, 35, 431-455.
Lawyer, S., Resnick, H., Bakanic, V., Burkett, T., & Kilpatrick, D. (2010). Forcible, drug-
facilitated, and incapacitated rape and sexual assault among undergraduate women. Journal
of American College Health, 58, 453-460. doi:10.1080/07448480903540515
Mallett, K. A., Marzell, M., Varvil-Weld, L., Turrisi, R., Guttman, K., & Abar, C. (2011). One-
time or repeat offenders? An examination of the patterns of alcohol-related consequences
experienced by college students across the freshman year. Addictive Behaviors, 36, 508-
511. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2010.12.022
McCabe, S. E., & Teter, C. J. (2007). Drug use related problems among nonmedical users of
prescription stimulants: A web-based survey of college students from a Midwestern uni-
versity. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 91, 69-76. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.05.010
McCambridge, J., & Strang, J. (2004). The efficacy of single-session motivational interviewing
in reducing drug consumption and perceptions of drug-related risk and harm among young
people: Results from a multi-site cluster randomized trial. Addiction, 99, 39-52.
McCauley, J., Ruggiero, K. J., Resnick, H. S., Conoscenti, L. M., & Kilpatrick, D. G. (2009).
Forcible, drug-facilitated, and incapacitated rape in relation to substance use problems:
Results from a national sample of college women. Addictive Behaviors, 34, 458-462.
doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.12.004
Miotto, K., Striebel, J., Cho, A. K., & Wang, C. (2013). Clinical and pharmacological aspects
of bath salt use: A review of the literature and case reports. Drug and Alcohol Dependence,
132, 1-12.
Murphy-Parker, D., & Martinez, R. J. (2005). Nursing students’ personal experiences involv-
ing alcohol problems. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 19, 150-158. doi:10.1016/j.
apnu.2005.04.007
Neal, D. J., Corbin, W. R., & Fromme, K. (2006). Measurement of alcohol-related consequences
among high school and college students: Application of item response models to the Rutgers
Alcohol Problem Index. Psychological Assessment, 18, 402-414. doi:10.1037/1040-
3590.18.4.402
Office for National Statistics. (2017). Crime survey for England and Wales. Retrieved from
http://www.crimesurvey.co.uk/SurveyResults.html
Palmer, R. S., Rounsaville, B. J., McMahon, T. J., Ball, S. A., & Moreggi, D. I. (2012). College
student drug use: Patterns, concerns, consequences, and interest in intervention. Journal of
College Student Development, 53(1), 124-132.
Perkins, H. (2002). Social norms and the prevention of alcohol misuse in collegiate contexts.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol Supplement, 14, 164-172.
Polymerou, A. (2007). Alcohol and drug prevention in colleges and universities: A review of the
literature. London, England: Mentor.
Rothman, E. F., DeJong, W., Palfai, T., & Saitz, R. (2008). Relationship of age of first drink
to alcohol-related consequences among college students with unhealthy alcohol use.
Substance Abuse, 29, 33-41. doi:10.1300/J465v29n01_05
Bennett and Holloway 4509

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2005). A life-course view of the development of crime.
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 602, 12-45.
doi:10.1177/0002716205280075
Sloan, J. J., & Fisher, B. S. (2014). Campus crime. In The encyclopedia of criminology and
criminal justice.
Sun, I. Y., & Longazel, J. G. (2008). College students’ alcohol-related problems: A test of
competing theories. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 554-562. doi:10.1016/j.jcrim-
jus.2008.09.007
The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act
(1990) 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f).
Wechsler, H., Kuo, M., Lee, H., & Dowdall, G. W. (2000). Environmental correlates of under-
age alcohol use and related problems of college students. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 19, 24-29. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00163-X
Wechsler, H., Lee, J. E., Nelson, T. F., & Lee, H. (2003). Drinking and driving among col-
lege students: The influence of alcohol-control policies. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 25, 212-218. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(03)00199-5
Werch, C. E., Anzalone, D. M., Brokiewicz, L. M., Felker, J., Carlson, J. M., & CastellonVogel,
E. A. (1996). An intervention for preventing alcohol use among inner-city middle school
students. Archives of Family Medicine, 5, 146-152. doi:10.1001/archfami.5.3.146
West, R., Drummond, C., & Eames, K. (1990). Alcohol consumption, problem drinking and
anti-social behavior in a sample of college students. British Journal of Addiction, 85, 479-
486. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1990.tb01668.x