Balance Benchmarking 2011
24th November 2011
Introduction
Introduction

In 2010, Bluegrass Research undertook a piece of work, on behalf of
Balance, which benchmarked alcohol-related perceptions and levels of
alcohol consumption amongst the North East population

The purpose of this work was to establish a method of tracking Balance’s
performance in relation to its key targets of changing the region’s attitudes
to alcohol and alcohol abuse, and reducing the amount of alcohol consumed

In 2011, a second wave of research was undertaken to measure progress
against key performance indicators

This presentation outlines the findings from the 2011 Balance Benchmarking
project, comparing them to the 2010 benchmark
Methodology

Methodology used same as 2010:
 Face to face interviewing
 Interviews conducted across North East England
 91% of interviews conducted on-street; 9% door-to-door

Data weighted to socio-demographic profile of North East population

A total of 2,388 interviews were undertaken
Alcohol Consumption
Regional Profile of Drinkers 2011
No significant year on year change
Increasing /
higher risk
drinkers
Low risk
drinkers
Non drinkers
23 38 39
%
11% of non
drinkers have
stopped drinking in
the past 12 months
%
%
Key consumption measures
Frequency of
consumption
Number of
standard
drinks
Incidence of
binging
No significant year on year changes
Patterns similar to 2010:
• Younger people and men drink in greater quantities in a
day and binge more often
Regional Profile of Drinkers 2011
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Drinking Behaviour
Drinking too much alcohol
% perceive
drinking too
much regularly
/ occasionally
Significant
Change?
% perceive
drinking too
much rarely /
never
Significant
Change?
All drinkers
34
No
66
No
Low risk
8
No
92
No
Increasing /
higher risk
60
No
40
No
Also higher
than average
amongst:
%
%
%
Men
18-34 years
Gateshead
%
%
%
Women
55+
Concern about amount of alcohol
consumed
% not very /
not at all
concerned
All drinkers
92
Low risk
98
Increasing /
higher risk
86
Also higher
than average
amongst:
Significant
Change?
No
%
%
%
No
Women
65+
SEG C2
Significant
Change?
8
No
2
-2
%
+2
%
% fairly / very
concerned
%
14
%
Men
25-34 years
SEG E
Gateshead
%
No
Thinking about reducing amount of
alcohol consumed
% yes 2011
In the past 12 months, have you ever
thought about reducing the amount of
alcohol that you drink
Significant Change?
18
-8
%
%
Thinking about reducing
HIGHER than average amongst:
Thinking about reducing
LOWER than average amongst:
Men
Women
Gateshead
65+
Increasing / higher risk drinkers
SEG D
Those very or fairly concerned about their
drinking
Stockton-on-Tees, South Tyneside
Those who regularly or occasionally drink
too much
Those not very or not at all concerned
about their drinking
Low risk drinkers
Those who rarely or never drink too much
Thinking about reducing amount of
alcohol consumed
% yes 2011
In the past 12 months, have you ever
thought about reducing the amount of
alcohol that you drink
Decrease driven by
shifts amongst:
18
%
Significant Change?
-8
%
25-54, 65+
Men & women
SEG: AB, C1, D
Tyne & Wear, Tees Valley
Drinkers (low & increasing
/ higher risk)
Amount of alcohol consumed compared
to 12 months ago
% consuming
more
Significant
Change?
% consuming
less
Significant
Change?
All drinkers
8
No
25
-6
Low risk
4
No
23
-9
Increasing /
higher risk
12
No
26
No
Also higher
than average
amongst:
%
%
%
18-24 years
Gateshead
Increasing / higher
risk drinkers
%
%
%
%
%
18-34 years
65+
Darlington
North Tyneside
Amount of alcohol consumed compared
to 12 months ago
% consuming
more
Significant
Change?
% consuming
less
Significant
Change?
All drinkers
8
No
25
-6
Low risk
4
No
23
-9
Increasing /
higher risk
12
No
26
No
Also higher
than average
amongst:
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
In both categories, those who:
Regularly
/ occasionally drink too much
18-24
years
65+
Gateshead
Are
very/fairly concerned about their alcohol
Darlington
consumption
Increasing / higher
North Tyneside
Have thought about reducing
risk drinkers
Pre-loading
% yes 2011
How often, if at all, do you drink
alcohol at home / at a friend's house,
before going out to a bar or a club
Incidence of pre-loading
HIGHER amongst
Significant Change?
