Australia's Gambling Industries - Productivity Commission

Table J.3
Prevalence rates, selected consequences, NORC and PC
Survey of Clients of Counselling Agencies
NORC pathological gamblers
PC Survey of Clients of
Counselling Agencies
% %
Job loss 8.0 (last 12 months) 18.1 (ever)
Bankruptcy (ever) 8.4 8.3
Divorced (ever) 20.1 23.4
Arrested (ever) 13.0 17.0
Incarceration (ever) 15.1 6.9
Source: Gerstein 1999 and PC Survey of Clients of Counselling Agencies 1999.
Following the draft report, the Commission held a meeting with a number of
prominent academics and researchers in the field of problem gambling in Australia
(Clive Allcock, Alex Blaszczynski, Jan McMillen, and Michael Walker). The
participants were specifically asked their views on the extent to which problem
gamblers would have problems in the absence of gambling. The consensus was that
for a number of adverse consequences, particularly depression, divorce and
separation, a reasonable rule of thumb is that some 15 to 20 per cent would have
problems even in the absence of their gambling.
Where the adverse consequence was more directly financial, such as embezzlement,
or bankruptcy, the view was that the gambling activity was generally the central and
overwhelming problem, as the most immediate and direct adverse consequences of
problem gambling are financial difficulties. This is consistent with overseas findings
that gamblers who engaged in crime typically had no prior history of criminal
activity.
Drawing on these judgements, the Commission has made an adjustment for
‘causality’ in its estimates of the personal and family impacts of problem gambling
by discounting by 20 per cent the number of people estimated to be affected.
J.2 Measuring components of cost
The Commission has estimated the costs for a range of adverse consequences. These
are:
• financial costs (debts and bankruptcy);
• productivity and employment (productivity loss and job change costs);
• crime and legal costs;
• personal and family costs; and
MEASURING COSTS J.7