Annual Statistics
2
4
Executive Summary
5
Headline Data Summaries
7
Helpline Data Findings
7 Volume 9 Caller Demographics 12 Caller Profile 18 Gambling Facilities and Activities 27 Impacts of Gambling Related Harm 30 Caller Satisfaction 31
Treatment Data Findings
31 Client Numbers 32 Client Demographics 35 Gambling Profile 36 Gambling Facilities and Activities 44 Impacts of Gambling Related Harm 45 Client Improvement
Annual Statistics
3
ANNU AL STATISTICS | 2018/2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary This report outlines key findings from GamCare’s 2018/19 service data. This data relates to the period April 1st 2018 to 31st March 2019. Our wider activities and impact from this year are detailed in a separate report (the Trustees’ Annual Report), available on GamCare’s website, which also references some of the headline findings from this report.
4
The statistics outlined in this report have been gathered from calls to the National Gambling Helpline (both calls and live chat), and from the treatment services delivered across England, Scotland and Wales, provided through both GamCare and our network partners. We are pleased to have undertaken a deeper analysis of our annual data set this year, which in turn will inform where service developments are needed to better address the needs of our beneficiaries. We believe that robust data collection and analysis is a key contributor to continuous improvement. Key findings from this year’s data include: l a rising number of women gamblers using our services; l a n increasing number of Asian service users accessing our Helpline service; l a rise in debt related presentations; l a rise in online gambling activity overall. The sections below provide detailed breakdowns across our service areas, both Helpline and treatment data, in relation to the number of users accessing our services, demographics, gambling profile and behaviours, negative impacts of gambling, as well as outcomes from treatment and client satisfaction. The report begins with some headline data, providing an at a glance summary of our key findings.
This report is intended to provide a comprehensive analysis of our annual client data. This includes both Helpline and treatment data which at present are analysed as separate datasets. As this often relates to the same people there are similarities between some of these findings, and as they are presented in the same format, there is an element of duplication when reading the report. However, this is necessary for us to present all the findings in full. We are currently working on cleaning and combining our Helpline and treatment datasets, which will enable a more unified analysis to be provided in next year’s annual report. For briefer data information, please refer to the headline section, or our Annual Trustees Report Activity and Impact section. Further notes on the data: l The data in this report from the National Gambling Helpline relate to individual calls and not callers, predominantly to maintain consistency with previous years. Callers who make repeated calls to the Helpline will therefore be counted more than once in the current statistics. We are currently working on improving our reporting systems and intend to report on individual callers by next year. l Data from the treatment services relates to individual instances of treatment. As it is possible for someone to undergo more than one treatment episode in a year, it is possible that there are people who appear more than once in the data, but this is far less likely than with the Helpline data. l The analysis presented here are based on administrative data and are open to minor revision.
HEADLINE DATA SUMMARIES
Headline Data Summaries National Gambling Helpline
Gambling profile
Volume and demographics
l The number of callers reporting that online gambling is problematic for them has increased from 47% in 2014/15 to 55% in 2018/19. ‘Betting’, ‘Casino Games’ and ‘Slots’ account for three quarters of all problematic online gambling reported.
l The total number of target calls for 2018/19 was 29,868, an increase of 10% since 2014/15, with gamblers accounting for 75% of calls. l 83% of gamblers were male, and 79% of affected others (partners, family members, friends) were female. l Gamblers had a younger age profile than affected others, with 85% of gamblers under the age of 45 compared to 60% of affected others. l 82% of gamblers and 87% of affected others were White. When compared with the UK population aged over 16 there was a lower proportion of gamblers who were White and a higher proportion of who were Asian or Black.
Caller profile l Compared to the proportion of the UK population aged over 16 in each of the regions, the most over-represented areas were London and Northern England while East of England, East Midlands and Scotland were under-represented. l 78% of gamblers and 77% of affected others were employed. Gamblers not in employment were more likely to be long term sick or disabled (8%) or unemployed (7%) while affected others were more likely to be retired (7%) or economically inactive (8%). l 66% of gamblers had been gambling for less than a decade. l 65% of gamblers report that gambling has become a problem in the last four years.
l ‘Betting shops’ make up nearly three quarters of all problematic offline gambling reported in 2018/19. l 69% of female gamblers have problems with online gambling, with ‘Slots’ accounting for nearly half of all female gamblers’ online activities. l The most problematic offline activity for both genders is ‘gaming machines in betting shops’. l The most problematic online activities for male gamblers are ‘online betting’ and ‘casino games’. l Over the past five years there has been a movement towards online gambling across all age groups, but despite this trend, gamblers over 45 were more likely to have problems with offline gambling. l White gamblers were more likely to have problems with online gambling while offline gambling was more problematic for all other ethnicities.
Impacts of gambling l O ver the past year, 71% of gamblers reported having some level of gambling debt although only 23% explicitly reported financial difficulties caused by gambling. l 4 5% of gamblers and 41% of affected others mentioned impacts on their mental wellbeing last year, including anxiety, stress and isolation.
ANNU AL STATISTICS | 2018/2019
5
HEADLINE DATA SUMMARIES
Treatment Numbers and demographics l 9,049 clients attended treatment in 2018/19, an increase of 9% on last year and 65% on 2014/15. l P artners or family members account for around one in ten clients who attend treatment. l 4 3% of clients were aged between 26 and 35 years, the largest age group in each of the last five years. l C ompared to callers to the Helpline, a lower proportion of clients were Asian, and a higher proportion were White. l U nlike in previous years, the majority of clients receiving treatment had been gambling for more than a decade. People who have gambled for more than 20 years were a larger proportion of those in treatment than in any previous year.
Gambling profile l T he number of clients reporting that online gambling is problematic for them has increased in clients from 43% in 2015/16 to 54% in 2018/19.
6
l ‘Betting’, ‘Casino Games’ and ‘Slots’ account for over 90% of all problematic online gambling reported. l ‘Betting shops’ make up two thirds of all problematic offline gambling reported. l 64% of female clients reported problems with online gambling, with ‘Slots’ accounting for over half of all female gamblers’ online activities. l The most problematic offline activity for both genders is ‘gaming machines in betting shops’. l The most problematic online activities for male gamblers are ‘online betting’ and ‘casino games’.
l ‘Online betting’, ‘slots’ and ‘casino games’ were problematic across all age groups, although clients aged 25 or under were at least three times more likely to have issues with online betting than over 55s, and nearly three times as likely to have issues with casino games. l ‘Gaming machines in betting shops’ were the most problematic offline activity across all age groups, with one in five over 55s finding them problematic. l White gamblers were more likely to have problems with online gambling, while offline gambling was more problematic for all other ethnicities. l Half of all clients in 2018/19 reported having some level of debt.
Client improvement l I n 2018/19 clients showed an average improvement of 12.4 between pre and post therapy CORE-10 indicators (quality of life/ wellbeing indicators). l C lients who were gambling problematically when entering treatment showed an average improvement of 16.1 in their PGSI score (significantly reduced risk) upon successfully completing their treatment plans in 2018/19. l O ut of a possible rating of five for satisfaction with our service, clients across our treatment network rated us at 4.9 in 2018/19. l 9 9.9% of clients across the network would recommend our services to others and 99.5% would contact the service again for treatment if they had a relapse.
HELPLINE DATA FINDINGS
Helpline Data Findings Volume Calls answered l T otal target call numbers for 2018/19 were 29,868, an increase of 10% over the past five years. l T he proportion of total calls that are target calls has improved from 66% in 2014/15 to 78% in 2018/19. Table 1: Volume of total and target calls 2014/15 to 2018/19 2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
Total calls answered
40,946
46,851
43,637
45,837
38,281
Target calls
27,056
28,231
29,417
29,889
29,868
% Target calls
66%
60%
67%
65%
78%
7
Figure 1: Volume of total and target calls 2014/15 to 2018/19 50,000
40,000 Total calls answered 30,000 Target calls
20,000 2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
Target calls are calls from those affected by gambling, along with others wishing to support them or request advice about our services. This figure includes incoming calls and chats, and also 1,979 outbound calls that were made to clients. Non-target calls can include prank calls, wrong numbers and other instances where the caller does not have a need for our services. The Interactive
2017/18
2018/19
Voice Recording (IVR) which introduces our Helpline service gives more context around our services so that these calls are minimised. If a non-target caller does reach our Advisers, we will ask them where they found the number so that we can follow up and ensure the service is represented correctly.
