Building Youth Resilience against Problem Gambling: A ...€¦ · This focus on collaborative work...

1

Building Youth Resilience against Problem

Gambling: A Health Promotion Framework

CVPCP – Building Youth Resilience against Problem Gambling

2

Acknowledgements

Building youth resilience against problem gambling: a health promotion framework is funded by the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation (VRGF). This report was developed and managed by Central Victorian Primary Care Partnership (CVPCP) on behalf of the CVPCP Problem Gambling Working Group. This report has been produced by: Emma Shannon (Project Officer) and Dr Jan Savage (Executive officer) of CVPCP. We would like to acknowledge the assistance and time provided by the CVPCP Problem Gambling Working Group, and the youth service providers and young people who helped to provide the data included in this report. This document is also available in an accessible format on the internet at www.centralvicpcp.com.au © Copyright State of Victoria 2013. This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. For further information about this publication contact: Ms Emma Shannon Project Officer Central Victorian Primary Care Partnership P.O. Box 687, Castlemaine, 3450 Tel:03 54725333 Email:[email protected]

Citation: Shannon, E & Savage J. (2013). Building youth resilience against problem gambling: A health promotion framework. Central Victorian Primary Care Partnership. Castlemaine. www.centralvicpcp.com.au

http://www.centralvicpcp.com.au/

Tel:03

http://www.centralvicpcp.com.au/


3

Contents Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................................................... 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................... 5

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................. 6

Project Aims .................................................................................................................................................................. 6

Project Objectives ......................................................................................................................................................... 6

METHODS ......................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Youth Survey ................................................................................................................................................................. 7

Recruitment of participants ...................................................................................................................................... 7

Data Collection.......................................................................................................................................................... 8

Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................. 8

Youth Service Providers’ Survey ................................................................................................................................... 8


Data Collection.......................................................................................................................................................... 8

Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................. 8

Youth Service Providers’ Focus Groups ........................................................................................................................ 9


Data Collection.......................................................................................................................................................... 9

Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................. 9

RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 10

A) Youth Survey ....................................................................................................................................................... 10

Survey participants ................................................................................................................................................. 10

Gambling behaviours of young people ................................................................................................................... 10

Characteristics and gambling behaviours of at-risk gamblers vs not-at-risk gamblers .......................................... 12

Internet gambler characteristics............................................................................................................................. 13

Influences for gambling .......................................................................................................................................... 16

Risky behaviours ..................................................................................................................................................... 17

Health and wellbeing .............................................................................................................................................. 18

Seeking help ............................................................................................................................................................ 20

B) Youth Service Providers’ Survey ......................................................................................................................... 21

Impact of problem gambling on youth service providers ...................................................................................... 21

Referral process ...................................................................................................................................................... 22

Screening/Assessment ............................................................................................................................................ 22

Treatment/Prevention/Early Intervention ............................................................................................................. 23


4

C) Youth Service Providers’ Focus Groups .............................................................................................................. 24

Screening ................................................................................................................................................................ 24

Referrals .................................................................................................................................................................. 24

Awareness Raising .................................................................................................................................................. 24

Capacity Building .................................................................................................................................................... 24

Other discussion points .......................................................................................................................................... 24

School conversations .................................................................................................................................................. 25

DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................................................... 26

Limitations of the Study .............................................................................................................................................. 26

A) Youth Feedback .................................................................................................................................................. 27

Gambler Characteristics and Behaviours ................................................................................................................ 27

Resilience ................................................................................................................................................................ 29

B) Youth Service Providers’ Feedback ........................................................................................................................ 30

Health Promotion Framework .................................................................................................................................... 32

CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................................. 34

References ...................................................................................................................................................................... 37


5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The aim of this report is to provide an overview of the status of youth gambling within the Central Victorian Primary

Care Partnership (CVPCP) catchment1; to determine the current needs of youth service providers; and to identify

prevention and early intervention strategies aimed at building the resilience of youth in the CVPCP catchment that

will reduce the risks of youth problem gambling.

“Problem gambling is characterised by difficulties in limiting money and/or time spent on gambling which leads to

adverse consequences for the gambler, others, or for the community” (Neal, Delfabbro, & O’Neil, 2005, pp.125). The

prevalence of problem gambling amongst young people has been found to be higher than that in the adult

population, with both international and local research finding that 5-7% of young people are problem gamblers and

a further 10-14% are at risk or have the potential to become problem gamblers (Purdie et al, 2011; Valentine, 2008;

Jackson, 2006).

The current research has focused on online gambling and has found that young people in the CVPCP catchment are

utilising this form of gambling. The growth of online gambling opportunities is of concern in rural and regional areas

as it has the potential to attract new problem gamblers where previously access was limited. This is reflected in the

current study as young people reported engaging in internet gambling because of its convenience and ready access.

Internet gamblers in this study also tended to exhibit some of the characteristics associated with at risk or problem

gamblers, in that they participated in a larger number of gambling activities, and more often reported taking part in

other risky behaviours compared with non-internet gamblers. Internet gamblers in this study were also more likely

to be classified as being at-risk than non-internet gamblers.

Overall this place based youth survey supports much of the prior research regarding youth gambling, in particular

online gambling. Our findings point to a number of young people at risk of developing problems with gambling in

our catchment. The impact of this on the health and wellbeing of our young residents will most likely increase as

internet gambling becomes more widespread. The current report has gone some way to confirming that resilience

has an impact on outcomes, and that prevention of gambling problems must incorporate risk prevention and

promotion of protective factors in order to build resilience.

The feedback sought from youth service providers has identified strategies that will contribute to the prevention

and early intervention of gambling related problems. Increased awareness of youth gambling and capacity to

identify risks are recommended to be addressed across the youth service system including in schools. Improving

partnerships between agencies in order to build the reslience and social connectedness of young people has been

recommended. This focus on collaborative work to reduce the risks of problem gambling will allow for problem

gambling prevention to be addressed in conjunction with the prevention of other harmful behaviours for more

effective and widespread results.

Recommendations to guide health promotion efforts aimed at building youth resilience against problem gambling

have been summarised in a one page health promotion framework document. This document outlines the target

populations, settings, overarching principles, protective and risk factors, and local strategies that will help to build

resilience against problem gambling in youth living in the CVPCP catchment.

1 Includes the Local Government Areas of Central Goldfields, Macedon Ranges and Mount Alexander


6

INTRODUCTION The Central Victorian PCP (CVPCP) Problem Gambling Working Group (PGWG) was convened to define and prioritise

the problems of gambling in the CVPCP catchment (which covers three local government areas: Central Goldfields

Shire, Macedon Ranges Shire and Mount Alexander Shire) and determine a response under the Department of

Justice Problem Gambling guidelines. Problem gambling has been identified as a priority for our catchment and

more broadly within the Loddon Mallee PCP region.

The PGWG identified the development of problem gambling in young people as a priority concern requiring further

investigation and clarification of issues. A 'rapid review' of the literature was performed to define our target

population and effective interventions. This review found that the prevalence of problem gambling amongst young

people is particularly high in the 18-24 year old age group. The literature review also confirmed that the recent

growth of online gambling opportunities is of concern for youth problem gambling service providers. Very little

evidence was found to support any particular youth focused prevention and early intervention strategies.

The link between gambling and gaming is also a strong one, in fact gaming has been described as ‘a nonfinancial

form of gambling, playing for points instead of money’ (Griffiths, 2005). This is an area that has not been specifically

studied in this report; however as the project has progressed the issue of gaming amongst young people has been

raised numerous times. Any outcomes or strategies recommended in this document may be able to be adapted to

incorporate both gaming and gambling issues.

This report describes the methods and findings of the CVPCP Problem Gambling Project which is a regional study

focussing on 18-25 year olds and their gambling. Of particular interest were online gambling and the protective or

preventative role of building the resilience and social connectedness of young people.

Project Aims

To increase knowledge about youth at risk of problem gambling, understanding of youth service provider

knowledge and prevention and early intervention strategies to manage this issue, particularly amongst 18-25

year old people in the CVPCP catchment.

To increase awareness of problem gambling amongst young people aged 18-25 years old in the CVPCP

catchment.

Project Objectives To estimate:

Gambling within the target population.

Social connectedness and resilience amongst the target population.

The awareness of youth problem gambling amongst youth service providers in the CVPCP catchment.

The patterns of online gambling amongst the target population.

To describe:

The influences and correlates of problem gambling amongst the target population.

The attitudes towards gambling of the target population.

To identify:

Successful strategies to engage youth, including those at risk or exhibiting harmful behaviours, within the

target population.

To develop:

A Health Promotion framework that will guide the implementation of strategies aiming to build resilience

against problem gambling in youth.


7

METHODS Ethics approval was obtained from the Department of Justice Human Research and Ethics Committee before

carrying out this research.

A review of the literature (see appendix 1) informed the development of a survey to collect information from young

people aged 18-25 years old about their gambling habits, influences and health and wellbeing.

A survey was also developed to gather information from youth service providers about the impact of problem

gambling, current service delivery models in relation to identification and referral, and the skills, knowledge and

resource needs of agencies.

Further to and informed by this survey, three focus groups were held with youth service providers (one in each

shire) to explore in more depth some of the issues raised by the survey.

The following sections will provide more information about the methodologies used to develop and disseminate the

tools, and collect and analyse responses.

Youth Survey The Youth survey (see appendix 2) was developed by the project officer in consultation with CVPCP staff and the

CVPCP Problem Gambling Working Group. The aim of the survey was to gather information from young people living

in the CVPCP catchment about their gambling behaviours including use of internet gambling, motivations for

gambling, influences from others, risky behaviours, health and wellbeing and help seeking behaviours and attitudes.

Recruitment of participants

Youth participants were recruited using various methods in order to maximise participation rate:

1. Social media was used to recruit participants. An advertisement was placed on Facebook. This

advertisement was placed on various pre-existing local and regional online groups with the permission of

page administrators. Groups that were targeted included local youth activity, sporting and social groups or

generic non-youth specific groups set up for local residents.

2. Flyers (see appendix 3) were displayed on prominent local community noticeboards, including all towns

within the CVPCP catchment and were left with youth service providers to be displayed in waiting rooms

with agency approval.

3. Youth service provider clinicians/staff were asked to provide flyers or hard copies of the survey (depending

on internet accessibility) to all clients within the target age group.

4. Project Officers attended youth community groups and venues, youth events and sporting activities as

appropriate, to distribute both hard copies of surveys and the survey web address for respondents to

complete online surveys. The project officer provided the use of a tablet to enter data directly.

5. Prominent workplaces within the catchment were approached to display the flyer (with the survey web

address) to all employees within the target age group.

The youth service providers approached in each shire area were from local government (youth activities officer,

youth development officer), Community Health Centres, General Practice, Neighbourhood/Community House, Carer

Support Services, Mental Health Services, Emergency Accommodation Support Services, Youth Homelessness

Officer, and other specific youth programs in each shire.

Participants were offered a movie ticket voucher to a local cinema of their choice or a Subway voucher as

compensation for taking time to complete the survey.


8

Data Collection

The youth survey was completed online with respondents directed from the CVPCP website to an online survey

hosted at www.surveymonkey.com . Online consent was sought before respondents could enter the survey. Hard

copies of the survey were distributed to youth service providers for use with young people who had limited internet

access; however only one hard copy was received.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the characteristics of the survey respondents, describe their gambling

behaviours including online gambling, motivations for gambling and influences from others, engagement in other

risky behaviours, general health and wellbeing (including resilience) and help seeking attitudes.

Participants were grouped according to gender, ‘gamblers’ vs ‘non-gamblers’ and ‘internet gamblers’ vs ‘non-

internet gamblers’. Group differences in variables were evaluated using chi-squared analysis and t-test as

appropriate. Gamblers were those respondents who had participated in any form of gambling in the past 12

months. Internet gamblers were classified as all respondents who reported spending some time participating in

gambling activities online each week. The intention had been to compare internet gamblers vs non-internet

gamblers, however our measurement of internet gamblers (participation each week) was different from our

measurement of other gamblers (participation in the last 12 months. Any comparison was defined by regularity of

gambling rather than type of gambling, therefore the comparison group for internet gamblers was all gamblers who

reported spending some time gambling each week but did not participate in internet gambling with defining

regularity.

Gamblers were also grouped according to whether they exhibited signs of being at risk of problem gambling or not.

Risk level was identified using some of the questions from the short version of the Problem Gambling Severity Index

(PGSI-Short Form) and the rating scale developed and evaluated in previous research (Williams & Volberg, 2012).

This research indicated that a cut-off of one or more on the PGSI-Short-Form is a very good indicator of the

proportion of the population that is negatively affected by their gambling, in other words, at risk of problem

gambling. It also concludes that a cut-off of 2 or more is an indicator of at least moderate risk, and a score of 3 or

more is an indicator of problem gambling. For this report, gamblers have been grouped into two groups; at-risk

gamblers (a score of at least one) and the other not-at-risk gamblers (a score of 0). The group differences were then

analysed using the methods discussed above.

Youth Service Providers’ Survey

The youth service providers’ survey (see appendix 4) was developed by the project officer in consultation with

CVPCP staff and the CVPCP Problem Gambling Working Group. The aim of the youth service providers’ survey was to

gather information about the impact of problem gambling on their clients and agencies, referral processes,

processes of screening or identification of risks, intervention, prevention and early intervention for young people at

risk of gambling related problems.


Chief Executive Officers and managers at agencies providing youth services in each shire were approached to

distribute the service providers' survey to appropriate staff.

Data Collection

The youth service providers’ survey was also available online and could be accessed through the CVPCP website.

These participants also provided consent to participate.

Data Analysis

Data was analysed using descriptive statistical methods and thematic analysis.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/


9

Youth Service Providers’ Focus Groups

The focus groups held in each shire were unstructured and the content was designed based on the results of the

youth service providers’ survey. The aim of the focus groups was to explore in more depth some of the issues raised

by the survey. Four themes that emerged from the survey were explored further at the focus groups. These

included: screening and identification of risk, referral processes, awareness of problem gambling and capacity

building requirements.


On completion of the service providers' survey, respondents were invited to attend the focus groups, and details of

the focus group and a participant information form were provided. A copy of this invitation was also sent to all

managers who were contacted prior to the survey, ensuring that managers were aware of the focus groups and

could provide approval for their staff's attendance.

Initially responses to the invitations were low, so a reminder and invitation was sent out to all youth service

providers’ previously contacted.

Data Collection

Focus group data was collected by way of audio recordings and notes taken by the moderator.

Data Analysis

Focus group data in the form of audio recordings and notes taken by moderator and assistant moderator was

summarised (full transcription of data was not be performed). The summarised data underwent a content analysis

consisting of identification of themes, including the use of simple statistical frequencies.


10

RESULTS

A) Youth Survey

Survey participants

The number of people who entered the survey was 97, however due to ethics requirements’ answering all questions

was not compulsory, so respondent numbers for individual questions vary. The highest number of respondents to

any one question is 85 (87.6% of those that entered the survey). Table 1 below summarises the characteristics of

respondents.

Table 1 : Characteristics of Survey Participants

% n

Gender (N=76) Male 48.7 37 Female 51.3 39

Shire of Residence (N=75) Central Goldfields Shire 22.7 17 Macedon Ranges Shire 22.7 17 Mount Alexander Shire 44 33 Other 10.7 8

Employment Status (N=72) Work Full-time 37.5 27 Work part time or casual 16.5 12 Unemployed and looking for work 14 10 Full-time student 28 20 Full-time home duties 2.5 2 Sick or disability pension 1.5 1

Speak a language other than English at home (N=76) Yes 10.5 8 No 89.5 68

There were a similar number of males and females who responded to the survey. Of 75 respondents, 44% lived in

Mount Alexander Shire, there were 17 respondents (22.7%) from both Central Goldfields and Macedon Ranges

Shires. Just over half (54 %) of respondents were working either full-time or casually, with 28% full-time students

and 14% unemployed. Just over one tenth spoke a language other than English at home.

Gambling behaviours of young people

Sixty five respondents (76.5%) reported participating in at least one gambling activity in the past 12 months, this

defined them as gamblers. Twenty (23.5%) had not gambled at all in the past 12 months, they were classed as non-

gamblers. Table 2 looks at the different characteristics between gamblers and non-gamblers.

