TABLE OF CONTENTS



GAMBLING AND PROBLEM GAMBLING IN OREGON

Report to the

Oregon Gambling Addiction Treatment Foundation

Rachel A. Volberg, Ph.D.

Gemini Research, Ltd.

P.O Box 628

Northampton, MA 01061

Tel: 413-584-4667

Email: rvolberg@

August 26, 1997

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv

INTRODUCTION 1

Background 1

Defining Problem and Pathological Gambling 3

METHODS 5

Questionnaire 5

Sample Design 5

Data Analysis and Reporting 7

GAMBLING IN OREGON 9

Gambling in the General Population 9

Patterns of Gambling Participation 10

Expenditures on Gambling 11

Gambling Preferences 14

Summary 15

PROBLEM AND PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLING IN OREGON 17

Lifetime Prevalence 17

Current Prevalence 19

Natural Recovery 20

Comparing Problem Gambling Prevalence Across States 20

Summary 22

COMPARING NON-PROBLEM AND PROBLEM GAMBLERS IN OREGON 23

Demographics 23

Weekly Gambling 25

Expenditures 26

Prevalence by Type of Gambling 27

Other Significant Differences 28

Summary 30

COMPARING THE SOGS AND THE DSM-IV 31

The Oregon Survey 31

The DSM-IV Screen 32

Statistical Characteristics of the DSM-IV Screen 33

Comparing the SOGS and DSM-IV Problem Gamblers 37

Summary 38

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 39

Summary 39

Directions for the Future 40

REFERENCES 42

APPENDIX A: Methods to Assess Problem Gambling in the General Population

APPENDIX B: Questionnaire for the Oregon Survey

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Comparing the Demographics of the Actual and Weighted Sample 7

Table 2: Demographics of Gamblers in Oregon 11

Table 3: Monthly Expenditures on Gambling 13

Table 4: Past Month Expenditures by Different Groups in Oregon 14

Table 5: Comparing Lifetime Problem Gamblers with Non-Problem Respondents 18

Table 6: Comparing Current Problem Gamblers with Non-Problem Respondents 19

Table 7: Demographics of Non-Problem and Problem Gamblers in Oregon 24

Table 8: Weekly Gambling of Non-Problem and Problem Gamblers 25

Table 9: Gambling Expenditures as Proportion of Household Income 26

Table 10: Average Monthly Expenditures of Non-Problem and Problem Gamblers 27

Table 11: Other Significant Differences Between Non-Problem and Problem Gamblers 29

Table 12: Comparing Non-Problem and Problem Gamblers on the DSM-IV Items 34

Table 13: Comparing Scores on the SOGS and the DSM-IV 35

Table 14: Comparing Scores on Similar SOGS and DSM-IV Items 36

Table 15: Comparing Demographics of SOGS and DSM-IV Problem Gamblers 37

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Lifetime and Past Year Gambling Participation in Oregon 10

Figure 2: Lifetime Prevalence Rates in the United States 21

Figure 3: Current Prevalence Rates in the United States 22

Figure 4: Prevalence by Type of Gambling 28

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank the residents of Oregon who were interviewed for this survey. Their contribution has been vital in adding to our knowledge of changes in gambling and gambling-related problems in the United States. We would also like to thank the Oregon Lottery, the Spirit Mountain Foundation and the Oregon Restaurant Foundation for funding this study and the Oregon Gambling Addiction Treatment Foundation for commissioning the study. Finally, we would like to thank Patricia Fullmer and the staff of Gilmore Research Group who carried out the interviews for the survey and Thomas Moore of Herbert & Louis who assisted with the administration of the project.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this study is to establish a baseline measure of the prevalence of gambling-related problems among adults in Oregon. An additional purpose of this study is to identify the types of gambling causing the greatest difficulties for the citizens of Oregon. A large sample of Oregon residents aged 18 and over (N=1,502) were interviewed in May and June, 1997 about the types of gambling they have tried, the amounts of money they spend on gambling and about gambling-related difficulties. The results of this study will be useful in documenting the impacts of legal gambling and will contribute to the formulation of statewide policy with regard to legal gambling in Oregon.