ANNU AL STATISTICS | 2018/2019
HELPLINE DATA FINDINGS
Caller Type l G amblers made up the majority (75%) of callers in 2018/19. l T he number of affected others contacting the National Gambling Helpline has increased by 47% over the past five years, resulting in the overall proportion increasing from 18% to 22%. l G amblers were more likely to use our live chat service than affected others (71% of gamblers compared to 63% of affected others in 2018/19). Figure 2: Incoming calls and chats by caller type 2014/15 to 2018/19 30
25
20
8
15 17,926
19,373
19,984
20,206
20,992
10
Affected Other Gambler
5 4,147
4,689
5,099
5,499
6,105
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
Other
0 (000s)
Table 2: Incoming Calls and Chats by caller type 2018/19 Phone
Live Chat
Total
Gambler
73%
79%
75%
Affected Other
24%
18%
22%
Other
3%
2%
3%
n=
17,587
10,302
27,889
NB: these figures do not include the 1,979 outbound calls that were made to clients. Callers described as ‘other’ can include professionals supporting those affected by gambling, as well as those working in the gambling industry who would like advice on how to support a customer concerned about their gambling.
l There has been a 15% increase in male gamblers since 2014/15 compared to a 35% increase in female gamblers. This has led to a slight increase in the overall proportion of female gamblers (from 15% in 2014/15 to 17% in 2018/19).
Caller Demographics Gender l Gender was recorded for 24,607 of the 27,889 incoming calls made in 2018/19 (equivalent to 88% of calls). Not all callers choose to disclose their gender, and some callers do not identify as a binary gender.
l There has been a 44% increase in male affected others since 2014/15 compared to a 47% increase in female affected others, resulting in no change to the overall proportion of male affected others over the past five years.
l The majority (83%) of gamblers whose gender was disclosed identified as male. l Conversely, the majority (79%) of affected others whose gender was disclosed identified as female.
Table 3: Gender of callers by caller type 2018/19 Gambler
Affected Other
Other
Male
83%
21%
66%
Female
17%
79%
34%
n=
18,527
5,396
684
Figure 3: Gender of gamblers and affected others 2014/15 to 2018/19 Affected Others Female
AectedAected Others Others Male
Mov. Avg
5000
5000
4000
4000
3000
3000
2000
2000
1000
1000
0
9
Gamblers Female
Mov. Avg
Gamblers Gamblers Male
Mov. Avg 20000
20000
15000
15000
10000
10000
5000
5000
0 0 2014/15 2014/15 2015/16 2015/16 2016/17 2016/17 2017/18 2017/18 2018/19 2018/19
Mov. Avg
0 2014/15 2014/15 2015/16 2015/16 2016/17 2016/17 2017/18 2017/18 2018/19 2018/19
*Mov. Avg is the two-year moving mean average trend line for the category.
ANNU AL STATISTICS | 2018/2019
HELPLINE DATA FINDINGS
Age l T he age profile of people contacting us via live chat is younger than those contacting us over the phone, reflecting a generally higher preference for online contact for under 35s.
l The age profile of callers over 35 has stayed generally stable over the past five years (with a slight increase in 36-45 the only notable exception).
l T he single largest group for either access point is 26-35 which accounts for 41% of all callers.
l There has been a 26% decrease in callers under the age of 25 over the past five years. This has been mirrored by a 24% increase in callers between the ages 26-35.
l G amblers had a younger age profile than affected others, with 85% of gamblers under the age of 45, and only 5% over 55. l A ffected others were less likely to be under 35 (41% compared to 65% gamblers), and more likely to be over 55 (22%).
Table 4: Age of callers by caller type and service used 2018/19 Affected Other
Phone
Live Chat
Total
<18
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
18-25
22%
12%
17%
31%
20%
26-35
43%
29%
40%
44%
41%
36-45
20%
18%
21%
15%
19%
46-55
11%
18%
14%
6%
12%
56-65
4%
16%
6%
3%
6%
66+
1%
6%
2%
0%
2%
n=
11,736
1,824
10,237
3,475
13,712
Figure 4: Age of callers 2014/15 to 2018/19 2015/16
2014/15
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
41%
38%
38%
37%
35%
50%
0% Under 25
26-35
36-45
46-55
56+
7%
7%
7%
6%
12%
7%
10%
12%
11%
11%
12%
19%
19%
17%
20%
17%
17%
21%
24%
27%
30%
29%
40% 30%
10
Gambler
Ethnicity l The majority of both gamblers (82%) and affected others (87%) that contacted the National Gambling Helpline in 2018/19 were White. l A higher proportion of callers of Asian or Asian British and Black or Black British ethnicities were gamblers (11% and 4% respectively) than affected others (7% and 1% respectively). l Over the past five years the proportion of callers of Asian or Asian British ethnicity has increased from 8% to 11%.
l W hen compared with the general over 18 population there was a lower proportion of gamblers who were White (82% gamblers compared to 86% in population) and a higher proportion of Asian (11% compared to 8%) and Black (4% compared to 3%) ethnicities. l T he majority of white callers were British (90%) or Irish (2%) with around one in ten either European (7%) or Other (2%).
Table 5: Gender of callers by caller type 2018/19 2018/19
Gambler
Affected Other
% of England and Wales Population
White
82%
87%
86%
Asian or Asian British
11%
7%
8%
Black or Black British
4%
1%
3%
Mixed
2%
3%
2%
Other
1%
1%
1%
n=
9,259
1,925
11 Figure 5: Ethnicity of callers 2014/15 to 2018/19 White
Asian or Asian British
100
8%
2% 1% 4%
Black or Black British
7%
2% 1% 4%
8%
Mixed
2% 1% 4%
Other
8%
2% 1% 4%
11%
80
60
85%
86%
85%
86%
82%
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
40
20
0
NOMIS England and Wales population by Living Arrangements (2011): QS108EW â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Living Arrangements
2
ANNU AL STATISTICS | 2018/2019
1% 2% 4%
HELPLINE DATA FINDINGS
Caller Profile These tables provide the location of callers and experimental statistics on the economic and relationship profile of callers.
Location l T he largest proportion of callers were located in Southern England (46% overall) with London (19%) and the South East (16%) accounting for the most callers.
l Each region in Northern England was overrepresented, with callers accounting for 6% more than the general population. l The most under-represented regions in England were the East of England and East Midlands (4% and 3% lower than population respectively). l All countries other than England were underrepresented, with Scotland the most (5% of callers compared to 8% of over 18 population).
l C ompared to the proportion of the UK population aged over 16 in each region, the most overrepresented area was London (which was 6% higher in callers than the general population).
Table 6: Location of callers compared to proportion of UK population aged 16+ 2018/19 2018/19
Callers
% of over 16 UK population
Difference
East of England
5%
9%
-4%
East Midlands
4%
7%
-3%
London
19%
13%
6%
North East
6%
4%
2%
North West
14%
11%
3%
South East
16%
14%
2%
South West
6%
9%
-3%
West Midlands
11%
9%
2%
Yorkshire and Humber
9%
8%
1%
England
85%
84%
1%
Northern Ireland
1%
3%
-2%
Scotland
5%
8%
-3%
Wales
4%
5%
-1%
n=
14,330
Regions:
12
Nations:
Figure 6: Regional map of difference in proportion of callers compared to proportion of UK population 2018/19
SCOTLAND
NORTHERN IRELAND
13
REPUBLIC OF IRELAND 2.2
WALES
ANNU AL STATISTICS | 2018/2019
ENGLAND
SECTION HELPLINE TWO | DATA ACTIVITY FINDINGS AND IMPACT
Relationship Status l U nsurprisingly, given that many would likely be calling about their partnerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s gambling, the majority of affected others are either married/in civil partnership (48%) or in a relationship (41%). Only around one in ten affected others were single or separated/divorced.
l The majority of gamblers were also either married/ in civil partnership (24%) or in a relationship (39%) but over a third were single or separated/ divorced. l Compared to the general population, gamblers calling the Helpline are less likely to be married/in a civil partnership but more likely to be in a relationship.
