The Home Office have funded a pilot 'Alcohol Impact' scheme across seven Universities in England and Wales in a bid to “create a social norm of responsible alcohol consumption by students.”
The participating Universities will be assessed across a number of criteria [xl] and will need to score 90 out of a possible 177 points to gain accreditation. The seven Universities taking part in the £90,000 NUS-led scheme are Swansea, Manchester Met, Brighton, Royal Holloway, Loughborough, Nottingham and Liverpool John Moores.
Mandatory points, which must be achieved by the universities to gain accreditation, include:
- A statement on responsible alcohol consumption
- A local steering group that meets at least twice per academic year
- Steps taken to establish, develop and promote a contemporary student identity based on responsible alcohol consumption
- Engagement with representatives of sports clubs and societies on responsible alcohol consumption
- Either that the students' union does not have any licensed premises or, if it does, they have achieved accreditation through Best Bar None or equivalent
- That campus bars refuse to serve intoxicated customers
- That good relationships are developed with stakeholders such as drug and alcohol services or police
The scheme has attracted criticism; as might be expected, charges of 'nanny statism' have been made on student blogs and even the Guardian. However these may be somewhat undermined by suggestions that the main measures will not been seen as significant enough to affect real change. Alistair Campbell told The Independent: “It doesn’t appear to challenge the industry and what they do to target students on arrival at university and puts it all on the universities and the students..."
Indeed the evidence for 'social norming' as the main thrust of the scheme appears mixed at best, whilst it appears price and availability will not be signifcantly affected by any of the measures. A condition of not serving 'intoxicated customers' is already national law, but perhaps successful efforts to ensure this could be of value.
The scheme will include some form of evaluation, although the mandatory evaluation conditions focus on crime and disorder measures, so it appears consumption, health or attitudinal changes are unlikely to be assessed. Nonethelss, attention on the issue of alcohol harms in higher education settings may well be welcomed in itself.
Comments