Findings

In 1997, 87% of the respondents in Oregon acknowledged having ever tried one or more of 14 gambling activities. This lifetime participation rate is comparable to lifetime participation rates in Central and Midwestern states such as Iowa, Minnesota and Montana.

Lifetime gambling participation in Oregon is highest for lottery play, charitable gambling and casino gambling including Indian Gaming Centers. From one-half to three-quarters of the respondents acknowledge they have done these types of gambling. Approximately one-third of the respondents have ever tried playing video poker.

Respondents in Oregon spend an average of $43 in a typical month on gambling activities. This average monthly expenditure is in the same range as monthly expenditures identified in Colorado ($37) and Iowa (($40) and lower than monthly expenditures identified in Washington State ($53).

In Oregon, 3.1% (±0.9%) of the respondents scored as lifetime problem gamblers and an additional 1.8% (±0.7%) of the respondents scored as lifetime probable pathological gamblers. The combined lifetime prevalence rate of problem and pathological gambling in Oregon is 4.9%.

In Oregon, 1.9% (±0.7%) of the respondents scored as current problem gamblers and an additional 1.4% (±0.6%) of the respondents scored as current probable pathological gamblers. The combined current prevalence rate of problem and pathological gambling in Oregon is 3.3%.

The combined lifetime prevalence rate in Oregon is similar to the lifetime prevalence rate in Washington State (5.1%) and lower than the prevalence rate in Colorado (6.2%). The current prevalence rate in Oregon is higher than current prevalence rates in Washington State (2.8%) and Colorado (2.5%).

We estimate that the State of Oregon should plan to provide problem gambling treatment services to between 600 and 1,400 individuals per year based on population projections, the prevalence of current pathological gambling and the proportion of individuals in need who are expected to seek services for addictive disorders.

Reported gambling expenditures of non-problem gamblers in Oregon account for less than 2% of median annual household income for different income groups. Reported gambling expenditures of problem gamblers in Oregon account for 5% to 14% of median annual household income for different income groups.

One important difference between non-problem and problem gamblers is the age at which they start gambling. While the mean age at which non-problem gamblers in Oregon started gambling is 24 years old, the mean age at which problem and pathological gamblers in Oregon started gambling is significantly younger at 21 years old.

In Oregon, prevalence rates are highest among individuals who have ever participated in illegal types of gambling, particularly sports, dice and games of skill. Among legal types of gambling, prevalence rates are highest among respondents who have ever gambled on video poker, card games and non-Indian bingo.

In Oregon, lifetime problem and probable pathological gamblers are significantly more likely than other respondents to be male, under the age of 30 and non-White as well as divorced, separated or never married. Current problem and probable pathological gamblers are significantly more likely than other respondents in Oregon to be under the age of 30, non-White and divorced, separated or never married. While young non-White individuals in Oregon are at greatest risk for developing gambling problems, it is important to note that the majority of problem and probable pathological gamblers in Oregon are White individuals between 30 and 54 years of age.

Six out of every ten individuals who have ever experienced gambling problems in Oregon are experiencing those difficulties now. One important difference between lifetime and current problem gamblers is that current problem and probable pathological gamblers are nearly as likely to be female as male.

Problem gamblers in Oregon are most likely to gamble weekly on legal forms of gambling in the state, including the lottery, video poker and Indian Gaming Centers. Problem gamblers in Oregon spend significantly more than non-problem gamblers on many types of gambling although the differences are greatest for wagering at casinos or Indian Gaming Centers, on video poker and on non-Indian bingo. Lifetime prevalence is highest among those who have ever wagered legally on video poker and illegally on games of skill.