Table 7: Relationship status of callers by caller type 2018/19 2018/19
Gambler
Affected Other
% of England and Wales Population
Single
31%
6%
32%
Separated/Divorced/ Dissolved Civil Partnership
6%
5%
9%
Married/Civil Partnership
24%
48%
48%
In a Relationship
39%
41%
11%
n=
12,173
3,696
Figure 7: Relationship status of callers by caller type 2018/19
14
Affected Others
Gambler
6% 6% 5% 5% 31%31%
Seperated/ Divorced/Dissolved Civil Partnership
39%39%
41%41%
Single
Married/ Civil Partnership
6% 6%
48%48% 24%24%
NOMIS England and Wales population by Living Arrangements (2011): QS108EW â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Living Arrangements
2
In a Relationship
l Conversely, affected others were more likely to be economically inactive (8%) or retired (7%).
Employment Status l Over three quarters of gamblers (78%) and affected others (77%) were employed.
l C ompared to the general population, gamblers are more likely to be employed, unemployed or long-term sick or disabled. They are less likely to be retired (likely due to age distribution) or students.
l Gamblers were more likely to be long term sick or disabled (8%) or unemployed (7%) than affected others.
Table 8: Employment status of callers by caller type 2018/19 2018/19
Gambler
Affected Other
% of England and Wales Population
Employed
78%
77%
62%
Long term sick or disabled
8%
4%
4%
Unemployed (looking for work)
7%
2%
4%
Retired
1%
7%
14%
Student
3%
2%
9%
Other Economically Inactive
2%
8%
7%
n=
13,265
2,620
15
Figure 8: Employment status of callers by caller type 2018/19
2%
Other Economically Inactive
8% 3%
Student
Gambler
2% Affected Other
1%
Retired
7% 7%
Unemployed (looking for work)
2% 8%
Long term sick or disabled
4% 78%
Employed
77% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
NOMIS England and Wales population by Economic activity (2011): QS601EW â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Economic activity
3
ANNU AL STATISTICS | 2018/2019
60%
70%
80%
SECTION HELPLINE TWO | DATA ACTIVITY FINDINGS AND IMPACT
Years gambling l T he majority of gamblers had been gambling for less than a decade (66%), with the largest group those who had been gambling for four years or less (39%). l W hen comparing a gambler’s age with the years they had been gambling, the large majority of under 35’s had been gambling for less than a decade (73%), compared to 42% of those over 35. l P eople who have gambled for more than 20 years is (unsurprisingly) dominated by the over 35’s category (of which 36% fall into this category).
l The trend over the past five years has been fairly consistent with those identified in 2018/19, with the largest change a fall in the number of gamblers who had been gambling for four years or less the last year from 42% in 2017/18 to 39% in 2018/19. l Half of gamblers who had been gambling for less than four years reported that gambling had become a problem in the last year. Conversely, nearly half (48%) of gamblers who had been gambling for more than ten years said gambling had been a problem for ten years or more.
Table 9: Number of years callers have been gambling by age 2018/19 Age
16
2018/19
<=35
>35
All
4 Years or Less
41%
20%
39%
Between 5 years to 9
32%
22%
27%
Between 10 years to 14 years
19%
14%
16%
Between 15 years to 19 years
6%
8%
6%
20 years or more
2%
36%
12%
3,906
2,121
9,542
N=
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
Figure 9: Number of years callers have been gambling 2014/15 to 2018/19 2018/19
2017/18
2016/17
2014/15
12% 10% 11% 12% 12%
20 years or more
Between 15 years to 19 years
2015/16
6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 16% 15% 16% 16% 15%
Between 10 years to 14 years
27% 27% 25% 26% 26%
Between 5 years to 9 years
17 39% 42% 42% 40% 41%
4 years or less
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Table 10: Number of years callers have been gambling by time gambling has been a problem 2018/19 Years have been gambling: Time gambling has been a problem for:
4 Years or Less
Between 5 to 9 years
10 years or more
Total
Less than 6 Months
31%
9%
7%
17%
Between 7 months to 1 year
18%
10%
4%
11%
Between 1 year to 4 years
51%
38%
20%
37%
Between 5 to 9 years
0%
43%
22%
19%
Between 10 to 19 years
0%
1%
34%
11%
20 years or more
0%
0%
14%
4%
2,951
2,069
2,428
7,448
N=
ANNU AL STATISTICS | 2018/2019
SECTION HELPLINE TWO | DATA ACTIVITY FINDINGS AND IMPACT
Gambling Facilities and Activities
l M uch of this decrease results from a fall in the number of people reporting issues with ‘Betting’ (from 12% in 2014/15 to 9% in 2018/19) and ‘Gaming Machines’ (from 22% to 16%) in betting shops.
l T he number of callers reporting that online gambling is problematic for them has increased from 47% in 2014/15 to 55% in 2018/19. l M uch of this increase appears to be driven by online ‘Casino Games’, which doubled from 7% in 2014/15 to 14% in 2018/19.
l D espite the above reductions since 2014/15, ‘betting shops’ still make up nearly three quarters of all offline gambling being reported as problematic in 2018/19.
l ‘Betting’ (16%), ‘Casino Games’ (14%) and ‘Slots’ (12%) account for 42% of all gambling and three quarters of all online gambling reported as problematic. l Offline gambling has decreased in callers from 53% in 2014/15 to 45% in 2018/19.
Figure 10: Online/offline gambling 2014/15 to 2018/19 (Helpline)
Online
Offline
60
18
55%
53% 50
47%
49%
51%
50%
55%
50% 45%
45%
40
30
20
10
0
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
Table 11: Online/offline gambling 2014/15 to 2018/19 (Helpline) 2018/19
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
Online
47%
49%
50%
55%
55%
Offline
53%
51%
50%
45%
45%
25,738
24,249
25,404
25,559
24,295
n=
Table 12: Online gambling activities 2014/15 to 2018/19 (Helpline) Online
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
Betting
16%
16%
16%
16%
16%
Bingo
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Casino Games
7%
11%
11%
14%
14%
Poker
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Slots
13%
10%
11%
13%
12%
Other
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
Not Disclosed
6%
9%
9%
8%
9%
Online Total
47%
49%
50%
55%
55%
12,097
11,915
12,826
14,125
13,332
n=
19
ANNU AL STATISTICS | 2018/2019
SECTION HELPLINE TWO | DATA ACTIVITY FINDINGS AND IMPACT
Table 13: Offline gambling facilities and activities 2014/15 to 2018/19 (Helpline) Offline Facility
Activity
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
Arcades
Gaming Machines
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Betting Shop
Betting
12%
10%
10%
9%
9%
Gaming Machines
22%
23%
19%
18%
16%
Other
0%
0%
2%
2%
3%
Not Disclosed
3%
4%
4%
4%
4%
37%
37%
35%
33%
32%
Bingo
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
Gaming Machines
1%
1%
1%
0%
1%
1%
1%
2%
0%
1%
Gaming Machines
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Table Games
3%
4%
4%
4%
4%
Not Disclosed
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
Casino Total
6%
6%
7%
6%
6%
National Lottery
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Scratchcards
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
Other
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
53%
51%
50%
45%
45%
13641
12334
12578
11434
10963
Betting Shop Total Bingo Club
Bingo Club Total Casino
20
Offline Total n=
Gamblers contacting the National Gambling Helpline were asked what they gambled on and where they gambled. Callers often disclose more than one gambling activity and advisers record up to three activities that callers report being most problematic for them. The percentages given above are calculated, as in previous years, as percentages of all gambling activities disclosed.
