running head: POLICY ANALYSIS PAPER

Policy Analysis Paper

Allison Schipma
Organization & Governance
Loyola University Chicago

POLICY ANALYSIS PAPER

Background
This paper will analyze and provide further directions for the Illinois Institute of
Technologys Good Samaritan Provision. The Good Samaritan Provision can be found within the
Illinois Institute of Technologys (IIT) student Code of Conduct as well as the Residence and
Greek Life handbook. The Code of Conduct is a set of expectations and policies set by IIT in
order to maintain civil and appropriate behavior within the campus community at large therefore
the policy is situated at an institutional level. The Residence and Greek Life handbook serves as
a set of expectations for residents who choose to sign a live-in contract with the Office of
Residence and Greek Life. This includes residents of all resident halls on campus as well as
students in Greek housing. The policy falls under the Conduct Discipline section of the overall
Code of Conduct and within the Rules & Regulations section of the Residence and Greek Life
handbook. The policy is a fairly recent addition to the Code of Conduct and handbook and was
developed by the Student Government Association at IIT a few years ago. Before the Student
Government Association had requested and developed such a policy, IIT had not included a
policy of this sort within their overall Code of Conduct.
IITs Student Government Association requested the development of such a policy to
encourage students and organizations to be safe and report emergencies rather than shy away
from getting help. The policy is essentially in place to protect students who have classed for help
for another student experiencing emergencies relating to drugs and alcohol against being found
in violation of the Code of Conduct. The policy also states that it is not in place to promote these
types of emergencies but to encourage students to seek help when they find themselves or others
in this type of situation.

POLICY ANALYSIS PAPER

When the policy was first developed, however, administrators noticed that student
organizations were not utilizing the policy correctly. In one instance, a member of a fraternity on
campus called for help for a new member of their organization who needed aid due to the
overconsumption of alcohol at an unregistered event for their organization on campus. Once the
organization received the letter stating the charges filed against them for a violation of the
university alcohol policy they stated that they should not be held responsible under the
implications of the Good Samaritan Provision. Ultimately, the organization was held responsible
because the fraternity did not call on behalf of the student in danger, another student who was at
the event called on behalf of that student. After several incidents like this one, IIT decided to
change the language of the policy to exclude organizational protection. The policy (Appendix A)
now just protects students individually.
Analysis
As a graduate assistant for the Office of Student Conduct at IIT, I have worked with this
policy at various levels within the university. Overall, I think that the foundation for the policy is
a solid one. In an article for USA Today-College, a study conducted by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention found that Excessive alcohol consumption is responsible for 79,000
U.S. deaths annually (Lexy Goss, Good Samaritan policy encourages students to dial 911",
2013) It is the hope of the university that this policy will prevent those types of deaths from
alcohol or drug related emergencies and provides students with encouragement to call for help.
While I do appreciate the policy and the ideas behind the policy, I think that there are some
critical changes that need to happen for the constituents for whom this policy serves. It is my
belief that this policy affects two main constituents: the conduct officers at IIT and the students
who attend the university.

POLICY ANALYSIS PAPER

When looking at whom this policy affects, it is my belief that it affects each constituent
group in entirely different ways. In terms of how the policy affects the conduct officers who are
one of the main constituents, I can speak from personal experience about how important it is to
have a streamlined process and common knowledge around the conduct process and this specific
policy. As a conduct officer at IIT, I have found that the audience it is intended for rarely uses
this policy; and when it is used as intended- there is a flaw in the systematic process by which we
are mandated to follow. I think that the policy is rarely used by its intended audience simply
because the intended audience doesnt even know it exists. However, the students who do know
about the policy are student leaders like Resident Assistants and Community Desk Assistants
who most likely would make the call during an emergency situation anyways or are mandated to
as a part of their position within the university. Because those students hold a position with the
university and it is a part of their job description to act safely within emergency situations, it is
rare that there is any follow-up with the students afterwards. This brings me to the systematic
flaw.
The policy which can be found in Appendix A states that, The Dean of Students or his or
her designee will investigate the circumstances involving the request for assistance and may also
require a reporting student to participate in drug or alcohol abuse education or counseling as
appropriate. As a conduct officer, that means that you are able to suggest some type of
educational piece to a student with some type of follow up. Whether that is a meeting to discuss
and debrief the situation, an alcohol-training program or a simple visit to the Student Health and
Wellness Center for - there is room to turn the experience into something educational. As a part
of the conduct process, once a student is charged, found in violation of the policy and
sanctioned- they have a required time to complete those sanctions or the sanctions gets more

