Advertisement

Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 193–205 | Cite as

Use of a Short Gambling Screen with an Arrestee Population: A Feasibility Study

  • Mary Cuadrado
  • Louis Lieberman
Original Paper

Abstract

Problem gamblers have been disproportionally found among prisoners. This study sought to (1) demonstrate if a short screening instrument (Lie/Bet Questionnaire) can expeditiously identify problem gamblers during the initial Criminal Justice System stage, and (2) examine the relationships between problem gambling and criminality among arrestees. Surveys were conducted with 959 inmates (from 1,445 approached) at a Central Booking Facility in Tampa, Florida. Among those surveyed, 81% were male with average age of 32.9. Ethnic distribution of those surveyed was Blacks (35.8%), Whites (43.3%), Hispanics (19.3%), Others (2.4%). Sixty-eight percent had completed trade school or less, 20% had some college and 12% were college graduates. Among those reporting gambling the year prior, 32.7% were problem gamblers according to the Lie/Bet. If including those who declined, the percent drops to a considerable 17.4% of the entire sample. Problem gamblers were significantly more likely to be charged with a drug or status crime, as well as being charged with a felony. Feasibility of screening inmates in an intake facility using the Lie/Bet Questionnaire was found. Furthermore, we found a need for gambling screening. Gambling courts should be considered.

Keywords

Arrestees Problem gambling Gambling screens Criminal justice populations 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Pat Fowler, Executive Director of the Florida Council on Compulsive Gambling, and the Florida Lottery for funding this project. We are also grateful to Laura M. Letson for her outstanding efforts throughout this project.

References

  1. Abadinsky, H. (2009). Organized crime (9th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th edn, Rev. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. Champion, D. (2004). The American dictionary of criminal justice: Key terms and major court cases (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Gamblers Anonymous. (1984). Sharing recovery through Gamblers Anonymous. CA: Gamblers Anonymous Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Johnson, E., Hamer, M., & Nora, R. M. (1998). The lie/bet questionnaire for screening probable pathological gamblers: A follow-up study. Psychological Reports, 83, 1219–1224.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Johnson, E., Hamer, M., Nora, R. M., Tan, B., Einstein, N., & Engelhart, C. (1997). The lie/bet questionnaire for screening probable pathological gamblers. Psychological Reports, 80, 83–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lesieur, H. R., & Blum, S. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184–1188.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Liddick, D. (1999). The mob’s daily number: Organized crime and the numbers gambling industry. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  10. McCorkle, R. C. (2002). Pathological gambling in arrestee populations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Document No: 196677.Google Scholar
  11. National Institute of Justice. (2006). Drug courts: The second decade. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Document No: 211081.Google Scholar
  12. National Opinion Research Center. (1999). Gambling impact and behavior study: Report to the National Gambling Impact Commission. Retrieved from http://www.norc.org/NR/rdonlyres/5C44C702-3598-453A-8CCD-AFB05ACC8822/0/GIBSFinalReportApril1999.pdf .
  13. National Research Council. (1999). Probable pathological gambling: A critical review. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  14. Rossow, I., & Molde, H. (2006). Chasing the criteria: Comparing SOGS-RA and the Lie/Bet screen to assess prevalence of problem gambling and “at-risk” gambling among adolescents. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18, 57–71.Google Scholar
  15. Shaffer, H. J., & Korn, D. A. (2002). Gambling and related mental disorders: A public health analysis. Annual Revews of Public Health, 23, 171–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shapira NA, Ferguson MA, Frost-Pineda K, & Gold MS (2002). Gambling and problem gambling prevalence among adults in Florida. Report to the Florida Council on Compulsive Gambling, Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Volberg RA (2002) Gambling and problem gambling in Nevada. Report to the Nevada Department of Human Resources.Google Scholar
  18. Volberg, R. A. (2003). Gambling and problem gambling among seniors in Florida: Report to the Florida Council on Compulsive Gambling. Northampton: Gemini Research Ltd.Google Scholar
  19. Williams, R. J., Royston, J., & Hagan, B. F. (2005). Gambling and problem gambling within forensic populations: A review of the literature. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 665–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zaranek, R. R., & Lichtenberg, P. A. (2008). Urban elders and casino gambling: Are they at risk of a gambling problem? Journal of Aging Studies, 22, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Liberal ArtsUniversity of Texas at El PasoEl PasoUSA
  2. 2.Professor Emeritus of SociologyJohn Jay College of Criminal Justice C.U.N.Y.NewYorkUSA

Personalised recommendations