Table 2 : Characteristics of Gamblers vs Non-gamblers

Gamblers Non-gamblers

% n % n

Gender (N=76) Male 83.8 31 16.2 6 Female 71.8 28 28.2 11

Shire of Residence (N=77) Central Goldfields Shire 76.5 13 23.5 4 Macedon Ranges Shire 88.2 15 11.8 2 Mount Alexander Shire 72.7 24 27.3 9 Other 80 8 20 2


11

Gamblers Non-gamblers

% n % n

Employment Status (N=72) Work Full-time 44 26 5.9 1 Work part time or casual 13.6 8 23.5 4 Unemployed and looking for work 11.9 7 17.6 3 Full-time student 20.3 12 47.1 8 Full-time home duties 3.4 2 0 0 Sick or disability pension 1.7 1 0 0

Speak a language other than English at home (N=76)

Yes 8.5 5 17.6 3 No 91.5 54 82.4 14

A little over half of all gamblers were males (52.5%), however 84% of all males compared with 72% of females had

gambled in the past 12 months, this is not a significant difference. Macedon Ranges Shire (88%) had the highest

proportion of gamblers in this survey. A higher proportion of gamblers worked (57.6%) compared with non-

gamblers (29.4%, p=0.04), while more non-gamblers were students (47.1%) compared with gamblers (20.3%,

p=0.02).

In order to gauge the current gambling behaviours of young people, the survey questioned respondents about their

participation in a range of gambling activities in the past 12 months. Respondents were also asked about the

frequency and amount of time spent participating in these activities per week.

Overall, the most popular types of gambling activities were Electronic Gaming Machines/Pokies (63% of gamblers),

lottery tickets (61%) and Instant scratch tickets (57%). Sports betting (46%) and betting on horse or dog races (42%)

were also popular forms of gambling with young people. The reported gambling by occurrence is shown in Table 3.

Table 3 : Frequency of gambling in the past 12 months by type (% of gamblers, N=65)

More than once a week % (n) N=2

Once a week % (n) N=10

A few times a month % (n) N=10

Once a month % (n) N=19

Less than once a month % (n) N=62

Not in the last 12 months % (n) N=62

Instant Scratch tickets 0 (0) 3 (2) 4.6 (3) 6 (4) 43.4 (28) 43.4 (28) Lottery tickets 0(0) 7.8 (5) 1.6 (1) 6.3 (4) 45.3 (29) 39 (25) Sports betting 1.5 (1) 6.2(4) 3 (2) 9.2 (6) 26 (17) 54.1 (35) Horse/dog race betting 1.5 (1) 7.7 (5) 4.6 (3) 7.7 (5) 20 (13) 58.5 (38) Bingo for money 0 (0) 1.5 (1) 0 (0) 4.6 (3) 6.2 (4) 87.7 (57) Keno 0 (0) 1.5 (1) 1.5 (1) 2 (2) 15.4 (10) 79.6 (51) Poker for money 1.5 (1) 1.5 (1) 0 (0) 2 (2) 15.4 (10) 79.6 (51) Casino table games 0 (0) 1.5 (1) 1.5 (1) 4.6 (3) 21.5 (14) 70.9 (46) Games of skill for money2 0 (0) 2 (2) 0 (0) 2 (2) 10.8 (7) 85.2 (53) Electronic gaming machines (Pokies)

1.5 (1) 6.2 (4) 6.2 (4) 12.3 (8) 36.9 (24) 36.9 (24)

There are very few people who report a high frequency of gambling (Table 3). The average number of different

types of gambling participated in over the last year was 3.7. Frequency of gambling by gambling type indicated that

in this sample horse/dog betting had the highest proportion of respondents participate at least weekly (9.2%), this

2 Includes arcade, puzzle, word, trivia and fantasy sport games.


12

was followed by lottery tickets (7.8%), sports betting (7.7%) and EGM’s (7.7%). When looking at the amount of time

spent participating in gambling activities each week, only 11.1% of gamblers reported spending more than an hour

and no one spent more than 3-5 hours a week (Table 4).

Table 4: Time gamblers spent gambling each week N=63

% n

None 36.5 23 Less than one hour 52.4 33 1-3 hours 6.3 4 3-5 hours 4.8 3 5-10 hours 0 0 10-20 hours 0 0 More than 20 hours 0 0

Characteristics and gambling behaviours of at-risk gamblers vs not-at-risk gamblers

Gamblers were further classified according to whether they exhibited signs of being at risk of problem gambling or

not (see methods section of this report for classification details).

Table 5 depicts the different characteristics between at-risk and not-at-risk gamblers.

Table 5 : Characteristics of At-risk vs Not-at-risk Gamblers

At-risk gamblers N=24

Not-at-risk gamblers N=39

% n % n

Gender N=58 Male 40 12 60 18 Female 35.7 10 64.3 18

Shire of Residence N=60 Central Goldfields Shire 46.2 6 53.8 7 Macedon Ranges Shire 40 6 60 9 Mount Alexander Shire 25 6 75 18 Other 50 4 50 4

Employment Status N=57 Work Full-time 76.2 16 30.6 11 Work part time or casual 9.5 2 16.7 6 Unemployed and looking for work 9.5 2 13.9 5 Full-time student 4.8 1 30.6 11 Full-time home duties 0 0 5.6 2 Sick or disability pension 0 0 2.8 1

Speak a language other than English at home N=59

Yes 4.5 1 10.8 4 No 95.5 21 89.2 33

This data indicate that males are no more likely to be at-risk of gambling problems than females, however numbers

are small. Central Goldfields Shire (46.2%) had the highest proportion of respondents that were classified as at-risk

gamblers with Mount Alexander Shire (25%) having the least proportion at-risk.

The group of at-risk gamblers were more likely to work either full time or part time (81.8%) compared with not-at-

risk gamblers (32.4%, p=0.0003), and less likely to be students (4.5% vs 30.6%, p=0.03).


13

The type of gambling undertaken in the previous 12 months by both groups is presented in Table 6 below.

Table 6 : Type of gambling (participated in the past 12 months) by gambler type

At-risk gambler % (n) N=24

Not-at-risk gambler % (n) N=39

All Gamblers % (n) N=65

Instant Scratch tickets 71 (17) 49 (19) 57 (37) Lottery tickets 57 (13) 62 (24) 60 (39) Sports betting 54 (13) 38 (15) 46 (30) Horse/dog race betting 54 (13) 69 (27) 42 (27) Bingo for money 21 (5) 8 (3) 12 (8) Keno 25 (6) 18 (7) 22 (14) Poker for money 38 (9) 10 (4) 22 (14) Casino table games 42 (10) 18 (7) 29 (19) Games of skill for money 25 (6) 11 (4) 17 (11) Electronic gaming machines (EGM’s/Pokies) 79 (19) 49 (19) 63 (41)

Amongst gamblers, those at-risk were significantly more likely to play EGM’s (p=0.016), poker for money (p=0.009)

and casino table games (p=0.04) than not-at-risk gamblers. The most popular forms of gambling for those at-risk

were EGM’s and scratch tickets. This was different for not-at-risk gamblers who preferred betting on horse/dog

races and lottery tickets.

The average number of different types of gambling participated in over the last year was 4.8 for at-risk gamblers and

2.9 for not-at-risk gamblers which was a significant difference (P=0.002).

As with the figures for all gamblers, the majority of at-risk gamblers tended to spend less than an hour per week on

these activities (71%, 17), 16.7% (4) spent 1-3 hours/week and 12.5% (3) spent 3-5 hours/week participating in

gambling activities (Table 7). Gamblers who were classified as being at-risk were more likely to spend more than one

hour each week on all gambling activities compared with not-at-risk gamblers (29% vs 2.9%, p=0.003).

Table 7: Time spent gambling each week by gambler type (at-risk vs not-at-risk gamblers)

At-risk gamblers N=24 Not-at-risk gamblers N=37

% n % n

None 12.5 3 48.6 18 Less than one hour 58.3 14 48.6 18 1-3 hours 16.7 4 2.7 1 3-5 hours 12.5 3 0 0 5-10 hours 0 0 0 0 10-20 hours 0 0 0 0 More than 20 hours 0 0 0 0

Internet gambler characteristics

27.7% (18) of gamblers identified themselves as being internet gamblers by indicating that they participated in

gambling activities online each week (these numbers are not consistent as answers were not compulsory). A

significantly higher proportion of males (76%, 13) participated in internet gambling compared with non-internet

gamblers (42%, 8 p=0.03) (Table 8). Non-internet gamblers were identified by indicating that they spent some time

each week participating in gambling activities but did not spend any time each week on internet gambling (N=22).


14

Table 8 : Characteristics of Internet vs Non-internet Gamblers

Internet gamblers N=18

Non-internet gamblers N=22

% n % n

Gender Male 76 13 42 8 Female 24 4 58 11

Shire of Residence Central Goldfields Shire 17.5 3 20 4 Macedon Ranges Shire 23.5 4 40 8 Mount Alexander Shire 35.3 6 35 7 Other 23.5 4 5 1

Employment Status Work Full-time 58.8 10 39 7 Work part time or casual 17.6 3 5.6 1 Unemployed and looking for work 11.8 2 11 2 Full-time student 0 0 28 5 Full-time home duties 0 0 11 2 Sick or disability pension 0 0 5.6 1

Speak a language other than English at home Yes 11.8 2 0 0 No 88.2 15 100 19

Internet gamblers were more likely to work (76.4%) compared with non-internet gamblers (44.6%, p=0.012), and

were less likely to be students (0% vs 28%, p=0.03).

The type of gambling undertaken by these groups is presented in Table 9 below.

Table 9 : Type of gambling by gambler type (internet vs non-internet)

Internet gambler % participated in the past 12 months (n) N=18

Non-internet gambler % participated in the past 12 months (n) N=47

Instant Scratch tickets 61 (11) 73 (16) Lottery tickets 61 (11) 71 (15) Sports betting 72 (13) 41 (9) Horse/dog race betting 67 (12) 36 (8) Bingo for money 33 (6) 4 (1) Keno 39 (7) 18 (4) Poker for money 39 (7) 18 (4) Casino table games 56 (10) 36 (8) Games of skill for money 44 (8) 5 (1) Electronic gaming machines (EGM’s/Pokies)

83 (15) 68 (15)

Compared with non-internet gamblers, internet gamblers were significantly more likely to play games of skill

(p=0.003), bingo (p=0.008), and sports betting (p=0.047). They were also more likely to play EGM’s more than once

a week than non-internet gamblers (27% (5) vs 0%, p=0.008). The most popular forms of gambling for internet

gamblers was EGM’s, followed by sports betting, horse/dog betting, and then lottery and scratch tickets. This was

different for non-internet gamblers who preferred lottery tickets and scratch tickets then EGM’s.


15

The average number of different types of gambling participated in over the last year was 5.6 for internet gamblers

and 3.7 for non-internet gamblers which was a significant difference (P=0.01).

The majority of internet gamblers tended to spend less than an hour per week on these (66.7%); 27.8% spent 1-3

hours and 5.5% (1) spent 3-5 hours weekly participating in internet gambling activities. This pattern of length of

gambling time (hours per week) is similar to that of all gamblers.

Table 10: Time internet and non-internet gamblers spent gambling each week

Internet gamblers N=18 Non-internet gamblers N=22

% n % n

None 0 0 0 0 Less than one hour 72.2 13 91 20 1-3 hours 16.7 3 4.5 1 3-5 hours 11.1 2 4.5 1 5-10 hours 0 0 0 0 10-20 hours 0 0 0 0 More than 20 hours 0 0 0 0

Of all gamblers surveyed, 43% had utilised free gambling websites which is thought to be one of the ways that many

internet gamblers are initiated into online gambling activities.

The majority of internet gamblers reported that they had accessed the internet from home (89%), with the device

used split equally between computer and mobile phones.

Internet gamblers indicated that their main reasons for gambling online were the convenience and accessibility of

online gambling rather than their dislike of land-based venues or their physical comfort of gambling from home (see

Table 11 below). There were many respondents who answered this question who were not classified as internet

gamblers. It is unclear as to whether their answers refer to reasons they would gamble online or that they have

gambled online and didn’t meet the criteria for internet gambler, for interest these results are also included in Table

11 below.

Table 11: Main reasons for gambling online

Internet Gamblers N=18 All respondents N=54

% n % n

Convenience – more convenient access online 50 9 51.9 28 Access – unable to easily access land-based venues 28 5 20.4 11 Privacy/Anonymity 22 4 13 7 Price including bonuses, free credit, odds, payout rates

17 3 7.4 4

Use of free play sites 17 3 35.2 19 Advertising/marketing 11 2 11.1 6 Greater number of betting options and games available

11 2 7.4 4

Dislike or discomfort with land-based venues 0 0 3.7 2 Physical comfort of gambling at home 0 0 9.3 5

Internet gamblers were significantly more likely to be classified as being at-risk of problem gambling (71%, 12)

compared with non-internet gamblers (39%, 9, p=0.048).

Both at-risk and not-at-risk gamblers reported the main reason for participating in internet gambling was convenient

access (45% at-risk vs 50% not-at-risk). At-risk gamblers tended to be more concerned with privacy/anonymity (30%


16

vs 0%, p=0.002), which was the only significant difference between the groups. However, at-risk gamblers more

often identified accessibility (they were unable to easily access land-based venues, 25% vs 7%) and price including

bonuses etc (15% vs 4%) as reasons for participating in online gambling. Not-at-risk gamblers more often reported

gambling online due to the physical comfort of gambling at home (15%) compared with at-risk gamblers (0%). Both

groups had similar numbers of respondents gambling online due to the access to free play sites. Table 12 below

details this data.

Table 12 : Main reasons for gambling online risk vs not-at-risk gamblers

At-risk gamblers % (n) N=20

Not-at-risk gamblers % (n) N=27

Convenience – more convenient access online 45 (9) 59 (16) Access – unable to easily access land-based 25 (5) 7 (2) Privacy/Anonymity 30 (6) 0 (0) Price including bonuses, free credit, odds, payout rates 15 (3) 4 (1) Use of free play sites 25 (5) 33 (9) Advertising/marketing of online gambling options 10 (2) 15 (4) Greater number of betting options and games available 5 (1) 7 (2) Dislike or discomfort with land-based venues 5 (1) 4 (1) Physical comfort of gambling at home 0 (0) 15 (4)

Influences for gambling

The contexts for youth gambling were investigated by looking at peer and family influences on gambling and

motivations for gambling.

Motivations for gambling

Overall the most common reasons for gambling were for entertainment (69%, 38), to win money (53%, 29) and to

be sociable (35%, 19). The least common responses were to avoid talking to people (0%), to escape from problems

(4%, 2) and to forget troubles (5%, 3). Respondents were encouraged to indicate as many answers as applied.

The reasons for gambling varied amongst the different classifications of gamblers, however the most common

reasons across all groups was for entertainment and winning money. Table 13 below shows the reasons for

gambling between at-risk and not-at-risk gamblers, and Table 14 indicates the same for internet and non-internet

gamblers. There were no significant differences between the groups.

Table 13: Motivations for gambling: At-risk vs not-at-risk gamblers

At-risk gamblers % (n) N=21

Not-at-risk gamblers % (n) N=39

For entertainment 71 (15) 54 (21) To win money 57 (12) 36 (14) To be sociable 29 (6) 28 (11) To forget troubles 10 (2) 3 (1) To escape from problems 5 (1) 3 (1) For something to do 33 (7) 10 (4) For excitement 33 (7) 21 (8) To avoid talking to people 0 (0) 0 (0)


17

Table 14 : Motivations for gambling: Internet vs Non-internet gamblers Internet gamblers

% (n) N=18

Non-internet gamblers % (n) N=22

For entertainment 72 (13) 59 (13) To win money 50 (9) 41 (9) To be sociable 28 (5) 36 (8) To forget troubles 11 (2) 5 (1) To escape from problems 11 (2) 0 (0) For something to do 17 (3) 32 (7) For excitement 22 (4) 36 (8) To avoid talking to people 0 (0) 0 (0)

Influences from others

In order to look at whether the influence of others had an impact on young respondents gambling we asked

questions about the gambling habits of family members and peers. The number of responses to this question is

equal to the highest response rate in this survey (87.6%, 85)

Peers

Overall respondents had an average of 1.24 friends who regularly gamble. Gamblers (n=65) had on average

significantly more friends who regularly gambled than non-gamblers (n=20) (1.46 v 0.5, p=0.0003). Males (n=37) also

on average had significantly more friends who regularly gambled compared with females (n=39) (1.6 vs 0.9, p=0.01)

and were more likely to have more than one friend who did this (p=0.002).

At-risk gamblers (n=24) were more likely to have more than one friend who regularly gambled (62.5% vs 33.3%,

p=0.02), but there was no significant difference in average number of friends involved (1.8 for at-risk vs 1.3 for no-

risk gamblers (n=39)). Internet gamblers (n=18) had the highest average number of friends participating in gambling

activities (2.17) but this was not significantly higher than non-internet gamblers (1.6, n=22).

