Australia's Gambling Industries - Productivity Commission

J
Measuring costs
J.1 Introduction
This appendix outlines the way the Commission has estimated the dollar value
equivalents of a range of adverse consequences that result from gambling for some
people: adverse consequences for certain gamblers; for their families; and for the
wider community. This involves collecting information on the prevalence of a range
of adverse consequences (chapter 7) and then placing a dollar value against them.
Some of these (such as job loss) are relatively easy to quantify, while others, such as
the reduction in the quality of life of problem gamblers and their families, are
inherently difficult. Nevertheless, as these intangible costs are a major element of
the adverse consequences of gambling for some people, it is essential to gain some
idea of their possible size, if only so that the costs can be compared with the benefits
which are more readily quantified (see chapter 5).
The prevalence of adverse consequences resulting from gambling
In this inquiry, the Commission conducted two surveys which included questions
about a range of possible adverse consequences from gambling:
• a national survey of the general population, (PC National Gambling Survey)
including questions on adverse consequences asked of regular gamblers, together
with the SOGS set of questions (appendix F); and
• a survey of problem gamblers currently undergoing counselling (PC Survey of
Clients of Counselling Agencies). This survey asked a range of questions about
the consequences of their gambling as well as the SOGS questions (appendix G).
Wherever possible, the Commission has used data from the PC National Gambling
Survey as it more accurately reflects the prevalence of adverse consequences in the
general population. By using information that relates to the general population of
regular gamblers, the need to identify problem gamblers is avoided.
The information from the national survey has been supplemented in a few instances
by data from the problem gambler group (PC Survey of Clients of Counselling
Agencies), but caution should be exercised in drawing inferences from this group as
MEASURING COSTS J.1