Evaluation of the South Wales Know the Score # ...pcclive · CPH, Faculty of Education, Health and...

CPH, Faculty of Education, Health and Community, Liverpool John Moores University, Henry Cotton Campus, 15-21 Webster Street, Liverpool, L3 2ET0151 231 4542 | [email protected] | www.cph.org.uk | ISBN: 978-1-910725-45-0 (web)

Evaluation of the South Wales Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention (Phase 2)Zara Quigg, Kat Ford, Nadia Butler, Katie Hardcastle, Karen Hughes

March 2016

Version P: Publically available. 1

Contents Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 1

Summary .................................................................................................................................... 2

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 6

2. Methods ................................................................................................................................. 9

2.1 Nightlife user surveys ....................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Data analyses .................................................................................................................. 10

2.4 Ethics and safety............................................................................................................. 10

3. Findings ............................................................................................................................. 11

3.1 Nightlife user survey: comparison of pre and post-intervention surveys ..................... 11

3.2 Post-intervention nightlife user survey: intervention awareness ................................. 14

5. References ........................................................................................................................... 20

6. Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 23

Appendix 1: The Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention ............................... 23

Appendix 2: Nightlife user survey: post-intervention findings (Cardiff and Swansea combined) ............................................................................................................................ 27

Appendix 3: Swansea nightlife user survey: post-intervention findings ............................. 32

Appendix 4: Cardiff nightlife user survey: post-intervention findings ................................. 40

Appendix 5: Swansea and Cardiff nightlife user survey: post-intervention survey comparisons ......................................................................................................................... 47

Acknowledgements Our thanks also go to the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Tackling Violence Team and Swansea City Centre’s Help Point for facilitating the fieldwork. We are also grateful for the support of colleagues from the Centre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU). In particular, Emma Begley, Nikki Gambles, Ciara McGee, Hannah Grey and Laura Heeks for supporting the field research and, or report production.


Summary In the UK, nightlife environments are key settings for alcohol consumption and have for many years been typified as areas where excessive drunkenness and related harms are the norm. This is despite the fact that it is an offence to knowingly sell alcohol to, or purchase alcohol for, a drunk person (Regulated under Section 141 and 142 of the Licensing Act 2003). A broad range of policies and interventions have been implemented at a local and national level to address alcohol-related harms in nightlife environments (e.g. high profile policing, modifications to licensing laws and environmental measures to improve safety). Whilst such measures may contain and manage alcohol-related harms, they do not address excessive levels of intoxication or harmful and permeating cultures of nightlife drunkenness. Studies have suggested that reductions in the service of alcohol to drunks, and associated harms, in nightlife settings can be achieved through the implementation of multi-agency interventions that incorporate community mobilisation, enforcement of the law and responsible bar server training. Building on this evidence, as part of a broader long-term programme of work to address violence and alcohol-related harms in South Wales, in 2015 the Police and Crime Commissioner for South Wales and South Wales Police developed and implemented the Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention. The intervention aimed to: increase awareness of the law around serving alcohol to, and purchasing alcohol for, people who are drunk; help support bar staff in refusing service of alcohol to people who are drunk; deter sales of alcohol to drunks; and promote responsible drinking in South Wales. Implemented in two phases, phase two built on learning from an evaluation of phase one (the pilot phase; Quigg et al., 2015a), and was expanded to cover a longer time period, focus on at risk groups for alcohol-related harm and include bar staff training in responsible server practice. To inform the development of the intervention and provide a baseline for monitoring progress of future work, an evaluation was undertaken which comprised pre (January 2015) and post-intervention (January 2016) surveys with nightlife patrons in Cardiff and Swansea City Centres. Key findings Pre-intervention (January 2015) nightlife user survey • The majority (93.2%) of nightlife users had consumed alcohol prior to participation in the

survey (referred to as drinkers). • Almost a quarter (24.6%) of drinkers had consumed their first drink by 6pm. • Nearly, two thirds (63.2%) of drinkers reported consuming alcohol at home/a friend’s

house before entering the night-time economy (NTE) (i.e. preloading); this was significantly higher amongst students and younger people.


• Almost one fifth (17.6%) of drinkers reported consuming alcohol after leaving home but prior to entering the city centre nightlife area (i.e. en route loading).

• Over one in ten (14.9%) drinkers had consumed alcohol purchased from an off-licence/supermarket whilst in the city centre nightlife area.

• In total, the median expected units of alcohol consumed over the course of the night out (including alcohol already consumed and expected to be consumed post-survey) was 17.9 units. Males and preloaders reported significantly higher estimated number of alcohol units consumed over the course of the night out.

• Over one in ten (16.1%) participants intended to consume more alcohol after leaving the city’s nightlife (e.g. at home).

• The majority (over 75.0%) of participants: reported their ideal level of drunkenness as high; expected their level of drunkenness to be high when leaving the city’s nightlife; perceived people on a night out in the city centre to typically reach a high level of drunkenness; and believed that getting drunk was socially acceptable in the city centre.

• Over half (55.1%) of participants believed that if someone was drunk and tried to get served alcohol in a bar in the city centre they would usually be served.

• Around half of participants correctly reported that it is illegal for a bar server to sell alcohol to someone who is drunk (48.0%) and illegal for someone to purchase alcohol for a friend who is drunk (50.2%).

Post-intervention (January 2016) nightlife survey - awareness and perceptions of Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention • Overall, nearly three in 10 (29.6%) participants reported being aware of the Know the Score

#DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention. • After all participants were informed about the Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore

intervention and shown an example of an intervention poster: o 42.7% agreed that the posters demonstrated that drunk people will not get served

more alcohol in bars; o 45.8% agreed that the intervention made them feel safer on a night out; o 36.1% agreed the intervention would make them more likely to go on a night out in

the city centre; and, o Over a fifth agreed that the intervention would make them drink less alcohol before

(20.7%) or during (24.9%) a night out in the city centre.

High levels of risky and excessive alcohol

consumption patterns amongst nightlife users.

High levels of drunkenness amongst

nightlife users expected and socially accepted.

Lack of nightlife user awareness of the laws around selling alcohol

to, and purchasing alcohol for, drunks.


Pre (January 2015) and post-intervention (January 2016) survey findings comparison1 • The proportion of participants who correctly reported that it

is illegal for a bar server to sell alcohol to someone who is drunk increased significantly (from 48.0% to 62.4%);

• The proportion of participants who correctly reported that it is illegal to purchase alcohol for a drunk friend increased significantly (from 50.2% to 63.4%);

• The proportion of participants agreeing that getting drunk was socially accepted in the city’s nightlife reduced significantly (from 86.6% to 75.0%); and,

• The total median expected alcohol consumption by drinkers over the course of the night out increased significantly (from 17.9 units to 20.4).

Conclusion The Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention presents an important step in working towards preventing the sale of alcohol to drunks and reducing associated harms in nightlife settings in South Wales. Evaluation findings are positive, suggesting that since the intervention was implemented there has been an increase in nightlife users’ knowledge of the laws around the service of alcohol to, and purchasing of alcohol for, drunks. Further, tolerance towards drunkenness in nightlife settings appears to have reduced amongst nightlife users. Whilst broader impacts on addressing the culture of drunkenness in nightlife were not observed, it is important to acknowledge that this is a complex task that will not only take time but also be influenced by broader alcohol policy, price and promotion. The Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention should therefore continue and form part of a long-term broader plan to prevent drunkenness and associated harms in South Wales. Recommendations • The Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention should continue, and be developed

and incorporated into an on-going feature of a broader work programme to prevent violence and alcohol-related harms across South Wales.

• Evaluation findings should be widely communicated across local stakeholders, including those working in and using nightlife.

• The evaluation has provided a baseline of drinking behaviours, knowledge of the law, and perceptions and attitudes towards drunkenness that can inform the development of future interventions and be used to assess change. Consideration should be given to how future progress can be monitored and evaluated.

1 The pre and post-intervention surveys were cross-sectional and thus involved different samples (although there was no significant difference between sample characteristics).

Improved nightlife user awareness of the laws around the service of

alcohol to, and purchasing of alcohol

for, drunks, and decreased acceptability

of drunkenness in nightlife settings.


• Further evaluation of Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore could involve identifying the cost-benefit and social value of the intervention, including exploration of the impact of the intervention on alcohol-related harms (e.g. longer term monitoring of A&E attendances/ police-recorded crimes).

• With many areas developing interventions to prevent the sale of alcohol to drunks across the UK, and also a lack of evaluation studies, the positive results found in this evaluation should be shared widely. Such findings are useful for informing a broader debate around preventing drunkenness and associated harms in nightlife settings.

• Comparisons to other similar interventions should be made to develop understanding around the most effective ways of preventing the sales of alcohol to drunks, drunkenness and associated harms.

• With excessive alcohol consumption and drunkenness a common feature of most UK nightlife areas, consideration should be given to implementing an intervention such as Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore across other areas.


1. Introduction Excessive alcohol consumption has a significant impact on the health and wellbeing of the drinker themselves and of those around them (World Health Organization, 2014). Further impacts can be seen on public services including health and criminal justice agencies who are required to manage, address and prevent the harms associated with alcohol misuse, such as violence and anti-social behaviour (Anderson et al., 2007; Drummond et al., 2005). Nightlife environments are key settings for alcohol consumption (Anderson et al., 2007; Hughes et al., 2011). In the UK, for many years such settings have been typified as areas where excessive drunkenness and related harms are the norm (Bellis and Hughes, 2011). Recent studies of nightlife users in England and Wales demonstrate how socially acceptable drunkenness is in nightlife settings (Quigg et al., 2015a; Quigg et al., 2015b). Further, many nightlife users drink at home before going on a night out (Anderson et al., 2007; Foster and Ferguson, 2013), often for the purposes of accelerating drunkenness (Christmas and Seymour, 2014; Foster and Ferguson, 2013; Wells et al., 2009). This preloading has been associated with a range of alcohol-related harms and risk including excessive alcohol consumption and involvement in violence during a night out (Foster and Ferguson, 2013; Hughes et al., 2008; McClatchely et al., 2014; Santos et al., 2014). Across England and Wales, a fifth of all violence occurs in and around pubs and nightclubs and half of all violence is alcohol-related (Flatley, 2014). Within drinking venues, a range of studies have shown that serving alcohol to intoxicated patrons can predict problems ranging from violence to drink driving (Graham and Homel, 2008; Hughes et al., 2010). Across the UK, a broad range of policies and interventions have been implemented at a local and national level to address alcohol-related harms in nightlife environments such as high profile policing, modifications to licensing laws and environmental measures to improve safety (e.g. late night transport security, street lighting and closed circuit television camera networks [Bellis and Hughes, 2011; HM Government, 2012]). Whilst such measures may contain and manage alcohol-related harms, they do not address excessive levels of nightlife user intoxication or harmful and permeating cultures of nightlife drunkenness (Bellis and Hughes, 2011; Quigg et al., 2015a; Quigg et al., 2015b). This is despite the fact that it is an offence to knowingly sell alcohol to, or purchase alcohol for, a drunk person (Regulated under Section 141 and 142 of the Licensing Act 2003 [Parliament of the United Kingdom, 2003]). Previous studies have suggested that both bar server awareness of the law and compliance with it are low (Hughes and Anderson, 2008; Hughes et al., 2014; Lenk et al., 2006). A study in one city in the North West of England found that 83.6% of purchase attempts by a pseudo-intoxicated actor resulted in a sale of alcohol (Hughes et al., 2014). Despite this, between 2009 and 2013 only 29 individuals were prosecuted for selling alcohol to drunks across England and Wales (HC Deb, 2014). The low detection and prosecution rate for this offence is thought to result from factors such as difficulties by both bar staff and authorities in defining