Problem gamblers in Oregon are significantly more likely than non-problem gamblers to have felt nervous about their gambling, to believe that one or both parents has had a gambling problem, to spend three or more hours gambling at a time and to have lost $100 or more in a single day.

Future Directions

Given the possible expansion of legal gambling in Oregon, it will be important to maintain current services for problem gamblers. In making decisions about implementing services for problem gamblers and their families in Oregon, policy-makers and others may wish to give consideration to developing additional treatment modalities, expanded training opportunities for treatment professionals, a gambling counselor certification program and development of public education and prevention services as well as responsible gaming policies and programs and continued monitoring of gambling and problem gambling prevalence.

INTRODUCTION

Until recently, the legalization of gambling has proceeded apace with little consideration of the potentially negative impacts that gambling can have on individuals, families and communities. In the 1990s, however, prevalence surveys have become an essential component in the establishment and monitoring of gambling legalization in the United States and internationally (Volberg & Dickerson 1996). This study, funded by the Oregon Gambling Addiction Treatment Foundation, examines the extent of gambling and problem gambling in Oregon in 1997 and compares these findings to similar studies conducted elsewhere in the United States.

The main purpose of this study is to establish a baseline measure of the prevalence of gambling-related problems among the adult population in Oregon. An additional purpose of this study is to identify the types of gambling causing the greatest difficulties for the citizens of Oregon. The results of this study will be useful in documenting the impact of legal gambling on the citizens of the State of Oregon. The results will also contribute to the formulation of statewide policy with regard to legal gambling in Oregon.

This report is organized into several sections for clarity of presentation. The Introduction includes a definition of the terms used in the report while the Methods section addresses the details of conducting the survey. The next four sections detail findings from the survey in the following areas:

15. gambling in Oregon

16. prevalence of problem gambling in Oregon

17. comparing non-problem and problem gamblers

18. comparing two measures of problem gambling

The report concludes with a summary, a review of the activities that other states have undertaken in response to the issue of problem gambling and recommendations for the future.

Background[1]

As in many other states, the modern development of legal gambling in Oregon began in the mid-1980s. Although casino gambling is prohibited in Oregon, an amendment to the state constitution was passed in 1984 to permit the state to operate a lottery with the proceeds earmarked for education and economic development. Since its inception, the games offered by the Oregon Lottery have grown to include scratch tickets and break-open games, several lotto games and the nation’s only sports lottery, Sports Action.

In 1992, the Oregon Lottery received approval to operate video poker. This approval included a measure directing that 3% of gross revenues from video poker be returned to the counties’ mental health departments to establish treatment programs for problem gamblers. Counties received a percentage of these revenues proportional to their video poker spending. There are strict controls on the location of these machines as well as the size of wagers and jackpots. Establishments where video poker is permitted must have a license to sell alcoholic beverages and there is a limit of six machines per establishment (increased from the initial limit of five machines). The maximum bet is $2 and the maximum jackpot is $600. There are now approximately 8,800 video poker machines located at 1,800 establishments throughout the State of Oregon. Gross revenues from lottery sales in Oregon in 1996 were $486 million with 73% coming from video poker. Video poker has strong supporters among retailers whose commissions on video poker machines were $119 million in FY 1995.

In addition to the state lottery, Oregon has two commercial horse tracks, one located in Portland and the other in Salem, as well as one commercial greyhound track in Portland. Racing events are regulated by statute and overseen by the Oregon Racing Commission. In addition, there are 19 off-track betting (OTB) outlets in the state which offer parimutuel wagering on races held elsewhere in the United States. Parimutuel handle in Oregon for 1996 was $111 million which generated approximately $1.6 million in taxes (calculated as 1.5% of handle).