42
+6
%
%
Incidence of pre-loading
LOWER amongst
18-34
45+
Middlesbrough, Newcastle
SEG E
South Tyneside
Darlington, North Tyneside
Increasing / higher risk drinkers
Low risk drinkers
Pre-loading
% yes 2011
How often, if at all, do you drink
alcohol at home / at a friend's house,
before going out to a bar or a club
Increase driven by
shifts amongst:
42
%
Significant Change?
+6
%
18-24, 55-64
Men
SEG: C1, C2
Tyne & Wear
Increasing / higher risk
drinkers
The Influence of Health Professionals
Non Drinkers who have given up in
past 12 months
% had a
conversation with a
health professional
34
%
Influenced....
Did advice influence
thinking about /
reducing?
% whose drinking
has reduced because
of advice from health
professionals
Strongly: [13]
To some extent: [3]
A little: [0]
Not at all: [4]
All Drinkers
6
%
Influenced....
Strongly: 25%
To some extent: 24%
A little: 25%
Not at all: 27%
27
3%
Base: Non drinkers who have
given up in past 12 months (60)
and have had a conversation (20)
Caution, small base
Base: All Drinkers (842) who
have thought about reducing
or who drink less and have had
a conversation (81)
%
Profiling the NE Drinker
Segment
Profiling the NE Drinker Segment 2011
Perception of personal behaviour x
concern
Drink too much
/ not concerned
Drink too much
/ are concerned
27 7
%
%
Significant year-on-year changes:
Don't drink too
much / are
concerned
Don't drink too
much / not
concerned
1 65
%
%
-1
%
+3
%
Profiling the NE Drinker Segment 2011
Perception of personal behaviour x
thought of reducing
Drink too much
/ have not
thought about
reducing
Drink too much
/ have thought
about reducing
Don't drink too
much / have not
thought about
reducing
Don't drink too
much / have
thought about
reducing
21 13 61 5
%
%
Significant year-on-year changes:
%
%
+10
%
-7
%
Profiling the NE Drinker Segment 2011
Perception of personal behaviour x
change in past 12 months
Drink too much
/ drink more
5
%
Don't drink too
much / drink
more
3
%
Drink too much
/ drink the same
Drink too much
/ drink less
19 10
%
%
Don't drink too
much / drink the
same
Don't drink too
much / drink
less
48 15
Y-O-Y
+7
%
%
Y-O-Y
-5
%
%
Profiling the NE Drinker Segment 2011
Perception of personal behaviour x
thought of reducing
Concerned /
have NOT
thought of
reducing
Concerned /
have
thought of
reducing
%
%
1
Not concerned /
have thought of
reducing
Not concerned /
have not
thought about
reducing
7 12 80
Significant year-on-year changes:
%
-8
%
%
+9
%
Profiling the NE Drinker Segment
Concern x change in past 12 months
Concerned /
drink more
Concerned /
drink the same
Concerned /
drink less
2
3
3
Not concerned /
drink more
Not concerned /
drink the same
Not concerned /
drink less
%
6
%
%
%
65 21
Y-O-Y
+5
%
%
%
Y-O-Y
-6
%
Profiling the NE Drinker Segment
Intention x change in past 12 months
Have thought
about reducing /
drink more
Have thought
about reducing /
drink the same
Have thought
about reducing /
drink less
3
7
9
%
Have NOT
thought about
reducing / drink
more
5
%
%
Y-O-Y
-7
%
%
Have NOT
thought about
reducing / drink
the same
Have NOT
thought about
reducing / drink
less
61 16
Y-O-Y
+7
%
%
%
Understanding Units & Limits
Awareness of alcohol units
% yes 2011
Aware of measuring alcohol in
units
Awareness HIGHER than
average amongst:
SEG: AB, C1
Hartlepool
Drinkers (increasing / higher risk)
91
%
Significant Change?