and identifying drunkenness, and difficulties for authorities in identifying offences (Nicholls and Morris, 2014; Stockwell et al., 1997). Studies have suggested that reductions in the service of alcohol to drunks in nightlife settings and associated harms can be achieved through the implementation of multi-agency interventions that incorporate community mobilisation, enforcement of the law and responsible bar server training (Andreasson et al., 2000; Lenk et al., 2006; Wallin et al., 2005; Warpenius et al., 2010). In Sweden, for example, a community intervention that included multi-agency planning, strict enforcement and server training was associated with a reduction in the service of alcohol to pseudo-intoxicated actors from 95% of test purchases in 1996 to just 30% in 2001 (Andreasson et al., 2000). Increasingly, similar interventions are being implemented in the UK (Quigg et al., 2015a; Quigg et al., 2016). Building on this evidence, as part of a broader long-term programme of work to address violence and alcohol-related harms in South Wales, in 2015 the Police and Crime Commissioner for South Wales and South Wales Police developed and piloted the Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention (Appendix 1). The intervention aimed to: increase awareness of the law around serving alcohol to, and purchasing alcohol for, people who are drunk; help support bar staff in refusing service of alcohol to people who are drunk; deter sales of alcohol to drunks; and promote responsible drinking in South Wales. Phase one of the intervention was implemented over a seven week period (during the 2015 Rugby Six Nations tournament) and involved a range of awareness raising activities (e.g. radio adverts, posters displayed in licensed premises) and increased police enforcement activity (e.g. extra police patrols in nightlife areas). Evaluation of phase one of the intervention (involving a pre and post-intervention nightlife user survey) found an increase in nightlife user knowledge of the law around the service of alcohol to drunks. Furthermore, decreases were observed in nightlife user acceptability of drunkenness in the nightlife environment, and reported levels of preloading and off-license alcohol consumption in nightlife settings (Quigg et al., 2015a). In addition, compared to the same time period in the previous year, there was an 11% reduction in levels of police-recorded violence during the intervention period (Police and Crime Commissioner for South Wales, 2015). Following study recommendations the intervention was further refined and implemented as a second phase in 2015/16. Phase two incorporated elements from phase one, with the addition of bar server training in preventing the service of alcohol to drunks (including identifying a drunk person and service refusal techniques). Further, phase two aimed to target at risk groups for alcohol-related harm (e.g. young males and students) and was implemented over a number of time periods associated with an increase in alcohol-related harm in nightlife settings2. This report presents an overall evaluation of the intervention incorporating phases one and two. 2 Student fresher’s, Rugby World Cup, Halloween, Christmas and the Six Nations Rugby Tournament 2016 (not covered in the evaluation period) period.


The research aimed to:

• Explore nightlife users’ patterns of alcohol consumption and drinking behaviours including expectations and tolerance of extreme drunkenness in nightlife;

• Assess nightlife users’ knowledge of legislation on the service of alcohol to, and purchasing of alcohol for, drunks;

• Assess the visibility and comprehensibility of the intervention amongst nightlife users; and,

• Explore the impact of the intervention on: awareness of the law; expectations and tolerance of extreme drunkenness in nightlife; and drinking behaviours.


2. Methods

2.1 Nightlife user surveys A short anonymous pre (January 2015) and post-intervention (January 2016) survey was conducted opportunistically with users of the night-time economies in Cardiff (Friday nights) and Swansea (Saturday nights)3. The pre-intervention survey explored: drinking behaviours including preloading; use of the nightlife environment; expectations and tolerance of drunkenness; and knowledge of legislation on service of alcohol to, and purchasing of alcohol for, drunks. To explore the impact of the intervention, the post-intervention survey asked the same questions as the pre-intervention survey, as well as exploring participant awareness and perceptions of the intervention, and potential behavioural change as a result of the intervention. Surveys were designed to be completed by researchers4 on behalf of participants in face-to-face interviews conducted on the street 5. Prior to approaching eligible participants (i.e. nightlife patrons aged 18 year plus), researchers visually assessed their level of intoxication based on criteria used by the police and in previous research (e.g. unsteadiness [Bellis et al., 2010; Perham et al., 2007]). Individuals who appeared highly intoxicated were not approached due to ethical issues concerning their ability to provide informed consent, as well as researcher and participant safety. Researchers approached eligible participants with a standard dialogue informing them of who they were, the aim of the study and inviting them to participate. Of 892 individuals approached to take part, 412 nightlife users immediately declined to participate (240 pre: 157 Cardiff, 83 Swansea; 172 post: 69 Cardiff, 103 Swansea). Those who expressed an interest in participation were provided with an information sheet which provided further study information including an explanation of the purpose of the study, what it would involve and assuring them of confidentiality. Individuals were asked to review the information sheet, which was also summarised verbally by researchers to ensure participants fully understood what the study entailed and what they were consenting to. No individuals declined to participate once the study had been fully explained to them. 260 individuals took part in the pre-intervention survey and 220 in the post-intervention survey. Throughout the explanation of the study and survey completion, researchers continued to monitor and assess participant intoxication levels. Fourteen (pre, 7; post, 7) individuals who had commenced the survey were later deemed by researchers to be too intoxicated to participate. In these circumstances, researchers politely ended the survey at a convenient

3 Pre, 30th/31st January 2015; post 29th/30th January 2016. Surveys were conducted between the hours of 8pm and 3am. 4 Including staff from LJMU and Public Service students from The University of Wales, Trinity Saint David. 5 With a particular focus on the St Mary Street and Greyfriars Road areas of Cardiff, and Wind Street area of Swansea.


point and thanked the participant for their time. These surveys were excluded from analysis, thus, 253 pre and 213 post-intervention surveys6 were used in the final analysis.

2.3 Data analyses All data were entered, cleaned and analysed using SPSS v22. Analyses used descriptive statistics, chi-squared, t-tests, Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. To calculate the amount of alcohol consumed by nightlife users, drinks were coded into standard UK units using the following conversion: small glass of wine, 1.5 units; standard glass of wine, 2.1 units; large glass of wine, 3.0 units; pint of lager/beer/cider, 2.0 units; bottle of lager/beer/cider, 1.7 units; can of lager/beer/cider, 2.0 units; bottle of alcopops, 1.5 units; a single (25ml) shot of spirits, 1.0 unit; and a pitcher of cocktail, 6.0 units. 2.4 Ethics and safety Ethical approval for the study was granted by Liverpool John Moores University Research Ethics Committee. All field researchers were provided with training prior to conducting the study which included details on: the intervention and evaluation; researcher and participant safety (e.g. group working; exit strategies; how to recognise signs of intoxication); the study protocol; research ethics; and survey completion. Field researchers worked in teams of a minimum of three and were supervised by at least one LJMU researcher and/ or an officer from the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Tackling Violence Team.

6 Pre: 144 Cardiff, 109 Swansea. Post: 73 Cardiff; 140 Swansea.


3. Findings

3.1 Nightlife user survey: comparison of pre and post-intervention surveys7 Sample characteristics There were no significant differences in sample characteristics between pre and post-intervention survey participants (Table 1). Table 1: Sample characteristics, pre and post-intervention survey, Cardiff and Swansea combined Characteristic Pre Post p

(n) 253 213 Age group 18-21 years 40.6% 37.3%

NS 22-29 years 40.2% 41.1% 30+ years 19.1% 21.5%

Male 60.1% 62.3% NS Student 28.5% 25.7% NS

South Wales resident 85.8% 87.7% NS Regular nightlife user* 71.9% 75.1% NS

Note. NS = not significant. *Usually go on a night out in the city centre at least once a month.

Alcohol consumption In the pre and post-intervention survey, over 90% of participants reported that they had consumed alcohol prior to survey participation (referred to here as drinkers: pre, 93.2%; post, 95.3%). There were no significant differences in the alcohol consumption patterns of pre and post-intervention survey drinkers, except for expected post-survey alcohol consumption and total expected alcohol consumption (Table 2). The median expected alcohol consumption post-survey significantly increased between pre and post-intervention survey drinkers (pre, 8.0; post, 10.0: p<0.01) and the total median expected alcohol consumption over the course of the night out also significantly increased between pre and post-intervention survey drinkers (pre, 17.9; post, 20.4: p<0.01).

7 Full findings from the post-intervention survey can be found in Appendix 2. Full findings from the pre-intervention survey can be found in Quigg et al., 2015a.


Drunkenness Using a scale of one (completely sober) to 10 (very drunk), participants were asked: how drunk they felt at the time of survey; how drunk they thought they would be when they leave the city’s nightlife that night; what their ideal level of drunkenness is where they are as happy as they can be; and what they thought the typical level of drunkenness was that people reach on a night out in the city centre in which they were surveyed. There was no significant difference between pre and post-intervention surveys in the mean scores for each of these statements. Participants were asked how much they agreed or disagreed8 with a range of statements relating to drunkenness in the city centre in which they were interviewed (Figure 1). There was a significant reduction in the number of people who agreed (strongly agreed/agreed) that getting drunk was socially accepted in the city’s nightlife (pre, 86.6%; post, 75.0%: p<0.01). There was no significant changes in levels of agreement with other statements. Table 2: Alcohol consumption over the course of the night out, pre and post-intervention survey, Cardiff and Swansea combined Alcohol consumption Pre Post p

Preloading* % 63.2 58.6 NS

Units 6.0 6.0 NS

En route loading* % 17.6 21.7 NS

Units 4.0 3.7 NS City centre nightlife-purchased bars/pubs/nightclubs*

% 81.1 86.2 NS Units 6.0 8.0 NS

City centre nightlife-purchased from off-licences/supermarkets*

% 14.9 13.3 NS Units 7.4 5.1 NS

Total units consumed prior to survey completion* Units 11.0 12.0 NS Expected units consumed post survey^ Units 8.0 10.0 <0.01 Total units consumed during the night out+ Units 17.9 20.4 <0.01

Note. Units presented are median value. NS = not significant. *Of those who had consumed alcohol pre survey only. ^Of those who reported that they would drink alcohol post survey only. +Including reported and, or expected consumption.

