RESEARCH QUESTION
What changes in the level of casino employees’ knowledge of gambling and problem gambling exist following training on responsible gambling?
PURPOSE
Many casinos offer training sessions aimed at sensitizing their employees to recognize signs of problem gambling in patrons. Although it is important to assess the impact of such training sessions, few programs have been empirically validated. The present study evaluated the impact of a training session (i.e., People Making a Difference) on responsible gambling for casino employees.
HYPOTHESIS
None stated.
PARTICIPANTS
Two thousand four hundred and thirty-two (2,432) employees of the three casinos in the province of Quebec, Canada completed training sessions. Of these, 789 (55% males) completed a follow-up assessment.
PROCEDURE
Training was carried out with groups of 15 to 20 employees. Participants completed a questionnaire related to their knowledge about gambling and gambling problems before and after training. A demographic questionnaire and session evaluation were also completed. Participants who volunteered to be contacted again were called 6 months later and completed the questionnaire regarding their knowledge about gambling and gambling problems.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
The People Making a Difference questionnaire was developed for this study to assess employees’ knowledge concerning the notions of chance and probability, problem gambling and helping distressed gamblers. Additional questions were added for the follow-up about the frequency of using the Help Chain (i.e., procedure for obtaining assistance for a problem gambler). A questionnaire administered after the training evaluated satisfaction with the workshop.
KEY RESULTS
Most participants (90%) were either very or entirely satisfied with the training. More than three quarters of the employees (77%) indicated that the training was very or entirely relevant and useful. At the end of the training, participants: had a better understanding of the notions of chance and randomness; increased their conviction that it is impossible to predict when a person has a greater chance of winning; decreased their belief that a gambler can win more money if they use a system or a strategy; and had a better understanding of problem gambling and how to identify and refer a distressed gambler. A greater number of employees knew when a gambler in crisis is more receptive to receiving help. They were also more convinced: they could distinguish a problem gambler from a gambler in crisis; about the importance of receiving information about help and professional resources; about the value of helping a gambler in crisis; and of the importance of their role in identifying gamblers in crisis. Participants had a better knowledge of the role of the security agent as the first person to contact when they notice a gambler in crisis. They acknowledged that the program can help distressed gamblers and that the self-exclusion program is helpful. At the follow-up, participants: maintained a good understanding of the notion of chance and randomness; remembered that a gambler cannot win more money if they have a system or a strategy; more convinced than ever that it is impossible to predict when a person has a greater chance of winning; and remained convinced about the importance of receiving information about available help and resources. However, the participants: seemed less certain of the moment when a gambler in crisis would be more open to receiving help; were less convinced about their ability to tell the difference between a problem gambler and a gambler in crisis; were less convinced about the value of helping a gambler in crisis; failed to remember certain procedures that have been implemented to help gamblers; were less convinced about their role in identifying gamblers in crisis; and were more uncertain that the security agent should be the first person to contact when they notice a gambler in crisis. Although participants still believed that the self-exclusion program was useful, they were less convinced that the programs designed to help distressed gamblers are adequate. Among those (57%) who indicated that they had contact with gamblers in crisis in the previous 6 months, 23% used the Help Chain every time and 39% never used it. In the cases where the Help Chain was not used, 23% said that they preferred to speak to the gambler themselves.
LIMITATIONS
No control/comparison group was used and no behavioural tests were conducted in the real environment. It was not possible to evaluate whether the training led to positive changes in the employees’ own gambling activities.
CONCLUSIONS
Results revealed that employees were very satisfied with the training and considered its content to be pertinent to their job. They particularly appreciated the information concerning help and resources available, and the fact that they were able to share ideas about their experience as casino employees. Employees increased their understanding about problem gambling, believed more strongly that they could play a role in helping gamblers in crisis, believed that they were better able to detect gamblers in crisis and were more likely to advise someone of their presence.