Charitable gambling, including bingo and raffles, has existed in Oregon for many years and is overseen by the Department of Justice. Bingo and raffle sales in 1996 were approximately $83 million which generated approximately $9 million in revenues to their sponsoring charities as well as $700,000 in taxes to the State of Oregon. In addition to state-regulated gambling, Oregon also permits commercial card rooms to operate if approved by local voters. Since these operations are overseen locally, there are no statewide statistics available for this activity. Furthermore, all nine of the federally-recognized tribes in Oregon have negotiated Class III gaming compacts with the state although only six tribes have opened gaming centers to date. All of these centers are on reservation land and all are tribally owned although some of the centers are operated by professional management firms. Games permitted at the Indian Gaming Centers include video lottery games, blackjack, keno and off-track wagering as well as card and dice games.

The introduction of video poker in Oregon sparked numerous protests and legal challenges. One lawsuit, filed by Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon in 1994 charged that locating the video poker machines in age-restricted establishments made them into casinos which are illegal in Oregon. While the suit was eventually overturned, the unintended consequence was to cut off funding for problem gambling treatment programs in Oregon. This is because the court ruled that setting aside funds for treatment programs from video poker revenues violated the constitutional amendment that required all lottery revenues to be dedicated to economic development. After a hiatus during which the problem gambling treatment programs received no funding, legislative action was taken to finance these programs from the general fund rather than using video poker revenues.

In recent sessions, there has been serious debate in the Oregon Legislature concerning the state’s dependence on lottery earnings to fund education and economic development programs. Revenues to the state from the lottery have grown from $59 million in 1986 to $550 million in 1996. While some believe that state-sponsored gaming is a harmless entertainment and a simple substitute for taxation, others question whether the state has come to rely too heavily on this revenue source. Gambling revenues now account for 9% of the current state budget.

Legislative actions to curb the activities of the lottery include curtailing promotional advertising for traditional lottery games as well as bills to eliminate video poker altogether, to cut commissions to retailers and to require that a larger proportion of retailers’ revenues come from food and beverage sales than is presently allowed. These actions have come in the face of simultaneous pressures to expand legal gambling in Oregon to include video slot machines. Proponents of video slot machines believe that their implementation is necessary to enable the state to compete with the Indian gaming centers.

While there has been heated debate about the state’s reliance on gambling, the Oregon Legislature did provide for problem gambling treatment and education services at the time video poker was authorized. Although the original legislation called for 3% of gross lottery revenues to be spent on services for problem gamblers, the legislature later changed this approach and substituted an allocation process. Based on prior expenditures, the legislature now allocates $4 million per biennium for problem gambling services.

When funding for problem gambling services was established, the revenues were distributed to county mental health agencies through the Association of Oregon County Mental Health Programs (AOCMHP). AOCMHP contracts for independent data collection and program evaluation services. Additionally, AOCMHP has started to provide training for mental health and alcohol and drug abuse treatment professionals as well as gambling addiction counselors. There are now 26 programs throughout the state that receive funding to address the issue of problem gambling, including education and outreach as well as treatment services and a 24-hour helpline that handles several thousand calls each year.

Since video poker became operational in 1993, the number of Gamblers Anonymous meetings around the state has grown from three to over 30. Approximately 1,000 individuals have entered the state-subsidized treatment programs since January 1995. The majority of these problem gamblers (81%) have gambled primarily on video poker and they have an average gambling debt of $16,000 which is more than half the average annual income of this group.

In 1996, Governor Kitzhaber convened a 14-member task force to investigate the role played by gambling in the state. While the task force recommended that a prevalence survey be carried out to determine the number of problem gamblers in Oregon, the state government has not taken any action in this direction. Instead, the survey reported here was funded by grants from the Oregon Lottery, Spirit Mountain Foundation and the Oregon Restaurant Foundation through the Oregon Gambling Addiction Treatment Foundation (OGATF).

Defining Problem and Pathological Gambling

Since the 1970s, legalized gambling has become a popular recreational pastime throughout North America. In 1974, the first, and only, national survey of gambling in the United States found that 68% of the adult respondents had at some time wagered on one or more types of legal or illegal gambling (Kallick-Kaufmann 1979). In the 1980s and 1990s, studies in different states have found lifetime gambling participation rates that range from a low of 64% in Mississippi to a high of 92% in New Jersey (Volberg 1994c, 1997a). The majority of people who participate in legal gambling are social gamblers who gamble responsibly, for entertainment and to socialize with friends and family.