8 Using a five point scale: strongly agree, agree, neither, disagree and strongly disagree.


Figure 1: Proportion of participants strongly agreeing/agreeing with selected statements on drunkenness, pre and post-intervention survey, Cardiff and Swansea combined

Service of alcohol to drunk people Participants were asked two questions relating to the service of alcohol to drunk people in licensed premises in the city centre in which they were surveyed. There was no significant difference between pre and post-intervention surveys in the proportion of participants that believed that if someone was drunk and tried to get served alcohol on a night out in the city centre they would usually be served (pre, 55.1%; post, 62.7%: p=0.121). Participants were asked if they would be more or less likely to go to a bar if they knew it would not serve alcohol to someone who was drunk. Compared to pre-intervention survey participants, a significantly higher proportion of post-intervention participants stated that they would be more likely to go there (pre, 15.0%; post, 24.3%: p<0.05; Figure 2). Perceptions of the law around serving alcohol to, and purchasing alcohol for, drunks There was a significant increase in the proportion of participants believing that it is illegal for a bar server to sell alcohol to someone who was already drunk between pre (48.0%) and post-intervention (62.4%) surveys (p<0.01) (Figure 3). The proportion of participants reporting that it is illegal for a person to buy alcohol for a friend who is already drunk also significantly increased from 50.2% to 63.4% (p<0.01).

60.6%

33.2%

39.8%

52.7%

54.3%

42.0%

75.0%

68.8%

38.5%

49.0%

61.0%

62.3%

46.1%

86.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

The city centre is a safe place to go on a night out

The city centre would offer a better night out ifpeople got less drunk

People who get drunk ruin the night out for otherpeople

The authorities do not tolerate drunken behaviourin the city's nightlife

Bar staff in the city centre do not care if people getdrunk on their premises

It's hard to enjoy a night out in the city centre ifyou do not get drunk

Getting drunk is socially accepted in the city'snightlife

Pre

Post


Figure 2: Proportion of participants that reported they would be more or less likely (or no change) to go to a bar if they knew it would not serve alcohol to someone who was drunk, pre and post-intervention survey, Cardiff and Swansea combined

Figure 3: Participant perceptions of the law around serving alcohol to, and purchasing alcohol for, drunk people, pre and post-intervention survey, Cardiff and Swansea combined

3.2 Post-intervention nightlife user survey: intervention awareness Survey participants were informed about the Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention and asked if they were aware of it. A fifth (22.8%) initially reported that they were aware of the intervention. However, when participants who were unaware of the intervention were prompted with intervention materials shown by the interviewer, an additional number said they were aware. Thus, overall 29.6% of post-intervention survey participants were aware of the intervention. Of individuals who reported that they were aware of the intervention: 23.0% reported having heard about it on the radio; 53.3% had seen a poster; 27.9% had heard about it via social media (i.e. Facebook or Twitter); 21.3% had read about it in a newspaper or magazine article; and 18.0% had seen a bar staff badge.

15.0%

39.4%45.5%

24.3%

39.5%36.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

More likely Less likely No change

Pre Post

48.0%40.3%

11.7%

50.2%

37.7%

12.1%

62.4%

31.0%

6.6%

63.4%

30.5%

6.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Illegal Legal Don't know Illegal Legal Don't know

A bar server selling alcohol to someone who isalready drunk

A person buying alcohol for a friend who isalready drunk

Pre Post


All post-intervention survey participants were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with a range of statements about the intervention (Figure 4). Four in ten (42.7%) post-intervention survey participants agreed (strongly agreed/agreed) that the materials demonstrated that people who are drunk in bars will not get served more alcohol. A similar proportion (45.8%) agreed that the intervention makes them feel safer whilst on a night out in the city centre. Over a third (36.1%) agreed that the intervention would make them more likely to come on a night out in the city centre. Just over a fifth agreed that the intervention would make them drink less alcohol before a night out in the city centre (20.7%) or whilst in bars on a night out in the city centre (24.9%). Figure 4: Participants’ perceptions of the Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention, post-intervention survey, Cardiff and Swansea combined

3.0%

3.0%

7.9%

5.4%

2.5%

21.9%

17.7%

37.9%

30.7%

40.2%

21.4%

28.1%

22.7%

29.7%

20.1%

43.8%

41.4%

22.2%

28.2%

29.4%

10.0%

9.9%

9.4%

5.9%

7.8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Would make me drink less alcohol whilst in bars on anight out in the city centre

Would make me drink less alcohol before coming on anight out in the city centre (e.g. at home)

Makes me feel safer on a night out in the city centre

Would make me more likely to come on a night out inthe city centre

Demonstrates that people who are drunk in bars willnot get served more alcohol

Strongly agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree


4. Summary and recommendations Implemented as part of a broader suite of work on preventing violence in South Wales, the Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention aimed to: improve awareness of the laws around the service of alcohol to, and the purchasing of alcohol for, drunks; support bar staff in refusing service of alcohol to people who are drunk; prevent the sales of alcohol to drunks; and promote responsible drinking behaviours in nightlife environments. Informed by evidence from previous interventions (Holmila and Warpenius, 2012; Quigg et al., 2016; Warpenius et al., 2010), it incorporated: community mobilisation, enhanced police enforcement activity and responsible beverage server training. Support for the intervention was provided by a broad range of partners including Public Health Wales, and local universities, student unions, councils, licensed premises and sports clubs, who assisted in promoting the intervention aim and key messages through their own networks. The intervention was implemented in two phases. An evaluation of the pilot phase (phase one implemented in February 2015) suggested some positive impacts, including an increase in nightlife user knowledge of legislation on the sale of alcohol to drunks and a decrease in levels of acceptability of drunkenness in nightlife settings (Quigg et al., 2015a). Drawing on the evaluation recommendations, the intervention was further refined and developed (e.g. through the inclusion of bar staff training) and phase two was implemented in September 2015. This report presents an overall evaluation of the intervention incorporating phases one and two. Overall three in ten participants in the post-intervention nightlife user survey reported that they were aware of the Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention. This was similar to levels of awareness following phase one of the intervention, and that reported in an evaluation of a comparable intervention implemented elsewhere in the UK (e.g. Liverpool, 38% [Quigg et al., 2016]). To elicit participants’ views on the intervention, all participants were provided with a short description of the intervention, shown phase two9 posters and then asked a range of questions about the intervention. Less than half of all participants agreed that the intervention: would make them feel safer whilst on a night out in the city centre (45.8%); would make them more likely to come on a night out in the city (36.1%); would make them drink less alcohol before a night out in the city (20.7%) or whilst in bars on a night out in the city (24.9%); and that the posters demonstrated that people who are drunk in bars would not get served more alcohol (42.7%). Perceptions of the intervention messages and materials (i.e. the posters) were more positive following phase one of the intervention (Quigg et al., 2015a). Further work would be needed to establish which messages and intervention materials have greater resonance and impact with nightlife users.

9 Phase two included posters used in phase one, and additional posters targeted towards key periods for alcohol-related harm (e.g. posters focusing on student fresher’s week and the Christmas period).


The evaluation of phase one (Quigg et al., 2015a) and two (presented in this report) aimed to establish the intervention’s impact on: awareness of the law; expectations and tolerance of extreme drunkenness in the nightlife environment; and drinking behaviours. Findings demonstrate some positive impacts of the intervention. Although the pre (January 2015) and post-intervention (January 2016) nightlife user surveys involved different participants (although similar in characteristics) and thus no definitive conclusions can be drawn, a number of positive changes were observed:

• The proportion of participants who correctly reported that it is illegal for a bar server to sell alcohol to someone who is drunk increased significantly (from 48.0% to 62.4%);

• The proportion of participants who correctly reported that it is illegal to purchase alcohol for a drunk friend increased significantly (from 50.2% to 63.4%); and,

• The proportion of participants agreeing that getting drunk was socially accepted in the city’s nightlife reduced significantly (from 86.6% to 75.0%).

Increasing nightlife users’ awareness of the laws around the service of alcohol to drunks is an important step in improving compliance with the law (Hughes et al., 2014). The evaluation suggests that knowledge of the laws increased amongst nightlife users after phase one, and even more so after phase two, particularly around knowledge of the law on purchasing alcohol for drunks. Consistent intervention messages around the laws over several months during the one year evaluation period is likely to have supported this increase in knowledge, and has been shown elsewhere (Quigg et al., 2016), suggesting that such interventions may be effective in eliciting change. The impact of Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore appears to have gone further than changing knowledge, with an apparent shift in the perceived acceptability of drunkenness in the two nightlife environments studied. Despite this, there was a significant increase in reported levels of alcohol consumption over the course of the night out between pre and post-intervention survey participants. However, reported levels of post-intervention nightlife alcohol consumption are comparable to levels reported in another UK city implementing a similar intervention (Quigg et al., 2016) and whilst there are variations between studies, levels are also not too dissimilar to other studies measuring nightlife user alcohol consumption (Hughes et al., 2008; Hughes et al., 2011). Changing levels of alcohol consumption during a night out, including preloaded alcohol consumption (consumed by over half of post-intervention survey drinkers) is a complex task that will take time and also be influenced by broader alcohol policy, price and promotion that often goes beyond the nightlife environment. For instance, preloading prior to a night out can often be due to a desire to save money and is therefore likely to be influenced by the discrepancy between on and off-licensed premise alcohol prices (Wells et al., 2009; Mintel, 2003). It has been predicted that tackling this discrepancy through the introduction of a minimum unit price for alcohol would substantially reduce levels of alcohol consumption and


related harms (Brennan et al., 2014). The Draft Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) Bill which was put out for consultation by Welsh Government in late 2015, proposes such change (Welsh Government, 2015), and if implemented, amongst other gains, has the potential to reduce levels of preloaded alcohol consumption. This is crucial given the links found between preloading and excessive alcohol consumption and violence in nightlife settings (Hughes et al., 2008; McClatchely et al., 2014; Santos et al., 2014). However, the price of off-licensed purchased alcohol is only one of many factors that promote preloading, and consideration needs to be given to other drivers. These can include: occupying time before everyone is ready to start the night out; group bonding; a desire to get drunk, reduce social anxieties and thus enhance the night out; and a ritual habitual passage from the norms of everyday life to the social nightlife environment (Christmas and Seymour, 2014; Wells et al., 2009). Conclusion The Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention presents an important step in working towards preventing the sale of alcohol to drunks and reducing associated harms in nightlife settings in South Wales. Evaluation findings are positive, suggesting that since the intervention was implemented there has been an increase in nightlife users’ knowledge of the laws around the service of alcohol to, and purchasing of alcohol for, drunks. Further, tolerance towards drunkenness in nightlife settings appears to have reduced amongst nightlife users. Whilst broader impacts on addressing the culture of drunkenness in nightlife were not observed, it is important to acknowledge that this is a complex task that will not only take time but also be influenced by broader alcohol policy, price and promotion. The Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention should continue and form part of a long-term broader plan to prevent drunkenness and associated harms in South Wales. Recommendations • The Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention should continue, and be developed

and incorporated into an on-going feature of a broader work programme to prevent violence and alcohol-related harms across South Wales.