Family

Overall, families of respondents did not gamble at all in the past 12 months (28.2%, 24) or gambled less than once a

month (27.1%, 23). Of the 85 respondents, 8.3% (7) had family members who gambled more than once a week.

There was no significant difference between comparison groups about the frequency of family members gambling.

Risky behaviours

Problems with gambling have often been linked with other risky behaviours such as alcohol and substance use.

Respondents were asked about their use of drugs and alcohol when gambling; results are presented in Table 15

below. From a sample of 59 gamblers, 49.2% (29) reported having used alcohol when gambling and 6.8% (4)

reported having used drugs. Males were more likely to have used both alcohol (p=0.002) and drugs (p=0.03)

compared with females. Internet gamblers were more likely to have used drugs while gambling (p=0.02) compared

with non-internet gamblers.


18

Table 15 : Drug and alcohol consumption whilst gambling

Alcohol % (n)

Drugs % (n)

All gamblers 49 (29) 7 (4)

Males 54 (19) 11 (4) Females 28 (11) 0 (0)

Internet Gamblers 59(10) 24 (4) Non-internet gamblers 55 (11) 0 (0)

At-risk gamblers 61(14) 13 (3) Not-at-risk gamblers 43 (16) 3 (1)

Health and wellbeing

Overall Health Status

Self-rated health status was measured on a scale of one to five. The average reported health status of all

respondents was 4.07 out of 5; gamblers were only slightly higher at 4.13. There was a significant difference in the

average reported health status between at-risk (3.8) and not-at-risk gamblers (4.3, p=0.01).

The mental health and wellbeing of respondents was assessed using questions from the Kessler 10 (K10) anxiety and

depression scale (Dierker, et al., 2001). For the majority of questions there was no difference between comparison

groups. At-risk gamblers were more likely to have reported that ‘everything was an effort’ compared with not-at-risk

gamblers (61% (14) vs 32% (12)). However a significant difference was observed in that non-internet gamblers (35%,

7) were more likely to have reported having felt nervous ‘more than a little of the time’ over the last few months in

comparison with internet gamblers (6%, 1). The small sample size is worth noting.

Resilience

Two questions from the brief resilience scale (Smith, et al., 2008) were asked to gain an indication of resilience to

life events.

Table 16 : Resilience

Q.1 Do you tend to bounce back quickly after hard times? Strongly agree/Agree

% (n) Neutral % (n)

Strongly disagree/Disagree % (n)

Gamblers 64.3 (38) 24.8 (13) 10.9 (5) Non-gamblers 52.9 (9) 29.4 (5) 17.6 (3)

Males 73 (25) 21 (7) 6 (2) Females 55 (21) 29 (11) 16 (6)

Internet Gamblers 60 (9) 27 (4) 13 (2) Non-internet gamblers 70 (14) 25 (5) 5 (1)

At-risk gamblers 66.6 (14) 14.3 (3) 19.1 (4) Not-at-risk gamblers 69.4 (25) 27.8 (10) 3 (1)

Q.2 Do you have a hard time making it through stressful events? Strongly agree/Agree

% (n) Neutral % (n)

Strongly disagree/Disagree % (n)

Gamblers 22.3 (10) 34.2 (21) 43.5 (28) Non-gamblers 41.2 (7) 29.4 (5) 29.4 (5)

Males 17 (6) 33 (12) 50 (18) Females 29 (11) 36 (14) 36 (14)

Internet Gamblers 12 (2) 29 (5) 59 (10) Non-internet gamblers 20 (4) 40 (8) 40 (8)

At-risk gamblers 17.4 (4) 17.4 (4) 65.2 (15) Not-at-risk gamblers 16.2 (6) 45.9 (17) 37.9 (14)


19

Table 16 above indicates that there are differences between groups, however very few of these are significant. From

21 at-risk gamblers 19% (4) indicated that they don’t tend to bounce back quickly after hard times which is

significantly higher than not-at-risk gamblers (3%, 1, p=0.04). Unexpectedly in the sample of non-gamblers, a greater

proportion agreed that they have a hard time making it through stressful events than gamblers (41.2% (7) vs 22.3%

(10) and more at-risk gamblers disagreed with this than not-at-risk gamblers (65.2% (15) vs 37.9% (14)).

Social connections

Overall 28% of all respondents reported that they would like to have more contact with family and friends who

don’t live with them and only 3% would like less contact therefore the majority (69%) were happy with the current

level of contact. There was no significant difference between any of the groups analysed.

When asked how often they felt lonely, 39.5% of all respondents reported feeling lonely at least sometimes. At-risk

gamblers (57% vs 24%, p=0.01) were significantly more likely to report this compared with their comparison group.

Table 17 below outlines the responses provided when respondents were questioned about what contributed to

their feeling of loneliness. Internet and at-risk gamblers are presented separately. Lack of money and low self-

esteem were the most common responses, with limited social activities and lack of places to socialise also

prominent.

Table 17: What contributes to these feelings of loneliness?

All responses % (n)

Internet gamblers % (n)

At-risk gamblers % (n)

Lack of money 35.1 (20) 24 (6) 41.2 (7) Low self-esteem/confidence 35.1 (20) 20 (5) 35.3 (6) Limited social activities on offer 31.6 (18) 16 (4) 35.3 (6) Lack of places to socialise 29.8 (17) 8 (2) 41.2 (7) Physical isolation 28.1 (16) 12 (3) 23.5 (4) Lifestyle differences 28.1 (16) 0 (0) 17.6 (3) Lack of transport 15.8 (9) 16 (4) 17.6 (3) Safety fears 8.8 (5) 0 (0) 5.9 (1) Health condition 5.3 (3) 4 (1) 5.9 (1) Language/cultural barriers 3.5 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0)

When asked about what could be done to improve services or activities for young people, the majority of responses

recommended increasing the number of activities available or increase the number and variety of facilities available

(see Table 18 below). A common theme was for these places and/or activities to be available in the evenings.

Table 18: What could be done to improve services or activities for young people?

% n

More activities for younger people e.g. –sporting activities, movie nights, music/dance events, groups and classes in the evening.

54.5 24

More places for young people to hang out and socialise e.g.-sporting facility, bowling alley, night club, go karts, somewhere to just hang out with friends.

36.4 16

Better transport esp. in smaller towns

11.4 5

Increase the awareness of youth activities 9.1 4


20

Seeking help

To gauge the knowledge of services for people experiencing problems with gambling, respondents were asked

where they would seek help if they felt they had a problem. This was open-ended, there was no prompting nor

options provided for responses to this question. From 43 respondents, 47.7% (21) indicated that they would contact

Gamblers Help or counselling and 29.5% (13) would turn to family and friends, 7% (3) reported that they were

unsure where they would go for help and 4.7% (2) would not get help.

Table 19 below outlines the reported barriers to seeking help. Overall most people reported that they felt they could

self-manage the problem; that problems weren’t serious enough to require help and they would be too

embarrassed to seek assistance for gambling problems.

Table 19 : Barriers to help seeking N=59

All responses % (n)

Internet Gamblers % (n)

At-risk gamblers % (n)

Feel I could solve my problems myself 30.5 (18) 28 (5) 28.6 (6) Problem not serious enough 28.8 (17) 17 (3) 38.1 (8) Embarrassed 27.1 (16) 28 (5) 23.8 (5) Cost 11.9 (7) 11 (2) 9.5 (2) Inconvenience 10.2 (6) 11 (2) 28.6 (6) Not sure where to go for help 6.8 (4) 6 (1) 9.5 (2)


21

B) Youth Service Providers’ Survey

There were 16 responses to the youth service providers’ survey out of a total of 31 individuals from 20 different

agencies that were approached. The youth service providers who responded to the survey offered a wide variety of

services to young people. The most common services provided were youth group programs (38.5%),

social/recreational activities (38.5%) and counselling (38.5%). See Figure 1 below for details of the services provided

by respondents. Figure 1: Types of services provided

Impact of problem gambling on youth service providers

Youth service providers were asked about the impact that problem gambling has had on their agencies and clients,

including estimates around the percentage of clients that are or may be affected by problem gambling issues.

Half of the respondents replied that problem gambling has a moderate to very large impact on their agencies and

clients, while the other half reported a small or very small impact on their agencies and/or clients (Table 20).

Table 20 : Overall impact of problem gambling on clients and agency (N=16)

% n

Very Large 18.8 3 Large 6.3 1 Moderate 25 4 Small 37.5 6 Very small 12.5 2

Half (50%) of the respondents indicated that in the past 5 years the impact of problem gambling on their agencies

and clients had increased. Only one agency (6.3%) reported that this impact had decreased.

When asked for an estimate of the number or proportion of 18-25 year olds presenting with serious problems, there

was a varied response from 0-30%. Of 9 respondents who provided a percentage estimate, the median was 5% and

the mean was 7.7%. Estimates of those at risk of developing gambling problems varied but were significantly higher,

ranging from 5% to 60% with the average response being 20% and the median being 15%. These responses varied

depending on the core activities of agencies and their intake and screening processes.

Agencies reported that young clients with gambling related problems are most often presenting with financial

problems (64.3%), mental health problems (50%), relationship problems (6.2%) and substance abuse (6.2%).

05

1015202530354045

Pe

rce

nt

Types of Services Provided


22

Referral process

The main source of referrals to agencies for young people who present with gambling related problems is varied.

Self-referral and referral by family and friends are the most frequent sources. This is shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Referral sources to agencies for young people with gambling related problems

Of the agencies that responded, 60% indicated that they and their staff had only a poor or fair knowledge about

appropriate referral pathways for young people presenting with gambling related problems.

Their suggestions about how to improve this referral process included:

1. Capacity building with agencies around impacts of problem gambling on young people and services

provided to manage gambling related problems

2. Improving partnerships between agencies to better co-ordinate services.

3. Increase the awareness/visibility of services that manage young people with gambling problems.

4. Improved and more consistent cross-agency screening for gambling related problems

5. Clearer referral processes.

Screening/Assessment

Youth service providers were asked to identify indicators that alert them to a young person being at risk of having

gambling problems. The most common responses were financial (71.4%) and mental health problems (64.3%). Other

responses included relationship problems (28.6%), focus on gambling (14.3%) and social isolation (7.1%).

When questioned about the use of screening tools to identify problem gamblers or those at risk, 73.3% (11) of

respondents reported not using any screening tools at all. Four agencies reported using screening tools but there

was no consistency across the agencies as to which tool was used. These tools included the lie-bet questionnaire,

and other non-gambling specific screening questions. One agency applied this screening tool at initial contact and

two applied it during the initial needs identification. The fourth did not provide any information about timing of

screening.

The same number of agencies (11) who did not screen for gambling related problems also did not utilise any other

formal assessment tools to identify young problem gamblers or those at risk of problem gambling. For those that did

05

101520253035404550

Pe

rce

nt


23

there was again inconsistency across agencies with the Problem Gambling Severity Index (Holtgraves, 2009),

Victorian Gambling Screen (Tolchard & Battersby, 2010), Gambling Ideation Scale, Work and Social Impact of

Gambling, and other tools to measure co-morbidities being utilised3.

Treatment/Prevention/Early Intervention

Services provided to young people at risk in this catchment consist mostly of counselling services and mental health

services which are effective at the treatment end of the health promotion continuum. There are some programs

that focus on social connections, social outreach and peer support which can be effective with this age group.

Table 21 : Services provided to young people at risk of gambling problems or other harmful behaviours N=11

% n

Counselling 54.5 6 Mental health 18.2 2 Social/recreational activities 27.3 3 Youth group 27.3 3 Peer support 18.2 2 Employment 18.2 2 Referral services 18.2 2 Sporting 9.1 1 Faith-based 9.1 1

When asked specifically about early intervention and prevention services provided, particularly with a focus on

improving young people’s resilience and social connections, the most common response was around linking young

people into the community including through education, work, and volunteering. Youth service providers in this

catchment also provide social events, education, therapeutic work including case management aimed at increasing

resilience and one response suggested youth involvement in leadership programs.

Youth service providers were then asked which early intervention and prevention programs they thought would

have a positive impact on gambling related and other harmful behaviours in young people in this catchment. 78% (7)

of respondents felt that education would have a positive impact, specifically education in schools around gambling

and its risks. Other responses included self-esteem and resilience building programs (22%, 2), peer support, social

activities for young people and improved partnerships with agencies in the region.

Nearly two thirds (61.5%) of agencies rated their staff’s skills, knowledge and resources to effectively manage young

people presenting with gambling problems as poor or fair. Four areas were identified that if addressed would

improve the ability of agencies and their staff to respond to these issues. These were: capacity building around the

impact of gambling, improved and more consistent screening processes, increase knowledge of correct referral

process and more resources or promotional material made available from treatment services.

Finally youth service providers were asked for their opinion regarding successful strategies that had helped to

improve the engagement of young people prone to harmful behaviours. Suggestions included programs that are

organised for youth by youth with support and guidance from youth worker; counselling; volunteering; and peer

support.

3 No references could be found for some of the scales utilised


24

C) Youth Service Providers’ Focus Groups

The three focus groups that were held (one in each shire) were designed to look further into some of the issues

raised in the youth providers’ survey. In total, there were 13 attendees at the three focus groups held, nine in

Macedon Ranges, two in Central Goldfields and two in Mount Alexander Shires.

The four issues that were addressed were: screening, referral pathways, awareness raising and capacity building.

Screening

Attendees at the focus groups confirmed that screening, either formal or informal, for problem gambling or at-risk

gambling was not common amongst youth service providers unless gambling treatment was a part of their core

activity. It follows from this that youth service providers reported not seeing many young clients identified with

gambling as an issue.

Suggestions made around screening as a secondary prevention measure include educating staff on how to talk

about how to raise or frame conversations with young people in order to ascertain risk and protective factors, and

more formal screening questions that are sensitive and targeted at young people.

Referrals

Attendees were keen to find out more about to whom and how to refer young people at risk of gambling problems.

Awareness Raising

Awareness in this context refers to youth service providers’ awareness of the impact of problem gambling on young

people, and its associated risk and protective factors. It also alludes to the awareness that community members and

community groups have of this issue.

Attendees all stated that raising awareness about the impacts of problem gambling within their own organisations

but also with GP’s, parents, teachers and youth themselves would have a large impact on attitudes and behaviours

within those groups.

As well as information about the impact of problem gambling, attendees identified that it is important to keep these

groups informed as to how and why young people gamble and the how this is being affected by emerging

technologies. Some attendees suggested linking awareness-raising around online gambling to current concerns

around gaming culture as there are some cross-overs.

Capacity Building

The capacity building activities that were identified as being of use to youth service providers included skills to

better identify young people at risk and, as mentioned, techniques to broach the topic of problem gambling with

young people.

Other discussion points

Overall, youth service providers reported that they do not currently have the capacity to take on extra work around

problem gambling prevention for various reasons including problem gambling having a low impact overall on clients

and services and that there are more pressing priorities faced on a daily basis.

There was agreement that early intervention and prevention programs would be best implemented in settings such

as schools and sporting organisations with the added utilisation of social media to target and engage young people.

Working with schools was flagged as being of benefit, however work in this setting would require dedicated

resources as focus group attendees have found that teachers are overburdened and find it difficult to take on

additional tasks.


25

School conversations

Due to the involvement with youth service providers feedback was provided directly from a school welfare officer

which prompted contact with other schools in the catchment, as new research (Derevensky, St-Pierre, Temcheff, &

Gupta, 2013; Campbell, Derevensky, Meerkamper, & Cutajar, 2011) had been highlighted about both teacher and

parent perceptions of youth gambling. The teachers and parents in these studies acknowledged that young people

do gamble but were not aware of the seriousness or prevalence of problem gambling. Conversations with school

welfare providers in the CVPCP catchment indicated that they were not concerned about students gambling

behaviours and none reported having provided assistance to a student with a gambling problem. They were

however aware of parents having gambling problems but had not linked this to increased risk of gambling in the

student. On further discussion they could recognise that students had far more opportunities to gamble especially

on the internet and could give examples of students utilising free gambling sites particularly through social media

such as Facebook. They too were keen to be involved in any capacity building activities to raise the awareness of

gambling related problems.


26

DISCUSSION This research presents findings related to the gambling behaviour of 18-25 year olds in the CVPCP catchment and

the knowledge and needs of youth service providers about preventing youth problem gambling. A specific focus was

online gambling and building resilience as a way of preventing problem gambling. The effects of building resilience in

young people could go far beyond just the prevention of problem gambling. Recommendations from this research

are presented as a health promotion framework which will guide interventions directed at building the resilience of

young people in the CVPCP catchment against problem gambling and other harmful behaviours.

This section of the report will describe the limitations of this study and then discuss the findings from each sub-

section of respondents, before presenting the health promotion framework document.

