Hispanic Gamblers and the CPGTSP Outpatient Program

1. Hispanic Gamblers and the CPGTSP Outpatient Program Michael Campos, Ph.D. UCLA Gambling Studies Program Phone: 310.825.6427 E-mail: mdcampos@mednet.ucla.edu

2. 2010 Census Data (Ennis et al., 2011) • 2006 California Problem Gambling Prevalence Survey Data (Volberg et al., 2006) • 2012 Outpatient CPGTSP Program Demographic and Utilization Data (UGSP 2013)

3. Definition of Hispanic 2010 Census: “Hispanic or Latino” refers to a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race.

4. Diversity of the Hispanic Population Country of origin Racial background Reasons for immigration Length of time in U.S. Generational Status Language Preference Acculturation

5. U.S. Demographic Trends 308.7 million people resided in the U.S. in 2010. 50.5 million (16%) were of Hispanic origin. Increase from 35.3 million (13%) in 2000 Represents the majority of growth in the total population. Between 2000 and 2010 the Hispanic population grew by 43% which was 4 times the national growth rate.

6. U.S. Demographic Trends Three quarters of Hispanics reported being of Mexican, Puerto Rican, or Cuban origin. Mexican origin = 63% Puerto Rican = 9% Cuban = 4%

7. U.S. Demographic Trends • Population Increases among other Hispanic groups: • Salvadoran = 152% • Guatemalan = 180% • South Americans = 105% • Dominicans = 85%

8. California Demographics CA population = 37,253,956 CA Hispanic population = 14,013,719 37.6% of CA residents were Hispanic Majority (81%) were Mexican origin or heritage CA ranks first in population for 4 of 7 Hispanic groups

9. Hispanic Population by County

10. Key Points • Hispanics are a large and growing segment of the population. • The majority of Hispanics in the US are of Mexican origin or heritage, but trends show increasing diversity within the Hispanic population. • In California, Hispanics comprise over 1/3 of the total population, with the large majority being of Mexican origin or heritage.

11. Culture and Mental Health • A patient’s cultural background may influence • Description of symptoms • Meaning imparted to illness • Causation and prevalence for some disorders, but not others • Coping styles • Treatment seeking • Stigma • A clinician’s cultural background may influence • Communication • Diagnosis • Conceptions of Mental Illness • Assumptions about what a clinician is (and is not) supposed to do Source: Mental Health: Culture, Race, and Ethnicity, SAMHSA, 2001

12. Gambling Among U.S. Hispanics Few nationally representative samples Others sampled from Texas, New Mexico, Florida, Minnesota All cross-sectional surveys or interviews General areas of studies: Epidemiology Help Line Usage Co-morbidities

13. Prevalence of Gambling Problems Studies show elevated prevalence rates for problem or pathological gambling among Hispanics relative to Non-Hispanic Caucasians (Stinchfield, 1997; Welte et al., 2001; Westermeyer et al., 2005)

14. Help Seeking for Gambling Problems Source: Caudrado, 1999

15. Key Points • Few studies have examined gambling among Hispanics and for the most part they have focused on epidemiology. • Most studies show increased prevalence of gambling problems among Hispanics relative to Non-Hispanic Caucasians. • Help seeking for gambling problems among Hispanics is lower than that of Non-Hispanic Caucasians.

16. CA Prevalence Survey Data

17. Gambling Problem Grouping • Assessed using the NODS (Gerstein et al., 1999). • Used the same four groups as in the CA Problem Gambling Prevalence Survey Final Report: • Non-Gambler/Non-Problem Gambler • At-Risk (1 to 2 NODS items endorsed) • Problem (3 to 4 NODS items endorsed) • Pathological Gambler (5 or more NODS items endorsed)

18. Prevalence of Gambling Problems ** p < 0.01

19. Preferred Games for Past Year Gamblers ** ** ** * * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01

20. Key Points • Problem, but not pathological gambling, is higher among Hispanics relative to Non-Hispanics, particularly among males. • Past year gambling is lower among Hispanic females relative to Non-Hispanic females. • Counter to expectations, we did not see a preference for action oriented games among Hispanic males.

21. Spanish Speaking Gambling Treatment Providers

22. Gambling Problem Prevalence by CA Region • Red = 4.5% • Yellow = 4.3% to 4.5% • Green = 3.7% to 4.3% • Blue = 2.0% to 3.7%

23. Spanish Speaking CPGTSP Providers

24. CPGTSP Outpatient Data

25. Sample Used • The sample was limited to English Speaking, US Born, Non-Hispanic Caucasians and Hispanics • 62.1% of Hispanics spoke a language other than English at home and 39.8% of Hispanics were born outside the US • All data comes from Intake and In Treatment Forms

26. Top Referral Sources

27. Demographics

28. Key Points • Relative to Non-Hispanic Caucasians, Hispanics were • Younger • More likely to be male • Less educated • Trended towards being more likely to be married • No statistical differences for income or employment.

29. Age, Gender, Marital Status

30. Education

31. Employment

32. Income

33. Gambling Behavior

34. Gambling Activities

35. Gambling Locations • Most frequently cited location for gambling was at a casino. • Relative to Non-Hispanic Caucasians, Hispanics • Were more likely to gamble at a casino • Equally likely to report gambling at other locations (e.g., track, OTB, Friend’s/Family Home, Internet, etc.)

36. Gambling Problem Severity

37. Key Points • Relative to Non-Hispanic Caucasians, Hispanics • Trended towards slightly higher NODS scores • Experienced problems sooner after starting to gamble • Entered treatment sooner after experiencing a problem • Trended towards being more likely to owe money to family or friends • Multivariate analysis indicated that ethnicity was not associated with problem severity, rather, current age, age of first gambling experience, time to first problem after initiating gambling, and having an Axis I disorder were.

38. Duration and NODS scores

39. Legal Problems Due to Gambling

40. Gambling Debt

41. Substance Use

42. Psychiatric Comorbidity

43. Significant Predictors of Problem Severity F [16, 540] = 16.75, p < 0.000; R2 = 0.16

44. Treatment

45. Key Points • Relative to Non-Hispanic Caucasians, Hispanics • Are more often entering treatment for the first time • Waited about the same time to enter treatment • Spent a bit more time in treatment, but had slightly fewer sessions • Multivariate analysis suggested that ethnicity was not related to number of visits, rather, age and intake NODS scores were.

46. Prior Treatment Experience Chi-Square = 12.21, p < 0.01

47. Wait for Treatment

48. Time in Treatment and Number of Sessions

49. Predictors of Number of Visits F [16, 668] = 9.12, p < 0.013; R2 = 0.045