The term problem gambling has been used in different ways. The term is sometimes used to refer to individuals who fall short of the diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling but are assumed to be in a preliminary stage of this progressive disorder (Lesieur & Rosenthal 1991). The term has also been used to refer to individuals who lose excessive amounts of money through gambling, relative to their income, although without reference to specific difficulties that they may experience (Rosecrance 1988). The National Council on Problem Gambling uses this term to indicate all of the patterns of gambling behavior that compromise, disrupt or damage personal, family or vocational pursuits (National Council on Problem Gambling 1997).

Pathological gambling lies at one end of a spectrum of problem gambling and was first recognized as a psychiatric disorder in 1980 (American Psychiatric Association 1980). Recent changes have been made to the psychiatric criteria for pathological gambling to incorporate empirical research that links pathological gambling to other addictive disorders like alcohol and drug dependence. The essential features of pathological gambling are a continuous or periodic loss of control over gambling; a progression, in gambling frequency and amounts wagered, in the preoccupation with gambling and in obtaining monies with which to gamble; and a continuation of gambling involvement despite adverse consequences (American Psychiatric Association 1994).

In prevalence surveys, individuals are categorized as problem gamblers or probable pathological gamblers on the basis of their responses to the questions included in the South Oaks Gambling Screen (see Appendix A for a discussion of the methods used to assess problem and pathological gambling in the general population). The term probable distinguishes the results of prevalence surveys, where classification is based on responses to questions in a telephone interview, from a clinical diagnosis. Respondents scoring three or four out of a possible 20 points on the South Oaks Gambling Screen items are classified as "problem gamblers" while those scoring five or more points are classified as "probable pathological gamblers." In prevalence surveys conducted since 1990, a distinction is also made between "lifetime" and "current" problem and probable pathological gamblers.

Lifetime problem and probable pathological gamblers are individuals who have, at some time in their lives, met the South Oaks Gambling Screen criteria for problem or pathological gambling. Current problem and probable pathological gamblers are individuals who have met these criteria in the past year. Not all lifetime problem and probable pathological gamblers meet sufficient criteria to be classified as current problem and probable pathological gamblers. For example, a middle-aged individual who experienced significant gambling-related difficulties in youth but no longer has such difficulties would be referred to as a lifetime problem gambler.

METHODS

The gambling and problem gambling survey in Oregon was completed in three stages. In the first stage of the project, Gemini Research consulted with the Board of Directors from the Oregon Gambling Addiction Treatment Foundation as well as from Gilmore Research Group, the organization responsible for data collection, regarding the final design of the questionnaire and the stratification of the sample. In the second stage of the project, staff from Gilmore Research completed telephone interviews with a sample of 1,502 residents of Oregon aged 18 years and older. All interviews were completed between May 1 and June 8, 1997 and the average length of these interviews was 13 minutes. Gilmore Research then provided Gemini Research with the data for the third stage of the project which included analysis of the data and preparation of this report.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire for the survey in Oregon was composed of four major sections (see Appendix B for a copy of the questionnaire). The first section included questions about 14 different types of gambling available to residents of the state. For each type of gambling, respondents were asked whether they had ever tried this type of gambling, whether they had tried it in the past year, and, if so, how often they had done so in the past month. Respondents were also asked to estimate their typical monthly expenditures on the types of gambling that they had tried in the past year.

The second section of the questionnaire was composed of the lifetime and current South Oaks Gambling Screen items. The third section of the questionnaire consisted of an alternative screen for pathological gambling based on the DSM-IV, the most recent diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling. These two sections of the questionnaire were rotated so that half of the respondents answered the SOGS questions first and half of the respondents answered the DSM-IV questions first. The final section of the questionnaire included questions about the demographic characteristics of each respondent.