POLICY ANALYSIS PAPER

severe. A sanction being defined as items that a student needs to complete in order to be
considered in good standing with the university. The implications of this are where things get
tricky. With the way that the conduct process is structured, if you havent charged a student
formally with violating a policy (because they are protected under this policy) then there is no
way that you can follow up with that student.
When looking at how the policy affects conduct officers, it is essential to also keep in
mind how the policy affects the other group of constituents- the students. The goal of this policy
is to help students feel supported and encouraged to report or call for help in emergency
situations related to drugs or alcohol. While this policy in past situations has helped students feel
this way, it has also either been ignored or abused by students in various settings. As I have
mentioned before, there are students who may not even know that the policy exists in the first
place. When speaking to the director of the office, I learned that the Dean of Students has
requested that the Office of Student Conduct does not highlight this policy in any presentation
because she does not want students to get the wrong idea. This was confusing to me because if
we arent going to speak with the students or inform them of the policy- what is the point of
having it in the first place?
To me, this connects directly with the concepts of tight and loose coupling that were
discussed in the book, How Colleges Work by Robert Birnbaum. Birnbaum discusses the
concepts of tight and loose coupling within organizations. He defines loose coupling as the
connections between organizational subsystems that may be infrequent, circumscribed, weak in
their mutual effects, unimportant, or slow to respond. (Birnbaum, 1988, pg. 38) To me, this
concept is directly displayed within the context of IIT and the Dean of Students view of the
Good Samaritan Provision. Upper administration is hesitant to clearly communicate to its largest

POLICY ANALYSIS PAPER

group of constituents within the system the policies that are in place to protect them. This is
where the concept of tight coupling becomes important. Birnbaum explains if coupling were
tighter, institutions would find it easier to communicate, achieve predictability, control their
processes, and better achieve their goals. (Birnbaum, 1988, pg. 39) When an institution has a
code of conduct that is meant for the whole university, it is essential that there is clear
communication about the expectations of upholding policies as a conduct officer and the
expectations of those who are being held to the policy.
Alternative Solutions
When revisiting the policy with a reconstruction mindset, there are a few key changes
that I would recommend. Overall, I understand the policy and its importance at the university;
however, I would recommend three distinct changes. These changes are: 1) that the place that it
is located within the handbook should be different 2) the language of the policy and 3) the
accountability behind the policy. With these three changes in mind, I believe that the policy will
be as effective as it was meant to be. That being said, if the institution does not work to make
sure that the students understand the policy and its intended use then they are not doing their best
to fully support a very important constituent.
My first recommendation for the policy would be to change the location or area that it
falls under within the handbook. Currently, it falls under the Conduct Discipline section of
overall Code of Conduct and under the Serious Rule Violations section of the Residence and
Greek Life handbook. With the policy being in these locations in their respective documents, I
think it may deter students from feeling comfortable with using the policy or knowing where to
look to find it. I think where it falls within these books may be misleading for students. My
recommendation is that the policy would be placed as a separate category or listed on the website

POLICY ANALYSIS PAPER

as a separate document, much like Dartmouth College has their Good Samaritan Policy listed as
a separate document under the title Important Documents. (Link in References) By listing it as
its own separate document the institution communicates that while the policy is still to be
considered as a conduct policy, it is recognized as a separate but important document.
My second recommendation for the Good Samaritan Provision at IIT is that it is included
in all presentations given by the Office of Student Conduct. As the graduate assistant for the
Office of Student Conduct this year, it was my responsibility to give the presentations at various
orientation sessions. As I had mentioned before, the Dean of Students at the university has
requested that we do not include mentioning the Good Samaritan Provision during any
presentation. Research shows that when students have knowledge of the policy, they are more
likely to use the policy to benefit students in emergency situations. A study done by Cornell
University found that there was an increase in the percentage of students who reported calling
for help on behalf of an intoxicated person. (Lewis, 2006, pg. 7) With this information in mind,
it would be my intention to provide these findings to the Dean of Students and work with her to
figure out a way to communicate the existence of this policy in a manner that she finds
comfortable. The Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) is a group that is running a
campaign that is fighting for Good Samaritan Policies to be in place at universities all over the
country. They state on their website that a Good Samaritan Policy would send the message that
campus officials care more about keeping students alive than punishing them. (SSDP, 2015)
With this information correctly communicated to individuals in power at the institution, I believe
that IIT can move forward with promoting this policy in an informative and educational manner.
The final change that I would like to implement concerning this policy is the language
that is used. Currently, the policy (Appendix A) states that the Dean of Students may also

POLICY ANALYSIS PAPER

require a reporting student to participate in drug or alcohol abuse education or counseling as

appropriate. While this does state that there may be additional educational sanctions for the
student who reported or the student who was involved in the emergency incident, the problem
lies in the fact that there is nothing stated about what happens if the student who needs to
participate in educational programming doesnt follow through with completing that suggestion.
If a student uses the policy correctly and does report, then the conduct officer will not have the
authority to assign an educational sanction to that student because the student is not going
through the conduct process. This makes the follow up and the intended educational piece of this
policy useless.
To make the language in the policy more effective, I would structure an additional clause
at the end of the policy after the University of Miamis Good Samaritan Policy (Appendix B). In
the University of Miamis Good Samaritan policy, they state, Therefore, any student who
receives medical assistance under this Policy will be required to meet with the Office of Ethics
and Student Conflict Resolution and will be required to take an educational course. At IIT, I
would add an additional clause that would be very specific in naming the importance and
requirement of a student completing the educational portion. My recommendation would be to
add, If a student elects not to participate in an educational recommendation the citing of this
clause is to be found void/invalid. This addition clearly states the expectation that there must be
follow through on the students part and gives the conduct officer a foundation to start a formal
conduct process if the student fails to uphold this recommendation.
Conclusion
If IIT were to implement these three changes, I believe that the effect of the Good
Samaritan Provision at the institution would be much more accessible to students. This policy is