No
Awareness LOWER than
average amongst:
65+
SEG E
Newcastle
South Tyneside
Non-drinkers
All NE Respondents
Keeping a check of units
% yes 2011
Do you keep a check of how
many units of alcohol you drink?
Monitoring units HIGHER than
average amongst:
Women
SEG AB
Darlington
North Tyneside
Low risk drinkers
15
%
Significant Change?
-9
%
Monitoring units LOWER than
average amongst:
Men
18-24
SEG D
Middlesbrough
Gateshead
Increasing / higher risk drinkers
All NE Drinkers
Keeping a check of units
% yes 2011
Do you keep a check of how
many units of alcohol you drink?
Decrease driven by
shifts amongst:
15
%
Significant Change?
-9
%
55+
Men & women
SEG: C1, C2, D, E
Tyne & Wear; Tees Valley
Drinkers: low & increasing
/ higher risk
All NE Drinkers
Awareness of recommended maximum
number of units
% aware 2011
Aware that there is a recommended
maximum number of units
Awareness HIGHER than
average amongst:
35-44
SEG: AB, C1
Hartlepool
Northumberland
Drinkers (increasing / higher risk)
76
%
Significant Change?
-7
%
Awareness LOWER than
average amongst:
65+
SEG: D, E
Redcar & Cleveland
Newcastle
Non-drinkers
All NE Respondents
Awareness that there is a recommended
maximum number of units
% aware 2011
Aware that there is a recommended
maximum number of units
Decrease driven by
shifts amongst:
76
%
Significant Change?
-7
%
18-24, 55+
Men & women
SEG: C2, D, E
Tyne & Wear
Drinkers (low risk)
Non drinkers
All NE Respondents
Understanding of recommended
maximum number of units
OVERALL POPULATION
% understand 2011
Significant Change?
Proportion of MEN who understand
recommended daily limits
43
No
Proportion of WOMEN who understand
recommended daily limits
39
-6
Proportion of MEN DRINKERS who
understand recommended daily limits
46
No
Proportion of WOMEN DRINKERS who
understand recommended daily limits
42
-7%
%
%
%
DRINKERS
%
%
Minimum Pricing
Attitudes to current prices for alcohol
No significant year on year changes
Supermarkets
12%
23%
65+ years
SEG: AB
Non-drinkers
1%
52%
9% 4%
18-24 year olds
SEG: E
Drink 4+ days a week
S Tyneside
Northumberland
Base: All respondents (2,388)
Awareness of minimum pricing
% aware 2011
Aware of Minimum Pricing
Awareness HIGHER than
average amongst:
Men
35 – 54
SEG: AB, C1
Darlington
Northumberland
Drinkers
45
%
Significant Change?
No
Awareness LOWER than
average amongst:
Women
18 – 34
SEG: D, E
Newcastle
South Tyneside
Non-drinkers
All NE Respondents
Support for minimum pricing
% 2011
Significant Change?
Support Minimum Pricing
56
+7
Against Minimum Pricing
28
No
Support HIGHER than average
amongst :
%
%
%
Objection HIGHER than
average amongst :
Women
18-24 years
SEG: AB
SEG: C2s
South Tyneside
Stockton on Tees
Sunderland
Gateshead
Northumberland
Drinkers (increasing & higher risk)
Non-drinkers & low risk drinkers
All NE Respondents
Support for minimum pricing
% 2011
Significant Change?
Support Minimum Pricing
56
+7
Against Minimum Pricing
28
No
Increase in support
driven by shifts
amongst:
25-44
Women
SEG: E
Northumberland
Tyne & Wear
Drinkers
%
%
%
All NE Respondents
Minimum Pricing
% 2011
Significant Change?
Prepared to pay more for
positive societal benefits
53
+6
NOT prepared to pay more for
positive societal benefits
29
+4
Preparedness to pay more HIGHER
than average amongst :
%
%
%
%
Not prepared to pay more HIGHER
than average amongst :
Women
Men
55 – 64
18-24
SEG: AB
SEG E
South Tyneside , Sunderland,
Northumberland
Stockton on Tees, Darlington
Low risk drinkers
Supporters of minimum pricing
Increasing & higher risk drinkers
Objectors to minimum pricing
All NE Respondents
Minimum Pricing
% 2011
Significant Change?
