With the expansion of opportunities for gaming and wagering (each are different forms of gambling) including through increased accessibility of electronic gaming machines (EGMs) in hotels and clubs in all jurisdictions except Western Australia, an expansion in the number of casinos, the proliferation of games of chance (sponsored by state governments and private agencies) including, inter alia, X-Lotto, Tattslotto, Powerball, Keno, scratch-tickets and Bingo and the development of new distribution channels for gaming and wagering, there is significant interest in the impact of the exposure of young people to opportunities to gamble.
Increasingly, technological developments such as the internet and the mobile telephony (and also, sophisticated video games) provide new or potentially new distribution channels for gambling participation by young people, who it is recognised are more ‘technologically savvy and astute’ than their parents. Sports bars and ‘events based wagering’ are increasingly targeted at young people as a distinct market segment. Sportsbetting is said to be favoured by many young people. Digital television is likely to expand opportunities for wagering and events based gambling in the future.
Griffiths (UK: 2000) asserts that adolescent gambling is a major problem in society today. Some forms of gambling are illegal due to the age of the participant, while problem gambling ‘appears’ to be associated with other risk factors including, inter alia, illicit drug taking and alcohol abuse. While overwhelmingly a male phenomenon, the extent of youth gambling is said to be a major concern because of the link to adult problem gambling. In the UK, lotteries, scratchcards and slot machine gambling are reported to be the main forms of adolescent gaming. Very little is known about the propensity of Australian youth to participate in the first two of these, where the purchase of tickets is freely available in newsagents and even less is known about underage poker machine play.
Indeed, relatively little is known in Australia about the extent of participation in all forms of gambling by young people, nor the risk factors that may lead to problem gambling. Up until very recently, while an extensive range of studies point to higher prevalence rates for young people in the 18-30 age group and the risk of life-time gambling problems developed from early exposure to gambling, relatively few studies in Australia have addressed the gambling behaviours of young people. This is surprising given that, empirical studies have consistently argued a positive relationship between alcohol, tobacco, crime and youth gambling. Very little is known about the pattern of experimentation with gambling and, like other forms of youth experimentation whether this declines with maturity.
1.1 Terms of Reference
The Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS) commissioned the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies (hereafter SACES) to conduct a review and report on the literature relating to the measurement of prevalence of youth problem gambling in Australia. In particular, it was requested that the report should include:
- a thorough review of the different methodologies used in any existing prevalence studies on youth problem gambling;
- an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the different methodologies, taking into account the differing social and gambling contexts in which youth gambling may take place;
- sufficient distinction made between studies of the different age groups (for example, 15-18 years old and 19-24 years old); and
- recommendations on the issues that an approach or consideration of youth gambling prevalence studies would need to address, and a consideration of the issues involved in developing a national youth gambling prevalence survey of 15-24 year olds.
In relation to the last terms of reference, the focus was on highlighting methodological issues for the future, if more detailed consideration was to be given to any national youth gambling prevalence survey. Thus the question to be examined was concerned with issues of methodology and approach; the consultants were not asked to provide a recommendation on whether such a study should be undertaken.
No length was specified for the report as it was not possible to estimate at the commencement of the task just how ‘extensive or limited’ the available literature might be. The consultants were requested to provide a draft report and to incorporate subsequent feedback into the final report. A period of one month was available to conduct the literature review and to provide the draft report to FaCS. The final report was to be submitted two weeks after the draft has been approved by FaCS.
[ top ]
1.2 Youth Gambling
A comparative analysis of Australian studies on youth and gambling (let alone comparative analysis of international studies) is extremely difficult including because, the definition of the youth cohort almost inevitably varies for every study. A second concern is that almost all prevalence studies are ‘point in time estimates’, with varying age cohorts, using different screens and survey methodologies and take place in different social and environmental contexts. International comparisons are especially fraught with danger because of differences in gambling regulations, forms of gambling, access to gambling opportunities and age related factors.