Sample Design

Information about how survey samples are developed is important in assessing the validity and reliability of the results of the survey. While a fully random design is the most desirable approach in developing a representative sample of the population, this approach often results in under-sampling demographic groups with low rates of telephone ownership. These groups most often include young adults, minorities and individuals with low education and income. Increasingly, researchers use stratified random designs to guard against under-sampling. To determine whether a representative sample was obtained, it is helpful to calculate the response rate for the sample as a whole as well as to examine how closely the sample matches the known demographic characteristics of the population. If substantial differences are detected, post-stratification weights can be applied during analysis to ensure that the results of the survey can be generalized to the larger population.

To obtain a representative sample for the Oregon survey, random selection of households and random selection of respondents within households were used during the first part of the data collection process. During data collection, completed interviews were monitored to determine whether the sample was meeting quotas for males and young adults.

After completing approximately 1,000 interviews, we elected to begin screening for male respondents and for respondents under the age of 35 in eligible households in order to obtain adequate representation of men and young adults in the sample. Rather than exclude an eligible household once it was contacted, we changed the introductory screen to recruit eligible respondents within the household in the following order:

19. male under 35

20. female under 35

21. male over 18

22. female over 18

Response Rate

Survey professionals in general have found that response rates for telephone surveys have declined in recent years. These declines are related to the proliferation of fax machines, answering machines, blocking devices and other telecommunications technology that make it more difficult to identify and recruit eligible individuals. These declines are also related to the amount of political polling and market research that is now done by telephone and to the higher likelihood that eligible households will refuse to participate in any surveys.

The consequence has been that response rates for telephone surveys are now calculated in several different ways although all of these approaches involve dividing the number of respondents by the number of contacts believed to be eligible. [2] Differences in response rates result from different ways of calculating the denominator, i.e. the number of individuals eligible to respond. The most liberal approach is called the Upper Bound method and takes into account only those individuals who refuse to participate or who terminate an interview. This approach is used by the federal government because of controversies about the eligibility of numbers that could not be reached. The Upper Bound method of calculating the response rate for the Oregon survey yields a response rate of 61%.

The most conservative approach is the method adopted by the Council of American Survey Research Organizations (CASRO). The CASRO method uses the known status of portions of the sample that are contacted to impute characteristics of portions of the sample that were not reached. The CASRO method of calculating the response rate for the Oregon survey yields a completion rate of 51% if over-quota eligible respondents are assumed to be disqualified and 48% if over-quota eligibles are assumed to qualify as “good numbers.”

While the CASRO approach yields response rates that are lower than desired for the Oregon survey, the crucial question is the impact that these response rates have on our confidence in the results of the survey and, in particular, the prevalence estimates of problem and pathological gambling in Oregon. Lesieur (1994) has noted that all of the potential biases introduced by the telephone interview process lead to the assumption that problem gambling prevalence rates established through telephone surveys are highly conservative. In further support of our belief that problem gambling prevalence estimates are conservative but reliable, work in British Columbia to investigate potential sources of non-response in problem gambling surveys found no significant differences between respondents and refusers in gambling behavior, SOGS items or demographics (Angus Reid & Gemini Research 1994).

Weighting the Sample

To determine whether the sample was representative of the population, the demographics of the sample were compared with demographic information from the United States Bureau of the Census. Since comparisons are with the 1990 census, some of the differences between the sample and the census, such as age and income, may be due to changes in the characteristics of the population over the past seven years.

After comparing the demographic characteristics of the sample with the known demographics of the population in Oregon, we elected to weight the sample for age. While the difference between the actual sample and the known characteristics of the population was not great (six percentage points), we were concerned about the impact that such age differences would have, given what is known about the demographic characteristics of problem gamblers in the general population. Table 1 shows key demographic characteristics of the actual and weighted samples and compares these characteristics to information from the 1990 census (the most recent information available on detailed characteristics of the population). The table shows that the weighted Oregon sample is representative of the population in terms of gender, age, ethnicity and marital status.

