GAMBLER’S HELP SOUTHERN
WORKPLACES PROJECT - PHASE 1 OVERVIEW
In 2002, Gambler’s Help Southern employed Agile Consultants to explore appropriate ways to prevent or minimise gambling-related harm through the use health promotion strategies in workplaces. Key elements of task included a literature review and consultation with workplaces and local government authorities from the southern metropolitan region of Melbourne. The responses obtained allow a more informed discussion of the health promotion capacity of workplaces and the place of gambling as a “stand alone” issue for workplaces. They also lead to the development of two-part action plan for Gambler’s Help Southern.
Click the link to download the whole report http://www.ghsouthern.org.au/docs/wpr.zip
Background:
Since beginning operations in 1995, Gambler’s Help Southern has been involved with workplaces in a number of ways. These have included the provision of information materials and on-site information displays, the delivery of education sessions for employees, professional development for staff in “employee support” positions and a forum specifically for workplaces. Evaluation of these activities by the Service has been favourable, with the sense being that initiatives in this setting are vital in extending the reach of the program into a “frontier” with huge potential.
While the various approaches employed over time to engage this target audience all had merits, they also seemed to fall short of achieving sustained impacts. Hence, the decision to commission this project to explore the potential of a more strategic and integrated approach.
The project was challenging on many levels, not the least for the Consultant, who faced the difficulties related to engaging the stakeholders. It also required Gambler’s Help Southern to reassess its own practices, capacities and future directions and to closer examine the health promotion framework that guides its community education activities. Most certainly and positively, the Phase 1 of the project has left the program in a much more informed position.
Health Promotion in the Workplace Setting:
A review of key health promotion concepts, including notions of health, health promotion, capacity building and a settings approach was an important element of the project. These concepts provide a framework for understanding the reasoning behind the initiative and for supporting its future direction. With regard to a Settings approach (and acknowledging the potential weaknesses associated with it), a literature review resulted in the compilation of five guiding statements regarding health promotion in the workplace setting:
1. Workplaces are a valid and valuable setting to target for health promotion.
2. Action should involve a range of interventions.
3. For best effect, initiatives should be intersectoral.
4. The idiosyncrasies of the individual workplaces must be taken into account.
5. The health promotion framework should be linked with an organisational/human resource management framework (Marshall & Maher, 1999; Noblet & Murphy, 1995; WHO, 1997).
The Consultation Process:
The consultation process resulted in telephone interviews with the following stakeholders:
· Local Government Authorities - Social Planning (8)
· Local Government Authorities - Economic Development (6)
· Victorian Employer’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VECCI)
· Businesses in the Southern Metropolitan Region: (28)
Findings:
Of the workplaces that participated in interviews, 30% showed some level of interest in gambling-related workplace programs. A range of delivery strategies were suggested and Human Resource Departments were commonly identified as being the first point of contact.
Notwithstanding the anticipated limitations associated with the mode of consultation (by telephone and by “third party” ie. a consultant), four key issues became apparent as stakeholder responses were distilled:
1. There was a lack of understanding regarding the intentions behind, or the need for, a gambling-related health promotion program for workplaces.
2. Many stakeholders indicated a preference for commenting upon a “finished product”, which was at odds with the intent behind a consultation process.
3. Most organisations identified time and resource constraints associated with “extra activities” and therefore need to see quantifiable benefits (that can be linked to productivity) for any programs to proceed.
4. Few workplaces appeared to have the capacity to embrace a framework of health promotion which supports a range of interventions, across of a range of issues.
Workplace Capacity:
From the point of view of notionally grouping workplaces in terms of their capacity for health promotion and for a gambling-related component particularly, the findings suggest at least four categories of workplace:
1. those who basically comply with the “compulsory” aspects of health promotion eg. OH&S; gambling is not on their agenda.
2. those who have pursued some additional health promotion action (eg. quit smoking initiatives), but who refute or are sceptical of the need for the inclusion of gambling content.
3. those who have had some experience of problem gambling impacts and therefore have a “need” in this area.
4. those who have embraced health promotion more broadly and can see the relevance and/or benefit of gambling-related initiatives.
The findings clearly suggest that workplace categories 3 and 4 are in the minority. They are relatively easy for Gambler’s Help Southern to reach and are the organisations with which the program has been involved previously. Categories 1 and 2 organisations are in the majority, making the benefits of even small advances so significant. They are also difficult to reach, but make the “frontier” of the workplace setting so tantalizing.
Despite lacking any implementation stages thus far, Phase 1 has placed Gambler’s Help Southern in a more informed position. It has also posed some interesting questions:
1. Is the apparent shortfall in the health promotion capacity of the workplaces in this project reflective of the situation of workplaces across the southern region (or beyond)?
It seems likely that the answer to Question 1 is “yes”, although organisations with a health promotion or workplace/workforce focus would be better placed to respond. Clearly, however, the most accurate sense of capacity would be achieved through more extensive and expansive consultation with workplaces themselves.
2. If it is deemed to be important, who is responsible for building this health
promotion capacity? (Or, put another way, how is it possible to build more workplaces into Category 4 types?)
Given the extent to which health promotion has been embraced as an effective and sustainable way to improve health, then capacity building must be viewed an absolute imperative. However, often the organisations that are yet to arrive at this position are the ones who are targeted for capacity building by the organisations that already hold this view. Whilst responsibility for health must be shared by all stakeholders, it is unrealistic and unreasonable to expect workplaces to become Category 4 types just because of the persuasive arguments of a service provider or even because of a recognised need. Sustainability requires skills, structures, resources and commitment from all stakeholders. To make significant inroads on a regional basis would require leadership and the provision of resources by the health promotion and workplace organisations that direct policy and shape attitudes at a State and regional level.
3. Is it possible to “broadly implement” a gambling health promotion program in workplace, as envisaged, in the absence of this health promotion capacity?
With respect to a program that can be more systematically implemented and covers the full range of health promotion interventions, the responses suggest that gambling is currently unlikely to be successful as a “stand alone” subject, particularly in Category 1 and 2 workplaces. This reinforces the need for the development of partnerships with other service providers and for multi-faceted, flexible, programs which can be adapted to meet the needs of individual workplaces - and at the same time, allow entrée of gambling content.
Recommendations:
There are two recommended actions for Gambler’s Help Southern to pursue in the short to medium term:
1. Joint development of a multi-faceted workplace health promotion program to be piloted in a designated section of one local government area. It is envisaged that the program would:
a. be developed in conjunction with service providers, councils and local commerce
associations.
b. consist of modules for different issues, with a range of possible interventions
within each module, from which workplaces can select.
c. encourage and allow a process for the involvement of workers in the selection
and future development processes.
d. be relevant to the organisational environment/work situation and seek to link with
any existing training/programs.
e. clearly demonstrate quantifiable benefits related to productivity to the targeted in
its marketing message.
f. be promoted in a way which provides adequate background information.
g. be promoted to workplaces in a way that ensures that they do not feel judged or
criticised.
h. include promotion by participating workplaces.
i. be developed into a branded entity to assist with promotion.
j. offer flexible scheduling to minimise the negative impacts on the workplace.
be thoroughly evaluated.
k. encourage the development of on-going relationship between stakeholders.
l. include the further development of a workplace contact database.
2. Advocate that the Department of Human Services takes a lead role amongst relevant Statewide and regional bodies in building the health promotion capacity of workplaces. This should include a thorough assessment of the capacity of workplaces, the review and/or development of policies to guide action and the commitment of significant resources.
References:
|