• Evaluation findings should be widely communicated across local stakeholders, including those working in and using nightlife.

• The evaluation has provided a baseline of drinking behaviours, knowledge of the law, and perceptions and attitudes towards drunkenness that can inform the development of future interventions and be used to assess change. Consideration should be given to how future progress can be monitored and evaluated.

• Further evaluation of Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore could involve identifying the cost-benefit and social value of the intervention, including exploration of the impact of the intervention on alcohol-related harms (e.g. longer term monitoring of A&E attendances/ police-recorded crimes).


• With many areas developing interventions to prevent the sale of alcohol to drunks across the UK, and also a lack of evaluation studies, the positive results found in this evaluation should be shared widely. Such findings are useful for informing a broader debate around preventing drunkenness and associated harms in nightlife settings.

• Comparisons to other similar interventions should be made to develop understanding around the most effective ways of preventing the sales of alcohol to drunks, drunkenness and associated harms.

• With excessive alcohol consumption and drunkenness a common feature of most UK nightlife areas, consideration should be given to implementing an intervention such as Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore across other areas.


5. References

Anderson, Z., Hughes, K. & Bellis, M.A. (2007). Exploration of young people’s experience and perceptions of violence in Liverpool’s nightlife. Liverpool: Centre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University.

Andreasson, S., Lindewald, B. & Rehnman, C. (2000). Over-serving patrons in licensed

premises in Stockholm. Addiction; 95(3): 359-363. Bellis, M.A. & Hughes, K. (2011). Getting drunk safely? Night-life policy in the UK and its public

health consequences. Drug and Alcohol Review; 30(5): 536-545. Bellis, M.A., Hughes, K., Quigg, Z., Morleo, M., Jarman, I. & Lisboa, P. (2010). Cross-sectional

measures and modelled estimates of blood alcohol levels in UK nightlife and their relationships with drinking behaviours and observed signs of inebriation. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention and Policy; 5(5): 1-8.

Brennan, A. Meny, Y., Holmes, J., Hill-McManus, D. & Meier, P.S. (2014). Potential benefits of

minimum unit pricing for alcohol versus a ban on below cost selling in England 2014: modelling study. BMJ; 349:g5452.

Christmas, S. & Seymour, F. (2014) Drunken nights out: motivations, norms and rituals in the

night-time economy. London: Drinkaware. Drummond, C., Phillips, T., Coulton S., Barnaby, B., Keating, S., Sabri, R. & Moloney, J. (2005).

National prevalence survey of alcohol-related attendances at accident and emergency departments in England. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research; 29(5): 36A-36A.

Flatley, J. (2014). Focus on: violent crime and sexual offences, 2012/13. London: Office for

National Statistics. Retrieved from www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-violent-crime-and-sexual-offences--2012-13/index.html

Foster, J.H. & Ferguson, C. (2013). Alcohol preloading: a review of the literature. Alcohol and

Alcoholism; 49(2): 213-226. Graham, K. & Homel, R. (2008). Raising the bar: preventing aggression in and around bars,

pubs and clubs. Portland: Willian Publishing. HC Deb (2014). Licensing Laws. Retrieved from

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-06-30c.201058. HM Government. (2012). The government’s alcohol strategy. Norwich: The Stationery Office

Limited.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-violent-crime-and-sexual-offences--2012-13/index.html

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-violent-crime-and-sexual-offences--2012-13/index.html

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-06-30c.201058.h


Hughes, K. & Anderson, Z. (2008). Identifying drunkeness and preventing sales of alcohol to intoxicated customers in Manchester. Liverpool: Centre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University.

Hughes, K., Anderson, Z., Morleo, M. & Bellis, M. A. (2008). Alcohol, nightlife and violence: The relative contributions of drinking before and during nights out to negative health and criminal justice outcomes. Addiction; 103(1): 60-65.

Hughes, K., Bellis, M. A., Leckenby, N., Quigg, Z., Hardcastle, K., Sharples, O. & Llewellyn, D.

J. (2014). Does legislation to prevent alcohol sales to drunk individuals work? Measuring the propensity for night-time sales to drunks in a UK city. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health; 68(0:, 453-456.

Hughes, K., Furness, L., Jones, L. & Bellis, M. A. (2010). Reducing harm in drinking

environments: evidence and practice in Europe. Liverpool: Centre for Public Health, WHO Collaborating Centre for Violence Prevention, Liverpool John Moores University.

Hughes, K., Quigg, Z., Bellis, M. A., van Hasselt, N., Calafat, A., Kosir, M., . . . Voorham, L.

(2011). Drinking behaviours and blood alcohol concentration in four European drinking environments: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health; 11(918): 1-11.

Lenk, K. M., Toomey, T. L. & Erickson, D. J. (2006). Propensity of alcohol establishments to

sell to obviously intoxicated patrons. Alcoholic Clinical and Experimental Research; 30: 1194-1199.

McClatchley, K., Shorter, G.W. & Chalmers, J. (2014) Deconstructing alcohol use on a night

out in England: promotions, preloading and consumption. Drug and Alcohol Review; 33(4): 367-375

Mintel. (2003). In- vs out-of-home drinking-UK-November 2003. London: Mintel International

Group Ltd. Nicholls, J. & Morris, J. (n.d.). One too many. Sales to drunk customers: policy, enforcement

and responsibility. London: Alcohol Research UK/Alcohol Academy. Parliment of the United Kingdom. (n.d.). Licensing Act 2003. Retrieved from

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/17/contents. Perham, N., Moores, S.C., Shepherd, J. & Busens, B. (2007). Identifying drunkenness in the

night-time economy. Addiction; 102: 377-380. Police and Crime Commisioner for South Wales (2015). Know the Score Drink Less Enjoy

More campaign. Wales: Police and Crime Commisioner for South Wales. Quigg, Z., Ford, K., Butler, N., Hardcastle, K. & Hughes, K. (2015a). Evaluation of the South

Wales Know the Score Intervention. Liverpool: Centre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/17/contents


Quigg, Z., Hughes, K., Ford, K., Hunt. A., Hardcastle, K. &. McGee, C. (2015b). Evaluation of

the Liverpool Say No to Drunks Pilot Intervention. Liverpool: Centre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University.

Quigg, Z., Ford, K., McGee, C., Grey, H., Hardcastle, K. & Hughes, K. (2016). Evaluation of the Liverpool Drink Less Enjoy More intervention. Liverpool: Centre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University.

Santos, M.G.R., Paes, A.T., Sanudo, A. & Sanchez, Z.M. (2014). Factors associated with pre-

drinking among nightclub patrons in the city of Sao Paulo. Alcohol and Alcoholism; 1-8. Stockwell, T. (1997). Regulation of the licensed drinking environments: a major opportunity

for crime prevention. In R. Homel, Policing for prevention: reducing crime, public intoxication and injury (pp. 7-33). New York: Criminal Justice Press.

Stockwell, T., Lang, E. & Rydon, P. (1993). High risk drinking settings: the association of

serving and promotional practices with harmful drinking. Addiction; 88(11): 1519-1526. Wallin, E., Gripenberg, J. & Andreasson, S. (2005). Overserving at licensed premises in

Stockholm: effects of a community action program. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs; 66(6): 806-814.

Warpenius, K., Holmila, M. & Mustonen, H. (2010). Effects of a community intervention to

reduce the serving of alcohol to intoxicated patrons. Addiction; 105: 1032-1040 Wells, S., Graham, K. & Purcell, J. (2009). Policy implications of the widespread practice of

‘pre-drinking’ or ‘pre-gaming’ before going to public drinking establishments: are current prevention strategies backfiring? Addiction; 104: 4-9.

Welsh Government (2015). Draft Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) Bill . Retrieved

from: www.gov.wales/consultations/healthsocialcare/alcohol/?lang=en. World Health Organization (2006). Policy briefing: interpersonal violence and alcohol. Geneva:

World Health Organization.


6. Appendices

Appendix 1: The Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention Aim To reduce alcohol-related violent crime to make towns and city centres in South Wales even safer at night. Objectives

• Support bar staff and licensees to refuse the service of alcohol to people who are drunk;

• Support door staff in safely refusing premise entry to drunks; • Increase public understanding of the laws around alcohol and that it is illegal to

serve alcohol to, or buy alcohol for someone who is already drunk; and, • Promote responsible drinking.

Key messages The intervention had the following key messages:

• It is illegal to serve alcohol to someone who is drunk; • It is illegal to buy alcohol for someone who is drunk; • If you are drunk you will not get served alcohol, or be permitted entry into licensed

premises; and, • You’ll have a better night out and enjoy yourself more if you drink less.