Table 1: Comparing the Demographics of the Actual and Weighted Sample

and the General Population

| | |Actual |Weighted |1990 |

| | |Sample |Sample |Census |

| | |% |% |% |

| | |(N=1,502) |(N=1,502) | |

| | | | | |

|Gender |Male |44.8 |45.2 |48.0 |

| |Female |55.2 |54.8 |52.0 |

| | | | | |

|Age |18 - 20 |4.2 |5.2 |5.6 |

| |21 - 29 |14.0 |17.0 |17.0 |

| |30 - 54 |50.3 |48.9 |47.7 |

| |55 and over |31.5 |29.0 |29.6 |

| | | | | |

|Ethnicity |White |92.5 |92.3 |92.8 |

| |Non-White |7.5 |7.7 |7.2 |

| | | | | |

|Marital Status |Married |57.7 |57.2 |57.3 |

| |Widowed |14.3 |9.0 |6.9 |

| |Divorced/Separated |9.7 |13.4 |12.7 |

| |Never Married |18.4 |20.4 |23.0 |

Data Analysis and Reporting

For easier comparisons of data from the survey with results of similar surveys in other states, detailed demographic data on age, ethnicity, education, income and marital status were collapsed to have fewer values. Age was collapsed into four groups (“18 to 20,” “21 to 29,” “30 to 54” and “55 and Over”) for purposes of analysis. Ethnicity was collapsed from six groups into two groups (“White” and “Non-White” which includes Native Americans, Asians and Hispanics as well as Blacks). Marital status was collapsed from five groups into four groups (“Married,” “Widowed,” “Separated/Divorced” and “Never Married”). Education was collapsed from five groups into two groups (“Less than High School” and “High School Graduate”). Employment was collapsed from seven groups into three groups (“Working,” “Unemployed” and “Other” which includes respondents who are going to school, keeping house, disabled or retired). Household income was collapsed from six groups into three groups (“Less than $25,000,” “$25,000 to $50,000” and ”$50,000 or More”) for purposes of analysis and comparison.

Chi-square analysis and analyses of variance were used to test for statistical significance. In order to adjust for the large number of statistical tests conducted, p-values smaller than .01 are considered highly significant while p-values at the more conventional .05 level are considered significant. In reading the tables in this report that contain demographic data, asterisks in the right-hand column indicate that one of the figures in that category is significantly different from other figures in the same category.

GAMBLING IN OREGON

To assess the full range of gambling activities available to Oregon residents, the questionnaire for the survey collected information about 14 different wagering activities. Respondents were asked if they had ever played or bet money on the following activities:

charitable games apart from bingo

bingo in a non-Indian bingo hall

Oregon Lottery video poker

traditional lottery games such as Scratch-Its, Megabucks or Keno

at a casino or Indian Gaming Center

card games for money not at a casino or Indian Gaming Center

horses, dogs or other animals at the track, at an OTB or with a bookie

slot machines not at a casino or lottery retailer

games of skill, such as bowling, pool or golf

dice games not at a casino or Indian Gaming Center

stocks or commodities markets

sports events other than the Lottery’s Sports Action game

telephone or computer wagering including the Internet or the Worldwide Web

any other type of gambling

Gambling in the General Population

In every recent survey of gambling and problem gambling, the majority of respondents acknowledge participating in one or more of the gambling activities included in the questionnaire. In the United States, the proportion of respondents who have ever gambled ranges from 64% in Mississippi in 1996 to 92% in New Jersey in 1989 (Volberg 1994c, 1997a). In 1997, 87% of the respondents in Oregon acknowledged participating in one or more of 14 gambling activities. This lifetime participation rate is comparable to lifetime participation rates in Central and Midwestern states such as Iowa, Minnesota and Montana.