Limitations of the Study

Convenience sampling was used for recruitment of respondents to the youth survey. Despite the diverse methods of

recruitment that were employed, sampling bias may impact on our statistical analysis, as the sample may not be

representative of the local youth population. This is evident in the fact that the respondents weren’t evenly

distributed across the three shires within our catchment area. This may have been due to weaknesses in the

recruitment methodology or the fact that the project officer lives and works in the shire with the largest number of

respondents therefore had more effective networks for recruitment.

Recruitment of young people to respond to the survey did prove to be difficult, with total number of respondents

being 97. This meant that for some comparisons the sample size was too small to identify significant results,

therefore there may have been real differences between groups that were not identified due to the sample size. The

response rate for the youth service provider’s survey was satisfactory at 52%, with 16 respondents out of 31 who

were approached. However, the focus groups were poorly attended with only four attendees across the three

shires, and this led to more direct methods of attaining the information being used.

The instrument used as the main source of descriptive information was the two surveys. The youth questionnaire

was not tested for readability and comprehension with the target group; however it was reviewed by the working

group which included service providers that work directly with the target group. There is also always the potential

for bias or inaccuracy when participants self-report data especially when reporting on personal or taboo issues. This

is known as social desirability or social approval bias and can confound research results by creating false

relationships or obscuring relationships between variables, generally through under reporting of socially undesirable

behaviours. Therefore we would expect that some of our estimates may in fact be larger than our results indicate.

Across both of the surveys, due to ethics’ requirements around the sensitive nature of some of the questions,

answering every question was not compulsory. This is why the number of respondents for each question varies as

some people have chosen not to respond to certain questions. This may have biased the results depending on the

characteristics of the people who did not complete certain questions.

Another unintended consequence of our method, which was linked to the instrument, was that we were unable to

identify all respondents who had participated in internet gambling over the past 12 months as we did with gamblers.

Instead our internet gambler group consisted of respondents who reported participating in internet gambling

weekly and non-internet gamblers were those that participated in gambling but not internet gambling on a weekly

basis, this means that some of the non-internet group may have utilised the internet for gambling less than weekly

so are not strictly non-internet gamblers. When comparing internet gamblers to non-internet gamblers only those

respondents who participated at least weekly were included.


27

Interestingly there were a number of gamblers (8, 10%) who indicated they were not from within the CVPCP

catchment area, however their residential postcode bordered on our catchment therefore their responses were

included as they were obviously socially connected with our youth community.

Despite the fact that we had some difficulties with recruitment and our sample of young people was not necessarily

representative of the population due to recruitment methods, the fact that our findings reflect much of the current

evidence means that we do tell us the story of youth gambling in our catchment and they may have some limited

generalizability to other populations in Australia.

A) Youth Feedback

Gambler Characteristics and Behaviours

In this research 76.5% of respondents had participated in some form of gambling over the past year. This correlates

with previous research findings that around 85% of 18-25 year olds in Australia participate in gambling each year

(Purdie, et al., 2011). A higher proportion of males were gamblers compared with females, however this was not a

significant difference and highlighted that in our sample females were also attracted to gambling activities.

The most popular type of gambling in our survey was EGM’s, with 63% of gamblers having used EGM’s in the last 12

months. This was also the case for those classified as at-risk gamblers (79%) and internet gamblers (88%). Prior

research has concluded that EGM’s are the most popular form of gambling with problem gamblers, but also that

problem gamblers tend to participate in a larger number of different gambling activities compared with non-

problem gamblers ( Department of Justice, 2009). In the current sample, at-risk gamblers also play a higher average

number of different types of gambling when compared with not-at-risk gamblers (4.8 vs 2.9), as do internet

gamblers (5.6 vs 3.7).

The findings of this study reflect most of the characteristics of internet gamblers and their habits found in other

work. Our results show that males are much more likely to participate in internet gambling than females (76% vs

29%), and that internet gamblers were also much more likely to work than non-internet gamblers (76.4% vs 44.6%).

This may be indicative of the fact that money (or credit) is needed in order to gamble, and in particular for internet

gambling funds (or credit) are required to access devices and internet services.

The main motivations for gambling reported by all gamblers who responded in this study were ‘for entertainment’

and ‘to win money’. This indicates that appropriate alternative entertainment for young people may remove some

of the motivation to gamble. The response that many people are gambling in order to win money, points to a lack of

judgement or lack of knowledge about the chance of winning, which may be addressed by education on the reality

of gambling odds. This is backed up in the literature (Lavoie & Ladouceur, 2004).

The most popular types of gambling amongst young internet gamblers in our sample were EGM’s, followed by

sports betting, horse/dog betting, and then lottery and scratch tickets, this is similar to previous findings (Brunelle,

Cousineau, Dufour, Gendron, & Leclerc, 2009; Purdie, et al., 2011). With commentators predicting a large growth in

online gambling, particularly amongst young people, participation in these forms of gambling are also predicted to

increase. Where EGM’s and lottery/scratch tickets are popular across both land and internet-based gambling

platforms, sports and horse/dog betting appear to be most popular with internet gamblers, therefore the predicted

gambling growth may have a more marked impact on the levels of sports and horse/dog betting.

Current community debate centres on the ways in which gambling, in particular sports betting, is marketed to young

people. The media is an important element that shapes the social environment of youth gambling. It is saturated

with images that normalise and glamorise not just gambling, but many risk-taking behaviours, which has a significant


28

influence on young people who spend on average 21 hours per week watching television and thus are exposed to

these images (Purdie, et al., 2011). The impact of social media and online gaming on the normalisation of gambling

amongst young people is also of concern. In recent times we have witnessed a convergence of gaming, gambling and

social media as evidenced by the popularity of free games like Slot mania and Texas Hold’em poker on Facebook

(Kinnunen, 2010). Reversing the normalisation, or de-normalising, gambling amongst young people may be key to

reducing the risk of problem gambling.

De-normalisation would require activity that aims to challenge the prevailing culture supporting the normalisation of

gambling, especially internet gaming and gambling within the youth culture. Community-led initiatives (community

action) can embed behavioural change amongst communities, but can also be used to influence social change

(Talbot, 2009). As a pre-curser to community action both the young people in our communities and organisations

that support them would require appropriate knowledge about the issue of youth problem gambling and the

capacity and skills required for effective advocacy for social change. Engaging young people in all stages of the

planning and implementation of prevention programs is one way of building their knowledge and capacity to take

further action.

The literature shows a strong link between problem gamblers and internet gamblers, with internet gamblers more

likely to be problem gamblers than non-internet gamblers (10% vs 3%) (Gainsbury, Hing, Blaszczynski, & Wood,

2011). The current study has also identified that internet gamblers tend to exhibit some of the same characteristics

as problem gamblers. Nearly three quarters (71%) of the internet gamblers in this study were also classified as being

at-risk. Internet gamblers in our study participated in a wider variety of gambling activities, and were more likely to

participate in other risky behaviours, which support earlier findings (Gainsbury, Hing, Blaszczynski, & Wood, 2011).

Internet gamblers indicated that their main reasons for gambling online were linked to the convenience and

accessibility of online gambling rather than the physical comfort of gambling from home or their dislike of land-

based venues. In rural and regional areas where access to gambling venues is limited, the advent of internet

gambling provides opportunities to initiate greater numbers of new gamblers and as a consequence, potentially new

problem gamblers.

The current research was able to confirm some of the widely accepted factors that are associated with problem

gambling in young people within this sample. Those at-risk were more often males, who are more likely to

participate in other risky behaviours and report poorer social connections and poorer general health.

Despite family history of problem gambling being a risk factor for young people developing problem gambling

(Gupta & Derevensky, 1997; Delfabbro, Lahn, & Grabosky, 2005), our cohort of young people showed no significant

familial influence. Instead there was a strong influence from peers for at-risk gamblers. Peer influence, as both a

protective and risk factor, has been highlighted in the literature as having one of the strongest relationships with

being a problem gambler (Dickson, Derevensky, & Gupta, 2008). This highlights a potential target group or avenue

for prevention strategies.

The location that young people live in, whether it be rural or remote, may also have an impact on gambling

behaviours, particularly when they rely on others for transport. Lack of access to alternative social activities and

general physical isolation particularly due to transport issues were cited as contributing to lack of social connections.

This same lack of access, which is more common in rural and remote areas, was also cited as one of the main

reasons people participated in online gambling, again highlighting the increased vulnerability of this group of young

people.

There are also some other well tested and validated correlates of problem gambling that were not reflected in this

current research, the main one being the existence of mental health problems, in particular anxiety or depression,

amongst those at-risk. This may have been due to the small sample size or the way that we categorised those at-risk.


29

In this sample, at-risk and internet gamblers were significantly more likely to report having felt that everything was

an effort at some point over the last few months. This was the only measure which identified a poorer mental health

outcome for at-risk groups.

Other data sources indicate that mental health issues have been a problem within our catchment both for the

general adult population and in adolescents. Between 2003 and 2007, compared to the Regional Victoria and

Victoria average, all LGAs in the CVPCP region had a higher rate of deaths from suicide or self-inflicted injuries in

population aged 0 – 74 years. In 2007/08, five of the CVPCP catchments seven SLAs had a higher rate of self-

reported mental and behavioural problems in males and females than the Victorian average (Public Health

Information Development Unit, 2011). For adolescents, which includes 10-17 year olds, the hospitalisation rate for

intentional self-harm was greater than the rate in Victoria (1.0 vs 0.6 per 1,000 adolescents) (DEECD, 2011).

When asked about what could be done to improve services or activities for young people, the majority of responses

indicated a need for more available activities or an increase in the number and variety of facilities available. A

common theme was for these places and/or activities to be available in the evenings. These suggestions can be

linked to addressing the resilience of young people in the catchment as discussed below.

Resilience

Resilience is described as the ability ‘to bounce back from hard times or stressful events’ (Smith, et al., 2008). It has

been used to explain why some young people who are exposed to high levels of risk do not engage in problem

behaviours (Lussier, Derevensky, Gupta, Bergevin, & Ellenbogen, 2007). In essence, it relates to the existence of

protective factors, these may be individual characteristics (problem solving skills, social competence, autonomy and

a sense of purpose and future), quality of relationships including with peers, family and community settings (i.e.

schools workplaces) or broader environmental factors (quality schools, safe neighbourhoods and regulatory

activities) (Greenberg, 2006; Lussier, Derevensky, Gupta, Bergevin, & Ellenbogen, 2007; Derevensky, Gupta, Dickson,

& Deguire, 2005).

Gambling research (Lussier, Derevensky, Gupta, Bergevin, & Ellenbogen, 2007), has found that as exposure to

protective factors increases, gambling severity decreases and as exposure to risk increases, conversely gambling

severity increases. Family cohesion and school connectedness have been found to be effective protective factors for

preventing problems with gambling (Dickson, Derevensky, & Gupta, 2003). Other protective factors identified in the

literature on youth and risky behaviours which may also impact on youth at risk of gambling problems include: 1)

neighbourhood resources, 2) models for conventional behaviour, 3) controls against deviant behaviour (particularly

by parents) and 4) opportunities for participation in alternative activities (Derevensky, Gupta, Dickson, & Deguire,

2005).

It is important to note that protective factors don’t necessarily promote resilience if the strength and number of risk

factors outweigh the impact of the protective factors. It is therefore vital that prevention efforts target risk

prevention alongside the promotion of protective factors. It is equally important that strategies aimed at building

youth resilience occur across all the different settings in which risk and protective factors can influence young

people, including at the individual level, amongst their social settings and relationships, and broader community

environments.

In this research, resilience as an overall construct was measured by assessing self-reported ability ‘to bounce back

from hard times’ and whether young people have ‘a hard time making it through stressful events’. The results to

these questions were variable, on one hand at-risk gamblers reported tending not to bounce back as quickly after

hard times when compared to not-at-risk gamblers. However, in terms of their ability to make it through stressful

events, non-gamblers and not-at-risk gamblers reported more difficulties than their comparison groups. Further

research has indicated that resilience is a dynamic variable depending on the current circumstances of the person


30

and the domain in which they need to be resilient (e.g., emotional, behavioural, educational), and that people will

often be resilient in one or more domains but rarely in all (Lussier, Derevensky, Gupta, Bergevin, & Ellenbogen,

2007). This dynamic characteristic of an individual’s resilience makes it difficult to measure with any accuracy,

particulalry in the cross-sectional self-reported style that we adopted. In retrospect, it would have been more

valuable to measure resilience by looking at the presence of protective factors in combination with risk factors.

The sole protective factor analysed in the current research was the social connection of respondents. This included

their self-reported feelings of loneliness, satisfaction with level of social connections and reasons for these

responses. At-risk gamblers were significantly more likely than not-at-risk gamblers to report feeling lonely (57% vs

24%), so building social connections amongst this group would be one way of promoting resilience. Lack of money,

low self esteem and lack of places and activites in which to socialise were the most common responses as to why

young people felt lonely.

Overall, the youth survey supports much of the prior research regarding youth gambling, in particular that about

online gambling. Our findings identify that there are young people at risk of problems with gambling in our

catchment and confirm internet gambling as a concern, as our internet gamblers have exhibited traits that are

commonly aligned with those at risk. The impact of problem gambling on the wellbeing of our young residents will

most likely increase as internet gambling becomes more widespread. The current report has also gone some way to

confirming that resilience has an impact on outcomes, and that prevention of gambling problems must incorporate

risk prevention and promotion of protective factors in order to build resilience.

B) Youth Service Providers’ Feedback

The most common theme across all youth service providers, except those who provide gambling related

interventions, was the perception that problems with gambling were not significant when compared with other

issues facing their young clients. Despite this, when asked to estimate the percentage of their young clients that

present with serious problems the average figure provided was 7.7%, which is similar to that from the literature

being 5-7% (Purdie, et al., 2011).

There was some inconsistency in the opinions about whether gambling was the cause of problems for youth or was

a result of other issues facing young people and simply magnified these pre-existing problems. Some of the most

common and immediate issues that youth service providers reported facing include financial, mental health, housing

and relationship problems. Whether gambling is the cause or the result of these problems, this is an indication that

young people may be presenting with risk factors but without protective factors. Addressing both risk and protective

factors may prevent the progression of these issues.

The low awareness of and lack of importance placed on gambling as an issue for young people is due in part to its

competition with more immediate challenges facing service providers. This makes it difficult to advocate for

problem gambling to become a priority because it has low visibility and urgency. The limited resources available for

health promotion activities within agencies compound this issue. The challenge then, for those looking to address

the prevention of problem gambling, is how to reframe the issue in terms that will encourage service providers to

engage with the issue. One way would be to focus on developing responses that aim to increase protective factors

and reduce risk factors, which also has an impact on other areas of focus including alcohol and other drugs, mental

wellbeing, crime, disengagement and social connection. Youth service providers recommended a variety of

strategies that would act to address many issues encountered in their work, these included peer support, alternative

activities and individual resilience programs.

Another avenue to engaging service providers in the prevention of problem gambling would be to increase its

prominence by placing problem gambling alongside other significant issues facing young people. The following

evidence highlights examples of where this approach could be relevant locally.


31

New research has suggested that problem gambling is a significant risk factor for family violence. Amongst a group

of help-seeking family members of problem gamblers, over half (52.5%) reported some form of family violence in

the past 12 months and most of these reported that the gambling preceded the family violence (Suomi, et al., 2013).

Another example is a local report by St Luke’s Anglicare (Galvin, 2012) which took a snapshot of clients accessing

emergency relief agencies over a two week period. Key findings indicated that of 63 adults who completed the

survey, households reported both losing more than they can afford at least sometimes (25%), suffering due to

adverse health results from gambling (24%) and experiencing some financial hardship due to gambling (27%). These

are just two clear examples where partnerships could be utilised to address multiple inter-related issues.

Capacity building for service providers to raise awareness about youth gambling and its impacts as well as improving

the identification of risk factors would benefit young people at risk. However, positioning the prevention of problem

gambling as part of an approach to building the resilience of young people against a variety of problem behaviours

would ensure greater sustainability and a more widespread impact. This type of broad multi-faceted approach

would provide the opportunity for agencies to incorporate strategies across many areas of youth service provision

where risk and protective factors overlap including alcohol and other drugs, mental wellbeing, crime,

disengagement and social connection. Given competing priorities, this approach may result in better buy-in from

service providers.


32

Health Promotion Framework

To support the implementation of strategies identified as a result of this current research, a one page health

promotion framework document has been produced. This document outlines the target populations, settings,

overarching principles, protective and risk factors, and local strategies that will help to build resilience against

problem gambling in youth from the CVPCP catchment. Each of these areas has been discussed in some detail

below.