Prepared to pay more for
positive societal benefits
53
+6
NOT prepared to pay more for
positive societal benefits
29
+4
Increase in support driven
by shifts amongst:
Increase in objection
driven by shifts amongst:
%
%
%
%
Women
SEG: C2,E
Tyne & Wear
Drinkers
Men
SEG: A,B
County Durham
Tees Valley
All NE Respondents
Effects of minimum pricing:
impact on support
% 2011
Significant
Change?
Reduce alcohol related crime and violence
84
Reduce drunk / rowdy behaviour
83
+6
Reduce amount under 18s drink
80
+6
Reduce cost of alcohol related burden to
NHS
78
+7
Only penalised heavy drinkers who
bought cheap alcohol
69
+4
%
%
%
%
%
+7
%
%
%
%
%
All NE Respondents
Effects of minimum pricing
Effects have greater influence
amongst:
Women
Non drinkers
Low risk drinkers
Middlesbrough
Redcar & Cleveland
Supporters of minimum pricing
Increases typically
driven by:
Effects have lower influence
amongst
Men
Stockton on Tees
North Tyneside
Drinkers (increasing / higher risk)
Those neutral and objectors to
minimum pricing
Younger age groups (18-34)
Women
C2DEs (most notably C2 & E)
Drinkers
Non-drinkers
Effects of minimum pricing on
behaviour
If minimum pricing was introduced, do
you think that you would drink more,
less or the same as you drink now?
86
14
% would drink the same
% would drink less
18-24 year olds
Es
Increasing/higher risk drinkers
Darlington ; Hartlepool
Gateshead; Newcastle
All NE Respondents
Children & Alcohol
Alcohol Advertising & Children
% agree 2011
Alcohol advertising currently targets the
under 18s
HIGHER than average
agreement amongst:
Older age groups – 55+
Women
Non drinkers
South Tyneside
55
%
Significant
Change?
+10
%
LOWER than average
agreement amongst:
Younger age groups (18-34)
Men
SEG: C1
Increasing / higher risk drinkers
Darlington; N Tyneside
All NE Respondents
Alcohol Advertising & Children
% agree 2011
Alcohol advertising currently targets the
under 18s
Positive shifts in
opinion evident
amongst...
55
%
Significant
Change?
+10
%
25-44, 55-64
Men & women
SEG groups (except C1s)
Tees Valley
Low risk drinkers & nondrinkers
All NE Respondents
Alcohol Advertising & Children
Significant
Change?
% agree 2011
There should be a ban on alcohol
advertising before 9pm
HIGHER than average
agreement amongst:
Women
Older age groups (55+)
SEG: E
County Durham
Non-drinkers
68
+3
%
%
LOWER than average
agreement amongst:
Men
Younger age groups (18-34)
Hartlepool
Stockton-on-Tees
North Tyneside
Drinkers
(Increasing / higher risk)
All NE Respondents
Alcohol Advertising & Children
% agree 2011
There should be a ban on alcohol
advertising before 9pm
Positive shifts in
opinion evident
amongst...
68
%
Significant
Change?
+3
%
Age groups: 18-34; 55-64
Women
SEG: C2, E
Northumberland
Tees Valley
Non-drinkers
All NE Respondents
Giving alcohol to children
Significant
Change?
% 2011
Proportion stating that children aged 1315 should NEVER drink alcohol
More likely to agree:
72
-5
%
%
Less likely to agree:
65+
18-24
SEG: E
SEG: AB,C1
Darlington; Hartlepool;
County Durham; Stockton
Gateshead; South Tyneside
Increasing / higher risk drinkers
Non-drinkers
Lower risk drinkers
All NE Respondents
Giving alcohol to children
Significant
Change?
% 2011
Proportion stating that children aged
13-15 should NEVER drink alcohol
Negative shifts in
opinion evident
amongst...
72
-5
%
%
18-24; 35-44
Men & women
SEG: C1, D
Tyne & Wear; Tees Valley
Increasing / higher risk
drinkers
All NE Respondents
Giving alcohol to children
Significant
Change?
