In 2002 the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) issued a groundbreaking report, "A Call to Action: Changing the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges." This report was developed by the NIAAA-supported Task Force on College Drinking after three years of intensive discussions. It described new understanding of dangerous drinking behavior by college students and its consequences for both drinkers and nondrinkers. Rather than debate how many students drink how much, the task force focused on addressing the consequences. In its report, the task force outlined a series of recommendations for colleges and universities, researchers, and NIAAA. At the core of the recommendations is the recognition that successful interventions occur at three distinct levels, referred to as the 3-in-1 framework. This approach calls for interventions to operate simultaneously to reach individual students, the student body as a whole, and the greater college community. Given the recommendations in NIAAA's 2002 "Call to Action" and 2007 update, what are colleges and universities doing when it comes to addressing high-risk drinking and associated problems? To answer that question, researchers at the Alcohol Epidemiology Program at the University of Minnesota surveyed 351 four-year colleges in the United States to ascertain familiarity with and progress toward implementation of NIAAA recommendations. According to "Implementation of NIAAA College Drinking Task Force Recommendations: How Are Colleges Doing 6 Years Later?" administrators at most of the colleges surveyed were familiar with NIAAA recommendations, although more than one in five (22 percent) were not. Nearly all colleges used educational programs--a Tier 4 strategy--to address student drinking (98 percent). Half the colleges (50 percent) offered intervention programs with documented efficacy for students at high risk for alcohol problems (Tier 1 strategies). Few colleges reported that they had implemented empirically supported, community-based alcohol control strategies (Tier 2 strategies), including conducting compliance checks to monitor illegal alcohol sales (33 percent), instituting mandatory responsible alcohol beverage service (RBS) training (15 percent), restricting alcohol outlet density (7 percent), or increasing the price of alcohol (2 percent). (Contains 2 resources.)