Target populations and settings in which to build the resilience of young people against problem gambling have

been identified from feedback provided by young people and youth service providers, but also the literature.

Respondents to the current study identified important influences from persons close to young people. In addition to

this, recent literature has identified that both parents and teachers fail to recognise the seriousness of gambling

despite acknowledging the prevalence of gambling amongst youth populations (Derevensky, St-Pierre, Temcheff, &

Gupta, 2013).

Derevensky, Gupta, Dickson, & Deguire (2005) suggest that some overarching principles, initially proposed by Nation

et al (2003), may be used to guide the appropriateness of strategies to particular target groups. Nation’s ‘review of

reviews’ looks at effective prevention programs across four areas of youth prevention; substance abuse, risky sexual

behaviour, school failure, and juvenile delinquency. The principles of effective prevention programs identified in the

study also cross over into other areas of youth prevention work, including problem gambling prevention. The main

principles that apply to the current report include that programs are comprehensive; appropriately timed; socio-

culturally relevant and foster positive relationships. These principles are described further below:

The comprehensiveness of prevention programs relates to the fact that the most successful programs consist

of multiple interventions across multiple settings. Therefore engaging all systems that have an impact on the

problem behaviour.

Interventions aimed at young people should be also be timed so that they have a maximal impact on their

lives. Often programs occur too early when young people are not developmentally ready to process the

information or too late when unwanted behaviour is already present.

The sociocultural relevance of prevention programs to the target group plays a large part in producing

positive outcomes. One way of ensuring relevance is to engage the target group in all stages of planning and

implementation of prevention programs. The Mount Alexander Shire Youth Engagement Charter (MASC,

2013) is a recently produced guideline aimed at improving youth engagement in shire matters. Many

learnings from this document are applicable to all agencies engaging with youth.

Programs that provided opportunities for young people to develop positive relationships were shown to have

positive outcomes. Relationships looked at included peer, parent-child and those between children and

significant others. Positive adult relationships were seen as critical.

Risk and protective factors have been collated from various sources (Derevensky J. L., 2005; Greenberg, 2006;

Lussier I. D., 2007; Shead, Derevensky, & Gupta, 2010). Many of these are backed up by the current research as

discussed.

The suggested strategies presented in the framework are drawn from the current research, which has provided

guidance on the needs and capacity that local organisations require in order to take action to prevent problem

gambling in their young populations. The strategies have been presented in terms of the continuum of health

promotion interventions developed by the Victorian Department of Human Services, see figure 3 (Victorian

Department of Human Services, 2003).


33

Figure 3: Continuum of Health Promotion Interventions

Although many of the learnings may be applicable in other catchments, particularly in rural areas, the framework is

intended to be used by agencies within the Central Victorian PCP catchment area, in order to guide planning for

activities that aim to build the resilience of young people.


34

CONCLUSION Young people are immersed in a society and youth culture that is full of the opportunities that technology can

provide and where risky or harmful behaviours, including gambling, are often normalised and glamorised due to the

influence of the media and social media networks. The growth of online gambling opportunities is of concern in rural

and regional areas particularly as it has the potential to attract new problem gamblers where previously access was

limited.

This paper presents information obtained through qualitative methods to describe the gambling behaviour of 18-25

year olds within the CVPCP catchment area, and the existing knowledge and needs of youth service providers. It has

identified that around one third of respondents to the survey may be at risk of gambling related problems and has

also gone some way to confirming that resilience has an impact on outcomes. In addition, it has identified strategies

that will contribute to the prevention and early intervention of gambling related problems. This information has

been summarised in a one page health promotion framework document.

It is clear in the literature that collaboarative strategies working at different levels can be the most successful in

building youth resilience. The collective impact of these strategies will be beneficial for the prevention of gambling

related problems, but will also contribute a protective effect for other problematic issues facing young people

including alcohol and other drugs, mental wellbeing, crime, disengagement and social connection.

The prevention of gambling problems must incorporate risk prevention and promotion of protective factors in order

to build resilience, and that this should be done in a collaborative manner with multiple interventions across

multiple settings in order to achieve effective and widespread results

35

Building youth resilience against problem gambling in the CVPCP catchment:

a health promotion framework

Target populations Priority settings for action Young people

Youth Service Providers Disengaged Youth

Teachers Young internet gamblers

Parents Schools

Health agencies Sporting and recreation clubs

Councils Workplaces

Community Groups

Overarching Principles Timing – intervention should be timed to

have maximal impact on a young persons life Comprehensiveness – include multiple

interventions across multiple settings Socio-cultural Relevance-norms, cultural

beliefs and practices of the target population4

Positive Relationships-peer, parent and

significant others

Resilience Building/Protective factors Risk Factors Broader Environmental Safe neighbourhoods Regulatory activities (eg govt/council policies) Opportunities for participation in alternative activities Opportunities for community engagement

Social Social connections Cohesive, supportive family Modelling for conventional behaviour Controls against deviant behaviours (particularly by parents) Interested adults

Individual Problem solving skills Social competence Autonomy Sense of purpose and future Value on achievement Value on health

Broader Environmental Access to gambling activities Positive media portrayal of gambling Normalisation of gambling culture

Social Parental or peer conflict Models for deviant behaviour (particularly peers) Poor social connections Community/school disengagement

Individual Male Risk-taking Low self-esteem/coping skills Impulsive Anxiety/depression Family history of gambling Early onset of gambing experience

Prevention and Early Intervention Strategies identified for the CVPCP region Settings and Supportive Environments Support priority settings to

embed multi-faceted health promotion programs including policies that promote resilience

Provision of alternative leisure and recreational faciltiies

Improve partnerships between agencies to provide an integrated health promotion approach to addressing youth problem gambling

Community Action Support young people with the

development of skills and knowledge so that they can initiate community action

Provide opportunitites for young people to be involved in community action activities Advocating for policy change to

build protective and reduce risk factors at organisational, local, state and federal levels

Social Marketing/Health Information Community education to raise

awareness about youth gambling and its risks and their association with other youth issues

Increase awareness of help services for early intervention

Utilisation of social and other forms of media to communicate about youth activities and problem gambling awareness Education to raise the awareness

of the benefits of resilience and connectedness for youth.

Health Education and Skill Development Individual resilience building

programs

Education about gambling, the

risks and links with other youth

cultures e.g. sporting, gaming (to

young people, parents, teachers)

Capacity building for youth service providers to understand the current status of youth gambling

Screening/Individual Risk Assessment Screening and referral consistency

across agencies

Capacity building about how to

speak with young people about

gambling problems

Capacity building to increase knowledge about identification of risk factors and protective factors

4 (see MASC Youth Engagement Charter overleaf for further guidance)


36

37

References Department of Justice. (2009). A study of gambling in Victoria: problem gambling from a public health perspective.

Melbourne: Department of Justice.

Aino Suomi, A. C.-M. (2013). Problem gambling and family violence: family member reports of prevalence, family

impacts and family coping. Asian Journal of Gambling Issues and Public Health, 3(13), 1-15.

Brunelle, N., Cousineau, M. M., Dufour, M., Gendron, A., & Leclerc, D. (2009). A look at the contextual elements

surrounding Internet gambling among adolescents. 8th Annual Conference of Alberta Gaming Research

Institute. Alberta.

Campbell, C., Derevensky, J., Meerkamper, E., & Cutajar, J. (2011). Parents’ perceptions of adolescent gambling: A

Canadian national study. Journal of Gambling Issues, 25, 36–53.

Delfabbro, P., Lahn, J., & Grabosky, P. (2005). Adolescent gambling in the ACT. Canberra: Australian National

University, Centre for Gambling Research.

Derevensky, J. L., Gupta, R., Dickson, L., & Deguire, A. E. (2005). Prevention efforts toward reducing gambling

problems. In Derevensky, Gambling Problems in Youth (pp. 211-230). US: Springer.

Derevensky, J., St-Pierre, R., Temcheff, C., & Gupta, R. (2013). Teacher awareness and attitudes regarding adolescent

risky behaviours: Is adolescent gambling perceived to be a problem? Journal of Gambling Studies.

Dickson, L., Derevensky, J. L., & Gupta, R. (2008). Youth gambling problems: Examining risk and protective factors.,

8(1), . International Gambling Studies, 25-47.

Dickson, L., Derevensky, J., & Gupta, R. (2003). Youth gambling problems: The identification of risk and protective

factors. Ontario: Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.

Dierker, L. C., Albano, A., Clarke, G. N., Heimberg, R. G., Kendall, P. C., Merikangas, K. R., & Kupfer, D. J. (2001).

Screening for anxiety and depression in early adolescence. Journal of the American Academy of Child &

Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(8), 929-936.

Gainsbury, S., Hing, N., Blaszczynski, A., & Wood, R. (2011). An investigation of Internet gambling in Australia.

Galvin, L. (2012). St Luke's Anglicare Submission: Inquiry into the social and economic costs of problem gambling in

Victoria. Bendigo: St luke's Anglicare.

Greenberg, M. T. (2006). Promoting resilience in children and youth. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,

1094(1), 139-150.

Griffiths, M. D. (2005). A "components" model of addiction within a biopsychosocial framework. Journal of Substance

Use, 10, 191-197.

Gupta, R., & Derevensky, J. (1997). Familial and social influences on juvenile gambling behavior. Journal of gambling

studies, 13(3), 179-192.

Holtgraves, T. (2009). Evaluating the problem gambling severity index. Journal of gambling studies, 25(1), 105-120.

Kinnunen, J. (2010). Convergence of online gambling and social media. 8th European Conference on Gambling

Studies and Policy Issues (pp. 14-17). Finland.: University of Tampere.


38

Lussier, I., Derevensky, J., Gupta, R., Bergevin, T., & Ellenbogen, S. (2007). Youth gambling behaviors: An examination

of the role of resilience. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 21(2), 165-173.

MASC. (2013). Mount Alexander Shire Council Youth Engagement Charter.

Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K., Seybolt, D., Morrissey-Kane, E., & Davino, K. (2003). What

works in prevention: Principles of effective prevention programs. American Psychologist, 58(6-7), 449.

Productivity Commission. (2010). Inquiry Report into Gambling. Canberra: Productivity Commission.

Purdie, N., Matters, G., Hillman, K., Murphy, M., Ozolins, C., & Millwood, P. (2011). Gambling and young people in

Australia.

Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The brief resilience scale:

Assessing the ability to bounce back. International journal of behavioral medicine, 15(3), 194-200.

Suomi, A., Jackson, A. C., Dowling, N. A., Lavis, T., Patford, J., Thomas, S., . . . Cockman, S. (2013). Problem gambling

and family violence: family member reports of prevalence, family impacts and family coping. Asian Journal of

Gambling Issues and Public Health, 3(13), 1-15.

Thomas, S. L. (2012). Conceptualisations of gambling risks and benefits: A socio-cultural study of 100 Victorian

gamblers. Report for the Victorian Department of Justice.

Tolchard, B., & Battersby, M. W. (2010). The Victorian Gambling screen: reliability and validation in a clinical

population. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26(4), 623-638.

Williams, R. J., & Volberg, R. A. (2012). Developing a short form of the PGSI: report to the Gambling Commission.

Gambling Commission.

1

CVHA Problem Gambling Literature Review

Gambling

Gambling is a common recreational activity in Australia with about 70% of adults participating in some

form of gambling each year (Thomas & Lewis, 2011, pp.1). Gambling can be described as “the

placing of a wager or bet in the form of money or something of value on the outcome of an uncertain

event that may involve the elements of skill and chance” (Jackson, 2006, pp.8). Purdie et al (2011,

pp.4) defines three forms of formal gambling activities in Australia; “gaming, in which an item of value

is exchanged depending on the outcome of a game, such as card games, roulette or electronic

gaming machines (EGMs); betting or wagering, where wagers are placed on the outcome of a race,

sporting event or other contest; and lotteries, in which money or prizes are distributed according to a

random draw”.

Of those adults who do gamble, approximately one third does so using EGMs (Purdie et al, 2001,

pp.8). There has been a rapid change to the way in which Victorians can gamble in the past two

decades “the new world of gambling is oriented around continuous and rapid mass consumption

focused primarily upon individuals betting in increasingly socially dislocated environments”(Adams,

Raeburn & de Silva, 2009, pp.688). Also more recently the delivery of gambling has diversified to

include online gambling through mobile phones, interactive televisions and the internet including

social networking sites. To date research indicates that online gambling is only a small part of overall

gambling activities, however it is one of the fastest growing sectors and may be more attractive to

young gamblers as they are often the first to adopt new technologies (Thomas & Lewis, 2011, pp.1,

Lavoie, & Ladouceur, 2004, pp.24).

Gambling has long been a popular social pastime for many Australians, with games of two-up on

Anzac Day, sweeps during the horse racing season and footy tipping competitions all socially

accepted as part of our typical Australian Culture (Purdie et al, 2001, pp.4).The Australasian Gaming

Council (Thomas & Lewis, 2011, pp.1) reported that Australians on the whole perceive that gambling

is a relatively harmless form of entertainment for most people. The perceived benefits of engaging in

gambling activities have been described by Victorian adults to be winning money (53%),

entertainment (32%) and social reasons (30%) (Department of Justice, 2009). There are also financial

benefits for gambling venues and governments with the total revenue from gambling in Australia in

2008/9 being $19 billion (Thomas & Lewis, 2011, pp.1).

Despite this it is widely acknowledged that gambling also causes harm to some individuals and

communities (Thomas & Lewis, 2011; Jackson, 2006; Adams, Raeburn & de Silva, 2009; Rennie,

2009). This has resulted in problem gambling being seen as an important public health concern.

Recent public debate, especially within CVHA’s catchment area, has highlighted the concern around

the negative social consequences of gambling on communities and individuals (EPIC, 2012).

Problem Gambling

The Victorian Government has adopted the national definition of problem gambling and harm, which

proposes that: “Problem gambling is characterised by difficulties in limiting money and/or time spent

on gambling which leads to adverse consequences for the gambler, others, or for the community”

(Neal, Delfabbro, & O’Neil, 2005, pp.125). Defining problem gambling this way highlights the

underlying condition, the signs and the consequences of problem gambling (Jackson, 2006).

There has been some conjecture as to whether problem gambling should be defined based on

symptoms rather than presence of harm (Blaszyczynski, 2002). The presence of harm is generally

identified based on subjective value judgements, which has been criticised as it may increase the

potential for people to be identified as problem gamblers or alternatively at risk. This approach may

2

however be beneficial when viewing problem gambling from an early intervention and public health

perspective as problem gamblers may be identified at earlier stages.

Figure 1 shows the ways in which harm from problem gambling can impact on the individual, their

community and society as a whole.

Figure 1 Levels of Harm (Rennie, 2009, pp.3)

International research has placed the prevalence of problem gambling at 0.3-5.3% (Thomas and

Lewis, 2011, pp.1). In Australia, the Productivity Commission (2010) has estimated that the

prevalence of problem gambling among adults is between 0.5 – 1%, however they also suggest that a

further 1.4 – 2.1% of adults are at an increased risk of facing problems with their gambling. Victorian

data shows that 0.7% of adults are problem gamblers, with 2.4% at moderate risk and 5.7% being low

risk gamblers (Department of Justice, 2009). This study also found that problem gambling is higher

amongst males, and that there is a higher proportion of moderate risk gamblers in the 18-24 year old

group than in other age groups.

Electronic gaming machines (EGM’s) have been found to be the most common gambling activity for

problem gamblers, however problem gamblers tend to participate in a larger number of different

gambling activities compared with non-problem gamblers (Department of Justice, 2009). Problem

gamblers were also more likely to gamble alone compared with gamblers in other risk categories

(Department of Justice, 2011).

The development of problem gambling occurs via a complex set of interconnected factors, causes

and determinants. McLeroy et al (1988, cited in Messerlian, 2005) proposed an ecological health

promotion model that emphasises the different levels of influence on gambling behaviour, from

intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional, community and public policy domains. (see fig 2)

Levels Factors

Intrapersonal Individual characteristics: knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, skills and personality traits.

Interpersonal Social networks and support systems: family and peers that provide social identity, support, and role definition.

Institutional Social institutions with formal/informal rules, regulations, policies that constrain or promote behaviour.

3

Community Relationships, standards and networks that exist among individuals, groups and institutions.

Public Policy Local, state, federal policies and laws that regulate, support, or constrain healthy actions and practices.