% 2011
Proportion stating that children aged 1617 should NEVER drink alcohol
More likely to agree:
Women
65+
SEG: E
Darlington; South Tyneside
Non-drinkers
34
-7
%
%
Less likely to agree:
Men
18-24; 35-44
SEG: C1
Stockton
Increasing / higher risk drinkers
All NE Respondents
Giving alcohol to children
% 2011
Proportion stating that children aged 1617 should NEVER drink alcohol
Negative shifts in
opinion evident
amongst...
Significant
Change?
34
-7
%
%
35-44; 55+
Men
SEG: AB,C1,C2
Tyne & Wear; Tees Valley
Lower & Increasing /
higher risk drinkers
All NE Respondents
Normalisation
Drinking attitudes
% acceptable
2011
Woman drinking bottle of wine when out
with friends
64
2 couples sharing 3 bottles of wine when
out for dinner
57
Man drinking 8 pints of lager/beer when
out with friends
43
Woman regularly drinking 2 glasses of
wine 5 nights a week
39
Drinking to get drunk
12
Man driving after drinking two pints
lager/beer
%
%
%
%
%
5
%
Significant
Change?
-4
%
No
+5
%
+7
%
No
-3
%
All NE Respondents
Drinking attitudes
% acceptable
2011
Woman drinking bottle of wine when out
with friends
Shifts to lower
levels of agreement
seen amongst:
Man driving after drinking two pints
lager/beer
Shifts to lower
levels of agreement
seen amongst:
64
%
Significant
Change?
-4
%
Women
SEG: C1, E
County Durham
Tees Valley
Drinkers
(Low & Increasing / higher risk)
5
%
-3
%
18-24, 55-64
Women
SEG: C2, E
Tees Valley
Drinkers
(Low & Increasing / higher risk)
Drinking attitudes
% acceptable
2011
Man drinking 8 pints of lager/beer when
out with friends
Shifts to higher
levels of agreement
seen amongst:
Woman regularly drinking 2 glasses of
wine 5 nights a week
Shifts to higher
levels of agreement
seen amongst:
43
%
Significant
Change?
+5
%
55-64
Men
SEG: AB, C2
Tyne and Wear
39
%
+7
%
55+
Men
SEG: AB, C2, D
Tyne and Wear
Increasing / higher risk & Non
Drinkers
Perceptions of health impacts of alcohol
Greatly
increases the
risk of
% 2011
Significant
Change?
Gaining weight
73
Coronary heart disease
63
Depression
61
+8
Stroke
52
+7
Cancer
36
%
%
%
%
%
+10
%
No
%
%
No
All NE Respondents
Who’s influencing the shifts?
Perception that alcohol greatly
increases the risk of depression
up 8%
18-44, 55-64
Women
SEG: C1, C2
Drinkers
Tyne & Wear, Tees Valley
Perception that alcohol greatly
increases the risk of stroke up
7%
18-24, 35-44, 55-64
Women
SEG: C1, C2
Low risk drinkers
Tyne & Wear, Tees Valley
Perception that alcohol greatly
increases the risk of gaining
weight up 10%
25-44
Men & women
SEG: AB, C1, C2
Drinkers
Tyne & Wear, Tees Valley,
Northumberland
Social Impacts of Alcohol
% associating
2011
Significant
Change?
Anti-social behaviour
97
%
No
Assaults and violence
97
%
+3
Domestic abuse
95
Teenage pregnancy
82
%
%
%
+4
%
-6
%
Who’s influencing the shifts?