Gambling Facilities and Activities by Gender l Female gamblers are more likely to report problems with online gambling (69%) than offline gambling (31%). The most problematic activity is ‘slots’ (34%) which accounts for nearly half of all online activities reported by female gamblers. l Male gamblers are now also more likely to report problems with online gambling (51%) although male gamblers are still more likely than female gamblers to have problematic offline gambling activities.
l T he most frequently cited offline activities for both genders are ‘gaming machines in betting shops’ (8% female and 17% male). l M ale callers who disclose offline activities also often mention that ‘betting in betting shops’ (10%) and ‘table games in casinos’ (5%) are problematic activities for them. l F emale gamblers also disclose that they find ‘gaming machines in arcades’ (4%) and ‘scratch cards’ (5%) problematic activities.
l Male gamblers are most likely to cite ‘online betting’ (17%) and ‘casino games’ (15%) as being problematic.
Figure 11: Online/offline gambling by gender 2015/16 to 2018/19 (Helpline) 2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
80 70
64%
66%
69%
69%
21
60
52% 46%
50 36%
40
34%
31%
54%
51%
53% 48%
47%
31%
30 20 10 0
Online
Offline
Online
Female
Offline Male
Table 14: Online/offline gambling by gender 2018/19 (Helpline) 2018/19
Female
Male
Online
69%
51%
Offline
31%
49%
n=
3,181
19,005
ANNU AL STATISTICS | 2018/2019
49%
SECTION HELPLINE TWO | DATA ACTIVITY FINDINGS AND IMPACT
Table 15: Online gambling activities by gender 2018/19 (Helpline) Online
Female
Male
Betting
4%
17%
Bingo
6%
0%
Casino Games
9%
15%
Poker
1%
1%
Slots
34%
9%
Other
2%
2%
Not Disclosed
13%
8%
Online Total
69%
51%
n=
2194
9780
Table 16: Offline gambling facilities and activities by gender 2018/19 (Helpline)
22
Offline Facility
Activity
Female
Male
Arcades
Gaming Machines
4%
2%
Betting Shop
Betting
1%
10%
Gaming Machines
8%
17%
Other
1%
4%
Not Disclosed
1%
4%
11%
36%
Bingo
2%
0%
Gaming Machines
3%
0%
4%
0%
Gaming Machines
1%
1%
Table Games
2%
5%
Not Disclosed
1%
1%
Casino Total
4%
7%
National Lottery
1%
0%
Scratchcards
5%
2%
Other
1%
2%
Offline Total
31%
49%
n=
987
9225
Betting Shop Total Bingo Club
Bingo Club Total Casino
Not all callers disclosed their gender and especially online, gender cannot be assumed. Where it was disclosed, the percentages given above are calculated as percentages of all gambling activities disclosed by each gender.
Gambling Facilities and Activities by Age
l O nline betting, slots and ‘casino games’ were problematic across all age groups, although under 25s (19%) were three times more likely to report issues with online betting than over 55s (6%), and over twice as likely to report issues with ‘casino games’ (19% and 7% respectively).
l Over the past five years there has been a movement towards online gambling across all age groups, with the biggest change in the 46-55 age group (from 37% online in 2015/16 to 47% in 2018/19).
l C onversely, over 55s (16%) were nearly twice as likely as under 25s (8%) to report problems with offline ‘betting in betting shops’.
l Despite this trend, gamblers over 45 were more likely to have problems with offline gambling, with 65% of over 55s reporting problems with offline gambling.
l ‘ Gaming machines in betting shops’ were the most problematic offline activity across all age groups.
l Gamblers under 35 found online gambling more problematic, with 57% of under 25s reporting issues with online gambling.
Figure 12: Online/offline gambling by age 2015/16 to 2018/19 (Helpline)
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
63% 60%
40
29% 31% 34% 35%
37% 40%
46% 47%
54% 53%
55% 51% 48% 50%
45% 49% 52% 50%
49% 49%
56% 54%
51% 51%
44% 46%
50
51% 47% 44% 43%
60
49% 53% 56% 57%
70
71% 69% 66% 65%
80
30 20 10 0
Online
Offline <26
Online
Offline
Online
26–35
Offline
Online
36–45
Offline 46–55
Online
Offline 56+
Table 17: Online/offline gambling by age 2018/19 (Helpline) 2018/19
<26
26-35
36-45
46-55
56+
Online
57%
54%
50%
47%
35%
Offline
43%
46%
50%
53%
65%
n=
3,756
6,972
3,245
1,571
656
ANNU AL STATISTICS | 2018/2019
23
SECTION HELPLINE TWO | DATA ACTIVITY FINDINGS AND IMPACT
Table 18: Online gambling activity by age 2018/19 (Helpline) Online
<26
26-35
36-45
46-55
56+
Betting
19%
18%
16%
13%
6%
Bingo
1%
1%
1%
2%
4%
Casino Games
19%
15%
12%
9%
7%
Poker
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
Slots
10%
14%
14%
15%
12%
Other
2%
2%
2%
3%
1%
Not Disclosed
6%
5%
4%
4%
4%
Online Total
57%
54%
50%
47%
35%
N=
2141
3793
1619
738
228
Table 19: Offline gambling facilities and activities by age 2018/19 (Helpline) Offline Facility
Activity
<26
26-35
36-45
46-55
56+
Gaming Machines
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
Betting
9%
9%
10%
14%
16%
Gaming Machines
13%
17%
18%
18%
21%
Other
4%
4%
4%
3%
4%
Not Disclosed
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
29%
33%
35%
37%
43%
Bingo
0%
0%
0%
1%
2%
Gaming Machines
0%
0%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
2%
4%
Gaming Machines
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Table Games
6%
4%
4%
3%
4%
Not Disclosed
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Casino Total
8%
6%
6%
5%
5%
National Lottery
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
Scratchcards
2%
2%
2%
2%
4%
Other
2%
2%
3%
2%
4%
Offline Total
43%
46%
50%
53%
65%
n=
1,615
3,179
1,626
833
428
Arcades Betting Shop
24 Betting Shop Total Bingo Club
Bingo Club Total Casino
Not all callers disclosed their age. The percentages given above are calculated as percentages of all gambling activities disclosed within each age group.
Gambling Facilities and Activities by Ethnicity l White gamblers were more likely to have problems with online gambling (54%).
l ‘ Online betting’ and ‘casino games’ were frequent online activities amongst all ethnic groups, with ‘slots’ particularly problematic for White and Mixed ethnicity gamblers.
l All other ethnicities reported offline gambling as more problematic, with 70% of Black gamblers and 64% of Asian gamblers identifying problems with offline gambling.
l ‘ Gaming machines in betting shops’ were problematic across all ethnic groups, although they were mentioned most by Black (31%) and Asian (25%) gamblers.
l There has been a general trend across all ethnic groups towards online gambling, although movement was smallest amongst Asian gamblers.
l ‘ Casino table games’ were particularly problematic amongst Asian gamblers (15%).