Figure 2: Levels of influence on gambling behaviour (McLeroy, 1988; cited in Messerlian, 2005, pp.71)

Victorian problem gamblers have more reported health problems, with self-reported general health

described as poor in 17% of problem gamblers compared with 3.43% of non-problem gamblers (Hare,

2009). The same study indicated that people with a gambling problem reported:

“a slightly higher rate of diabetes

a significantly higher rate of lung conditions including asthma

a significantly higher rate of depression

a significantly higher rate of anxiety disorders

a significantly higher rate of obesity

a significantly higher rate of other miscellaneous physical or mental health

conditions.” (Hare, 2009, cited in Department of Justice, 2001a, pp.10)

The social determinants of health that are related to problem gambling and would have an impact on

the above health conditions are:

Social exclusion: Problem gamblers “have significantly lower social capital than non-problem

gamblers, which is indicated by being more likely to not have access to help from friends when they

need it, lower rates of participation in organised groups, and being more likely to report not liking living

in their community” (Hare, 2009, cited in Department of Justice, 2011a, pp.13)

Addiction to smoking, alcohol and other drugs: Problem gambling is linked to an increased risk of high

alcohol and tobacco use (Hare, 2009, cited in Department of Justice, 2011a, pp.13).

Stress: Problem gambling is associated with stress and anxiety and compared to non-problem

gamblers, people with a gambling problem were significantly more likely to have a severe or moderate

mental disorder (Hare, 2009, cited in Department of Justice, 2011a, pp.13).

Social supports: Family and friends of people with a gambling problem are affected both physically

and emotionally. 10% of gamblers receiving counselling reported that their gambling had led to

incidences of family violence (Productivity Commission, 1999). Children of people with a gambling

problem are two to four times more likely to develop gambling problems than their peers (Dowling,

Jackson, Thomas, & Frydenberg, 2010, pp.36).

There may also be other possible factors at a local level including; financial hardship impacting on

food security; insufficient access to public transport leading to social exclusion or lack of access to

alternate leisure activities; and unemployment leading to financial stress and reduced social supports

(Department of Justice, 2011a, pp.14) .

Past experiences, exposures and life events are also thought to have an impact on levels of problem

gambling, with childhood exposure to gambling, negative childhood experiences and stressful life

events influencing behaviours (Hodgins, Stea & Grant, 2011). This is highlighted by the fact that

problem gamblers are more likely to report gambling to “take their mind off things, to relieve stress

and to relieve boredom” (Thomas, 2011, pp.5).

As mentioned earlier, many forms of gambling have become a typical part of the Australian way of

life. Gamblers beliefs and behaviours around their gambling are influenced by the broader society and

its social and cultural norms, traditions and values. Recent research has looked at how the changes

to marketing of gambling activities have impacted on these beliefs and behaviours. These have also

4

been influenced by the large diversity of gambling products now available and accessible through

Internet, mobile phones and social media (Productivity Commission, 2010).

Local Demographics of the Problem

Socio-Economic Demographics

Employment: Of those aged 15 years or older 61% in Central Goldfields, 73.1% in Macedon Ranges

and 65.7% in Mount Alexander were employed compared to the Victorian State average of 71%.

Income levels: Median household income across CVHA’s catchment is $685 Central Goldfields,

$1,395 for Macedon Ranges and $838 for Mount Alexander. Both Central Goldfields and Mount

Alexander fall below the state median household income of $1,216.

Education: The percentage of the population aged 15 years and over that had completed year 12 or

equivalent was 32.3% in Central Goldfields, 53.2% in Macedon Ranges and 58.2% in Mount

Alexander, which are all below the state average of 58.2%.

Gambling Statistics

In 2011/2012, just over $20.6 million was lost in Electronic Gaming Machines (EGM) in CVHA’s three

shire areas. However, this money was not lost evenly across the Region. Even accounting for their

size and population, some shire areas lost significantly more money than others. The Shire of

Macedon Ranges was the biggest loser in terms of total losses ($9.5 million), however the Shire of

Central Goldfields had by far the highest EGM spending per adult ($777). The Shire of Mount

Alexander experienced the smallest total expenditure (3.2 million) and the lowest expenditure per adult

($217).

Accessibility of EGM’s in each shire area may explain some of this data. Central Goldfields has a total

of 96 EGM’s over 2 venues and as such have a high density of EGM’s (9.4 per 1000 adults). Macedon

Ranges has a total of 95 EGM’s at 3 venues but with their larger population this results in a density of

2.9 EGM’s per 1000 adults. Mount Alexander has only 30 EGM’s at one venue, which translates to

2.04 machines per 1000 adults.

This data cannot account for total losses that come from residents within each shire; there is anecdotal

evidence of people travelling from one shire area to another to partake in EGM activities. This may in

part account for the very high Net EGM expenditure per adults seen in Central Goldfields Shire.

Young People and Problem Gambling

Many of the more recent changes to gambling culture and products in Australia, including the way that

gambling is marketed and its accessibility, especially through internet and smartphones, may influence

the behaviours of younger people beyond those of the adult population as they are more connected to

the digital world and are generally early adopters of new technologies (Lavoie & Ladouceur, 2004).

Studies on young people and gambling tend to focus on the adolescent or school age group,

particularly those under the age of 18 as they are not able to legally gamble in Australia, and this

appears to be a key stage where gambling behaviours and beliefs are formulated (Purdie, Matters,

Hillman, Murphy, Ozolins, & Millwood, 2011). Based on research both internationally and within

Australia, despite gambling being illegal for those under the age of 18, anywhere from 50-80% of this

age group had gambled in the past year (Volberg, Gupta, Griffiths, Ólason & Delfabbro, 2011). In

Australia, studies have identified that the most popular forms of gambling for young people are

5

lotteries, scratch-tickets, racing/sports betting, and private card games, and fewer young Australians

report using EGM’s, which may be due to the majority of subjects being under the age of 18 (Purdie et

al., 2011).

The prevalence of problem gambling amongst young people has been found to be higher than that in

the adult population, with both international and local research finding that 5-7% of young people are

problem gamblers and a further 10-14% are at risk or have the potential to become problem gamblers

(Purdie et al, 2011; Valentine, 2008; Jackson, 2006). Purdie (2011, pp.61) focussed on people in the

18-24 year old age group and found they had a higher prevalence of problem gambling (5.8%)

compared with younger age groups and a much higher level of at-risk gambling (24.5%). In addition to

this they found that Indigenous young people were 6.4 times more likely to be problem gamblers than

non-Indigenous young people.

Messerlian, Derevensky, & Gupta (2005) has adapted McLeroy’s (1988, cited in Messerlian et al,

2005) level’s of influence on gambling behaviour, in order to present some of the correlates that

influence youth gambling at each level, including intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional, community

and public policy (see fig 3). I will go further into some of these correlates next.

Levels Factors Youth gambling examples

Intrapersonal Individual characteristics: knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, skills and personality traits.

Male Risk-taking propensity Low self-esteem Poor coping skills Impulsivity, sensation seeking Anxiety and/or depression

Interpersonal Social networks and support systems: family and peers that provide social identity, support, and role definition.

Family history of gambling Parental or peer conflict Parental or peer attitudes Family connectedness

Institutional Social institutions with formal/informal rules, regulations, policies that constrain or promote behaviour.

School policy/programmes Industry policies and enforcement

Community Relationships, standards and networks that exist among individuals, groups and institutions.

Social norms Media Community resources Availability and accessibility factors

Public Policy Local, state, federal policies and laws that regulate, support, or constrain healthy actions and practices.

Federal and state policies on: age restrictions, enforcement, advertising, legislation

Figure 3 Levels of influence on gambling behaviour (Messerlian et al, 2005 pp.71; McLeroy et al 1988)

Intrapersonal factors:

There is substantial evidence that gambling and problem gambling are more prevalent amongst young

males, in fact problem gambling is at least twice as common in males as females (Purdie et al., 2011,

pp.16). Research has suggested that the increased prevalence of male problem gambling may be

mediated through other risk factors, for example young males appear to be more prone to risk-taking

behaviours in general compared with females, and seem to hold more positive attitudes towards risk-

taking in relation to gambling (Purdie et al., 2011; Delfabbro, Lahn, & Grabosky, 2006).

There are some personality traits that have been found to be more common in problem gamblers.

Young problem gamblers tend to have high levels of impulsivity, extroversion and anxiety, while they

also report higher rates of a range of mental health and emotional problems (including depression and

suicide ideation and attempts), lower self-confidence and self-esteem (Purdie et al, 2006, pp.17).

6

Young people with gambling problems also tend to display poorer coping skills (Purdie et al., 2006,

pp.18), utilising avoidance or distraction oriented coping strategies. Young people without gambling

problems indicate that their reasons for gambling are for enjoyment and excitement, however those

with gambling problems are more likely to identify that they gamble to relax, escape problems and

alleviate feelings of depression (Derevensky and Gupta, 2004).

Many researchers have found that there is a link between problem gambling in young people and an

increased risk of other unfavourable behaviours, in particular alcohol and substance abuse

(Derevensky & Gupta, 2004).

Another factor that has been identified as influencing gambling behaviours is individuals holding

misconceptions about the notions of chance and randomness (Lavoie & Ladouceur, 2004). These

errors lead gamblers to believe that they have more control over the outcome of the game. Given that

the average age that problem gamblers had their first contact with gambling is 10 years old Valentine,

2008), their gambling behaviours and beliefs are formed at a time when they are less able to

understand these complex notions.

Interpersonal Factors

Having a family history of problem gambling, is one of the key risk factors for youth gambling, in fact

many problem gamblers report that their initial gambling experiences occurred with family members

(Gupta & Derevensky, 1997). Parental problem gambling is thought to affect the gambling behaviours

of their children through; “observation of parental gambling, exposure to gambling role models

(including parent’s, parent’s friends, other relatives), increased access to gambling opportunities, and

peer influence” (Dowling, Jackson, Thomas, & Frydenberg, 2010; Delfabbro, Lahn, & Grabosky,

2005).

Family structure and functioning can also impact on the risk of problem gambling as youth from single-

parent families are at greater risk than others (Volberg et al., 2011, Purdie et al., 2011). The quality of

family functioning has been found to play a role, in one study parental practises such as monitoring

behaviour and discipline had more of an impact on gambling behaviours than parental gambling

behaviours themselves (Vachon, Vitaro, Wanner, & Tremblay, 2004).

As well as familial influences on problem gambling, the influence of peers has been found to have an

impact, “having a friend with a gambling problem had one of the strongest relationships, above all

other risk and protective factors, with being a problem gambler” (Dickson, Derevensky& Gupta, 2008,

cited in Purdie et al., 2011, pp.21). Problem gambling adolescents have also reported poorer

relationships with peers and social isolation was found to be a strong predictor of gambling severity

(Delfabbro et al, 2006).

Environmental Factors (including Institutional and community)

The media is an important element that shapes the social environment of youth gambling. The media

is saturated with images that normalise and glamorise not just gambling but many risk-taking

behaviours, which has a significant influence on young people who spend on average 21 hours per

week watching television (Purdie et al, 2011). The Internet and social media, including smart phones,

form a part of this social environment and will be discussed later.

Institutional structures including regulations and policies of gambling venues can impact on gambling

behaviours (Messerlian et al., 2005). As can the accessibility of gambling products, this as mentioned

has proliferated recently. However there is little evidence as to whether the opportunity to gamble

attracts young people to venues or whether the venues provide a convenient place to hang out in the

absence of alternatives (Valentine, 2008).

7

Other community institutions can have a significant impact on gambling behaviours and the

normalisation of gambling in young people, in particular schools. Some school practices may

unknowingly be promoting gambling, including fundraising activities that include raffles, and

curriculum activities that include gambling, however they can also be an important vehicle for

educating young people about the risks and realities of gambling, in particular the mathematical basis

of odds and chance (Messerlian et al., 2005).

Public Policy

Public policy can control gambling through legislation around age restrictions, advertising and

accessibility of gambling products. However governments tend to regulate gambling in a way that

promotes the economic benefits, considering governments are highly dependent on revenue from

gambling there remains a disincentive to tackle gambling problems form a population health/health

promotion perspective (Messerlian et al., 2005, pp.72).

The question still remains that given the above influences, what leads some young people to become

problem gamblers and not others? Nower and Blaszczynski (2004) have adapted the Pathways

Model to identify youth problem gambling pathways. This model proposes that while problem

gamblers share many characteristics, there are at least three distinct sub-groups of problem gamblers

with different gambling pathways; behaviourally conditioned problem gamblers; emotionally

vulnerable problem gamblers; and anti-social impulsivist problem gamblers.

Behaviourally conditioned problem gamblers are those that have no pre-existing social and

psychological pathologies. They are often achieving well academically but may be shy and often use

gambling to facilitate social interactions with peers. They are often able to hide their gambling until

they reach a crisis point. Emotionally vulnerable problem gamblers are those that do exhibit pre-

existing psychological issues such as anxiety or depression, or may be affected by adverse life

events. This group tends to gamble as a means of escape from their problems. This group makes up

the biggest proportion of problem gamblers. Anti-social impulsivist problem gamblers are those that

have a pre-existing history of impulsive behaviour and often exhibit a range of other behavioural

problems including substance abuse, sensation seeking and criminal activity.

These different pathways then present different opportunities to implement both prevention and early

intervention strategies, which will be discussed later.

Young people and online gambling

The recent growth of online gambling opportunities is of concern for youth problem gambling, as is the

insidious way that gambling has become a part of many online gaming and social media activities

(Griffith & Parke, 2010). The distinction between online gaming and gambling is being blurred with

many gaming sites utilising free gambling within games or providing in game rewards or tokens that

can then be used for gambling purposes (Messerlian, Byrne, & Derevensky, 2004). Social networking

sites also play a role in the proliferation of gambling opportunities, particularly aimed at young people,

for example one of the most popular games on Facebook is Texas Hold’em poker (Kinnunen, 2010).

Brunelle, Cousineau, Dufour, Gendron & Leclerc (2009) on interviewing young online gamblers found

the main types of online gambling activities to be poker, blackjack, electronic gaming machines, bingo

and sports betting. This study also found that problem gambling was significantly more likely among

Internet gamblers (10%) compared to non-internet gamblers (3%). This may be due to the fact that

Internet gamblers, as with problem gamblers, tend to participate in more different gambling forms and

gamble more frequently than non-internet gamblers (Gainsbury, Hing, Blaszczynski, & Wood, 2011).

8

Ease of accessibility, convenience and greater privacy are characteristics of online gambling that

make it increasingly attractive to young gamblers, therefore may lead to the increase of both the

presence and severity of problem gambling in young people (Productivity Commission, 2010). The

use of credit cards and Internet bank transfer, although convenient, led to an increase in the amount

spent in just over half the problem gamblers studies compared with one tenth of non-problem

gamblers (Gainsbury et al., 2011). Internet gambling may also act to increase levels of social isolation

(Thomas & Lewis, 2012), however Kinnunen (2010) indicates that a large part of online gambling

requires interaction between players, and although there are plenty of opportunities to play alone,

online gambling in not inherently an asocial activity.

Brunelle et al. (2009) looked at the motivations to take part in internet gambling and concluded that

“most initiation of online gambling took place with family members, most adolescent online gamblers

began by playing ‘free play’ mode and for many adolescents online gambling was a way to make

money, occupied them when they had nothing else to do, and allowed them to socialise”.

Screening and assessment for young people with gambling problems

A number of screening tools have been used in youth gambling research, Purdie et al. (2011) has

identified and discussed those that have been reviewed for use with young people, particularly in

Australian studies:

The South Oaks Gambling Screen-Revised for Adolescents (SOGS-RA) was developed for use with

adolescents between the ages of 15-18. Researchers have raised concerns that the items focus on

the negative feelings and behaviours associated with a young persons gambling but does not include

cognitive aspects of their problem gambling (Poulin, 2000; Derevensky and Gupta, 2004). Others

have raised concerns that a large proportion of the items were misunderstood by young people and

“less than a third of participants correctly understand all of the items”(Purdie et al., 2011, pp.30).

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Fourth Edition Adapted for Juveniles (DSM-IV-J) has been

adapted to measure the gambling behaviour of 11-16 year olds over the preceding 12 months. This

instrument has been further revised for use in other non-clinical settings and reports demonstrate that

it has reasonable levels of reliability and validity (Fisher, 2000). It has also been recommended for

future use due to its low reading age, which may help with accuracy of response.

The Victorian Gambling Screen (VGS) was commissioned by the Victorian Gaming Authority for use

with Australian populations after concerns were raised about the use of the South Oaks Gambling

Screen. When tested against the SOGS it was found to be “more sensitive to differences in gambling

problem severity among those who are problem gamblers” (Purdie et al., 2011, pp.35). Although a

youth version has yet to be published, it has been used in a study of Australian adolescent gambling

and was found to have good reliability and correlated significantly with the DSM-IV-J (Delfabbro et al.,

2005).

