STRATEGIC APPROACH

There is always room for improvement when it comes to better helping individuals with gambling problems. Simelane-Quntana sheds more light on possible amendments to the programme:

• Time frame for programme completion: Outlining a baseline for the minimum amount of time needed for individuals to attend sessions. ‘Although it is not for the SARGF to determine policy for either companies or regulatory bodies, we believe that best practice in relation to self-exclusion is to allow clients to self-exclude for a period of maximum 12 months, but not less than six months.’

• Managing expectations: Highlighting the outcome of the programme so individuals are more aware of what they can expect after completion. ‘The nature of the selfexclusion agreement needs to be clearly understood by problem gamblers. It is important to clarify the expectations regarding the role and limits of responsibility of individual gamblers, the industry, legislative and regulatory authorities, and the SARGF in the self-exclusion process to avoid unrealistic expectations and unfair criticisms.’

• The right time for intervention: Educating individuals who have identified that they have a potential gambling problem about the option of self-exclusion in the early phase of this realisation. The due process can therefore be followed more effectively. ‘A person who wants to self-exclude is made aware that when the self-exclusion is lifted, proof of attendance of the SARGF programme within the first three months of applying for the self-exclusion will be required. A further follow-up session at least a month before the ban is lifted is also compulsory. The SARGF Counselling line can become involved at this early stage by informing the gamblers what the treatment entails and what the pros and cons are.’