Figure 13: Online/offline gambling by ethnicity 2015/16 to 2018/19 (Helpline)
30
71% 71% 58% 55% 62% 65% 29% 29%
35% 32%
45%
42% 45% 26%
40
25
31% 26% 30%
34% 31% 35% 36%
50
51% 50% 46% 46%
60
49% 50% 54% 54%
70
69%
66% 69% 65% 64%
80
65% 68%
2018/19
38%
2017/18
74% 70%
2016/17
74%
2015/16
20 10 0
Offline
Online
White
Offline
Online
Asian
Offline
Online
Offline
Black
Online
Mixed
Offline Other
Table 20: Online/offline gambling by ethnicity 2018/19 (Helpline)) 2018/19
White
Asian
Black
Mixed
Other
Online
54%
36%
30%
45%
32%
Offline
46%
64%
70%
55%
68%
11,255
951
448
234
146
n=
ANNU AL STATISTICS | 2018/2019
SECTION HEADLINE HELPLINE TWO |DATA DATA ACTIVITY SUMMARIES FINDINGS AND IMPACT
Table 21: Online gambling activities by ethnicity 2018/19 (Helpline) Online
White
Asian
Black
Mixed
Other
Betting
18%
11%
10%
12%
10%
Bingo
1%
0%
0%
0%
1%
Casino Games
14%
17%
12%
14%
8%
Poker
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
Slots
14%
4%
3%
15%
6%
Other
2%
1%
2%
2%
0%
Not Disclosed
4%
3%
2%
2%
7%
Online Total
54%
36%
30%
45%
32%
N=
6,102
347
134
105
47
Table 22: Offline gambling facilities and activities by ethnicity 2018/19 (Helpline) Offline Facility
Activity
White
Asian
Black
Mixed
Other
Gaming Machines
2%
1%
2%
3%
3%
Betting
11%
9%
11%
6%
11%
Gaming Machines
16%
25%
31%
20%
25%
Other
4%
6%
9%
6%
5%
Not Disclosed
2%
2%
2%
2%
3%
32%
42%
53%
33%
45%
Bingo
0%
0%
1%
1%
0%
Gaming Machines
1%
0%
1%
0%
0%
1%
0%
2%
1%
0%
Gaming Machines
1%
1%
2%
2%
4%
Table Games
3%
15%
8%
7%
13%
Not Disclosed
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
Casino Total
5%
17%
10%
10%
18%
National Lottery
0%
1%
1%
2%
0%
Scratch cards
2%
1%
2%
4%
1%
Other
3%
1%
0%
2%
0%
Offline Total
46%
64%
70%
55%
68%
n=
5,153
604
314
129
99
Arcades Betting Shop
26 Betting Shop Total Bingo Club
Bingo Club Total Casino
Not all callers disclosed their ethnicity. The percentages given above are calculated as percentages of all gambling activities disclosed within each ethnic group.
Impacts of Gambling Related Harm
l I n 2018/19, the highest negative impacts mentioned by gamblers were financial difficulties (23%), anxiety/stress (22%), and family/relationship difficulties (16%).
Health, Emotional and Other Impacts In order to maintain consistency with previous published statistics, we have calculated impacts as percentages of all calls. The percentages are, therefore, much lower than might be expected (as the correct calculation is against all callers who disclosed an impact not all calls). We are currently working on improving our reporting systems and intend to report on individual callers by next year, which will enable us to update this analysis for all previous years.
l T he same three impacts were also the most commonly mentioned amongst affected others with callers mentioning anxiety/stress (31%), family/relationship difficulties (30%) and financial difficulties (20%). l O verall, 45% of gamblers and 41% of affected others mentioned impacts on their mental wellbeing last year, including anxiety, stress, isolation and suicidal thoughts and feelings.
Figure 14: Impacts of gambling on gamblers and affected others 2018/19 Gambler
Affected Other
Work Difficulties
2%
Suicidal
4% 5%
1%
Mental Health
4%
9%
27
3% 2%
Housing Problems General Health
3%
5%
Financial Difficulties
20%
Feeling Isolated
5%
23%
9%
Family/Relationship Difficulties
16%
Drug Misuse
1% 0%
Domestic Abuse
0% 1%
Criminal Activity
1% 0%
30%
22%
Anxiety/Stress Alcohol Misuse
0%
1%
31%
2%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Some of the percentages shown in the above chart and tables below that relate to the impacts of gambling for gamblers and affected others, are low. As mentioned above, this is because they are based on calls not callers, against the overall number of calls. The actual, ‘raw’ figures highlight the real prevalence of these issues. For example, domestic abuse impact on affected others was mentioned in 104 calls, and on gamblers themselves in 225 calls. Impact relating to criminal activity was referred to in 896 calls. ANNU AL STATISTICS | 2018/2019
SECTION HEADLINE HELPLINE TWO |DATA DATA ACTIVITY SUMMARIES FINDINGS AND IMPACT
Table 23: Impacts of gambling related harm on affected others 2014/15 to 2018/19 Affected Other
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
Alcohol Misuse
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
Anxiety/Stress
35%
32%
31%
32%
31%
Criminal Activity
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
Domestic Abuse
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Drug Misuse
0%
Family/ Relationship Difficulties
34%
36%
34%
35%
30%
Feeling Isolated
5%
4%
4%
4%
5%
Financial Difficulties
19%
21%
21%
21%
20%
General Health
1%
1%
2%
2%
3%
Housing Problems
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
Mental Health
2%
2%
4%
3%
4%
Suicidal Work Difficulties n=
28
1% 1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
7199
8279
9367
10117
10804
Table 24: Impacts of gambling related harm on gamblers 2014/15 to 2018/19 Gamblers
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
Alcohol Misuse
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
Anxiety/Stress
30%
29%
26%
26%
22%
Criminal Activity
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Domestic Abuse
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Drug Misuse
1%
Family/Relationship Difficulties
19%
19%
19%
18%
16%
Feeling Isolated
7%
7%
8%
8%
9%
Financial Difficulties
28%
30%
30%
28%
23%
General Health
3%
2%
3%
3%
5%
Housing Problems
2%
2%
2%
2%
3%
Mental Health
7%
7%
8%
9%
9%
Suicidal Work Difficulties n=
5% 2%
2%
2%
3%
4%
42652
48234
60994
71918
67857
Not all callers disclosed the specific negative effects that gambling has or has had on their lives. The percentages given above are calculated as percentages of all impacts disclosed by callers.
Gambling Debt Levels
l Over the past five years, more callers have been willing to disclose some information about their level of debt (‘not disclosed’ fell from 13% in 2014/15 to 7% in 2018/19).
l Over the past year, 71% of gamblers reported having some level of gambling debt, although as seen in the previous table only 23% explicitly reported financial difficulties caused by gambling.
l T here was a combined increase of 9% across all debt level bands above £5,000 between 2014/15 and 2018/19.
l Of those gamblers who provided an approximation of the level of gambling debt, the most frequently mentioned was ‘less than £5000’ (15%).
Figure 15: Reported gambling debt levels of gamblers 2014/15 and 2018/19
2014/15
2018/19
28%
31%
35%
23%
25%
22%
30%
20%
2%
1%
0%
1%
4% 2%
4%
3%
5%
6%
6%
8%
9%
15%
15% 7%
10%
13%
15%
29
ANNU AL STATISTICS | 2018/2019
Bankruptcy/IVA
£100,000 or more
£20,000 to £99,999
£15,000 to £19,999
£10,000 to £14,999
£5,000 to £9,999
Less than £5,000
Some
None
Not disclosed
0%
SECTION HEADLINE HELPLINE TWO |DATA DATA ACTIVITY SUMMARIES FINDINGS AND IMPACT
Table 25: Reported debt levels of gamblers 2014/15 to 2018/19 Gambler
30
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
Not disclosed
13%
11%
12%
10%
7%
None
23%
23%
21%
22%
22%
Some
31%
32%
37%
37%
28%
Less than £5,000
15%
15%
13%
11%
15%
£5,000 to £9,999
6%
6%
5%
6%
9%
£10,000 to £14,999
3%
4%
3%
4%
4%
£15,000 to £19,999
2%
2%
2%
2%
4%
£20,000 to £99,999
6%
5%
6%
6%
8%
£100,000 or more
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
Bankruptcy/IVA
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
11,854
10,530
10,158
10,216
12,442
n=
l 95% callers would contact the Helpline again if they needed further help.
Caller Satisfaction l C lient satisfaction with our Helpline services remains strong, with a slight increase in all areas compared to last year.
l 9 5% callers would recommend our service to someone else.
l I n 2018/19, overall 93% of callers rated our service as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’. Table 26: Helpline caller satisfaction 2016/17 to 2018/19
1. Overall, how did you rate the Helpline service? 2. How well did you think the Helpline adviser listened and
Score Criteria
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
% of Callers Scoring 4 or 5
91%
91%
93%
% of Callers Scoring 4 or 5
93%
92%
94%
% of Callers Scoring 4 or 5
93%
92%
94%
% of Callers Scoring Yes
95%
93%
95%
% of Callers Scoring Yes
94%
94%
95%
understood your situation? 3. How well did you think the Helpline adviser responded to your situation? 4. If you needed help would you call the Helpline again? 5. Would you recommend the Helpline to someone else?
