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

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:

· gambling in Oregon

· prevalence of problem gambling in Oregon

· comparing non-problem and problem gamblers

· 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:

· male under 35

· female under 35

· male over 18

· 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 Sample %	Weighted Sample %	1990 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:

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

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:

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

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

· 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

· 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 Gamblers %	Past Year Gamblers %	Weekly 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<=.05)

** Highly significant (p<=.01)

Table 2 shows that, as in other jurisdictions, infrequent gamblers and non-gamblers in Oregon are significantly more likely than more frequent gamblers to be older women with relatively low education and income. These individuals are also significantly more likely than more frequent gamblers to be keeping house, retired or disabled. Past-year and weekly gamblers are significantly more likely than less frequent gamblers to be young or middle-aged men with relatively high income. Past-year and weekly gamblers are also significantly more likely than respondents who gamble less frequently or not at all to be employed. Past-year and weekly gamblers are significantly more likely than less frequent gamblers to be single, divorced or separated. Finally, the table shows that the average number of different activities ever tried increases significantly with the frequency of a respondent’s current gambling.

Expenditures on Gambling

Reported estimates of expenditures obtained in this and similar surveys are based on recollection and self-report. In addition, there are fundamental uncertainties about the tacit definitions that people have for the term “spending” when considering different types of gambling. It is also important to note that these estimates of expenditures will not include amounts spent on gambling within a jurisdiction by non-residents and tourists. For these reasons, data on reported expenditures are best suited for analyzing the relative importance of different types of gambling among a jurisdiction's residents rather than for ascertaining absolute spending levels on different types of wagering.

To determine expenditures on gambling in the general population, the total monthly expenditure for each gambling activity is calculated by summing the amount of money reported spent in a typical month by each respondent on each gambling activity. The total amount spent in a typical month by all respondents on all gambling activities is then calculated. The proportion of the total monthly expenditure spent on each gambling activity is calculated by dividing the amount spent on each activity in the past month by the total monthly expenditure. The total monthly expenditure on all gambling activities is divided by the total number of respondents in the survey to obtain an average amount spent in the past month per respondent.

Adjustments to Expenditures

While the stockmarket and commodities trading are not universally regarded as a gambling activity, there are people who experience difficulties due to their involvement in these activities. For this reason, stocks and commodities are routinely included in the questionnaire for gambling surveys. However, in calculating the total monthly expenditure on gambling, expenditures on stocks and commodities are typically excluded. This is done in order to clearly explicate the relative gambling expenditures of the majority of respondents. This adjustment is also made to allow comparisons of expenditure data from Oregon with data from other United States jurisdictions.

In every jurisdiction where similar surveys have been completed, amounts spent on stocks and commodities reflect large amounts of money spent by a relatively small number of respondents. Amounts spent on stocks and commodities in Oregon constituted 92% of the unadjusted total monthly expenditure although only 8% of the respondents had participated in this activity in the past year. This is because of the very large amounts ($1,000 to $500,000) that a small number of respondents (N=33) estimated that they bet or spent on stocks or commodities in a typical month.

Variations in Expenditures

Using the approach detailed above, we calculate that respondents in Oregon (N=1,502) spent 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).

Table 3 on the following page shows total reported monthly expenditures on different types of gambling in Oregon as well as the proportion that each type of expenditure represents of total adjusted monthly expenditures on gambling. Only those types of gambling for which total monthly expenditures exceeded 1% of the total monthly expenditure are shown.

Table 3: Monthly Expenditures on Gambling

	Monthly Expenditure $	% of Total
	(N=1,502)

Casino/Indian Gaming Center	22,397	34.7
Video Poker	10,198	15.8
Lottery	8,499	13.2
Games of Skill	5,190	8.0
Non-Indian Bingo	4,496	7.0
Charitable (not bingo)	4,241	6.6
Sports	3,610	5.6
Card Games	2,452	3.8
Horses, Dogs, Other Animals	1,671	2.6

Total	64,568	100.0

Table 3 shows that monthly expenditures at casinos or Indian Gaming Centers account for just over one-third of total gambling expenditures. Monthly expenditures on Oregon Lottery video poker account for another 16% and expenditures on lottery products account for 13% of total monthly gambling expenditures. Expenditures on all other types of gambling are lower than 10% of the total.

As in other jurisdictions, the majority of respondents in Oregon report spending rather small amounts on gambling in a typical month. The majority of respondents in Oregon (60%) report spending less than $10 on gambling in a typical month. Another 31% of the respondents report spending between $10 and $99 on gambling in a typical month and 9% of the respondents report spending $100 or more on gambling in a typical month. However, this small group of respondents accounts for 73% of reported monthly expenditures on gambling in Oregon.

Respondents in the highest spending group in Oregon are significantly more likely to be male, under the age of 30 and divorced, separated or never married than respondents in lower spending groups. While these higher spending respondents are significantly less likely to have graduated high school than other respondents, they are significantly more likely to be working than respondents who spend less on gambling and to have annual household incomes over $25,000.