Intervention activity The Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention was implemented in two phases. Phase one, the pilot phase, was implemented over a seven week period (coinciding with the 2015 RBS Six Nations Championship Rugby Union Tournament) and included an awareness raising campaign and enhanced police enforcement activity in and around licensed premises. Following an independent evaluation of the pilot phase (Quigg et al., 2015a), the intervention was further refined and implemented in 2015/16. The second phase focused on key periods associated with alcohol-related harm in nightlife including: the student fresher’s period; the Rugby World Cup; Halloween; and Christmas. Activity was targeted towards bar staff and licensees, and groups at risk of involvement (as a victim or perpetrator) in alcohol-related harm including: 18-25-year-old men; students (particularly during fresher’s period); and Rugby World Cup fans. Mainstream and social media, and promotional materials, were used to highlight intervention messages to target audiences and the general public (Box A1). Throughout the intervention South Wales Police made additional visits to licensed premises, delivering posters (Figures A1 and A2) and reinforcing key messages of the intervention (each local police basic command unit led the roll out of the intervention in their area). An e-learning


training package was also developed for bar staff and licensees to reinforce their responsibilities in upholding the laws around the service of alcohol to drunks, providing staff with knowledge of how to identify drunk customers and service refusal techniques. Engagement with key stakeholders formed a fundamental part of refining and implementing phase two, particularly with regards to promoting the intervention messages. The intervention was supported by a broad range of stakeholders including Public Health Wales, local universities, students unions, councils, licensed premises and sports clubs. Box A1: Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention products and promotion Products Posters Phase one posters plus new posters focusing on target audiences (e.g. students) and time periods (e.g. Christmas) highlighting intervention messages. Till display spacer To sit on sale points at venues to give key messages to staff (e.g. No drinks for drunks) and consumers (e.g. Is your mate too drink for another drunk?). Badges for bar staff Displaying intervention messages. Fixture Z cards Foldable rugby fixture cards containing match figures, intervention messages and other safety information (e.g. helpline for sexual violence). External advertising Promotional videos (e.g. www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGX_FLgil5M) Integrated logo Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore logo with South Wales Police logo and South Wales Police and Crime Commissioner logo for use with non-sports-related events or promotional material. Festival wristbands Promoting intervention messages to students during the fresher’s period. Mainstream and social media Media informed via a press release and intervention information briefing. All social media opportunities were identified and used to promote the intervention and engage the public in the social media element of the intervention. Letters, articles and emails to key stakeholders Stakeholders (e.g. licensees, local employers) informed about the intervention, reminded of the laws around the service of alcohol to, and purchasing of alcohol for drunks, and asked to promote the intervention messages amongst their networks and staff.


Figure A1: Examples of generic intervention posters


Figure A2: Examples of intervention posters displayed during Christmas


Appendix 2: Nightlife user survey: post-intervention findings (Cardiff and Swansea combined) This section presents findings from all post-intervention surveys conducted in Cardiff and Swansea. Analyses for each city are presented separately in Appendix 3 (Swansea) and 4 (Cardiff), and comparison of data from each city is provided in Appendix 5. Sample characteristics Two hundred and thirteen nightlife users took part in the post-intervention survey; 34.3% in Cardiff City Centre (Friday night) and 65.7% in Swansea City Centre (Saturday night). Over six in ten (62.3%) of participants were male and participant ages ranged from 18 to 66 years, with a mean age of 26 years. Almost nine in ten (87.7%) participants were currently living in South Wales and a quarter (25.7%) were students. Nightlife usage A third of the sample (32.9%) reported that they typically go on a night out in in the city at least once a week, whilst a fifth (19.2%) went out 2-3 times per month, 23% once a month, and 20.7% less than once a month. One in twenty (4.2%) reported that they were on their first night out in the city in which they were surveyed. At the time of the survey, participants had visited on average three venues (range zero to 20); 8% of participants had not visited any pubs, bars or nightclubs. Over seven in ten (71.8%) participants had arrived in the city centre for their night out before 10pm, a quarter (23.9%) reported coming into the city centre between 10pm and 11.59pm, while 4.2% reported entering past midnight. The majority (73.7%) of participants intended to leave the city’s nightlife between the hours of 12am and 3.59am, whilst 15.8% stated that they expected to go home between 4am and 5.59am. On average, survey participants expected to be out in the city’s nightlife for six hours (5:57; from time of entry to anticipated home time). Alcohol consumption The majority (95.3%) of participants had consumed alcohol prior to taking part in the survey (drinkers). Nearly a third (31.2%) of drinkers consumed their first drink before 6pm, whilst 63.4% started drinking between the hours of 6pm and 9.59pm, and 5.4% between 10pm and 1.59am. Over half (58.6%) of drinkers consumed alcohol at home or a friend’s house before coming into the city centre for their night out (preloading). Females were significantly more likely to have preloaded (Table A1). A fifth (21.7%) of drinkers reported consuming alcohol after leaving home/a friend’s house, but prior to arriving in the city centre (en route loading). Nearly four in ten (38.6%) drinkers reporting en route loading had consumed alcohol at a licensed premise (e.g. local pub, restaurant), whilst 29.5% had drank on transport/within transport settings (e.g. taxi, train, airport).


Over four fifths (86.2%) of drinkers had consumed alcohol in a city centre bar, pub or nightclub prior to survey participation, with older age groups significantly more likely to have done so (Table A1). Just over one in ten (13.3%) drinkers had consumed alcohol in the night-time economy prior to survey participation which was purchased from an off-licence or supermarket (including alcohol they had brought into the city centre with them). Overall, the median number of units that drinkers consumed prior to survey participation was 12.0 units. The median number of units drinkers consumed at different points over the course of the night out was: 6.0 units while preloading; 3.7 units during en route loading; 8.0 units in bars, pubs and nightclubs in the city centre; and for alcohol consumed in the night-time economy purchased from an off-licence/supermarket 5.1 units. Individuals aged 18-21 were significantly more likely to have consumed a higher median number of units (8.0) during preloading than individuals aged 22-29, or 30 and over (both 5.1). By the time of survey participation, over six in ten (64.5%) drinkers had consumed spirits, half (55.2%) had drank beer or larger, a fifth (20.2%) wine, 12.8 % cider and 5.9% alcopops. Survey participants were asked about their intention to drink any alcohol after the survey, during the remainder of their night out. The majority (81.7%) of participants intended to consume more alcohol (83.3% of drinkers). Of those who intended to consume more alcohol, the median number of units expected to be consumed was 10.0, with males expecting to consume significantly more than females (males, 10.0 units; females, 7.5 units: p<0.05). In total, the median expected alcohol consumption over the entire night (including alcohol already consumed and expected to be consumed by participants) was 20.4 units. Males expected to consume significantly more units over the entire night out than females (males, 20.9 units; females, 17.0 units; p<0.05) (Table A1). Overall, 27.7% of the total alcohol consumed over the course of the night out was drank while preloading or en route loading prior to entering the city’s nightlife. Finally, 18.9% of all participants intended to consume more alcohol after leaving the city’s nightlife (e.g. at home; 19.3% of drinkers10). Drunkenness Using a scale of one (completely sober) to 10 (very drunk), participants were asked: how drunk they felt at the time of survey; how drunk they thought they would be when they left the city’s nightlife that night; what their ideal level of drunkenness is when they are as happy as they can be when drinking; and what they thought the typical level of drunkenness was that people reach on a night out in the city centre (Figure A3). Over one in ten (12.4%) of those who had drank prior to survey participation reported feeling completely sober. The mean score for how drunk drinkers felt at the time of the survey was 4.4. the mean score for how drunk drinkers (including those who had not drank alcohol prior to the survey but intended

10 Who reported having already consumed alcohol at the point of survey or intending to drink post survey.


to do so on the remainder of their night out) felt they would be when they left the city’s nightlife that night was 7.2. The mean ideal level of drunkenness reported by all participants was 6.6. The mean score reported by participants for the perceived level of drunkenness that people reach on a night out in the city centre was 8.4. These scales of drunkenness were grouped into two levels: low (scores one to five) and high (scores six to 10). At the time of the survey, three in ten (30.2%) drinkers reported their current level of drunkenness as high, while 79.7% of drinkers (including those who had not drank prior to survey participation but intended to do so during the remainder of the night) expected their level of drunkenness to be high when they left the city’s nightlife that night. Seven in ten (72.4%) individuals reported their ideal level of drunkenness as high, whilst the majority (93.8%) thought people on a night out in the city centre typically reached a high level of drunkenness. Figure A4 shows the median alcohol units drank prior to survey participation by drinkers reporting low and high scores for each drunkenness statement. Those who reported high scores for the current drunkenness statement drank significantly more units than those reporting low scores (high, 16 units; low, 10.9 units; p<0.001). Figure A3: Participants’ perceptions of theirs’ and other nightlife users’ level of drunkenness, post-intervention survey, Cardiff and Swansea combined

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

All

Mal

e

Fem

ale All

Mal

e

Fem

ale All

Mal

e

Fem

ale All

Mal

e

Fem

ale

Current level ofdrunkenness

Expected level ofdrunkennes whenleaving the city's

nightlife

Ideal level ofdrunkenness

Perceived level ofdrunkenness ofother nightlife

patrons

Mean drunkeness level

Completely sober

Very drunk


Figure A4: Median alcohol units consumed up to the point of survey by drinkers reporting a low (1-5) or high (6-10) drunkenness rating* for selected statements on drunkenness, post-intervention survey, Cardiff and Swansea combined

*Drunkenness was rated on a scale of one to 10, with one being completely sober and 10 being very drunk. Ratings of one to five were classed as a low rating and ratings of six to 10 as a high rating. Participants were then asked how much they agreed or disagreed with a range of statements relating to drunkenness using a five point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Three quarters (75.0%) of participants agreed (strongly agreed/agreed) that getting drunk is socially acceptable in the city’s nightlife, whilst over half (54.3%) also agreed that bar staff do not care if customers get drunk on their premises. Six in ten (60.5%) participants agreed the city centre was a safe place to go for a night out and over half (52.7%) agreed that the authorities do not tolerate drunken behaviour in the city’s nightlife. Four in ten (42.0%) participants agreed it was hard to enjoy a night out in the city centre if you do not get drunk, while over a third agreed that people who get drunk ruin the night out for other people (39.9%) and the city centre would offer a better night out if people got less drunk (33.2%). Service of alcohol to drunk people Over six in ten (62.7%) participants believed that if someone was drunk and tried to get served alcohol on a night out in the city centre they would usually be served. Participants were then asked if they knew a bar would not serve alcohol to someone who was drunk would they be more likely or less likely to go there. Two fifths (39.5%) reported that they would be less likely to go there, 24.3% more likely to go there and 36.2% stated it would not affect their decision to go there. A quarter of all participants (25.3%) stated that they had been refused service of alcohol whilst drunk, and 58.8% of these reported this occurred in the past year. Perceptions of the law on serving alcohol to, and purchasing alcohol for, drunks Three in ten (31.0%) participants thought it was legal for a bar server to sell alcohol to someone who was already drunk, with nearly two thirds (62.4%) stating it was illegal and 6.6% reporting they did not know. Three in ten (30.5%) thought it was legal to buy alcohol for a friend who was already drunk, while 63.4% thought it was illegal and 6.1% did not know.