SECTION HEADLINE TREATMENT TWO |DATA ACTIVITY DATA SUMMARIES FINDINGS AND IMPACT
Treatment Data Findings We provide a range of support and treatment interventions for individuals and groups, including through face to face, online and telephone sessions. We provide support for gamblers, their partners and other family members. The overarching priority of the services is to ensure, as far as possible, that every client who is concerned about their own gambling during treatment maximises their potential to stop or effectively control their gambling and to make improvements in their lives towards sustained change. Our practitioners work with our Model of Care which is underpinned by cognitive behavioural and recovery approaches, and which means that our interventions are tailored to meet the needs of each client.
We also appreciate that loving someone who has a gambling problem can be stressful and we support family members themselves by supporting their loved one in treatment.
Client Numbers l 9,049 clients attended treatment in 2018/19, an increase of 9% on last year and 65% on 2014/15. l This figure is made up of 7,877 clients attending assessments and/or psychosocial treatment plus any of the 1866 clients who attended EBIs that did not go on to further treatment. l A ffected others account for around one in ten (12%) of clients who attend treatment.
Figure 16: Client numbers 2014/15 to 2018/19 10000
31
9,049 8,310
8,044 8000
6,832 5,500
6000
4000
2000
0
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
Table 27: Client numbers and client type 2014/15 to 2018/19 Gambler
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
5,500
6,832
8,044
8,310
9,049
Gambler
91%
90%
90%
90%
88%
Partner or family member
9%
10%
10%
10%
12%
Total Clients Seen Type of Client
ANNU AL STATISTICS | 2018/2019
SECTION HEADLINE TREATMENT TWO |DATA ACTIVITY DATA SUMMARIES FINDINGS AND IMPACT
Client Demographics Gender l T he majority (86%) of clients in treatment in 2018/19 identified as male. l C onversely, the majority (85%) of partners or family members (affected others) identified as female. l T he proportion of both gamblers and partners or family members of each binary gender has not changed significantly over the past four years.
Table 28: Gender of clients by client type 2018/19 2018/19
Gambler
Partner or family member
Male
86%
15%
Female
14%
85%
n=
7,483
1,068
Figure 17: Gender of gamblers and partners/family members in treatment 2015/16 to 2018/19
32 100
Gambler
Partner or family member
100
100
100
18% 80
86% 80
60
60
86%87%
87%86%
86%86%
86%
80
80
60
60
82% 40
40
40
40
20
20
20
20
14% 0
14%13%
13%14%
14%14%
18%17%
17%14%
14%15%
15%
82%83%
83%86%
86%85%
85%
14%
0 2015/20162015/2016 2016/20172016/2017 2017/20182017/2018 2018/20192018/2019
Male
0
0 2015/20162015/2016 2016/20172016/2017 2017/20182017/2018 2018/20192018/2019
Female
Age l The majority of clients in treatment in 2018/19 were aged between 26 and 35 years (43%), as has been the case for each of the last five years. l Within the last five years, the number of clients aged 18-25 years has decreased by four percentage points to 16% while treatment for 26-35 year olds has increased by five percentage points to 43%.
Table 29: Age of clients 2014/15 to 2018/19 Age Groups
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
Under 18
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
18-25
20%
21%
19%
16%
16%
26-35
38%
41%
42%
44%
43%
36-45
22%
20%
21%
21%
21%
46-55
14%
12%
11%
12%
13%
56-65
5%
5%
5%
5%
6%
66+
1%
1%
2%
2%
1%
n=
4,323
5,580
6,371
8,099
8,719
33 Figure 18: Age of clients 2014/15 to 2018/19
2016/17
40
42%
41%
38%
50
2017/18
2018/19
43%
2015/16
44%
2014/15
0
<26
26–35
36–45
ANNU AL STATISTICS | 2018/2019
46–55
56+
8%
7%
6%
6%
6%
10
13%
12%
11%
12%
14%
21%
22%
21%
22%
20%
16%
20
16%
19%
21%
21%
30
SECTION HEADLINE TREATMENT TWO |DATA ACTIVITY DATA SUMMARIES FINDINGS AND IMPACT
Ethnicity l 9 0% of clients in treatment in 2018/19 were White, which compares to 83% of callers to the Helpline over the same period. l 5 % of clients in treatment were Asian, compared to 11% of callers to the Helpline over the same period. l T here was little change in the overall distribution of client’s ethnicity, excepting a fall in clients of “other” ethnicity from 7% in 2015/16 to 1% in 2018/19.
Table 30: Ethnicity of clients 2014/15 to 2018/19 Age Groups
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
White
86%
85%
91%
90%
Asian or Asian British
5%
5%
4%
5%
Black or Black British
2%
2%
2%
2%
Mixed
0%
1%
2%
2%
Other
7%
7%
1%
1%
5,374
6,121
8,233
8,307
N=
34 Figure 19: Ethnicity of clients and callers 2018/19
1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2%
1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 3%
5% 5% 11% 11%
White Asian or Asian British Black or Black British Mixed
90% 90%
Treatment Clients
83% 83%
Callers
Other
Gambling Profile
l The proportion of clients who had been gambling for four years or less (19%) fell from 32% in the previous year.
Years gambling l Unlike in previous years, the majority of clients receiving treatment had been gambling for more than a decade (58%), with the largest group those who had been gambling for 10-14 years (23%).
l The quality of the data had improved from previous years, with the sample size for 2018/19 over three times larger than any previous year.
l People who have gambled for more than 20 years (22%) were a larger proportion of those in treatment than in any previous year.
Table 31: Number of years clients have been gambling 2014/15 to 2018/19 Clients had been gambling for
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
Less than 5 years
30%
32%
34%
32%
19%
5-9 years
26%
27%
26%
27%
23%
10-14 years
18%
19%
19%
19%
23%
15-19 years
10%
6%
7%
7%
13%
20 years or more
16%
16%
14%
15%
22%
n=
1,392
1,313
1,513
2,152
7,439
35 Figure 20: Number of years clients have been gambling 2014/15 to 2018/19
86%
Less than 5 years
5–9 years
10–14 years
15–19 years
100%
80%
60%
40%
16%
16%
14%
15%
10%
6%
7%
7%
19%
19%
19%
27%
26%
18%
26%
22%
13%
23% 27% 23%
20% 30%
32%
2014/2015
2015/2016
34%
32% 19%
0% 2016/2017
2017/2018
2018/2019
ANNU AL STATISTICS | 2018/2019
20 years or more
SECTION HEADLINE TREATMENT TWO |DATA ACTIVITY DATA SUMMARIES FINDINGS AND IMPACT
Gambling Facilities and Activities l O nline gambling being reported as problematic has increased in clients from 43% in 2015/16 to 54% in 2018/19. l M uch of this increase appears to be driven by ‘online betting’ (21%) and ‘Casino Games’ (13%) which both increased by five percentage points in 2018/19. l ‘ Betting’ (21%), ‘Casino Games’ (13%) and ‘Slots’ (14%) account for over 90% of all online gambling being reported as problematic.
l Offline gambling has decreased in clients from 57% in 2015/16 to 46% in 2018/19. l Much of this decrease results from a fall in the number of people reporting issues with ‘Betting’ (from 15% in 2015/16 to 12% in 2018/19) and ‘Gaming Machines in betting shops’ (from 20% to 15%). l Despite the above reductions since 2015/16, ‘betting shops’ still make up two thirds of all offline gambling being reported as problematic in 2018/19.
