Despite long-standing arguments over issues like advertising and marketing of beer, wine and liquor, alcohol-policy experts and hospitality groups have collaborated successfully on issues such as server training and cutting high-risk college drinking.

In Newark, Delaware, home of the University of Delaware, the broad-based Building Responsibility Coalition has enlisted the help of school officials, community groups, bars, restaurants, and property owners to fight problems related to student drinking. Tracy Bachman, the project coordinator, said that the group stressed the "three V's" -- violence, vandalism, and vomit -- to round up supporters.

The hospitality industry in Lincoln, Neb., wants to limit high-risk drinking, says Tom Workman, Ph.D., associate director of the NU Directions program at the University of Lincoln. Speaking at the recent Alcohol Policy 13 conference, held in March in Cambridge, Mass., Workman said, "They agreed that server training should be done, but cost and high turnover made an all-day training program impossible."

The solution: A free online course that tells bartenders and other servers how to keep patrons from becoming drunk and disorderly. NU Directions project director Linda Major says that bar and restaurant owners and managers can customize the online training to conform to their own policies and procedures and can track employee progress in completing the course. Employees can access the website any time and from any computer with Internet access, and can complete the training all at once or one segment at a time.

One drawback is minimal oversight of course participants; Major said there is little the city can do to prevent an employee from paying a third party to take the test for them, for example, although test questions are varied to prevent cheating.

Currently a voluntary adjunct to Lincoln's mandatory training for managers and owners, the online server-training program could eventually become a licensing requirement, as well.

NU Directions includes some "very unnatural partners," including members of student government, the alcohol industry, and even local bankers. "These are people who are not accustomed to being in the same room with each other," Workman said.

"You have to look for partners who view issues globally, not selfishly," adds Marsha Brinkley, director of Georgia Tech's GT Smart, another prevention coalition that has participation from local bar and restaurant owners. "Do your homework to see who you need on your team."

What Makes a Good Server-Training Program?

In New Mexico and Oregon, the alcohol industry has supported the implementation of good server-training laws, according to Jim Mosher, director of the Center for Policy Analysis and Training at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE).

In other states, however, the industry has worked to weaken or derail server-training programs, or to push for programs it favors, such as the Training for Intervention Procedures (TIPS) curriculum. Experts note that most of the existing RBS laws in the U.S. were originally introduced by the alcohol industry, and that few, if any, have passed over the objections of industry lobbyists.

Responsible beverage service (RBS) programs can be effective in cutting problem drinking, said Mosher, citing a Navy project that cut intoxication rates in half and an Oregon program credited with an 11-percent reduction in fatal alcohol-related car crashes after one year.

But he said that there is more to RBS than offering a video or class to servers. "RBS is easy to implement, but without surrounding policies it is ineffective," he said.

Researchers have identified five components of successful RBS initiatives, including program and administrative requirements, enforcement provisions, penalties for lack of compliance, and benefits for participation.

States are all over the map when it comes to RBS program requirements, said Mosher. Delaware and Vermont have fully mandated training programs, for example, while participation in other states is entirely voluntary for bars and restaurants.

Many states offer some sort of incentive for participating in RBS programs. In Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, for example, bars and restaurants that train their staff can invoke this fact as a defense against liability in an alcohol-related incident. In states like Arizona, Florida, and Indiana, having an RBS program in place allows servers to avoid fines on a first or second offense for alcohol-service violations.

Alabama, Michigan, and Illinois give bars and restaurants a break on their insurance rates for having an RBS program; Alabama, Florida, and Texas say that an establishment with an RBS program is protected from having its liquor license revoked.

But most states fall short when it comes to enforcing RBS laws, said Mosher. "By far, enforcement is the weakest part of these programs," he said. Ideally, a state enforcement program should include random checks on training programs and servers, abetted by adequate enforcement staff. There also should be graduated administrative penalties, ranging from fines to license suspensions to revocation. But "many states basically have no penalties," said Mosher.

In Michigan, where server training is not required, enforcement of a law on responsible alcohol service resulted in a 28-percent drop in the number of drunk patrons at bars, Mosher noted, suggesting that "enforcement is the key, not training."

Nonetheless, PIRE has identified the attributes of effective training programs, including training servers about the physical and social effects of alcohol and the legal requirements for servers; behavioral change and communications techniques; developing management policies on how to support training; and providing at least four hours of instruction to servers.

On the administrative side, Mosher said governments should certify and license both training programs and their graduates and keep records on licensees.