10.9 12.010.8

12.5

16.0

12.3 12.0 12.0

0

5

10

15

20


Expected level ofdrunkennes when

leaving the city's nightlife


Perceived level ofdrunkenness of other

nightlife patrons

Med

ian

alco

hol u

nits

Low score High score


Table A1: Alcohol consumption over the course of the night out, post-intervention survey, Cardiff and Swansea combined

Note. Units presented are median value. NS = not significant. *Of those who had consumed alcohol pre survey only. ^Of those who reported that they would drink alcohol post survey only. +Including reported and, or expected consumption.

Alcohol consumption

Sex Age group Student South Wales resident

All Male Female p 18-21 22-29 30+ p No Yes p No Yes p

Preloading* % 58.6 50.8 71.1 <0.01 68.9 56.8 47.7 NS 55.7 66.7 NS 50.0 60.1 NS

Units 6.0 6.8 6.0 NS 8.0 5.1 5.1 <0.05 6.0 7.5 NS 6.0 6.0 NS

En route loading* % 21.7 19.0 26.3 NS 21.6 22.2 20.5 NS 21.5 21.6 NS 25.0 21.3 NS

Units 3.7 4.5 3.1 NS 4.0 2.7 3.0 NS 3.2 4.0 NS 2.6 4.0 NS

City centre nightlife - purchased in

pubs/bars/nightclubs*

% 86.2 88.1 82.9 NS 78.4 90.1 93.2 <0.05 87.9 80.4 NS 95.8 84.8 NS

Units 8.0 8.0 7.5 NS 6.8 8.0 8.3 NS 8.0 6.0 NS 8.0 8.0 NS

City centre nightlife - purchased from off-

licences/supermarkets*

% 13.3 10.3 18.4 NS 8.1 14.8 20.5 NS 14.8 7.8 NS 16.7 12.4 NS

Units 5.1 5.1 5.6 NS 6.0 6.4 3.4 NS 4.8 8.5 NS 6.8 5.6 NS

Total units consumed prior to survey completion* Units 12.0 12.0 12.0 NS 13.1 10.7 12.6 NS 12.0 12.0 NS 13.3 12.0 NS

Expected units consumed post survey^ Units 10.0 10.0 7.5 <0.05 10.0 10.0 8.5 NS 10.0 8.0 NS 10.0 10.0 NS

Total units consumed during night out+ Units 20.4 20.9 17.0 <0.05 21.3 20.0 20.0 NS 20.5 19.0 NS 21.8 20.0 NS


Appendix 3: Swansea nightlife user survey: post-intervention findings

Sample characteristics One hundred and forty nightlife users took part in the post-intervention survey. Nearly six in ten (58.6%) participants were male and participants ranged in age from 18 to 58 years, with a mean age of 26 years. The majority (87.1%) of participants were currently living in South Wales and 22.9% were students. Nightlife usage Almost three in ten (29.3%) participants reported that they typically go on a night out in Swansea City Centre once a week or more, 17.1% reported going on a night out 2-3 times per month and 49.2% once a month or less. One in twenty (4.3%) were on their first night out in the city. Seven in ten (72.9%) participants had arrived in Swansea City Centre for their night out before 10pm. A quarter (25.7%) reported coming into the city centre between 10pm and 11.59pm, while 1.4% reported entering past midnight. Nearly three quarters (73.6%) of participants intended to leave the city’s nightlife between the hours of 12am and 3.59am, whilst 20.0% expected to go home after 4am. On average, from the time of entry to anticipated home time, survey participants expected to spend six hours (6:01) in Swansea’s nightlife. Alcohol consumption The majority (93.6%) of nightlife users had consumed alcohol prior to participating in the survey (drinkers). Three in ten (30.0%) drinkers consumed their first alcoholic drink before 6pm, whilst 66.2% started drinking between 6pm and 9.59pm, and 3.8% after 10pm. Six in ten (61.1%) drinkers consumed alcohol at home or a friend’s house before coming into the city centre for their night out (preloading). Women were significantly more likely to have preloaded (Table A2). Nearly a quarter (23.7%) of drinkers reported consuming alcohol after leaving home/a friend’s house, but prior to arriving in the night-time economy (en route loading). Almost four in ten (38.7%) drinkers reporting en route loading had consumed alcohol at a licensed premise (e.g. local pub, restaurant), whilst 29.0% had drank on transport/within transport settings (e.g. taxi, train). The majority (84.7%) of drinkers had consumed alcohol in a city centre bar, pub or nightclub prior to survey participation. One in ten (10.7%) drinkers had consumed alcohol in the night-time economy prior to the survey which was purchased from an off-licence/supermarket (including alcohol they had brought into the city centre with them). Overall, the median number of units that drinkers consumed prior to survey participation was 12.0 units. The median number of units drinkers consumed over the course of the night out was: 6.5 units while preloading; 4.0 units during en route loading; 8.0 units in bars, pubs and nightclubs in Swansea City Centre; and for alcohol purchased from an off-


licence/supermarket 2.4 units. By the time of the survey, over six in ten (64.1%) drinkers had consumed spirits, over half (52.7%) had drank beer or lager, a quarter (24.4%) wine, 16.0% cider and 7.6% alcopops. Survey participants were asked about their intention to drink any alcohol after the survey, during the remainder of their night out. The majority (83.6%) of participants intended to consume more alcohol (85.5% of drinkers). Of those who intended to consume more alcohol, the median number of units expected to be consumed was 10.0, with males expecting to consume significantly more than females (males, 10.0 units; females 8.0 units; p<0.05). In total, the median expected alcohol consumption over the entire night out (including alcohol already consumed and expected to be consumed by participants) was 20.5 units. Males expected to consume significantly more units over the entire night out than females (males, 21.8 units; females, 17.4 units: p<0.05). Overall, 22.9% of the total alcohol consumed over the course of the night out was drank while preloading or en route loading prior to entering the city’s nightlife. Finally, 17.1% of all participants intended to consume more alcohol after leaving the city’s nightlife (17.6% of drinkers10). Drunkenness Using a scale of one (completely sober) to 10 (very drunk), participants were asked: how drunk they felt at the time of survey; how drunk they thought they would be when they left the city’s nightlife that night; what their ideal level of drunkenness is; and what they thought the typical level of drunkenness was that people reach on a night out in the city centre (Figure A5). A sixth (15.4%) of those who had drank prior to survey participation reported feeling completely sober. The mean score for how drunk drinkers felt at the time of the survey was 4.1; for how drunk drinkers (including those who had not drank alcohol prior to the survey but intended to do so on the remainder of their night out) felt they would be when they left the city’s nightlife was 7.2; the mean ideal level of drunkenness reported by all participants was 6.6; and the mean score reported by participants for the perceived level of drunkenness that people reach on a night out in the city centre was 8.5. These scales of drunkenness were grouped into two levels: low (scores one to five) and high (scores six to 10). At the time of the survey, one quarter (26.2%) of drinkers reported their current level of drunkenness as high, while 80.0% of drinkers (including those who had not drank prior to survey participation but intended to do so during the remainder of the night) expected their level of drunkenness to be high when they left the city’s nightlife that night. Nearly three quarters (74.1%) of individuals reported their ideal level of drunkenness as high, whilst the majority (94.9%) thought people on a night out in the city centre typically reached a high level of drunkenness.


Figure A6 shows the median alcohol units drank prior to survey participation by drinkers reporting low and high scores for each drunkenness statement. Those who reported high scores for level of current drunkenness had drank significantly more units than those reporting low scores (high, 16.4 units; low, 10.7 units; p<0.01). Figure A5: Participants’ perceptions of theirs’ and other nightlife users’ level of drunkenness, Swansea post-intervention survey

Figure A6: Median alcohol units consumed up to the point of survey of drinkers reporting a low (1-5) or high (6-10) drunkenness rating* for selected statements on drunkenness, Swansea post-intervention survey

*Drunkenness was rated on a scale of one to 10, with one being completely sober and 10 being very drunk. Scores of one to five were classed as a low rating and six to 10 as a high rating.

012345678910

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

All

Mal

e

Fem

ale All

Mal

e

Fem

ale All

Mal

e

Fem

ale All

Mal

e

Fem

ale



nightlife



patrons


Completely sober

Very drunk

10.712.0 12.0

14.516.4

12.0 12.0 12.0

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18



nightlife



nightlife patrons

Med

ian

alco

hol u

nits



Participants were then asked how much they agreed or disagreed with a range of statements relating to drunkenness using a five point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Nearly three quarters (73.9%) of participants agreed (strongly agreed/agreed) that getting drunk is socially acceptable in the city’s nightlife, whilst half (54.3%) also agreed that bar staff do not care if customers get drunk on their premises. Over half (53.6%) of participants agreed the city centre was a safe place to go for a night out with a similar proportion (55.4%) agreeing that the authorities do not tolerate drunken behaviour in the city’s nightlife. Less than half (45.9%) agreed it was hard to enjoy a night out in the city centre if you do not get drunk, 41.6% agreed that people who get drunk ruin the night out for other people. Almost a third (32.6%) of participants agreed that the city centre would offer a better night out if people got less drunk. Service of alcohol to drunk people Six in ten (60.9%) participants believed that if someone was drunk and tried to get served alcohol on a night out in the city centre they would usually be served. Participants were then asked if they knew a bar would not serve alcohol to someone who was drunk would they be more likely or less likely to go there. Over a third (38.4%) reported that they would be less likely to go there, 27.5% were more likely to go there and 34.1% stated that it would not affect their decision to go there. A quarter of all participants (26.5%) stated that they had been refused service of alcohol whilst drunk in Swansea City Centre, and of these 54.3% reported this occurred in the past year. Perceptions of the law on serving alcohol to, and purchasing alcohol for, drunks Three in ten (30.0%) participants thought it was legal for a bar server to sell alcohol to someone who was already drunk, with six in ten (64.3%) stating it was illegal and 5.7% reporting they did not know. Over a quarter (29.3%) of participants thought it was legal to buy alcohol for a friend who was already drunk, while six in ten (62.9%) thought it was illegal and 7.9% did not know.