Figure 21: Online/offline gambling 2015/16 to 2018/19 (treatment)
Online
Offline
60
57% 53%
50
36
47% 40
54%
53% 47%
43%
46%
30
20
10
0
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
Table 32: Online/offline gambling 2014/15 to 2018/19 (treatment) 2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
Online
43%
47%
53%
54%
Offline
57%
53%
47%
46%
17,632
19,359
16,832
14,894
n=
Table 33: Online gambling activities 2014/15 to 2018/19 (treatment) Online
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
Betting
16%
18%
20%
21%
Bingo
1%
1%
1%
1%
Casino Games
8%
11%
13%
13%
Poker
2%
2%
2%
2%
Slots
11%
12%
14%
14%
Other
3%
3%
3%
3%
Not Disclosed
2%
1%
0%
0%
Online Total
43%
47%
53%
54%
N=
7,538
9,195
8,921
8,043
Table 34: Offline gambling facilities and activities 2014/15 to 2018/19 (treatment) Offline Facility
Activity
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
Gaming Machines
3%
3%
2%
2%
Betting
15%
13%
12%
12%
Gaming Machines
20%
17%
16%
15%
Other
2%
5%
3%
4%
Not Disclosed
1%
1%
0%
0%
38%
36%
31%
31%
Bingo
1%
0%
0%
1%
Gaming Machines
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
Gaming Machines
2%
1%
1%
1%
Table Games
5%
5%
5%
4%
Not Disclosed
0%
0%
0%
0%
Casino Total
7%
6%
6%
5%
National Lottery
1%
1%
1%
1%
Scratch cards
2%
2%
2%
2%
Other
4%
4%
4%
3%
57%
53%
47%
46%
10,094
10,260
7,911
6,851
Arcades Betting Shop
Betting Shop Total Bingo Club
Bingo Club Total Casino
Offline Total n=
ANNU AL STATISTICS | 2018/2019
37
Gamblers in treatment are asked what they gambled on and where they gambled. Clients often disclose more than one gambling activity, and up to three activities that they feel are the most problematic for them are recorded. The percentages given above are calculated, as in previous years, as percentages of all gambling activities disclosed.
SECTION HEADLINE TREATMENT TWO |DATA ACTIVITY DATA SUMMARIES FINDINGS AND IMPACT
Gambling Facilities and Activities by Gender
l The most frequently cited offline activity for both genders was ‘gaming machines in betting shops’ (7% female and 16% male).
l F emale clients are more likely to have problems with online gambling (64%) than offline gambling (36%). The most problematic activity disclosed is ‘slots’ (39%) which accounts for over half of all online activities reported by female gamblers.
l Male clients who disclose offline activities also often mention that ‘betting in betting shops’ (13%) and ‘table games in casinos’ (5%) are problematic activities for them.
l M ale gamblers are now also more likely to have problems with online gambling (53%) although male gamblers are still more likely than female gamblers to have problematic offline gambling activities.
l Female gamblers also disclose that they find ‘gaming machines in arcades’ (6%) and ‘scratch cards’ (6%) problematic activities. l The above trends are similar to those reported by callers to the National Gambling Helpline.
l M ale gamblers are most likely to cite ‘online betting’ (24%) and ‘casino games’ (13%) as being problematic.
Figure 22: Online/offline gambling by gender 2015/16 to 2018/19 (treatment) Online
Offline
100%
38
90%
42%
38%
32%
36%
59%
54%
49%
47%
58%
62%
68%
64%
41%
46%
51%
53%
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Female
Male
Table 35: Online/offline gambling by gender 2018/19 (treatment) 2018/19
Female
Male
Online
64%
53%
Offline
36%
47%
n=
1,794
13,008
Table 36: Online gambling activities by gender 2018/19 (treatment) Online
Female
Male
Betting
5%
24%
Bingo
7%
0%
Casino Games
8%
13%
Poker
1%
1%
Slots
39%
11%
Other
4%
3%
Not Disclosed
1%
0%
Online Total
64%
53%
N=
1,157
6,841
Table 37: Offline gambling facilities and activities 2014/15 to 2018/19 (treatment) Offline Facility
Activity
Female
Male
Arcades
Gaming Machines
6%
1%
Betting Shop
Betting
1%
13%
Gaming Machines
7%
16%
Other
1%
5%
Not Disclosed
0%
0%
10%
35%
Bingo
3%
0%
Gaming Machines
3%
0%
6%
0%
Gaming Machines
2%
1%
Table Games
2%
4%
Not Disclosed
0%
0%
Casino Total
4%
5%
National Lottery
1%
0%
Scratchcards
6%
2%
Other
2%
4%
Offline Total
36%
47%
n=
637
6,167
Betting Shop Total Bingo Club
Bingo Club Total Casino
ANNU AL STATISTICS | 2018/2019
39
SECTION HEADLINE TREATMENT TWO |DATA ACTIVITY DATA SUMMARIES FINDINGS AND IMPACT
Gambling Facilities and Activities by Age
l ‘Online betting’, ‘slots’ and ‘casino games’ were problematic across all age groups, although under 25s (26%) were more than three times more likely to have issues with ‘online betting’ than over 55s (7%), and nearly three times as likely to have issues with ‘casino games’ (17% and 6% respectively).
l O ver the past five years there has been a movement towards online gambling across all age groups, with the biggest change in the under 25 age group (from 44% online in 2015/16 to 57% in 2018/19). l D espite this trend, gamblers over 35 were more likely to have problems with offline gambling, with 67% of over 55s reporting problems with offline gambling.
l ‘Gaming machines in betting shops’ were the most problematic offline activity across all age groups, with one in five over 55s finding them problematic.
Figure 23: Online/offline gambling by age 2015/16 and 2018/19 (treatment)
Online
Offline
100%
56%
43%
53%
43%
59%
46%
66%
54%
75%
67%
44%
57%
47%
57%
41%
54%
34%
46%
25%
33%
2015/16
2018/19
2015/16
2018/19
2015/16
2018/19
2015/16
2018/19
2015/16
2018/19
80%
40
60%
40%
20%
0%
Under 26
26–35
36–45
46–55
Over 55
Table 38: Online/offline gambling by age 2018/19 (treatment) 2018/19
<26
26-35
36-45
46-55
56+
Online
57%
57%
54%
46%
33%
Offline
43%
43%
46%
54%
67%
n=
2,592
6,696
3,133
1,565
638
Table 39: Online gambling activity by age 2018/19 (treatment) Online
<26
26-35
36-45
46-55
56+
Betting
26%
23%
21%
15%
7%
Bingo
0%
1%
1%
2%
3%
Casino Games
17%
14%
11%
8%
6%
Poker
1%
2%
1%
1%
0%
Slots
9%
15%
16%
16%
14%
Other
3%
3%
4%
3%
2%
Not Disclosed
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
Online Total
57%
57%
54%
46%
33%
N=
1,469
3,827
1,686
717
211
Table 40: Offline gambling facilities and activities by age 2018/19 (treatment) Offline Facility
Activity
<26
26-35
36-45
46-55
56+
Gaming Machines
1%
1%
3%
4%
5%
Betting
12%
10%
11%
16%
19%
Gaming Machines
13%
15%
16%
16%
20%
Other
5%
4%
4%
4%
4%
Not Disclosed
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
30%
30%
31%
36%
42%
Bingo
0%
0%
0%
1%
2%
Gaming Machines
0%
0%
0%
1%
3%
1%
1%
1%
2%
4%
Gaming Machines
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
Table Games
5%
4%
3%
4%
3%
Not Disclosed
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Casino Total
6%
5%
5%
5%
4%
National Lottery
0%
0%
1%
1%
2%
Scratchcards
2%
2%
2%
3%
5%
Other
3%
3%
4%
3%
4%
Offline Total
43%
43%
46%
54%
67%
n=
1,123
2,869
1,447
848
427
Arcades Betting Shop
Betting Shop Total Bingo Club
Bingo Club Total Casino
ANNU AL STATISTICS | 2018/2019
41
SECTION HEADLINE TREATMENT TWO |DATA ACTIVITY DATA SUMMARIES FINDINGS AND IMPACT
Gambling Facilities and Activities by Ethnicity
l Online betting and casino games were frequent online activities amongst all ethnic groups, with slots particularly problematic for White and Mixed ethnicity gamblers.
l W hite clients were more likely to have problems with online gambling (54%) than offline (46%) in 2018/19.
l Gaming machines in betting shops were problematic across all ethnic groups, although they were mentioned most by Other (29%), Black (25%) and Asian (19%) gamblers.
l A ll other ethnicities reported offline gambling as more problematic, with 69% of Black clients and 61% of Asian clients identifying problems with offline gambling.
l Casino table games were particularly problematic amongst Asian gamblers (16%).
l T here has been a general trend across all ethnic groups towards more online gambling, although movement was smallest amongst Asian clients.
