Preventing and minimising the harm associated with problem gambling is a key element of the regulatory framework for gambling. Much of the intervention in this area is focused on identifying individuals who are problem gamblers or at risk of becoming a problem gambler.
Accordingly casino and class 4 operators are required to develop and implement policies for identifying problem gamblers at their venues, as part of their host responsibility/harm minimisation practices (HPM). In the case of casinos, the Gambling Commission requires the development and implementation of a host responsibility policy as a condition of their casino operator’s licence.
Much of the content in host responsibility policies relies on the actions of individual staff members and their adherence to guidelines and training.
In the event that the actual actions of venue staff are less than the stated situation and/or the HPM requirements, there is higher risk of problem gambling occurring. Although current venue inspections address elements of HPM, there is no accurate method for measuring actual staff behaviour.
The Department initiated a research exercise to test host responsibility practice in casinos and class 4 venues in order to gain an accurate indication of actual practice in HPM, and to identify any areas of risk where further improvements need to be made. A range of options for such an exercise were considered, with a mystery shopping exercise being the preferred method.
The research exercise has provided a baseline of information around HPM and host responsibility practice, and has indicated areas the sector should focus on in order to improve practice. It will also help inform the Department’s wider strategy for minimising the harm caused by problem gambling. It may inform new initiatives in addition to existing policies and procedures.
This is seen as a research activity as opposed to an enforcement exercise. It is not the Department’s intention to issue penalties to any venue, class 4 society, or casino as a result of the information collected. However, the exercise will be used as a model for potential further mystery shopper exercises, at which time the Department may consider alternative measures based upon the results.
Methodology
Class 4 venues (pubs and hotels)
102 venues were visited. This equates to 10 percent of New Zealand venues. They were a mix of urban and rural, and a mix of size.
Shoppers gambled for two hours (generally during the day) and displayed general problem gambling indicators such as sighing, head resting on hands, talking to machine, expressing frustration.
They observed the sweeping of pokie rooms by staff, and other patron behaviours.
They role played and re-created one of the following scenarios while withdrawing $20 cash from a staff member by saying:
- “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” (used 16%)
- “I’m meant to get home to the kids but another few minutes won’t hurt” (used 7%)
Interventions that we expected to see staff use:
- Questioning whether it was a good idea to withdrawal the money.
- Asking if the person is OK.
- Suggesting they take a break.
- Providing problem gambling information to the person.
- Suggesting they leave the venue.
- Asking them about their gambling.
Casinos
A total of 16 scenarios were carried out across all casinos:
- Skycity Auckland = five visits
- Christchurch casino = three visits
- Skycity Hamilton, Dunedin casino, Skycity Queenstown, Skycity Wharf (Queenstown)= two visits
Five different scenarios were carried out:
- Length of play: 10 hours of play – no problem gambling indicators displayed.
- Length of play: 10-12 hours of play plus problem gambling indicators displayed while playing gaming machines.
- Frequent cash withdrawals from the cashiers – with problem gambling indicators displayed while playing gaming machines.
- Frequent cash withdrawals from an ATM– with problem gambling indicators displayed while playing gaming machines.
- Setting gambling spend limits / pre-commitment – with problem gambling indicators displayed while playing gaming machines.
The exercise focussed on behavioural indicators of potential problem gambling - rather than casino use of gambling data generated by carded players. (Carded players are those with casino loyalty-type cards).
What were the casino scenarios based on?
All New Zealand casinos have a Host Responsibility Programme and Problem Gambler Identification Policy (the Policy) approved by the Gambling Commission.
The Policy sets out a selection of “Strong Indicators” and “General Indicators” of potential problem gambling. Casino staff are trained to recognise these signs and there are requirements to record all observations made.
The Department set out to test the casinos response to the “General Indicators”. The General Indicators tested (which are set out under various headings in the Policy) include:
Intensity and Frequency of Play
- Very few breaks from gambling – almost continuous play
Visible Emotional Disturbance
- Visible emotional disturbance such as agitation, holding head in hands, personalising machines, rudeness and complaints to staff about gambling outcomes
Excessive Access to Money
- Repeat ATM visits and/or multiple declined transactions
Dysfunction in Social Behaviour
- Claims of malfunction of gaming machines or gaming errors
One of the scenarios was an opportunity to stretch casino systems and host responsibility. In this scenario, prior to displaying behavioural indicators, the mystery shopper seeks to set limits of spend and length of play. This indirect disclosure of limits of time and money, which were then breached, provided an opportunity to casino staff.
Key Results
Class 4
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).
The Department is in discussion with gambling operators to see whether these scenarios were at least recorded in any incident logs held by the venues.
Recognised best practice for monitoring gambling areas is to conduct ‘sweeps’ of the area every 15 minutes – that equals between six to eight sweeps for our scenarios.
Fourteen venues achieved the desired result of six or more sweeps. Ten had no sweeps at all.
A “sweep” of a gambling area refers to a staff member entering the area and checking on gambling patrons to develop an awareness of patrons and their behaviour, and to ensure they are not displaying signs of gambling harm.
Casinos
14 out of 16 scenarios did not receive any known direct intervention from casino staff to indicate they had noticed the behaviour.
One direct intervention was where a shopper asked about pre-set expenditure limits on arrival and it resulted in information being given about problem gambling.
In one other scenario a staff member asked if a shopper was OK, but did not take any follow up action or record the interaction.
Interventions that we expected to see staff use (and record):
- Asking if the person is OK.
- Suggesting they take a break.
- Providing problem gambling information to the person.
- Suggesting they leave the venue.
- Asking them about their gambling.
Staff were observed visibly monitoring the gambling floor for the majority of casinos and in some scenarios staff engaged in friendly conversations with the undercover gambler. But no specific intervention was made for fourteen of the scenarios
It is possible these interactions involved casino staff making an assessment of the shopper, but checks of the daily logs held by casinos (a record of all security and harm minimisation incidents and observations) do not indicate this.