Table A2: Alcohol consumption over the course of the night out, Swansea post-intervention survey

Note. Units presented are median value. NS = not significant. *Of those who had consumed alcohol pre survey only. ^Of those who reported that they would drink alcohol post survey only. +Including reported and, or expected consumption

Alcohol consumption



Preloading* % 61.1 47.4 80.0 <0.001 63.8 64.8 50.0 NS 62.4 56.7 NS 50.0 62.6 NS

Units 6.5 6.5 6.5 NS 8.0 5.1 6.0 NS 8.0 6.0 NS 6.0 7.0 NS


Units 4.0 5.1 2.7 NS 4.0 4.5 2.4 NS 3.4 4.8 NS 1.7 4.5 NS



% 84.7 88.2 80.0 NS 76.6 88.9 90.0 NS 85.1 83.3 NS 93.8 83.5 NS

Units 8.0 8.0 6.3 NS 8.0 6.2 8.0 NS 8.0 8.0 NS 8.0 8.0 NS



% 10.7 7.9 14.5 NS 2.1 14.8 16.7 NS 12.9 3.3 NS 12.5 10.4 NS

Units 2.4 1.9 9.0 NS 1.7 5.4 2.7 NS 2.1 10.0 NS 5.4 2.4 NS


Expected units consumed post survey^ Units 10.0 10.0 8.0 <0.05 10.0 8.5 10.0 NS 10.0 8.0 NS 10.0 10.0 NS

Total units consumed during night out+ Units 20.5 21.8 17.4 <0.05 21.0 20.2 20.2 NS 21.0 20.0 NS 21.8 20.4 NS


Swansea Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention awareness At the end of the post-intervention survey participants were asked if they were aware of the Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention. Over a quarter (27.9%; n=38) of participants initially reported they were aware of the intervention. However, when participants who reported they were unaware of the intervention were prompted with intervention materials shown by the interviewer, an additional number reported they were aware. Thus, overall 33.8% (n=46) post-intervention survey participants were aware of the Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention. Of all individuals who were therefore aware of the intervention: 55.6% (n=25) had seen a intervention poster; 19.6% had seen a bar staff Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore badge; 28.3% had seen the intervention in a newspaper or magazine article; 30.4% had heard about it on the radio; whilst 30.4% reported being made aware of the intervention through social media such as Twitter, Facebook and, or Instagram. All post-intervention survey participants were then asked how much they agreed or disagreed with a range of statements about the intervention (Figure A7). Almost half (47.0%) agreed (strongly agreed/agreed) that the intervention demonstrated that people who are drunk in bars will not get served alcohol. Nearly four in ten (39.4%) participants agreed that the intervention would make them more likely to go on a night out in the city centre, with nearly half (48.5%) agreeing that the intervention makes them feel safer on a night out in the city centre. One in five agreed that the intervention would make them drink less alcohol before coming on a night out in the city centre (20.1%) or whilst in bars in the city centre (24.9%). Swansea pre and post-intervention survey comparisons One hundred nine nightlife users took part in the pre-intervention survey and 140 in the post-intervention survey. There were no significant differences in sample characteristics, nightlife usage or alcohol consumption between each wave of the survey. There were also no significant differences between the survey waves in reported ratings of: current level of drunkenness; expected level of drunkenness when leaving the city’s nightlife; ideal level of drunkenness; or the perceived level of drunkenness of other nightlife patrons. There were some significant changes in attitudes towards drunkenness and perceptions of the night-time economy (Figure A8). Compared with pre-intervention survey participants, a smaller proportion of post-intervention survey participants agreed (strongly agreed/agreed) that getting drunk is socially acceptable in the city’s nightlife (pre, 88.6%; post, 73.9%: p<0.01). A significantly lower proportion of post-intervention survey participants agreed that bar staff do not care if people get drunk on their premises (pre, 69.5%; post, 54.3%: p<0.05). Between pre and post-intervention surveys, there was a significant increase in the proportion of participants responding that it is illegal for a bar server to sell alcohol to someone who is already drunk (pre, 49.1%; post, 64.3%: p<0.05; Figure A9).


Figure A7: Participants’ perceptions of the Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention, Swansea post-intervention survey

Figure A8: Proportion of participants strongly agreeing/agreeing with selected statements on drunkenness, Swansea pre and post-intervention survey

2.3%

2.2%

6.0%

5.3%

2.2%

22.6%

17.9%

42.5%

34.1%

44.8%

22.6%

29.1%

23.9%

28.8%

19.4%

45.9%

44.0%

18.7%

20%

27.6%

6.8%

6.7%

9.0%

4.5%

6.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Would make me drink less alcohol whilst in bars on anight out in the city centre

Would make me drink less alcohol before coming ona night out in the city centre (e.g. at home)

Makes me feel safer on a night out in the city centre

Would make me more likely to come on a night outin the city centre

Demonstrates that people who are drunk in bars willnot get served alcohol


53.6%

32.6%

41.6%

55.5%

54.3%

45.9%

73.9%

62.9%

44.8%

51.4%

65.7%

69.5%

41.9%

88.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


The city centre would offer a better night out ifpeople got less drunk

People who get drunk ruin the night out for otherpeople

The authorities do not tolerate drunken behaviour inthe city's nightlife

Bar staff in the city centre do not care if people getdrunk on their premises

It's hard to enjoy a night out in the city centre if youdo not get drunk

Getting drunk is socially acceptable in the city'snightlife

Pre

Post


Figure A9: Participant perceptions of the law around serving alcohol to and purchasing alcohol for drunks, Swansea pre and post-intervention survey

49.1%45.3%

5.7%

55.2%

36.2%

8.6%

64.3%

30.0%

5.7%

62.9%

29.3%

7.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Illegal Legal Don't know Illegal Legal Don't know



Pre Post


Appendix 4: Cardiff nightlife user survey: post-intervention findings Sample characteristics Seventy three nightlife users took part in the post-intervention survey. Almost seven in ten (69.4%) were male and participants ranged in age from 18 to 66 years, with a mean age of 26 years. The majority (88.9%) of participants were currently living in South Wales and 31.4% were students. Nightlife usage Almost four in ten (39.7%) nightlife users reported that they typically go on a night out in Cardiff City Centre once a week or more, 23.3% reported 2-3 times per month and 32.9% once a month or less. One in twenty (4.1%) were on their first night out in the city. Seven in ten (69.9%) participants had arrived in Cardiff City Centre for their night out before 10pm. One fifth (20.5%) reported coming into the city centre between 10pm and 11.59pm, while 9.6% reported entering past midnight. Nearly three quarters (73.9%) of participants intended to leave the city’s nightlife between the hours of 12am and 3.59am, whilst 14.5% expected to go home after 4am. On average, from the time of entry to anticipated home time, survey participants expected to spend almost six hours (5:47) in Cardiff’s nightlife. Alcohol consumption The majority (98.6%) of nightlife users had consumed alcohol prior to participating in the survey (drinkers). A third (33.3%) of drinkers consumed their first drink before 6pm, whilst 58.3% started drinking between 6pm and 9.59pm, and 8.3% after 10pm. Over half (54.2%) of drinkers consumed alcohol at home or a friend’s house before coming into the city centre for their night out (preloading). Younger age groups and students were significantly more likely to have preloaded (Table A3). Less than one fifth (18.1%) of drinkers reported consuming alcohol after leaving home/a friend’s house, but prior to arriving in the night-time economy (en route loading). Almost four in ten (38.5%) drinkers reporting en route loading had consumed alcohol at a licensed premise (e.g. local pub, restaurant), whilst 30.8% had drank on transport/within transport settings (e.g. taxi, train, airport). Nearly nine in ten (88.9%) drinkers had consumed alcohol in a city centre bar, pub or nightclub prior to survey participation (Table A3). Nearly a fifth (18.1%) of drinkers had consumed alcohol in the night-time economy prior to the survey which was purchased from an off-licence/supermarket (including alcohol they had brought into the city centre with them). Overall, the median number of units that drinkers consumed prior to survey participation was 12.5 units. The median number of units drinkers consumed over the course of the night out was: 6.0 units while preloading; 3.0 units during en route loading; 8.0 units in bars, pubs and nightclubs in Cardiff City Centre; and for alcohol purchased from an off-licence/supermarket 6.0 units. Younger individuals and students drank significantly more alcohol during preloading


compared to their counterparts (p<0.05; Table A3). By the time of the survey, over six in ten (65.3%) drinkers had consumed spirits, 59.7% beer or lager, 12.5% wine, 6.9% cider and 2.8% alcopops. Survey participants were asked about their intention to drink any alcohol after the survey, during the rest of their night out. Over three quarters (78.1%) of participants intended to consume more alcohol (79.2% of drinkers). Of those who intended to consume more alcohol, the median number of units expected to be consumed was 8.5. In total the median expected alcohol consumption over the entire night out (including alcohol already consumed and expected to be consumed) was 20.0 units. Overall, 22.2% of the total alcohol consumed over the course of the night out was drank while preloading or en route loading prior to entering the city’s nightlife. Finally, 22.2% of all participants intended to consume more alcohol after leaving the city’s nightlife (22.5% of drinkers)10. Drunkenness Using a scale of one (completely sober) to 10 (very drunk), participants were asked: how drunk they felt at the time of survey; how drunk they thought they would be when they left the city’s nightlife that evening; what their ideal level of drunkenness is; and what they thought the typical level of drunkenness was that people reach on a night out in the city centre (Figure A10). Over one in twenty (6.9%) of those who had drank alcohol prior to survey participation reported feeling completely sober. The mean score for how drunk drinkers felt at the time of the survey was 4.9. The mean score for how drunk drinkers (including those who had not drank alcohol prior to the survey but intended to do so on the remainder of their night out) felt they would be when they left the city’s nightlife that night was 7.3. The mean ideal level of drunkenness reported by all participants was 6.4. The mean score reported by participants for the perceived level of drunkenness that people reach on a night out in the city centre was 8.2. These scales of drunkenness were grouped into two levels: low (scores one to five) and high (scores six to 10). At the time of the survey, over a third (37.5%) of drinkers reported their current level of drunkenness as high, while 79.2% of drinkers (including those who had not drank prior to survey participation but intended to do so during the remainder of the night out) expected their level of drunkenness to be high when they left the city’s nightlife that night. Over two thirds (69%) of individuals reported their ideal level of drunkenness as high, whilst the majority (91.5%) thought people on a night out in the city centre typically reached a high level of drunkenness. Figure A11 shows the median alcohol units drank prior to survey participation by drinkers reporting low and high scores for each drunkenness statement. Those who reported high scores for level of current drunkenness drank significantly more alcohol units than those reporting low scores (high, 16.0 units; low, 12.0 units: p<0.05).