As in other jurisdictions, there are statistically significant differences in monthly expenditures on gambling across demographic groups. Table 4 on the following page shows significant differences in the mean reported expenditures on gambling in the past month by different demographic groups.

Table 4: Past Month Expenditures by Different Groups in Oregon

		Mean Monthly Expenditure
		(N=1,502)

Gender			**
	Male	58.77
	Female	30.01
Age
	18 - 20	31.81
	21 - 29	66.37
	30 - 54	43.30
	55 and over	30.75
Ethnicity			**
	White	38.57
	Non-White	97.60
Marital Status
	Married	35.90
	Widowed	27.17
	Divorced/Separated	56.84
	Never Married	61.71
Education
	Less than HS	39.17
	HS or higher	43.35
Employment
	Working	49.51
	Unemployed	30.47
	Other	31.76
Income			*
	Less than $25,000	27.79
	$25,000 to $50,000	41.95
	$50,000 or More	65.61

* Significant (p<=.05)

** Highly significant (p<=.01)

Table 4 shows that men in Oregon estimate that they spend about twice as much on gambling in a typical month as women. Non-White respondents report that they spend about two and a half times more on gambling in a typical month than White respondents. Finally, respondents with annual household incomes over $50,000 report spending significantly more than respondents with lower annual household incomes. In contrast to other jurisdictions, there are no significant differences in monthly expenditures by age, marital status, education or employment status among Oregon respondents.

Gambling Preferences

For several types of gambling, respondents who acknowledged participation in the past year were asked about their preferences for particular products or places. These types of gambling included playing the lottery and going to casinos both within and outside Oregon.

Lottery: Respondents who acknowledged playing traditional lottery games in the past year were asked which games they preferred. Among respondents who played the lottery in the past year (N=778), 39% of these respondents indicated that Scratch-Its was their preferred game while 32% indicated that MegaBucks was their preferred game. While 9% of the respondents indicated that they preferred to play Powerball, only small numbers of respondents indicated a preference for any other lottery games including Daily Four, Keno, pulltabs or Sports Action.

There is a significant difference in average expenditures among lottery players based on their preferred game. Respondents who indicated that Keno was their preferred lottery game spend significantly more in a typical month than respondents whose preference is for other traditional lottery games. Keno players acknowledge spending an average of $40 in a typical month compared to the average of $9 acknowledged by respondents whose preference is for other lottery games.

Video Poker: Respondents who acknowledged playing Oregon Lottery video poker in the past year were asked where they usually played video poker. Among respondents who played Oregon Lottery video poker in the past year (N=359), 49% indicated that they usually played at a tavern or bar while another 27% indicated that they usually played at a restaurant or lounge. Video poker players acknowledge spending an average of $29 in a typical month compared to the $40 spent by Keno players and the $9 spent by respondents whose preference is for other lottery games. Average expenditures by respondents who prefer video poker and Keno may reflect the location of these games in bars and taverns as well as the impact of alcohol consumption on gambling behavior.

Casinos and Indian Gaming Centers: Respondents who had gambled at a casino or Indian Gaming Center in the past year were asked whether they usually went to a casino in Oregon or outside Oregon. Among respondents who had been to a casino or Indian Gaming Center in the past year (N=444), 68% preferred to go to a casino in Oregon while 24% preferred to go to a casino outside Oregon. Among respondents who had been to a casino or Indian Gaming Center in the past year, the great majority (92%) indicated that they usually visit casinos once a month or less.

In terms of their game preferences, 64% of respondents who had been to a casino or Indian Gaming Center in the past year prefer to play slot machines, 26% prefer card games and 10% prefer other games including bingo, Keno, dice games or roulette. There are no significant differences in game preference between respondents who prefer to go to casinos outside Oregon and those who prefer to go to casinos or Indian Gaming Centers in Oregon.

Although the differences are not significant, respondents who prefer to go to casinos outside Oregon report spending an average of $93 in a typical month while respondents who prefer to go to casinos within Oregon report spending an average of $44 in a typical month. There are no significant differences between respondents who prefer slot machines and those who prefer card games in the average amount spent in a typical month on casino-style games.

Summary

In this section, we examined patterns of gambling participation in the Oregon sample as a whole. In 1997, 87% of the respondents in Oregon acknowledge participating in one or more gambling activities at some time, 70% acknowledge participating in one or more gambling activities in the past year and 18% acknowledge participating in one or more gambling activities once a week or more. Lifetime participation is highest for the lottery, charitable games (not including bingo) and casinos or Indian Gaming Centers while past year participation is highest for the lottery and casinos. Young and middle-aged employed men with relatively high income are the respondents most likely to have ever gambled in Oregon.

Typical monthly expenditures at casinos or Indian Gaming Centers, on video poker and on other lottery games account for 64% of reported expenditures on gambling in Oregon. As in other jurisdictions, young, unmarried men with relatively high income report spending the largest amounts of money on gambling. These patterns of gambling participation identified in Oregon are similar to patterns identified in many other jurisdictions.

