Mystery Shopper Exercise for Safer Gambling Venues in New Zealand

 
Mystery Shopper
 
Safer Gambling Venues
 
 
Class 4 Sector
December 2014
 
What we are trying to achieve
 
Through our regulatory activity, we minimise harmful and
criminal behaviours and contribute to a safe and prosperous
nation.
 
We can achieve this by promoting compliance that 
minimises
harm 
and 
maximises benefit.
 
We want to proactively minimise and prevent 
gambling harm.
 
 
Why a Mystery Shopper Exercise?
 
What we 
knew
 
The Gambling Act 2003 requires
casino and class 4 operators to
develop and implement policies
for identifying problem gamblers.
 
Staff can play an important role in
minimising gambling harm – host
responsibility.
 
There can be a number of
barriers to approaching gamblers.
 
What we 
didn’t 
know
 
How proactive / effective are staff
at putting their training into
action?
Is there a problem – what is the
extent of the problem?
 
 
Department of Internal Affairs
We had no baseline
information, and were
unable to measure the
impact of future initiatives.
The mystery shopper results
allow for retesting.
 
Our Approach / challenges
 
This was a 
research
 exercise (as opposed to a compliance
exercise).
 
We carried out the exercise across the 
class 4 
and 
casino
sectors.
We didn’t mystery shop 
clubs
 – but we are interested in their harm
minimisation practices.
 
We used an 
external provider 
to ensure independence.
 
Ethical considerations were taken into account e.g. creating
problem gamblers, winning jackpots etc.
 
Department of Internal Affairs
 
Class 4 Venues (bars)
 
102 venues = 10% of NZ venues.
 
Mix of urban, rural, 18 machine vs. 9 machine etc.
 
Shoppers gambled for two hours (generally during the day) and displayed
general problem gambling indicators:
sighing, head resting on hands, talking to machine, expressing frustration
 
Observed 
sweeping
 of rooms and other patron behaviours.
 
Role-play = cash withdrawal from a staff member:
“I need to go but I need to win some money back “ (used in 77% of
scenarios)
“I can’t really afford it but I think I’m getting close to a win” (16%)
“I’m meant to get home to the kids but a few more minutes won’t hurt”
(used 7%)
 
The class 4 Exercise
 
Regional
Spread of
venues
 
Other points of note
 
We acknowledge that our shoppers were not repeat / known patrons – it
may be easier to approach patrons after observing multiple playing
sessions.
 
We tested specific areas of harm minimisation practice – other areas (such
as the exclusion process) were not tested.
 
There may be entries on venue incident logs that show behaviours were at
least noted – these were not checked.
 
The results rely on the interpretations of our shoppers. However, the
shoppers:
Went through a careful selection process – ensuring experienced shoppers
Were given comprehensive training
Were given regular debrief sessions as the exercise progressed
 
The high number of venues tested strengthens the robustness of the
results.
 
 
Class 4 Key findings
 
99% of scripted scenarios delivered by
mystery shoppers did not result in an
intervention from staff:
However, comments recorded indicate many
scripted scenarios caught the attention of
staff (e.g. the staff member seemed
embarrassed or said something else in
response)
 
100 other patrons
1
 were observed
displaying possible problem gambling
indicators  at 46 of the venues visited
(45% of all venues):
95% of these patrons did not receive an
intervention from staff
Possible interventions:
 
# Asking if the person is
OK
 
# Questioning whether
they should withdraw
the money
 
# Suggesting they take a
break
 
# Providing problem
gambling information to
the person
 
# Suggesting they leave
the venue
 
# Asking them about
their gambling
 
1 - Shoppers were unable to record the
overall number of patrons
 
Class 4 Key Findings 
continued
 
Recognised best practice for monitoring gambling areas is to
conduct ‘
sweeps
’ of the area every 15 minutes = six-eight
sweeps for our scenarios:
This is claimed as a cost in venue cost schedules
 
14 venues achieved the desired result of six-eight sweeps. Ten
had no sweeps.
 
 
 
 
 
Comments indicate that many
sweeps involved staff focussing on
other activities (e.g. re-filling a
hopper)
 
What does this indicate?
 
There is not an increase in problem gambling, but harm
minimisation practices need to be improved.
 
The need to 
improve
 harm minimisation practices is a nationwide
issue - not a problem faced by only one or two societies:
May reflect the difficulty many societies have in operating with a
distributed network
 
Class 4 staff may not be 
adequately trained 
to carry out their harm
minimisation obligations.
 
Class 4 staff may be aware of what they should do, but choose not
to put it into practice due to a number of 
barriers
 or 
conflicting
priorities:
We’re not advocating spending additional money – reviewing existing
practices may be more effective
 
Next Steps
 
Media release 
about the exercise and results issued after
consultation with the sector.
 
The Department considers 
education
 and 
support
 as the best
way to improve the situation at this time.
 
The Department may choose to undertake another mystery
shopper exercise as it is an effective tool for determining
actual practice.
 
The Department may take enforcement action for future
results.
 
Working with the sector – class 4
 
The sector must own this issue. We encourage the sector to collaborate on
harm minimisation initiatives.
 
Continue our review of existing harm minimisation training practices:
Look for opportunities to make improvements/efficiencies
address the issues identified in the mystery shopper exercise.
 
Develop a venue-based best practice harm minimisation policy.
 
Continue to support the Health Promotion Agency in their development of
resource material with venue based messages.
 