All of these instruments are self-report instruments of behaviour and as such are subject to

measurement error. Interestingly, Hardoon, Derevensky & Gupta (2003), found that 3-6% of young

people were classified as problem gamblers using three different instruments, however only 1% of

young people see themselves this way. Either young people are underestimating their gambling

problems or the instruments are overestimating prevalence rates. This could work in the favour of

early detection of potential problems.

Early intervention and prevention of the development of problem gambling in young people,

with a focus on community engagement, social connectedness and increased resilience.

9

Public Health interventions targeted at reducing the harm from problem gambling aim to shift from

focusing on treating the individual with problems to looking at broader determinants of gambling

behaviour by making changes to; consumption environments; the nature of the product; and

knowledge and beliefs that influence patterns of gambling (Adams et al., 2009, pp.689).

If we think of all youth sitting somewhere along a continuum in relation to problem gambling

behaviours, with one end representing non-gamblers and the other end problem gamblers, we start to

visualise the points where intervention may have an impact to prevent further harm form occurring.

Figure 4 illustrates this continuum and highlights; the points for primary, secondary and tertiary

prevention intervention; the prevention objectives at each of these points; and the recommended

health promotion strategies required to achieve the prevention objectives (Messerlian et al., 2005,

pp.72-73)

Figure 4 Youth gambling and risk prevention model (Messerlian et al., (2005)

Health Promotion interventions aim to affect change at the primary and secondary prevention stage of

youth problem gambling. This review will now focus on the early intervention and prevention

strategies of community engagement, social connectedness and increasing resilience.

Community engagement, or public participation as it is often referred to, is defined by the International

Association of Public Participation as any process that involves the public in problem-solving or

decision making and uses the public input to make more informed decisions. This includes decisions

that directly impact upon living, working, playing, studying, using services and doing business within

the City (Charles Sturt University). Engaging with the community is more than just consulting.

Community engagement includes informing, consulting with, involving, collaborating with and

empowering the community. Community engagement leads to more active participation of the target

group in community life. Community engagement when successful can promote social inclusion and

connectedness and increase both community and individual resilience (Charles Sturt University).

10

Social inclusion is a determinant of mental health and wellbeing that is linked to Health Promotion,

particularly through the action areas of building healthy public policy, creating supportive

environments and strengthening community action. At one level, it represents the degree to which

individuals feel connected with their communities; more broadly, it is about the strength within

communities and organisations that sustains positive mental health. Social inclusion is thus a broad

notion that incorporates concepts of social capital, social networks, social connectedness, social trust,

reciprocity, local democracy and group solidarity (Jermyn, 2001).

Resilient communities “are able to integrate their resources and capability to respond positively to

crises and adapt to pressures” (Board, 2009, pp.1). Resources that act to support resilience include

economic, social capital, information and communication systems. Capabilities include skills,

motivation, leadership and competence.

With regards to the prevention of youth problem gambling engaging these interlinked strategies of

community engagement, social connectedness and increasing resilience, is done on the basis that a

community that is empowered will be more able to deal with the gambling opportunities that will

continue to grow into the future. These communities who know best what is good for them can be

powerful advocates about how to tackle youth problem gambling issues (Adams et al., 2009, pp.690).

There is to date little evidence around the effectiveness of these and other strategies in reducing

youth problem gambling, however there is evidence around the prevention of other problematic

behaviour such as adolescent alcohol and substance use, and given the similarities of the pathways

leading to these behaviours it should follow that similar intervention effects would be seen

(Messerlain, 2005; Williams, West & Simpson, 2007). Interventions that have been shown to be

effective in reducing youth problem behaviours including gambling include;

Information/awareness campaigns; studies have found that “knowledge and attitudinal

changes have been fairly reliably obtained, the ability of awareness campaigns to produce

actual change in behaviour is much less common” (Williams et al., 2007, pp.9).

Interventions to strengthen families and create effective parenting practices; given that early

childhood experiences and exposure to undesirable behaviour within the family has a

significant impact on youth taking up these behaviours themselves, it is not surprising that

these interventions “are generally one of the most powerful ways to reduce adolescent

problem behaviours, and further serves to reduce problems at later ages” (Williams et al,

2007, pp.7)

The increasing widespread use of the harm-reduction/harm-minimisation approach in the field

of alcohol and substance abuse has led to this principle being applied to the field of gambling

behaviour (Nower & Blaszczynski, 2004). Harm reduction strategies are designed to minimise

the harm from drugs/alcohol/gambling rather than the stopping the use of these products

(Hunt, Ashton, Lenton, Mitcheson, Nelles, & Stimson, 2003). Harm reduction is thought of by

some to be interventions at the tertiary prevention level where the target group are those

already exhibiting unhealthy levels of the behaviour (Messerlian et al, 2004). However harm

reductions strategies can occur at any place along the continuum of gambling and act to

reduce the likelihood of young people moving along the continuum towards problem gambling

(Hunt et al., 2003).

Education about the mathematics involved in gambling and comprehensive school-based

prevention programs have had mixed results (Lavoie & Ladouceur, 2004; Williams et al.,

2007).

Literature from other youth problem behavioural fields indicate that even comprehensive

educational approaches to prevention of problem gambling, often have only small effects on

the desired behaviour (Williams et al., 2007).

11

Partnerships for implementation

Given that youth problem gambling corresponds with a multitude of correlates ranging from individual

based factors to community and public policy factors, and the resultant need for a multifaceted

approach (Purdie, 2011, pp.xxiv), it is essential that meaningful partnerships are established between

organisations that can work together to address programs. The benefits of partnership work for

problem gambling include:

“increased access to resources both financial and human

shared responsibility for targeting the social determinants of problem gambling (determinants

that are common to other health issues)

access to and contribution to a diverse range of skills and knowledge

reduced duplication and fragmented activity across organisations

shared funding applications

greater impact on health outcomes in the long-term, and less people experiencing problem

gambling

increased sustainability of health interventions and associated benefits” (Department of

Justice, 2011a, pp.17)

A broad range of services would be appropriate to partner with in the prevention of problem gambling

in young people. Suggestions for partners include; councils; youth services; community health

services; community agencies; parent groups; schools and other training providers; recreation and

leisure services; sports clubs and music festivals. Integrating initiatives with existing alcohol/drug and

mental health services and/or education programs would help to align these prevention strategies and

reduce duplication (Department of Justice, 2011a, pp.19; Rennie, 2009, pp.11).

12

References

Adams, P. J., Raeburn, J., & De Silva, K. (2009). A question of balance: prioritizing public health responses to harm from gambling. Addiction, 104(5), 688-691.

Blaszczynski, A., and Lia, N. (2002) A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling. Addiction, 97(5), 487-499.

Board, A. S. I. (2009). Building inclusive and resilient communities. The Australian Government, Canberra.

Brunelle, N., Cousineau, M. M., Dufour, M., Gendron, A., & Leclerc, D. (2009, March). A look at the contextual elements surrounding Internet gambling among adolescents. In 8th Annual Conference of Alberta Gaming Research Institute, Banff Center, Alberta.

Charles Sturt University. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.charlessturt.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Community_Engagement_Model.pdf

Delfabbro, P., Lahn, J., & Grabosky, P. (2005). Adolescent gambling in the ACT. Canberra, ACT: Australian National University, Centre for Gambling Research.

Delfabbro, P., Lahn, J., & Grabosky, P. (2006). It’s not what you know, but how you use it: Statistical knowledge and adolescent problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 22(2), 179-193.

Department of Justice. (2009). A study of gambling in Victoria: problem gambling from a public health

perspective. Melbourne: State of Victoria, Department of Justice.

Department of Justice. (2011a). A guide to using a health promotion approach to problem gambling.

Melbourne. Retrieved from: http://professionals.problemgambling.vic.gov.au/files-

professionals/Copy%20of%20(CD-11-368326)%20--%20FINAL-

%20A%20Guide%20to%20using%20a%20Health%20Promotion%20approach%20to%20Problem%2

0Gambling%20-%20version%20for%20web%20-%202011.pdf

Department of Justice. (2011). The Victorian gambling study, A longitudinal study of gambling and

public health - Wave two findings. Melbourne. Retrieved from:

http://www.gamblingstudy.com.au/pdf/The_Victorian_Gambling_Study_Wave_2_Report.PDF

Derevensky, J. and Gupta, R. (eds) (2004) Gambling Problems in Youth. The Theoretical and Applied

Perspectives. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York.

Dickson, L., Derevensky, J., & Gupta, R. (2008) Youth gambling problems: Examining risk and

protective factors. International Gambling Studies, 8(1), 25-47.

Dowling, N., Clarke, D., Memery, L., & Corney, T. (2005). Australian apprentices and gambling. Youth Studies Australia, 24(3), 17.

Dowling, N. A., Jackson, A. C., Thomas, S. A., & Frydenberg, E. (2010). Children at risk of developing problem gambling. Gambling Research Australia.

Enough Pokies in Castlemaine (EPIC). (2012). Retrieved from http://enoughpokies.org/

Fisher, S. (2000). Developing the DSM-IV-DSM-IV criteria to identify adolescent problem gambling in non-clinical populations. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16(2), 253-273.

Gainsbury, S., Hing, N., Blaszczynski, A., & Wood, R. (2011). An investigation of Internet gambling in Australia.

Griffiths, M. D., & Parke, J. (2010). Adolescent gambling on the Internet: A review. International journal of adolescent medicine and health, 22(1), 59-75.

Gupta, R., & Derevensky, J. (1997). Familial and social influences on juvenile gambling behavior. Journal of gambling studies, 13(3), 179-192.

http://www.charlessturt.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Community_Engagement_Model.pdf

http://professionals.problemgambling.vic.gov.au/files-professionals/Copy%20of%20(CD-11-368326)%20--%20FINAL-%20A%20Guide%20to%20using%20a%20Health%20Promotion%20approach%20to%20Problem%20Gambling%20-%20version%20for%20web%20-%202011.pdf




http://www.gamblingstudy.com.au/pdf/The_Victorian_Gambling_Study_Wave_2_Report.PDF

http://enoughpokies.org/

13

Hardoon, K., Derevensky, J. L., & Gupta, R. (2003). Empirical measures vs. perceived gambling severity among youth: why adolescent problem gamblers fail to seek treatment. Addictive Behaviors, 28(5), 933-946.

Hare, S. (2009). A study of gambling in Victoria—problem gambling from a public health perspective. Melbourne: Department of Justice.

Hodgins, D. C., Stea, J. N., & Grant, J. E. (2011). Gambling disorders. The Lancet, 378(9806), 1874-1884.

Hunt, N., Ashton, M., Lenton, S., Mitcheson, L., Nelles, B., & Stimson, G. (2003). A review of the evidence-base for harm reduction approaches to drug use. London: Forward Thinking on Drugs.

Jackson, A. C. (2006). Problem gambling: A guide for Victorian schools. Department of Justice.

Jermyn, H. (2001). The Arts and Social Exclusion: a review prepared for the Arts Council of England. London: Arts Council of England.

Kinnunen, J. (2010). Convergence of online gambling and social media. 8th European Conference on

Gambling Studies and Policy Issues 14-17.9.2010. University of Tampere. Finland. Retrieved from:

www.easg.org/media/file/vienna2010/.../3_Jani_Kinnunen.pdf

Lavoie, M. P., & Ladouceur, R. (2004). Prevention of gambling among youth: Increasing knowledge and modifying attitudes toward gambling. Journal of Gambling Issues.

Messerlian, C., Byrne, A. M., & Derevensky, J. L. (2004). Gambling, youth and the Internet: should we be concerned? The Canadian child and adolescent psychiatry review, 13(1), 3-6.

Messerlian, C., Derevensky, J., & Gupta, R. (2005) Youth gambling problems: a public health perspective. Health Promot. Int. 20(1), 69-79.

Neal, P., Delfabbro, P., & O’Neil, M. (2005), Problem gambling and harm: towards a national definition,www.gamblingresearch.org.au/CA256DB1001771FB/page/

The+Research+Library-GRA+Reports-National+Definition?OpenDocument&1=30

The+Research+Library~&2=40-GRA+Reports~&3=0-National+Definition~.

Nower, L., & Blaszczynski, A. P. (2004) The pathways model as harm minimization for youth

gamblers in educational settings. Child and Adolescent Social Work 21(1), 25-45.

Poulin, C. (2000). Problem gambling among adolescent students in the Atlantic provinces of Canada. Journal of gambling studies, 16(1), 53-78.

Productivity Commission. (1999). Australia’s Gambling Industries, Report No. 10. AusInfo, Canberra.

Productivity Commission. (2010). Inquiry Report into Gambling. Canberra. Retrieved from:

http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/gambling-2009/report

Purdie, N., Matters, G., Hillman, K., Murphy, M., Ozolins, C., & Millwood, P. (2011). Gambling and young people in Australia. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/policy_analysis_misc/13

Thomas, S. L., & Lewis, S. (2012) Conceptualisations of gambling risks and benefits: A socio-cultural

study of 100 Victorian gamblers. Report for the Victorian Department of Justice.

Rennie, Susan, 2009, Health promotion resource guide for problem gambling prevention in

Melbourne’s North. Banyule Nillumbik Primary Care Alliance.

Vachon, J., Vitaro, F., Wanner, B. & Tremblay, R.E. (2004). Adolescent gambling: Relationships with

parent gambling and parenting practices. Psychology of Addictive Behaviours, 18, 398-401.

Valentine, G. (2008). Literature Review of Children and Young People's Gambling. Gambling Commission.

Volberg, R. A., Gupta, R., Griffiths, M. D., Ólason, D. T., & Delfabbro, P. (2011). An international perspective on youth gambling prevalence studies. International journal of adolescent medicine and health.

http://www.easg.org/media/file/vienna2010/.../3_Jani_Kinnunen.pdf

http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/gambling-2009/report

http://research.acer.edu.au/policy_analysis_misc/13

14

Williams, R. J., West, B. L., & Simpson, R. I. (2007). Prevention of problem gambling: A

comprehensive review of the evidence. Guelph, Ontario: Report prepared for the Ontario Problem

Gambling Research Centre.

CVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth survey

Welcome to the Central Victorian Health Alliance Problem Gambling Project. You have been invited because you are 1825 years old and live in one of three central Victorian shires (Central Goldfields Shire, Macedon Ranges Shire and Mount Alexander Shire). By doing this research we hope to find out more about youth problem gambling and ways of preventing and supporting young people with this issue, within this region. We cannot guarantee that you will receive any benefits from this research; however, you may gain a better awareness of problem gambling amongst your age group and where to go for help. Participation in this research is voluntary. If you don’t wish to take part, you don’t have to. If you take part you will need to fill out the following survey about your experiences with gambling, which will take approximately 10 minutes. This survey is anonymous, so information cannot be traced back to you. Because we are asking questions about your gambling behaviours and state of mind while gambling, there is a chance that some questions may make you feel distressed. If this does occur please contact Gamblers Help 1800 858 858 or visit www.gamblinghelponline.org.au or for emotional support contact Lifeline on 13 11 14. Remember all responses are anonymous so information cannot be traced back to you. If you have any questions about this research, please email the main researcher: Emma Shannon directly at: [email protected] or call 5472 5333. If you have any questions or concerns about this study, and do not wish to share them directly with the research team, then you can contact secretary at the Department of Justice Human Research Ethics Committee on 03 8684 1514 or [email protected]. On completion of the research, a full report will be available on www.cvha.com.au, or please contact Emma Shannon as above to directly receive a copy. As a thank you for your participation,you are able to enter a draw to win an iPod Nano. At the end of the survey, you will be taken to a separate page where you can leave your contact details. These details will not be linked in any way to your survey responses. If you are filling in a hard copy then returning this in the attached reply paid envelope indicates that you are providing your informed consent. Please send your name and phone number in the separate reply paid "prize draw" envelope to be entered into the prize draw.

1. By clicking on the link below to enter the online survey, you are providing your informed consent

*

I am aged 1825, live in Central Goldfields Shire, Macedon Ranges Shire or Mount Alexander Shire and agree to participate.

gfedc

I do not wish to participate

gfedc


2. During the last 12 months, how often do you use these activities?

3. Why do you do these activities? (select all that apply)

4 or more times a week

23 times a week

once a week23 times a month

once a monthless than once

a monthnot at all in the past 12 months

Instant scratch tickets nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Lottery tickets nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Bet on sporting events through a TAB, TOTE, betting operator or bookie

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Bet on horse or dog races through a TAB, TOTE, betting operator or bookie


Bingo for money nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Keno nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Poker for money nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Casino table games (not including poker)


Games of skill for money, not including poker (i.e. board games, trivia games)


Electronic gaming machines (Pokies)


To win money

gfedc

For entertainment

gfedc

To be sociable

gfedc

To forget troubles

gfedc

To escape from problems

gfedc

For something to do

gfedc

For excitement

gfedc

To avoid talking to people

gfedc

Other (please specify)

gfedc

CVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth survey4. Thinking of your 5 closest friends, how many of them regularly do these activities?