Figure 1 on the following page shows lifetime and past-year participation rates for the types of gambling included in the survey. Lifetime participation among Oregon respondents is highest for lottery, charitable games (not including bingo) and casinos or Indian Gaming Centers. Over half of the respondents acknowledge that they have tried these types of gambling. One-quarter to one-third of the respondents have wagered on video poker, card games not at a casino and non-Indian bingo while 21% of the respondents have wagered on games of skill and 19% have wagered on sports events. Lifetime participation rates are below 15% for all of the other types of gambling included in the survey.

The majority of respondents who have ever gambled in Oregon have done so in the past year. While 87% of the respondents acknowledged lifetime gambling, 70% of the respondents acknowledged gambling in the past year. Past-year participation is highest for lottery, casinos or Indian Gaming Centers, charitable games (not including bingo) and video poker.

Figure 1: Lifetime and Past Year Gambling Participation in Oregon

[pic]

Patterns of Gambling Participation

To understand patterns of gambling participation, it is helpful to examine the demographics of respondents who wager at increasing levels of frequency. To analyze levels of gambling participation, we divide respondents into four groups:

38. non-gamblers who have never participated in any type of gambling (13% of the total sample);

39. infrequent gamblers who have participated in one or more types of gambling but not in the past year (17% of the total sample);

40. past-year gamblers who have participated in one or more types of gambling in the past year but not on a weekly basis (52% of the total sample); and

41. weekly gamblers who participate in one or more types of gambling on a weekly basis (18% of the total sample).

Table 2 on the following page shows differences in the demographic characteristics of non-gamblers, infrequent gamblers, past-year gamblers and weekly gamblers in Oregon as well as differences in the mean number of gambling activities these groups have ever tried.

Table 2: Demographics of Gamblers in Oregon

| | |Non-Gamblers |Infrequent |Past Year Gamblers|Weekly Gamblers | |

| | |% |Gamblers |% |% | |

| | | |% | | | |

| | |(N=197) |(N=257) |(N=775) |(N=273) | |

| | | | | | | |

|Gender | | | | | |** |

| |Male |37.7 |42.1 |43.9 |57.3 | |

| |Female |62.3 |57.9 |56.1 |42.7 | |

|Age | | | | | |** |

| |18 - 20 |6.8 |1.0 |5.7 |6.3 | |

| |21 - 29 |17.4 |11.0 |19.4 |15.7 | |

| |30 - 54 |36.4 |48.8 |51.6 |50.1 | |

| |55 and over |39.4 |39.3 |23.3 |27.8 | |

|Ethnicity | | | | | | |

| |White |90.6 |95.7 |91.9 |91.3 | |

| |Non-White |9.4 |4.3 |8.1 |8.7 | |

|Marital Status | | | | | |** |

| |Married |56.5 |58.3 |57.5 |55.8 | |

| |Widowed |13.3 |14.9 |5.9 |9.2 | |

| |Divorced/Separated |9.0 |13.8 |14.7 |12.8 | |

| |Never Married |21.1 |13.0 |21.9 |22.3 | |

|Education | | | | | |** |

| |Less than HS |14.3 |6.7 |6.2 |11.0 | |

| |HS and Over |85.7 |93.3 |93.8 |89.0 | |

|Employment | | | | | |** |

| |Working |47.6 |51.6 |71.0 |66.3 | |

| |Unemployed |3.1 |2.1 |1.4 |2.2 | |

| |Other |49.3 |46.3 |27.6 |31.5 | |

|Income | | | | | |** |

| |Less than $25,000 |53.7 |36.9 |28.7 |29.1 | |

| |$25,000 to $50,000 |31.6 |34.6 |37.6 |43.7 | |

| |$50,000 or More |14.7 |28.5 |33.7 |27.2 | |

| | | | | | | |

|Mean Lifetime Gambling Activities |--- |2.5 |4.2 |5.6 |** |

* Significant (p ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download