Figure 24: Online/offline gambling by ethnicity 2015/16 and 2018/19 (treatment) Online
Offline
100
56%
44%
65%
61%
75%
69%
65%
52%
72%
67%
44%
56%
35%
39%
25%
31%
35%
48%
28%
33%
2015/16
2018/19
2015/16
2018/19
2015/16
2018/19
2015/16
2018/19
2015/16
2018/19
80
42 60
40
20
0
White
Asian
Black
Mixed
Other
Table 41: Online/offline gambling by ethnicity 2018/19 (treatment) 2018/19
White
Asian
Black
Mixed
Other
Online
56%
39%
31%
48%
33%
Offline
44%
61%
69%
52%
67%
12,930
708
378
227
107
n=
Table 42: Online gambling activities by ethnicity 2018/19 (treatment) Online
White
Asian
Black
Mixed
Other
Betting
22%
17%
8%
15%
9%
Bingo
1%
0%
0%
0%
1%
Casino Games
13%
15%
12%
14%
15%
Poker
2%
1%
1%
2%
2%
Slots
15%
4%
6%
15%
6%
Other
3%
2%
3%
3%
0%
Not Disclosed
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
Online Total
56%
39%
31%
48%
33%
N=
7,228
274
118
110
35
Table 43: Offline gambling facilities and activities by ethnicity 2018/19 (treatment) Offline Facility
Activity
White
Asian
Black
Mixed
Other
Gaming Machines
2%
1%
3%
1%
1%
Betting
12%
11%
14%
8%
8%
Gaming Machines
15%
19%
25%
16%
29%
Other
4%
8%
10%
7%
8%
Not Disclosed
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
30%
38%
49%
32%
46%
Bingo
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
Gaming Machines
1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
1%
0%
2%
1%
0%
Gaming Machines
1%
2%
3%
2%
3%
Table Games
3%
16%
8%
10%
12%
Not Disclosed
0%
1%
1%
0%
1%
Casino Total
4%
18%
12%
12%
16%
National Lottery
0%
1%
1%
0%
2%
Scratch cards
2%
1%
1%
3%
2%
Other
4%
2%
1%
2%
1%
Offline Total
44%
61%
69%
52%
67%
n=
5,702
434
260
117
72
Arcades Betting Shop
Betting Shop Total Bingo Club
Bingo Club Total Casino
ANNU AL STATISTICS | 2018/2019
43
SECTION HEADLINE TREATMENT TWO |DATA ACTIVITY DATA SUMMARIES FINDINGS AND IMPACT
Impacts of Gambling Related Harm
l I n 2018/19 there was a fall in the number of clients disclosing some level of debt (not disclosed increased from 11% in 2017/18 to 18% in 2018/19). The opposite trend was observed in the reporting of debt levels by those contacting the National Gambling Helpline.
Debt Levels l O ver the past year, half (50%) of clients reported having some level of debt. l O f those gamblers who provided an approximation of the level of debt, the most frequently mentioned was ‘less than £5000’ (20%).
l T here was a combined increase of 11% across all debt level bands above £5,000 between 2014/15 and 2018/19.
28%
Figure 25: Reported debt levels of clients 2014/15 and 2018/19 2014/15
20% 17%
1%
0%
2%
5% 3%
3%
5%
4%
6%
8%
10% 8%
10%
10%
12%
15%
1%
18%
20%
20%
25%
Bankruptcy/ IVA
£100,000 or more
£20,000 to £99,999
£15,000 to £19,999
£10,000 to £14,999
£5,000 to £9,999
Less than £5,000
Some
None
0% Not disclosed
44
2018/19
23%
30%
Table 44: Reported debt levels of clients 2014/15 to 2018/19 Level of Debt
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
Not disclosed
10%
2%
2%
11%
18%
None
20%
28%
26%
23%
23%
Some
28%
11%
13%
5%
3%
Less than £5,000
17%
25%
23%
23%
20%
£5,000 to £9,999
8%
11%
11%
11%
10%
£10,000 to £14,999
4%
6%
7%
7%
6%
£15,000 to £19,999
3%
4%
5%
5%
5%
£20,000 to £99,999
8%
10%
11%
13%
12%
£100,000 or more
0%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Bankruptcy/IVA
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
1,457
4,762
5,262
8,299
9,027
n=
Client Improvement CORE-10 CORE-10 (Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation) measures wider wellbeing indicators and has the following guidelines:
CORE-10 specifies: â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;The client must improve by 6.0 or more from pre-to post-therapy to be able to say that they have made reliable improvementâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. l In 2018/19 clients showed an average improvement of 12.4 between pre and post therapy CORE-10 indicators. l While this was a lower improvement score than in previous years, as the result of lower CORE-10 scores at assessment. The average CORE-10 score at treatment end was lower than in the previous year.
Score
Indicator
0-5
Healthy
5-10
Low-Level
10-15
Mild
15-20
Moderate
20-25
Moderate to Severe
25-40
Severe
Table 45: Pre and Post Treatment Core-10 Assessments 2015/16 to 2018/19 2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
CORE-10 at Assessment
18.2
18.9
19.3
18.5
CORE-10 at Treatment End
6.0
6.1
6.3
6.1
CORE-10 Improvement
12.2
12.8
13.0
12.4
45
Figure 26: Pre and Post Treatment Core-10 Assessments 2015/16 to 2018/19 CORE-10 at Assessment
CORE-10 at Treatment End
20
19.3
18.9
18.2
18.5
15
10
5
0
6.0
2015/16
6.3
6.1
2016/17
2017/18
ANNU AL STATISTICS | 2018/2019
6.1
2018/19
SECTION HEADLINE TREATMENT TWO |DATA ACTIVITY DATA SUMMARIES FINDINGS AND IMPACT
PGSI
l Clients who were gambling problematically when entering treatment showed an average improvement of 16.1 (significantly reduced risk) upon successfully completing their treatment plans in 2018/19.
The Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) measure has the following guidelines:
Score
Indicator
0
Non-Problem Gambler
1-2
Low Level Problem
3-7
Moderate Level Problem
8+
Problem Gambling
l This is a slight improvement on previous years and is driven by a greater reduction in PGSI scores at treatment end over the past four years.
Table 46: Pre and Post Treatment PGSI Assessments 2015/16 to 2018/19 2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
PGSI at Assessment
19.0
19.3
19.6
19.5
PGSI at Treatment End
4.1
3.7
3.6
3.4
PGSI Improvement
14.9
15.7
16.0
16.1
Figure 27: Pre and Post Treatment PGSI Assessments 2015/16 to 2018/19
46
PGSI at Assessment
PGSI at Treatment End
20
19.6
19.3
19.0
19.5
15
10
5
4.1
0
2015/16
3.7
2016/17
3.6
2017/18
3.4
2018/19
Client Satisfaction l O ut of a possible rating of five, clients across our treatment network rated us at 4.9 in 2018/19. l 1 00% of clients across the network would recommend our services to others and 100% would contact the service again for counselling if they had a relapse.
Table 47: Client Satisfaction Scores 2015/16 to 2018/19 2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
1. O verall, how satisfied are you with the counselling service?
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
2. H ow well do you feel your counsellor understood your situation?
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
3. H ow well do you feel your counsellor responded to your situation?
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4. A ll things considered, how were you feeling before you started counselling?
1.9
1.6
1.7
1.7
5. A ll things considered, how are you feeling at the end of your counselling?
4.3
4.5
4.5
4.5
2.4
3.0
2.8
2.8
4.7
4.9
4.7
4.6
Score Improvement between 4. and 5. o what extent do you feel the counselling you have 6. T received has brought about a positive change in your gambling situation?
47
7. If you had a re-lapse would you contact the service again for counselling? Yes
96%
97%
98%
100%
No
4%
3%
2%
0%
8. Would you recommend the counselling service to someone else? Yes
98%
98%
99%
100%
No
2%
2%
1%
0%
(1 = Very unsatisfied; 5 = Very satisfied)
ANN U AL STATISTICS | 2018/2019
GamCare 91-94 Saffron Hill London EC1N 8QP 020 7801 7000 Charity Number: 1060005 Charitable Company Registered in England No: 03297914