5. Thinking of your family, how often do they do these activities?

6. On average per week, how much time would you spend doing these activities?

7. On average, per week, how much of your total time spent on these activities has been online?

0

nmlkj

1

nmlkj

2

nmlkj

3

nmlkj

4

nmlkj

5

nmlkj

4 or more times a week

nmlkj

23 times a week

nmlkj

once a week

nmlkj

23 times a month

nmlkj

once a month

nmlkj

less than once a month

nmlkj

not at all in the past 12 months

nmlkj

less than one hour

nmlkj

13 hours

nmlkj

35 hours

nmlkj

510 hours

nmlkj

1020 hours

nmlkj

more than 20 hours

nmlkj

none

nmlkj

less than 1 hour

nmlkj

13 hours

nmlkj

35 hours

nmlkj

510 hours

nmlkj

1020 hours

nmlkj

more than 20 hours

nmlkj

Other

CVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth survey8. During the past 12 months, have you played any of these activities on the internet without any money, that is, just for fun?

9. Where do you mostly access these activities online?

10. What device do you use for your online activities?

11. What are the main reasons you decide to do this online? (Up to 3 responses please)

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

home

nmlkj

work

nmlkj


nmlkj

computer

nmlkj

mobile phone

nmlkj

wireless device (i.e. tablet)

nmlkj

television

nmlkj


Advertising/marketing

gfedc

Price including bonuses, free credit, odds, payout rates

gfedc

Greater number of betting options and games available

gfedc

Dislike of or discomfort with landbased venues

gfedc

Convenience – more convenient access online

gfedc

Access – unable to easily access landbased venues/available 247 from any location

gfedc

Physical comfort of gambling from home

gfedc

Privacy/anonymity

gfedc

Use of freeplay sites

gfedc



The following questions are about what happens when you do the activities talked about earlier. (i.e. scratchies, lottery, sports betting, bingo, keno, poker, casino table games, pokies)

12. In the past 12 months, how often have you bet more than you could really afford to lose?

13. In the past 12 months, how often have you felt guilty about these activities or what happens when you play?

14. In the past 12 months, how often have these activities caused any financial problems for you or your household?

15. In the past 12 months, how often have these activities caused you any health problems, including stress or anxiety?

never

nmlkj

rarely

nmlkj

sometimes

nmlkj

often

nmlkj

always

nmlkj

never

nmlkj

rarely

nmlkj

sometimes

nmlkj

often

nmlkj

always

nmlkj

never

nmlkj

rarely

nmlkj

sometimes

nmlkj

often

nmlkj

always

nmlkj

never

nmlkj

rarely

nmlkj

sometimes

nmlkj

often

nmlkj

always

nmlkj

CVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth survey16. If you felt you had a problem with how you play these activities, where would you seek help?

17. Is there anything that would stop you from seeking help?

55

66

not sure where to go for help

gfedc

feel I could solve my problems myself

gfedc

problem not serious enough

gfedc

embarrassed

gfedc

inconvenience

gfedc

cost

gfedc


gfedc


Sometimes people who may have a problem with these activities also struggle in other areas of their life. These questions will help us to find better ways to help people before they have a problem.

18. How often do you drink alcohol when you gamble?

19. How often do you use drugs when you gamble (e.g. cannabis, cocaine, other recreational drugs)?

20. In general, would you say your health is

21. During the last few months, how often did you feel...

None of the time A little of the time Some of the time Most of the time All of the time

nervous gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

hopeless gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

restless or fidgety gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

so depressed that nothing could cheer you up

gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

that everything was an effort

gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

worthless gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

never

nmlkj

rarely

nmlkj

sometimes

nmlkj

often

nmlkj

always

nmlkj

never

nmlkj

rarely

nmlkj

sometimes

nmlkj

often

nmlkj

always

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

Very good

nmlkj

Good

nmlkj

Fair

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

CVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth survey22. Do you tend to bounce back quickly after hard times

23. Do you have a hard time making it through stressful events

24. Think about all the types of contact you have with family and friends who don’t live with you. (This includes facetoface meetings as well as telephone calls, letters, emails, texting, and other forms of electronic communication) Would you say that you have

25. In the past 12 months how often have you felt lonely?

Strongly disagree

nmlkj

Disagree

nmlkj

Neutral

nmlkj

Agree

nmlkj

Strongly Agree

nmlkj

Strongly disagree

nmlkj

Disagree

nmlkj

Neutral

nmlkj

Agree

nmlkj

Strongly Agree

nmlkj

like more contact

nmlkj

like the same

nmlkj

like less contact

nmlkj

Never

nmlkj

Rarely

nmlkj

Sometimes

nmlkj

Often

nmlkj

Always

nmlkj

CVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth survey26. What do you think contributes to these feelings of loneliness? (up to 3 results)

27. What do you think could be done to help improve services or activities for young people in your shire?

55

66

Physical isolation

gfedc

Lack of transport

gfedc

Lack of money

gfedc

Low self esteem/confidence

gfedc

Language/cultural barriers

gfedc

Lifestyle differences

gfedc

Health condition

gfedc

Safety fears

gfedc

Lack of places to socialise

gfedc

Limited social activities on offer

gfedc



A little bit more information about yourself.

28. What is your gender?

29. What is the postcode of your usual place of residence?

30. Which of the following best describes what you currently do

31. Do you speak a language other than English at home?

Male

nmlkj

Female

nmlkj

Work fulltime

nmlkj

Work parttime or casual

nmlkj

Selfemployed

nmlkj

Unemployed and looking for work

nmlkj

Fulltime student

nmlkj

Fulltime home duties

nmlkj

Sick or disability pension

nmlkj


nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

No, English only

nmlkj

CVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - youth survey32. In the last 12 months, have you had contact with the following agencies in your local area?

Local Government (youth activities officer, youth development officer)

gfedc

Community Health Centres

gfedc

General Practitioner Clinics

gfedc

High school (welfare workers, social workers)

gfedc

Neighbourhood/community house

gfedc

Carer support services

gfedc

Mental Health Services

gfedc

Emergency Accommodation support services

gfedc

Police youth resource worker

gfedc

Youth homelessness officer

gfedc

Other specific youth programs in each shire

gfedc


Thankyou for your time. Your responses will go towards creating better ways to help those at risk of developing gambling problems. If you have any questions about this research, please email the main researcher: Emma Shannon directly at: [email protected] or call 5472 5333. If you have any questions or concerns about this study, and do not wish to share them directly with the research team, then you can contact Helen Miller from the Victorian Responsible gambling Foundation on 9452 2622. If you think that you, you friends or family require assistance with any problems related to gambling, please contact Gambler's Help on 1800 858 858 (free, confidential, 24 hours). or visit gamblinghelponline.org.au If you or someone you know needs emotional support, call Lifeline 13 11 14 You will now be redirected to a separate survey page where you can leave your details to go into the draw for a free iPod Nano. These details will not be linked to your survey answers. Thanks.

Visit www.cvha.com.au and follow the link to the survey

Are you 18—25 years old?

And are living in Central Goldelds,

Macedon Ranges or Mt Alexander Shire?

FREE*To the value of $15.00 . Contact Emma Shannon [email protected] or 54725333 for further details.

www.

cvha

.com

.auan

d fo

llow

the

link

to th

e su

rvey

. Co

ntac

t Em

ma

Shan

non

emm

asha

nnon

@cv

ha.c

om.a

u

Visi

t

www.

cvha

.com

.auan

d fo

llow

the

link

to th

e su

rvey

. Co

ntac

t Em

ma

Shan

non

emm

asha

nnon

@cv

ha.c

om.a

u

Visi

t

www.

cvha

.com

.auan

d fo

llow

the

link

to th

e su

rvey

. Co

ntac

t Em

ma

Shan

non

emm

asha

nnon

@cv

ha.c

om.a

u

Visi

t

www.

cvha

.com

.auan

d fo

llow

the

link

to th

e su

rvey

. Co

ntac

t Em

ma

Shan

non

emm

asha

nnon

@cv

ha.c

om.a

u

Visi

t

www.

cvha

.com

.auan

d fo

llow

the

link

to th

e su

rvey

. Co

ntac

t Em

ma

Shan

non

emm

asha

nnon

@cv

ha.c

om.a

u

Visi

t

www.

cvha

.com

.auan

d fo

llow

the

link

to th

e su

rvey

. Co

ntac

t Em

ma

Shan

non

emm

asha

nnon

@cv

ha.c

om.a

u

Visi

t

www.

cvha

.com

.auan

d fo

llow

the

link

to th

e su

rvey

. Co

ntac

t Em

ma

Shan

non

emm

asha

nnon

@cv

ha.c

om.a

u

Visi

t

www.

cvha

.com

.auan

d fo

llow

the

link

to th

e su

rvey

. Co

ntac

t Em

ma

Shan

non

emm

asha

nnon

@cv

ha.c

om.a

u

Visi

t

CVHA Problem Gambling Project - service providers surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - service providers surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - service providers surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - service providers survey

Welcome to the Central Victorian Health Alliance Problem Gambling Project. You have been invited to participate because you are part of an agency that provides services to 1825 year olds who live in any of three central Victorian shires (Central Goldfields Shire, Macedon Ranges Shire and Mount Alexander Shire). We cannot guarantee that you will receive any benefits from this research; however service providers may benefit in the short term from increased awareness of issues with youth problem gambling and reflection on service models for this population. Longer term, this project will guide the development of an informed strategic response to youth problem gambling within the CVHA region. Participation in this research is voluntary. If you don’t wish to take part, you don’t have to.If you take part you will need to fill out the following survey about your agencies experiences with youth service provision particularly related to gambling, which will take approximately 1520 minutes. If you have any questions about this research, please email the main researcher: Emma Shannon directly at: [email protected] or call 5472 5333. If you have any questions or concerns about this study, and do not wish to share them directly with the research team, then you can contact the secretary at the Department of Justice Human Research Ethics Committee on 03 8684 1514 or [email protected]. On completion of the research, a full report will be available on www.cvha.com.au, or please contact Emma Shannon as above to directly receive a copy. By clicking on the link below to enter the online survey you are providing your informed consent.


Throughout this survey when referring to young people we are particularly interested in your responses in relation to those aged 1825 year olds. We would be interested in your responses that relate to young people of other age groups, but please specify the age group when providing this information.

Problem gambling is characterised by difficulties in limiting money and/or time spent on gambling which leads to adverse consequences for the gambler, others or for the community.

1. How much of an impact would you say that problem gambling has on your clients and your agency?

2. Have you noticed that this impact has changed recently (say in the last 5 years)?

3. Can you provide an estimate of the number or proportion of 1825 year olds who present with serious gambling problems?

4. Can you provide an estimate of the number or proportion of 1825 year olds who are at risk of developing gambling problems?

5. What alerts you to a young person being at risk of having gambling problems?

55

66

55

66

55

66

very large

nmlkj

large

nmlkj

moderate

nmlkj

small

nmlkj

very small

nmlkj

increased impact

nmlkj

no change

nmlkj

decreased impact

nmlkj

CVHA Problem Gambling Project - service providers surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - service providers surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - service providers surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - service providers survey6. Research has identified that people with gambling problems will rarely initially present with this problem, instead presenting with other issues (i.e. financial, relationship, mental health and wellbeing). What would you say are the main problems that young people with gambling problems present with to your service?

7. Do you use any screening tools to identify young problem gamblers or those at risk of becoming problem gamblers?

8. At what point and under what circumstances would you utilise these screening tools?

9. Do you use any assessment tools to identify young problem gamblers or those at risk of becoming problem gamblers?

55

66

no screening tools used

nmlkj

Brief BioSocial Gambling Screen

nmlkj

LieBet Questionnaire

nmlkj

NODSCLiP

nmlkj


nmlkj

First contact

nmlkj

Initial assessment

nmlkj

As part of the assessment/management of other issues

nmlkj

Determined subjectively by assessor

nmlkj

Other or further details if required

No assessment tools used

gfedc

Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI)

gfedc

South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS)

gfedc

Victorian Gambling Screen (VGS)

gfedc

Problem and Pathological Gambling Measure (PPGM)

gfedc


gfedc

CVHA Problem Gambling Project - service providers surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - service providers surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - service providers surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - service providers survey10. At what point and under what circumstances would you utilise these assessment tools?

First contact

nmlkj

Initial assessment

nmlkj

After positive screening tool

nmlkj

As part of the assessment/management of other issues

nmlkj

Determined subjectively by assessor

nmlkj



The following questions are about the types of services you offer to young people with gambling related problems or other harmful behaviours (i.e. alcohol and substance abuse, violence, criminal behaviours)

11. What services, activities, programs or events do you provide for young people aged 1825 years old?

Health service

gfedc

Mental health service

gfedc

Counselling

gfedc

Employment program

gfedc

Social/recreational activities

gfedc

Sporting programs

gfedc

Youth group programs

gfedc

Supported accommodation

gfedc

Peer support

gfedc

Aboriginal services

gfedc

Homeless persons assistance

gfedc

Drug and alcohol related services

gfedc

Sexual diversity programs

gfedc

Sexual health programs

gfedc

Faithbased program

gfedc

Other or further information if required

CVHA Problem Gambling Project - service providers surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - service providers surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - service providers surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - service providers survey12. What services, activities, programs or events do you provide to young people aged 1825 years old who have or are at risk of gambling problems or other harmful behaviours? Please describe.

13. Research has shown that attributes such as greater resilience and social connectedness play a part in protecting young people from becoming problem gamblers and suffering from other harmful behaviours. Please describe any services you offer that help to build these attributes among 1825 year olds.

14. Please describe any other early intervention or prevention programs that you offer for 1825 year olds who present with gambling problems or other harmful behaviours.

55

66

55

66

Health service

gfedc

Mental health service

gfedc

Counselling

gfedc

Employment program

gfedc

Social/recreational activities

gfedc

Sporting programs

gfedc

Youth group programs

gfedc

Supported accommodation

gfedc

Peer support

gfedc

Aboriginal services

gfedc

Homeless persons assistance

gfedc

Drug and alcohol related services

gfedc

Sexual diversity programs

gfedc

Sexual health programs

gfedc

Faithbased program

gfedc


CVHA Problem Gambling Project - service providers surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - service providers surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - service providers surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - service providers survey15. What early intervention or prevention services do you and your agency believe would have a positive impact on gambling related and other harmful behaviours?

16. What is the main source of referrals to your service for young people who present with gambling related problems?

17. How do you rate you and/or your staff's knowledge on appropriate referral pathways for young people presenting with gambling related problems?

18. How can the referral process to and from your agency for young people presenting with gambling related problems be improved?

55

66

55

66

General practitioners

gfedc

Mental Health providers

gfedc

School/other education institution

gfedc

Community services department

gfedc

Telephone/crisis referral agency

gfedc

Accommodation support agency/worker

gfedc

Other government department

gfedc

Other nongovernment organisation

gfedc

Self

gfedc

Family/friends

gfedc

Police/legal unit/correction institution

gfedc

Health services

gfedc


gfedc

Very poor

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Fair

nmlkj

Good

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

CVHA Problem Gambling Project - service providers surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - service providers surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - service providers surveyCVHA Problem Gambling Project - service providers survey19. Overall, how do you rate you and/or your staff's skills, knowledge and resources to effectively manage young people presenting with gambling related problems?

20. Overall, when thinking about providing problem gambling related assistance to young people, are there any areas where further skills, knowledge or resources would be beneficial for your agency and its clients?

21. How does your agency promote its services to young people particularly those with gambling related or other harmful behaviours?

22. Are there any strategies that have worked particularly well when trying to engage young people prone to these harmful behaviours?

55

66

55

66

55

66

Very poor

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Fair

nmlkj

Good

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj


Thankyou for your time in filling out this survey. Your response will go towards building the knowledge base about youth problem gambling and it's management in our region. It will also be used to develop a strategic response to youth problem gambling particularly looking at early intervention and preventions strategies. if you have any further questions please contact Emma Shannon [email protected] 5472 5333 You will now be taken to an invitation to attend a focus group to further explore the issues raised in this survey. Thankyou.

Building Youth Resilience against Problem Gambling: A ...€¦ · This focus on collaborative work...

Documents

Transcript of Building Youth Resilience against Problem Gambling: A ...€¦ · This focus on collaborative work...