 
The Department’s expectation is that the
sector will work on strategies for lifting
overall staff performance - and the
Department will work with the sector to
achieve this outcome.
Slide Note
Embed
Share

Our regulatory activity aims to minimize harmful gambling behaviors and ensure a safe environment. Mystery shopper exercises were conducted to assess staff training effectiveness in identifying problem gamblers and promoting harm minimization practices in class 4 venues, including bars. The exercise covered a diverse range of venues across New Zealand, observing general problem gambling indicators and staff responses. Ethical considerations were prioritized to ensure independence and accuracy of results.


Uploaded on Aug 31, 2024 | 0 Views


Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Mystery Shopper Safer Gambling Venues Class 4 Sector December 2014

  2. What we are trying to achieve Through our regulatory activity, we minimise harmful and criminal behaviours and contribute to a safe and prosperous nation. We can achieve this by promoting compliance that minimises harm and maximises benefit. We want to proactively minimise and prevent gambling harm.

  3. Why a Mystery Shopper Exercise? What we knew What we didn t know The Gambling Act 2003 requires casino and class 4 operators to develop and implement policies for identifying problem gamblers. How proactive / effective are staff at putting their training into action? Is there a problem what is the extent of the problem? Staff can play an important role in minimising gambling harm host responsibility. We had no baseline information, and were unable to measure the impact of future initiatives. The mystery shopper results allow for retesting. There can be a number of barriers to approaching gamblers. Department of Internal Affairs

  4. Our Approach / challenges This was a research exercise (as opposed to a compliance exercise). We carried out the exercise across the class 4 and casino sectors. We didn t mystery shop clubs but we are interested in their harm minimisation practices. We used an external provider to ensure independence. Ethical considerations were taken into account e.g. creating problem gamblers, winning jackpots etc. Department of Internal Affairs

  5. The class 4 Exercise Class 4 Venues (bars) 102 venues = 10% of NZ venues. Mix of urban, rural, 18 machine vs. 9 machine etc. Shoppers gambled for two hours (generally during the day) and displayed general problem gambling indicators: sighing, head resting on hands, talking to machine, expressing frustration Observed sweeping of rooms and other patron behaviours. Role-play = cash withdrawal from a staff member: I need to go but I need to win some money back (used in 77% of scenarios) I can t really afford it but I think I m getting close to a win (16%) I m meant to get home to the kids but a few more minutes won t hurt (used 7%)

  6. Regional Spread of venues

  7. Other points of note We acknowledge that our shoppers were not repeat / known patrons it may be easier to approach patrons after observing multiple playing sessions. We tested specific areas of harm minimisation practice other areas (such as the exclusion process) were not tested. There may be entries on venue incident logs that show behaviours were at least noted these were not checked. The results rely on the interpretations of our shoppers. However, the shoppers: Went through a careful selection process ensuring experienced shoppers Were given comprehensive training Were given regular debrief sessions as the exercise progressed The high number of venues tested strengthens the robustness of the results.

  8. Class 4 Key findings Possible interventions: # Asking if the person is OK 99% of scripted scenarios delivered by mystery shoppers did not result in an intervention from staff: However, comments recorded indicate many scripted scenarios caught the attention of staff (e.g. the staff member seemed embarrassed or said something else in response) # Questioning whether they should withdraw the money # Suggesting they take a break # Providing problem gambling information to the person 100 other patrons1 were observed displaying possible problem gambling indicators at 46 of the venues visited (45% of all venues): 95% of these patrons did not receive an intervention from staff # Suggesting they leave the venue # Asking them about their gambling 1 - Shoppers were unable to record the overall number of patrons

  9. Class 4 Key Findings continued Recognised best practice for monitoring gambling areas is to conduct sweeps of the area every 15 minutes = six-eight sweeps for our scenarios: This is claimed as a cost in venue cost schedules 14 venues achieved the desired result of six-eight sweeps. Ten had no sweeps. Floor Sweeps Instances 1 Sweep 2 Sweeps 3 Sweeps 4 Sweeps 5 Sweeps 6 Sweeps 7 Sweeps 8+ Sweeps No Sweeps Grand Total % Sweep Count Comments indicate that many sweeps involved staff focussing on other activities (e.g. re-filling a hopper) 21 22 20 10 5 2 2 10 10 102 20.6% 21.6% 19.6% 9.8% 4.9% 2.0% 2.0% 9.8% 9.8% 100.0%

  10. What does this indicate? There is not an increase in problem gambling, but harm minimisation practices need to be improved. The need to improve harm minimisation practices is a nationwide issue - not a problem faced by only one or two societies: May reflect the difficulty many societies have in operating with a distributed network Class 4 staff may not be adequately trained to carry out their harm minimisation obligations. Class 4 staff may be aware of what they should do, but choose not to put it into practice due to a number of barriers or conflicting priorities: We re not advocating spending additional money reviewing existing practices may be more effective

  11. Next Steps Media release about the exercise and results issued after consultation with the sector. The Department considers education and support as the best way to improve the situation at this time. The Department may choose to undertake another mystery shopper exercise as it is an effective tool for determining actual practice. The Department may take enforcement action for future results.

  12. Working with the sector class 4 The sector must own this issue. We encourage the sector to collaborate on harm minimisation initiatives. Continue our review of existing harm minimisation training practices: Look for opportunities to make improvements/efficiencies address the issues identified in the mystery shopper exercise. Develop a venue-based best practice harm minimisation policy. Continue to support the Health Promotion Agency in their development of resource material with venue based messages. The Department s expectation is that the sector will work on strategies for lifting overall staff performance - and the Department will work with the sector to achieve this outcome.

Related


More Related Content

giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#