Definitions of the youth cohort include 18 to 30 years of age, ‘university attending’ students, primary school students, Year 12 students, while a number of studies have involved Year Eight high school students (age range 11 to 13). A recent study of South Australian high school attending students (Delfabbro et al, 2003) sampled surveyed year 10, 11 and 12 students. Interestingly in this study, the authors stated that ‘most adolescents did not experience gambling related problems. Problem gambling was classified as a score of 4 or higher on the DSM-IV-J. Based on this classification, 3.5 per cent of participants could be categorised as problem gamblers.’1 This is consistent with the lower end of rates for youth problem gambling reported in the North America, Canada and the UK that are reported to range from 3.5 per cent up to 8 per cent.
Rossen (2001) for the New Zealand Centre for Gambling Studies reviewed the public health literature on youth gambling, including the range of screening tools used in prevalence based research on adolescent gambling, the wide range of age groups covered said to represent ‘youth’ and the diversity of research methodologies. Rossen found that ‘complications arise when comparing findings due to a lack of consensus with regard to factors such as measurement tools (SOGS-RA, DSM-IV-J, MAGS, etc), and methodology (telephone surveys versus school-based surveys). A review of findings of some 40 population based surveys and studies found rates of adolescent:
- lifetime involvement in gambling range from 20.5 per cent to 99 per cent;
- regular involvement in gambling range from 1 per cent to 35.1 per cent; and
- problematic gambling range from 0.9 per cent to 11.2 per cent.’2
The wide variation in reported rates provides very little basis for policy credibility.
There has been considerable attention directed towards youth and gambling in North America, particularly following the release of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission Report (1999). The Commission considered that gambling by young people was increasing and that more than one million adolescents aged between 12 and 18 years were ‘pathological gamblers’. While estimates of the participation rate of young people in gambling activities varies considerably along with the rate of ‘problem gambling, there does appear to be unanimity in the Australian and North American literature that those who begin gambling at a relatively young age are at risk of developing lifetime gambling problems.
Shaffer et al (1997) completed meta-analysis of problem gambling prevalence studies in the United States and Canada and examined some 120 studies. They found that ‘the status of being young’ is a considerable risk factor for disordered gambling. In their meta-analysis Shaffer et al (1997) categorised people as being in one of three categories indicated by Level 1, 2 or 3.
Level 1 described or classified the majority of people who experienced little or no adverse consequence. Level 2 gambling represented a pattern of gambling that is associated with a wide range of adverse reactions or consequences. Level 3 gamblers were those defined as experiencing the most serious consequences, including disordered or problem gambling that satisfies ‘diagnostic’ criteria.
Their review of studies estimated that young people are almost three times more likely than their adult counterparts to evidence a Level 3 gambling disorder during their lifetime and 4.47 times more likely during the past year to experience a Level 3 disorder. Furthermore, 9.45 per cent of youth were estimated to be classified as Level 2 problem gamblers (lifetime prevalence), compared to 3.85 per cent of adults.
Specifically, in regard to juvenile prevalence studies conducted in North America, Jacobs (2000) examined some twenty studies and found support for the view that involvement of middle school and high school age youths in gambling had increased significantly over the last decade and a half, as gambling had become more popular and more accessible as a form of entertainment. A profile of juvenile serious gambling related problem groups is provided in Section 3.5. He concluded that this had important implications for policy formulation.
In summary, researchers who have reviewed a large number of prevalence studies conclude that the measurement of prevalence is dependent on the instrument used, the threshold or cut-off levels chosen and the social context in which gambling patterns are learned and gambling problems are formed. There are significant variations in reported prevalence rates which limit the utility of the findings and their relevance for policy purposes.
Notwithstanding, there does seem to be agreement that the participation of young people in gambling activities has increased over the last 10 to 20 years. Whether the higher reported prevalence rates persist into adulthood is a matter for conjecture.