Proportion associating alcohol
with assaults and violence up
3%
18-34
Women
SEG: C2, E
Tees Valley
Drinkers
(low & increasing / higher risk)
Proportion associating alcohol
with domestic abuse up 4%
18-24, 35-44
Men & women
SEG: C2, D, E
County Durham, Tees Valley
Drinkers
(low & increasing / higher risk)
Proportion associating alcohol
with teenage pregnancy down
6%
18-24, 45-54
Men & women
SEG AB, C2
Tyne & Wear, Tees Valley
Low risk and non-drinkers
Summary
Summary
Drinking Behaviour
•
There has been no change to the regional profile of drinkers between 2010 and
2011
•
The key consumption measures around how often alcohol is consumed and the
amount consumed have also remained constant
•
...and we continue to see that drinking behaviour is influenced by demographic
variables, such as age and gender
•
How North East residents feel about their drinking has also remained constant
•
There has, however, been a decline in the proportion who have made or
thought about making changes to their drinking behaviour in the last 12 months
•
The size of the ‘cause for concern’ segments remain in line with 2010
Summary
Alcohol Units
•
Reflecting 2010, the vast majority of North East residents have heard of
measuring alcohol in units
•
Despite this, there has been a decline in the proportion of NE drinkers keeping
a check on their units. This is evident amongst both men and women
•
Women are, however, more likely than men to monitor their alcohol intake
using units
•
...although there has been a slight fall amongst female drinkers (and women
generally) with regard to understanding how many units should be consumed in
one day
Summary
Minimum Pricing
•
Awareness of minimum pricing has remained constant this year
•
There has, however, been an increase in support for the policy, with over half of
the North East population now in favour
•
There has been a polarisation of attitudes this year with regard to willingness to
pay more for personal consumption alcohol; the majority, however, would be
prepared to pay more
•
The vast majority of drinkers do not feel that the introduction of minimum
pricing will change their drinking behaviour
•
...although the findings indicate that the likelihood of drinking less may be
higher amongst target groups
Summary
Children & Alcohol
•
Attitudes with regard to alcohol advertising have shifted positively, most notably on
the issue of alcohol adverting targeting the under 18s
•
These shifts have resulted in:
– A ban on alcohol advertising before 9pm being supported by over 2 in 3
– Over 1 in 2 perceiving that alcohol advertising targets the under 18s
•
There has, however, been a ‘liberalisation’ in terms of how often people perceive it is
acceptable for young people to drink alcohol, with a lower proportion of NE residents
feeling that 13-15 and 16-17 year olds should never drink alcohol
•
There continues to be a marked difference between the acceptability of providing
alcohol to 13-15 year olds, compared to those aged 16-17 (with twice as many
feeling it’s acceptable for the latter group to drink alcohol)
Summary
Normalisation
• Attitudes towards some of the example drinking behaviours have
changed, both positively and negatively:
– A lower proportion perceive that it’s acceptable for:
• A woman to drink a bottle of wine when out with friends
• a man to drive after drinking two pints lager/beer
– A higher proportion perceive that it’s acceptable for:
• A man to drink 8 pints when out with friends
• A woman drinking 2 glasses of wine 5 nights a week
Summary
Social and Health Impacts
•
In 2011, gaining weight is the health harm most strongly associated with alcohol, the
result of a 10% increase
•
The strength of association with depression and stroke with alcohol has also
increased
•
Cancer continues to be the health harm associated least with alcohol... and at
significantly lower levels than the other health harms tested
•
The vast majority of the NE public associate negative social impacts with alcohol,
with an increasing proportion linking alcohol with assaults and violence and domestic
abuse
•
Interestingly, there has been a fall in the proportion of the NE public associating
teenage pregnancy with alcohol, although the large majority do make the link
The “Line of Sight” to Behaviour
Change
Intermediate measures
eg attitudes, intentions, response
Outtake measures
eg understanding and knowledge
Output measures
eg awareness of safe levels
Behavioural change measures
Reduced consumption
Outcome/impact measures
Reduced ARHA
Input measures
eg comms campaigns undertaken
Source: COI “Evaluation for Alcohol Social Marketing . Guidance for PCTs”
The “Line of Sight” to Behaviour Change :
NE Drinkers
OUTPUT
MEASURES
OUTTAKE
MEASURES
INTERMEDIATE
MEASURES
BEHAVIOURAL
CHANGE
Base: All NE drinkers
The “Line of Sight” to Behaviour Change :
All NE Drinkers: 2011
OUTPUT
MEASURES
OUTTAKE
MEASURES
INTERMEDIATE
MEASURES
BEHAVIOURAL
CHANGE
Base: All NE drinkers (1799); Low risk (857), Increasing/high risk (942)