Figure A10: Participants’ perceptions of theirs’ and other nightlife users’ level of drunkenness, Cardiff post-intervention survey

Figure A11: Median alcohol units consumed up to the point of survey of drinkers reporting a low (1-5) or high (6-10) drunkenness rating* for selected statements on drunkenness, Cardiff post-intervention survey

*Drunkenness was rated on a scale of one to 10, with one being completely sober and 10 being very drunk. Scores of one to five were classed as a low rating and six to 10 as a high rating.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

All

Mal

e

Fem

ale All

Mal

e

Fem

ale All

Mal

e

Fem

ale All

Mal

e

Fem

ale



nightlife



patrons


Completely sober

Very drunk

12.010.0 10.9

13.3

16.0

12.8 13.012.0

02468

1012141618



nightlife



nightlife patrons

Med

ian

alco

hol u

nits



Participants were then asked how much they agreed or disagreed with a range of statements relating to drunkenness using a five point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Over three quarters (77.1%) of participants agreed (strongly agreed/agreed) that getting drunk is socially acceptable in the city’s nightlife, whilst over half (54.3%) also agreed that bar staff do not care if customers get drunk on their premise. Three quarters (74.3%) of participants agreed the city centre was a safe place to go for a night out while almost half (47.2%) agreed that the authorities do not tolerate drunken behaviour in the city’s nightlife. Over a third of participants agreed: it was hard to enjoy a night out in the city centre if you do not get drunk (34.3%); that people who get drunk ruin the night out for other people (36.2%); and that the city centre would offer a better night out if people got less drunk (34.3%). Service of alcohol to drunk people Two thirds (66.2%) of participants believed that if someone was drunk and tried to get served alcohol on a night out in the city centre they would usually be served. Participants were then asked if they knew a bar would not serve alcohol to someone who was drunk would they be more likely or less likely to go there. Four in ten (41.7%) reported that they would be less likely to go there, 18.1% more likely and 40.3% stated that it would not affect their decision to go there. Almost a quarter (23.1%) of participants stated that they had been refused the service of alcohol whilst drunk in Cardiff City Centre; 68.8% of these individuals stated that this happened in the last year. Perceptions of the law on serving alcohol to, and purchasing alcohol for, drunks A third (32.9%) of participants thought it was legal for a bar server to sell alcohol to someone who was already drunk, with over half (58.9%) stating it was illegal and 8.2% reporting they did not know. A third (32.9%) of participants thought it was legal to buy alcohol for a friend who was already drunk, while almost two thirds (64.4%) thought it was illegal and 2.7% did not know.


Table A3: Alcohol consumption over the course of the night out, Cardiff post-intervention survey

Note. Units presented are median value. NS = not significant. *Of those who had consumed alcohol pre survey only. ^Of those who reported that they would drink alcohol post survey only. +Including reported and, or expected consumption

Alcohol consumption



Preloading* % 54.2 56.0 47.6 NS 77.8 40.7 42.9 <0.05 41.7 81.0 <0.01 50.0 55.6 NS

Units 6.0 6.8 5.1 NS 8.0 5.1 4.1 <0.05 5.1 8.0 <0.05 6.6 6.0 NS


Units 3.0 2.5 4.0 NS 4.0 1.7 5.1 <0.05 2.0 4.0 NS 6.0 2.5 NS



% 88.9 88.0 90.5 NS 81.5 92.6 100 NS 93.8 76.2 NS 100 87.3 NS

Units 8.0 6.5 8.0 NS 4.0 8.0 8.4 NS 8.0 4.3 <0.05 9.5 8.0 NS



% 18.1 14.0 28.6 NS 18.5 14.8 28.6 NS 18.8 14.3 NS 25 15.9 NS

Units 6.0 6.8 4.8 NS 6.8 6.4 4.0 NS 5.1 8.0 NS 7.1 6.0 NS


Expected units consumed post survey^ Units 8.5 10.0 6.9 NS 7.0 10.0 7.0 NS 10.0 5.0 NS 10.0 8.5 NS

Total units consumed during night out+ Units 20.0 20.0 17.0 NS 22.0 20.0 18.5 NS 20.0 18.0 NS 22.6 20.0 NS


Cardiff Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention awareness At the end of the post-intervention survey, participants were asked if they were aware of the Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention. Just over one in ten (12.9%; n=9) participants initially reported they were aware of the intervention. Prompted with intervention materials shown by the interviewer, an additional number reported they were aware. Thus, overall 21.4% (n=15) post-intervention survey participants were aware of the Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention. Of all individuals who were therefore aware of the intervention: 46.7% had seen a intervention poster; 13.3% had seen a bar staff Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore badge; whilst 20.0% reported being made aware of the intervention through social media such as Twitter, Facebook and, or Instagram. All post-intervention survey participants were then asked how much they agreed or disagreed with a range of statements about the intervention (Figure A12). A third (34.3%) agreed (strongly agreed/agreed) that the intervention demonstrated that people who are drunk in bars will not get served alcohol. Three in ten (30.0%) participants agreed that the intervention would make them more likely to go on a night out in the city centre, with 40.6% agreeing that the intervention makes them feel safer on a night out in the city centre. More than one in five agreed that the intervention would make them drink less alcohol before coming on a night out in the city centre (21.7%) or whilst in bars in the city centre (25.0%). Figure A12: Participants’ perceptions of the Know the Score #DrinkLessEnjoyMore intervention, Cardiff post-intervention survey

4.4

4.3

11.6

5.7

2.9

20.6

17.4

29

24.3

31.4

19.1

26.1

20.3

31.4

21.4

39.7

36.2

29

30

32.9

16.2

15.9

10.1

8.6

11.4

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Would make me drink less alcohol whilst in barson a night out in the city centre

Would make me drink less alcohol before comingon a night out in the city centre (e.g. at home)

Makes me feel safer on a night out in the citycentre

Would make me more likely to come on a nightout in the city centre

Demonstrates that people who are drunk in barswill not get served alcohol



Cardiff pre and post-intervention survey comparisons One hundred and forty four nightlife users took part in the pre-intervention survey, and 73 in the post-intervention survey. There were no significant differences in sample characteristics, nightlife usage or alcohol consumption between each wave of the survey. There were no significant differences between the survey waves in reported ratings of: current level of drunkenness; expected level of drunkenness when leaving the city’s nightlife; ideal level of drunkenness; or perceived level of drunkenness of other nightlife patrons. The proportion of post-intervention survey participants reporting that it is illegal to buy alcohol for a friend who is already drunk significantly increased from 46.5% in the pre-survey to 64.4% in the post survey (p<0.01) (Figure A13). Figure A13: Participant perceptions of the law around serving to, and purchasing alcohol for, drunks, Cardiff pre and post-intervention survey

47.2%

36.6%

16.2%

46.5%

38.7%

14.8%

58.9%

32.9%

8.2%

64.4%

32.9%

2.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Illegal Legal Don't Know Illegal Legal Don't Know



Pre Post


Appendix 5: Swansea and Cardiff nightlife user survey: post-intervention survey comparisons Table A4: Sample characteristics, Swansea and Cardiff post-intervention survey comparison

Characteristic Swansea Cardiff p Age group 18-21 years 35.7 40.6

NS 22-29 years 42.1 39.1 30+ years 22.1 20.3

Gender Male 58.6 69.4 Female 41.4 30.6

Student status Student 22.9 31.4 NS

Non-student 77.1 68.6

Residency South Wales 87.1 88.9 NS

Other 12.9 11.1 Note. NS = not significant.

Table A5: Nightlife usage, Swansea and Cardiff post-intervention survey comparison

Nightlife usage Swansea Cardiff p Hours in city nightlife 6:01 5:47 NS Regularity of nights out ≥Once a month 73.6 78.1

NS <Once a month 26.4 21.9

Time came out Before 10pm 72.9 69.9 <0.05 10pm-11.59pm 25.7 20.5

12am or later 1.4 9.6 Expected time home 10pm-11.59pm 6.4 11.6

NS 12am-3.59am 73.6 73.9 4am or later 20.0 14.5

Note. NS = not significant.


Table A6: Alcohol consumption over the course of the night out, Swansea and Cardiff post-intervention survey comparison Alcohol consumption Swansea Cardiff p Consumed alcohol prior to survey 93.6 98.6 NS Time of first drink Before 6pm 30.0 33.3

NS 6-9.59pm 66.2 58.3 10pm or later 3.8 8.3

Preloading* % 61.1 54.2 NS

Units 6.5 6.0 NS

En route loading* % 23.7 18.1 NS

Units 4.0 3.0 NS City centre nightlife - purchased in pubs/bars/nightclubs*

% 84.7 88.9 NS Units 8.0 8.0 NS

City centre nightlife - purchased from off-licences/supermarkets*

% 10.7 18.1 NS Units 2.4 6.0 NS

Total units consumed prior to survey completion*

Units 12.0 12.5 NS

Expected units consumed post survey^ Units 10.0 8.5 NS

Total units consumed during night out+ Units 20.5 20.0 NS

Note. Units presented are the median value. NS = not significant. *Of those who had consumed alcohol pre survey only. ^Of those who reported that they would drink alcohol post survey only. + Including reported and, or expected consumption. Table A7: Levels of drunkenness, Swansea and Cardiff post-intervention survey comparison

Drunkenness level* Swansea Cardiff p Current level of drunkenness 4.1 4.9 <0.05 Expected level of drunkenness when leaving city’s nightlife

7.2 7.3 NS

Ideal level of drunkenness 6.6 6.4 NS Perceived level of drunkenness of other nightlife patrons

8.5 8.2 NS

Note. NS = not significant.* On a scale of one (completely sober) to ten (very drunk).


Figure A14: Proportion of participants strongly agreeing/agreeing with selected statements on drunkenness, Swansea and Cardiff post-intervention survey comparison

Table A8: Perceptions of the law on serving alcohol to, and purchasing alcohol for, drunks, Swansea and Cardiff post-intervention survey comparison Service of alcohol to drunks Swansea Cardiff p

Bar staff sellinf alcohok to drunk Legal 30.0 32.9 NS Illegal 64.3 58.9

Don’t know 5.7 8.2 Buying alcohol for drunk friend Legal 29.3 32.9

NS Illegal 62.9 64.4 Don’t know 7.9 2.7

Note. NS = not significant.

53.6%

32.6%

41.6%

55.5%

54.3%

46.0%

73.9%

74.3%

34.3%

36.2%

47.1%

54.3%

34.3%

77.1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


The city centre would offer a better night out if people gotless drunk

People who get drunk ruin the night out for other people

The authorities do not tolerate drunken behaviour in thecity's nightlife

Bar staff in the city centre do not care if people get drunkon their premises

It's hard to enjoy a night out in the city centre if you do notget drunk

Getting drunk is socially acceptable in the city's nightlife

Cardiff

Swansea

Evaluation of the South Wales Know the Score # ...pcclive · CPH, Faculty of Education, Health and...

Documents

Transcript of Evaluation of the South Wales Know the Score # ...pcclive · CPH, Faculty of Education, Health and...