Program implementation

This study discovered a derisory state of financial and material resources with few personnel and scanty specialization in the area of drug abuse. Funds for training materials and facilitation of anti-drug abuse campaigns were reported missing in most cases. Harnessing of resources was shown to be a challenge because of university financial control systems which are procedural and policy-based, causing serious delays in implementation. Inversely, resources play a crucial role in effective implementation of any program (Durlak, 2013; Bartholomew, Parcel, Kok & Gottlieb, 2006; Mihalic et al., 2004).

This study unveiled a robust mismatch between students‟ characteristics and methods of conveying information which according to respondents was the major reason why students were not making use of DSAPP activities. Findings revealed that many

respondents (68.5%) appraised information display unfavorably. Interesting information from the findings was the suggestion for DSAPP to style up to digital approach as opposed to analogue approach in communicating to students. Further findings showed that analogue approach is weak in conveyance efficiency as opposed to digital which is the ability to create persuasive communications in different media, be it websites, video, audio, text, or animated multimedia (Chitode, 2008). DSAPP could institute appropriate modes of communication such as electronic messages for students to get information in less formalized settings such as their waiting benches where attitudinal dispositions might not negatively affect reception of messages.

Research findings revealed that coordination amongst DSAPP is quite poor and is only limited to referral processes which are few and occasional consultations that members of different departments carry out amongst themselves. Factors attributed to poor coordination are, poor streamlining of DSAPP in the university system on policy structures hence inadequate demarcation and uptake of roles and functions. This situation leads to confusion, superficial service delivery and duplication of activities without accountability.

Academic and non-academic departments which are hubs of student activities including those which are not purposefully involved in ADA prevention play a key role in effective implementation of DSAPP. They are the joints for students who may not be reaching out to prevention programs from where they are offered. Research findings demonstrated that a large percentage (73.12%) of respondents felt that their departments were not involved

in DSAPP activities. This may imply DSAPP inability to inclusively advance their activities to many students which in turn negatively affects successful implementation. Respondents who felt DSAPP involved their departments cited presence of dissemination methods in their departments as reasons why they thought DSAPP involved their departments. This may indicate positive outcomes although it doesn‟t stipulate effectiveness since there should be more activities than just presence of dissemination methods. Departments can be involved in planning of DSAPP and in baseline surveys and outreaches to high schools or community.to bring about a congruous achievement of university mission and vision. Other studies (Insel et al., .2012; Kloos, 2012; NIDA, 2009) show benefits accrued from interdepartmental collaboration in approaches to drug abuse prevention.

All universities alluded to the fact that DSAPP has impact in DSA prevention. Great emphasis in this study came out that DSAPP has a lot of impact in cases of; bereavement; traumatic events, relationships; reduced, student rowdiness and outreach activities particularly to high schools on issues of academic performance, drug abuse and early pregnancy prevention which are all factors related to drug abuse. This raised one big question as to factors leading to a rising trend (Magu, Mutugi, Ndahi & Wanzala, 2013) in DSA yet respondents claimed positive impact of DSAPP. Spoth (2013) in his six-year study finding out outcomes of PROSPER project, concluded that „We think the programs work well because they reduce behaviors that lace youth at higher risk for substance misuse and conduct problems‟. In the PROSPER Project, there were significant reduction rates for amphetamine, marijuana, alcohol, cigarette and inhalant use. On the same note,

Larmer, Kilmer & lee (2005) argue that interventions are shown to be efficacious in drug prevention and treatment.

Results depicted a poor rating (64%) on DSAPP performance with reasons that there is no adequate information; there are no vibrant resources and poor implementation strategy. It is most likely that implementation strategies being employed are not matching with socio-cultural, developmental and intellectual levels of students. Program to program evaluation which could help in identification of components which require modification to suit characteristic factors of users was missing in all universities.

Three strong suggestions on more popular methods are dissemination of information, bolstering more effective methods and involvement of students and lecturers in DSAPP. These suggestions are in line with other studies (Rogers, 1995 in Larimer Kilmer & lee (2005). Feldestein & Glasgow (2008) on their model called the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability (PRISM) Model argue that for the organization, organizational component will influence adoption, implementation and maintenance of the program whereas patients‟ characteristics on the other hand will influence patient recipient attitudes which influence in turn implementation success. University situational analysis on factors related to users‟ characteristics in comparison to DSAPP activities as suggested by Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1944) is a factor which was demonstrated being essential for prevention effectiveness.