gambling in alberta - Research Services - University of Lethbridge

Table 65: Prevalence of Problem Gambling in Alberta among Adults (18+) as a Function of
Year and Assessment Instrument.
SURVEY YEAR 1993 1998 2000 2001 2008 2009
Total Sample Size 1804 1821 500 1804 9292 5634
First Nation Sample Size 34 40 500 62 366 216
General Population CPGI 5+ (3.7%) (3.3%) -- 2.7% 2.5% 2.6%
First Nation CPGI 5+ (6.9%) (11.7%) (17.3%) 10.5% 7.1% 9.7%
General Population PPGM (3.9%) (3.4%) -- (2.8%) 2.6% 2.9%
First Nation PPGM (7.2%) (12.2%) (17.9%) (10.9%) 7.7% 10.6%
Note: Small First Nation sample size precluded using the 2007 survey. The 2002 survey was not included
as its sampling did not include reserves. Bracketed numbers represent projected rates using the
conversion factors between problem gambling instruments mentioned earlier in this paper.
Note: Bracketed figures are estimated based on the conversion factors developed by Williams & Volberg
(2010) to convert rates obtained by one assessment instrument into rates for another assessment
instrument.
An important caveat to this last statement concerns the fact that these rates are for Aboriginal
populations across Alberta, rather than Aboriginal populations in the immediate proximity of
the 5 new First Nations casinos, which could potentially be higher. The only information that
bears on this latter question are the Aboriginal samples within the Targeted Population surveys
of 2008 and 2009 (and Focus Group results described later in this section).
In 2008 only 40 people in the Cold Lake Targeted sample were Aboriginal or Métis, only 21 in
the Whitecourt sample, and only 13 in the Morley sample (the Enoch Cree and the Tsuu T’ina
were not part of the Targeted survey due to their close proximity to Edmonton and Calgary
respectively). The PPGM problem gambling prevalence rate among these individuals was 6/40
+ 1/21 + 1/13 = 8/74 (10.8%). In 2009 there were 23 people in the Cold Lake Targeted sample
that were Aboriginal or Métis, 19 in the Whitecourt sample, and 7 in the Morley sample. The
PPGM problem gambling prevalence rate among these individuals was 3/23 + 1/19 + 3/7 = 7/49
(14.3%). The difference in the rates between 2008 and 2009 is not statistically significant,
although there was low power due to the very small sample sizes (Chi Square (1df) = .33, p =
.56).
There are some important differences in the actual casino proximity for these 3 First Nations.
Most members of the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation live just over 1 hour driving distance away. By
contrast, most members of the Cold Lake First Nations live within minutes of the casino.
Members of the Stoney Nakoda First Nation also live quite close, with the largest group of
Stoney Nakoda Nation members living within Morley itself, with a 13 minute driving distance to
the casino. It is interesting to note that the change in the Morley problem gambling prevalence
rate (i.e., 1/13 to 3/7) was closest to statistical significance (Fisher’s Exact Test, p = .10). The
Stoney Nakoda casino is also the only First Nations casino where key informant interviews
239