No abstract

No abstract

The use of electronic gambling machines (EGMs) in Australia and New Zealand constitutes the largest sector of the gambling industry. The costs arising from the harms of gambling detract significantly from its benefits, and in all Australian jurisdictions various policy measures have been implemented to reduce these harms. If successful, these would maximise the net benefits associated with EGM gambling. This article reviews the available evidence for a range of these practices, particularly those implemented within EGM venues via 'codes of practice'. These codes of practice are intended to give effect to the principles of 'responsible gambling' within EGM venues. These measures are: selfexclusion, signage, messages, interaction with gamblers, the removal of ATMs from gambling venues, and 'responsible gambling' assessed overall in a venue context. In addition, we review the evidence in support of two major recommendations of the Productivity Commission's 2010 report into gambling, pre-commitment and one-dollar maximum wagers. We conclude that there is a modest level of evidence supporting some measures, notably self-exclusion and, to a greater extent, the removal of ATMs. There is also some evidence that 'responsible gambling' measures have, collectively, reduced the harms associated with gambling. However, there is limited evidence to confirm the effectiveness of most individual 'responsible gambling' measures actually implemented in venues. Further, policy measures implemented outside the control of venues (such as ATM removal, reduction in bet limits, and the prohibition of smoking) appear to be associated with more significant effects, based on analysis of EGM revenue data in Victoria. The evidence for prospective measures is necessarily limited since the ultimate test is post-implementation efficacy, but there is growing evidence to suggest that precommitment, one-dollar maximum bets or other machine design changes may yield significantly more effective harm minimisation effects than in-venue practices such as signage or, indeed, self-exclusion. In considering evidence about the effects of existing or prospective measures it is important to emphasise that packages of measures might be more effective than single ones, and that an inability to confirm a statistically significant effect does not mean that no effect exists.

Evaluation makes a critical contribution to the evidence base for health promotion programs and policy. Because there has been limited research about the characteristics and determinants of evaluation practice in this field, this study audited evaluations completed by health promotion agencies in Victoria, Australia, and explored the factors that enabled or hindered evaluation performance. Twenty-four agencies participated. A systematic assessment of 29 recent evaluation reports was undertaken, and in-depth interviews were carried out with 18 experienced practitioners. There was wide variability in the scope of evaluations and the level of reporting undertaken. Formative evaluation was uncommon, but almost all included process evaluation, especially of strategy reach and delivery. Impact evaluation was attempted in the majority of cases, but the designs and measures used were often not specified. Practitioners strongly endorsed the importance of evaluation, but the reporting requirements and inconsistent administrative procedures of the funding body were cited as significant barriers. Budget constraints, employment of untrained coworkers, and lack of access to measurement tools were other major barriers to evaluation. Capacity building to strengthen evaluation needs to encompass system, organizational, and practitioner-level action. This includes strengthening funding and reporting arrangements, fostering partnerships, and tailoring workforce development opportunities for practitioners.

Background: Harms from gambling are considerable and widespread, impacting beyond the individual gambler. Asserting benefits, including supporting 'good causes' outweighs this harm, is a common legitimization tactic of commercial gambling. Identified as problematic on many levels, this is a global phenomenon. Using unusually transparent data, this research assesses the extent to which such contributions offset gambling harms. Methods: Commonly in Australian jurisdictions, not-for-profit gambling operators (clubs) qualify for gambling tax reductions. To qualify in the state of Victoria, clubs submit annual statements documenting that at least 8.33% of their net gambling revenue (NGR) supports community purposes. We examined community benefit records from three consecutive annual reporting periods (2012)(2013)(2014)(2015). Results are presented in aggregate, and via specific case studies. Results: We identified significant over-valuation of 'community benefits'. Gambling tax deductions overwhelmingly (82%) went to operational expenses including wages, venue maintenance, capital costs and utilities. Contributions to charitable and philanthropic purposes represented 4.5% of all community benefit claims (1.5% of club NGR). Conclusions: Similar to other jurisdictions, Victoria's community contribution arrangements provide limited actual community benefit. Doing little to offset gambling harm, demonstrated benefits largely accrue to specific sectional interests. Greater transparency and improved governance is required. This includes, reviewing tax exemptions, reviewing allowable claims, and greater compliance oversight. This research identifies multiple failings with a community benefit scheme operating in a relatively transparent manner. Research lessons may be of interest to policy makers and others wanting to ensure that gambling's demonstrable harms are, indeed, offset by clear benefits to community, and to preventing gambling harm.