Relationships between respondents’ preferences for lottery and casino games and their estimated expenditures on these types of gambling are most interesting. While only small numbers of respondents who played the lottery in the past year prefer Keno, these respondents report spending significantly more on lottery games than respondents who prefer other traditional lottery games. While only 24% of respondents prefer to go to casinos outside Oregon, these respondents report spending significantly more on casino games than respondents who prefer to go to casinos in the State of Oregon. In the next section, we turn our attention to the prevalence of problem and probable pathological gambling in the Oregon sample.

PROBLEM AND PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLING IN OREGON

As noted in the section Defining Problem and Pathological Gambling on Page 3, individuals are classified as problem gamblers or probable pathological gamblers in prevalence surveys on the basis of their responses to the South Oaks Gambling Screen items. It is important to remember that not all lifetime problem and probable pathological gamblers meet sufficient criteria to be classified as current problem and probable pathological gamblers.

Research on the performance of the South Oaks Gambling Screen has shown that the lifetime screen is very good at detecting pathological gambling among those who currently experience the disorder (see Appendix A for a full discussion of the accuracy of the SOGS). However, as expected, the screen identifies at-risk individuals at the expense of generating a substantial number of false positives. The current SOGS produces fewer false positives than the lifetime measure but more false negatives and thus provides a weaker screen for identifying pathological gamblers in the clinical sense. However, the greater efficiency of the current SOGS makes it a more useful tool for detecting rates of change in the prevalence of problem and pathological gambling over time.

Following established criteria for discriminating between respondents without gambling-related difficulties and those with moderate to severe problems (Abbott & Volberg 1996; Lesieur & Blume 1987), Oregon respondents' scores on the lifetime and current (past-year) South Oaks Gambling Screen items were tallied. In accordance with these criteria, prevalence rates were calculated as follows:

· lifetime problem gamblers are those respondents who score 3 or 4 points on the lifetime SOGS items. In Oregon, 3.1% (±0.9%) of the respondents scored as lifetime problem gamblers.

· lifetime probable pathological gamblers are those respondents who score 5 or more points on the lifetime SOGS items. In Oregon, 1.8% (±0.7%) of the respondents scored as lifetime probable pathological gamblers.

· current problem gamblers are those respondents who score 3 or 4 points on the past year SOGS items. In Oregon, 1.9% (±0.7%) of the respondents scored as current problem gamblers.

· current probable pathological gamblers are those respondents who score 5 or more points on the past year SOGS items. In Oregon, 1.4% (±0.6%) of the respondents scored as current probable pathological gamblers.

In the tables that follow in this and the next section, lifetime and current problem and probable pathological gamblers are grouped together. This approach is based on discriminant analysis that has established a strong and significant separation between non-problem gamblers and those who score as problem and probable pathological gamblers (Abbott & Volberg 1996; Volberg & Abbott 1994).

Lifetime Prevalence

According to the most recent population projections from the University of Portland Center for Population Research, the population aged 18 and over in Oregon in 1996 is 2,362,617 individuals. Based on these figures, we estimate that between 52,000 (2.2%) and 94,500 (4.0%) of Oregon residents aged 18 and over can be classified as lifetime problem gamblers. In addition, we estimate that between 26,000 (1.1%) and 59,000 (2.5%) of Oregon residents aged 18 and over can be classified as lifetime probable pathological gamblers.

Table 5 shows that lifetime problem and probable pathological gamblers in Oregon are significantly more likely than other respondents in the sample to be male, under the age of 30, non-White and divorced, separated or never married. Despite these significant differences, it is important to note that the majority of lifetime problem and probable pathological gamblers are White and between the ages of 30 and 54. Differences between lifetime problem and probable pathological gamblers and other respondents in education, income and employment status are relatively small and do not attain statistical significance.

In terms of their gambling involvement, lifetime problem and probable pathological gamblers are significantly more likely than other respondents to gamble once a week or more on one or more activities and to spend $100 or more on gambling in a typical month. In addition, the average number of types of gambling tried by lifetime problem and pathological gamblers is significantly higher than the average number of types of gambling tried by other respondents.

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

		Non-Problem Respondents %	Problem & Pathological Respondents %
		(N=1,427)	(N=75)

Gender				**
	Male	44.2	63.8
	Female	55.8	36.2
Age				*
	18 - 20	4.8	11.5
	21 - 29	16.7	23.0
	30 - 54	49.2	43.3
	55 and over	29.3	22.3
Ethnicity				**
	White	93.0	78.6
	Non-White	7.0	21.4
Marital Status				**
	Married	58.4	35.4
	Widowed	9.1	7.4
	Divorced/Separated	12.9	23.5
	Never Married	19.7	33.7
Education
	Less than HS	7.9	14.0
	HS and Over	92.1	86.0
Employment
	Working	63.4	71.5

GAMBLING AND PROBLEM GAMBLING IN OREGON

Report to the

Oregon Gambling Addiction Treatment Foundation

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Findings

Future Directions