POLICY ANALYSIS PAPER

in place not to encourage students to violate policy, but to support them in the reporting of unsafe
habits. Research shows the importance of having this policy as well. A study published by the
Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice states that Students who are aware that a
medical amnesty policy is in effect are 2.5 times more likely than students who expect to face
disciplinary actions to call for help when witnessing the signs of alcohol poisoning. (OsterAaland et al., 2011, p. 148) It is vital that administrators within a university are doing all that
they can to inform, educate, and provide students with the tools to keep themselves and members
of their community safe.

POLICY ANALYSIS PAPER

10

References
Birnbaum, R. (1988). Thinking in Systems and Circles: The Structure and Dynamics of
Academic Organizations. In How Colleges Work: The cybernetics of academic organization and
leadership (pp. 31-55). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Call 911 Good Samaritan Policies | Students for Sensible Drug Policy. 2015, January 1).
Retrieved February 18, 2015, from http://ssdp.org/campaigns/call-911-good-samaritan-policies/
Goss, L. (2013, December 2). 'Good Samaritan' policy encourages students to dial 911.
Retrieved February 18, 2015, from
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/02/good-samaritan-college/3809373/
Oster-Aaland, L., Thompson, K., & Eighmy, M. (2011). The Impact Of An Online
Educational Video And A Medical Amnesty Policy On College Students Intentions To Seek Help
In The Presence Of Alcohol Poisoning Symptoms. Journal of Student Affairs Research and
Practice, 147-164.

POLICY ANALYSIS PAPER

11

Appendix A
Good Samaritan Provision
In an effort to encourage students to help one another by contacting the appropriate
administrative department/authority in critical situations (Public Safety, Housing & Residential
Services, Office of the Dean of Students, Counseling Center) or 911 Emergency Assistance, a
student who seeks assistance for another student, who is experiencing a drug or alcohol
emergency, will not be subject to disciplinary action by the Dean of Students Office.
This policy is not meant to promote unlawful drug or alcohol use among students. Rather, it is
intended to provide a Good Samaritan provision within the Code of Conduct to encourage
responsible reporting to the appropriate authority when a student is in need of help. Accordingly,
it is expected that any reporting will be done in good faith. The Dean of Students or his or her
designee will investigate the circumstances involving the request for assistance and may also
require a reporting student to participate in drug or alcohol abuse education or counseling as
appropriate.
Reporting pursuant to this policy will be monitored and the Dean of Students retains the
authority to pursue, in accordance with the Code of Conduct and applicable law, disciplinary
action against and/or contact the parents of students who abuse it.

POLICY ANALYSIS PAPER

12

Appendix B
Miami Universitys Good Samaritan Policy
The health and safety of students is of paramount importance. As members of the Miami
University community, we are committed to the principles of mutual respect and the common
good. Students are expected to exercise personal responsibility for their own health and safety
and also for that of their fellow students. This Policy will be followed in situations involving
students on-campus and in residence halls that have consumed large amounts of alcohol or
drugs. When a persons health and/or safety is threatened or appears to be at risk from alcohol or
drug consumption, immediate action should be taken. The best action is to contact law
enforcement- a call to the Miami University Police Department (911 or 513- 529-2222).
Whatever the concern, it is vitally important to seek help immediately. The University recognizes
that sometimes concern about arrest and University disciplinary action may be an impediment to
students seeking medical assistance for themselves or others in drug or alcohol related
emergencies. Therefore, formal disciplinary action for a violation of Miamis drug or alcohol
policies will not be taken against students for whom medical assistance is sought or against those
who seek medical assistance for themselves or others, provided the student/organization has not
violated other University policies that warrant formal disciplinary action (e.g., students who are
disruptive or combative, refuse treatment, commit assault or do property damage).
The University also recognizes the serious threat to health and safety that a repetition of such
behavior represents and will work to ensure that that affected students receive appropriate
education and evaluation in order to mitigate further episodes of such risk. Therefore, any
student who receives medical assistance under this Policy will be required to meet with the
Office of Ethics and Student Conflict Resolution and will be required to take an educational
course and/or meet with a University substance abuse specialist for education, assessment and
possible referral for treatment, and will incur any associated costs. Parents of students may also
be notified. The report will be kept on file in the Office of Ethics and Student Conflict
Resolution.
In the event the student incurs an alcohol violation during the 12-month period following the
report, the prior medical assistance file may be reviewed as part of the sanctioning process but
will not be counted as a prior alcohol offense for the purpose of imposing mandatory minimum
sanctions. It is the expectation that a student will avoid formal disciplinary action under this
policy only once; it is an opportunity to learn from a serious mistake and take healthy steps to
avoid such mistakes in the future.

POLICY ANALYSIS PAPER

13