General College & Young Adult Gambling Data

2013

• Problem gambling is highest in the 22-40 age group (Barnes et al., 2013).

2011

• 89% of 22-30 year-old respondents have gambled in the past year (Welte, 2011).
• Problem gambling had a much higher co-morbidity with conduct disorder if it started early in life (Welte, 2011).
• After age 21, problem gambling is more prevalent than alcohol dependence (Welte, 2011).

2010

• Of young adults who gambled in the past year (Barnes, 2010):
  • 75% were college students.
  • 70% were non-college young adults.
• Of those young adults gambled 52 times or more in the past year (Barnes, 2010):
  • 25% were non-college individuals.
  • 18% were college students.
• College student status does not appear to put young people at added risk of gambling problems (Barnes, 2010).
• The rates of heavy gambling were higher for non-college young adults than for college students (the opposite of heavy drinking, which is higher among college students) (Barnes, 2010).

2009

• 30% or less of schools have policies designed to promote recovery from addictive disorders (Task Force on College Gambling Policies, 2009).

College & Young Adult Black Data

2010

• 60% increased odds of heavy gambling for those identifying as black (yet a 70% decrease in odds of drinking or heavy drinking) (Barnes, 2010).

*View Black Community data summary*

College & Young Adult Co-Occurring SUD Data

2013

• Gambling and drinking are highest within the 22–30-year age group (Barnes et al., 2013).
• Problem gambling is highest in the 22-40 age group (Barnes et al., 2013).
  • Alcohol use/dependance is highest in the 18-21 age group.

2009

• 6 times more likely to be dependent on alcohol or drugs (Task Force on College Gambling Policies, 2009).
• 4.5x times more likely to abuse alcohol or drugs (Task Force on College Gambling Policies, 2009).
• Gambling and gambling problems among this age group are highly correlated with other risky behaviors, including binge drinking (Task Force on College Gambling Policies, 2009).
• Research has shown that most individuals with gambling problems have co-occurring psychiatric problems (Task Force on College Gambling Policies, 2009).
• Gambling and gambling problems among this age group are highly correlated with other risky behaviors, including binge drinking (Task Force on College Gambling Policies, 2009).

*View Co-Occurring SUD data summary*

College & Young Adult Gender Data

2010

Identifying as male.

• 5x the odds of being a heavy or problem gambling male as females regardless of college student status (Barnes, 2010).
• 38% and 31% are the rates of heavy gambling for non-college and college young men, respectively (Barnes, 2010).
• Is the most important and consistent risk factor for gambling behaviors whether in college or non-college settings (Barnes, 2010).
• The most popular forms of gambling for males are lottery, card games, pools and raffles, sports betting and games of skill (Barnes, 2010).

Identifying as female.

• 5% rate of non-college females were identified as struggling with problem gambling (Barnes, 2010).
• 2% rate of college females were identified as struggling with problem gambling (Barnes, 2010).
• 12% of non-college females report heavy gambling (compared to 6% of college females) (Barnes, 2010).
• 5% of non-college females struggle with gambling harm (compared to 2% of females attending college) (Barnes, 2010).
• The most popular forms of gambling for females are lottery, card games, pools and raffles, and bingo (Barnes, 2010).

*View Socioeconomic data summary*

*Back to Categories List (top of page)*

College & Young Adult Sports Betting Data

2023

• 27% of autonomy schools had dealt with a sports wagering problem among their athletes or staff within the past year (NCAA, 2023).
• 25% become aware of any student-athletes on their campus who were harassed (online or in person) by someone with gambling interests (NCAA, 2023).
• 95% have some form of sports wagering education occurring for athletes, coaches and athletics administrators (NCAA, 2023).
• 85% of D1, 50% of D2 and 32% of D3 schools provide education more than once/year to student-athletes (NCAA, 2023).
• 75% of D1, 40% of D2 and 25% of D3 schools provide education more than once/year to their coaches and administrators (NCAA, 2023).
• More schools across all three NCAA divisions are also discussing well-being issues, including gambling addiction, than reported doing so in a similar NCAA survey conducted in 2019 (NCAA, 2023).
• Many schools, especially those in DI, send student-athletes and athletics department personnel reminder texts or emails prior to big sporting events (e.g., March Madness, Super Bowl, football bowl games) (NCAA, 2023).
• Regardless, sports wagering falls at the bottom of the importance list (NCAA, 2023).
  • Academic eligibility, drug testing, sexual violence and mental health are the priorities.

2019

• 75%–80% of college students report having gambled in general within the past year (Winters and Derevensky, 2019).
• 5x more likely to report at least 1 DSM-5 criteria for problem gambling among college students who engaged in fantasy sports (whether or not for money) (Winters and Derevensky, 2019).
• 7% to 15% (based on different studies) are the rates of college student athletes reporting problem or disordered gambling, which is higher than the general population (Winters and Derevensky, 2019).
• 49% of intramural and 31 % of Division I athletes play fantasy sports for money (compared with 13% of non-athletes (Winters and Derevensky, 2019).

2017

• 55% of NCAA men in the 2016 study reported gambling for money within the past year (NCAA, 2017).
• 35% of NCAA men (13% of NCAA women) gamblers have ever lost more than $50 in a day (NCAA, 2017).
• 12% of NCAA men (31% of NCAA women) first gambled in college (NCAA, 2017).

Sports wagering in violation of NCAA sports wagering bylaws:

• 24% of NCAA men (5% of NCAA women) reported violating NCAA bylaws within the previous year by wagering on sports for money (NCAA, 2017).
  • 1/3 of NCAA men (15% of NCAA women) who reported wagering on sports in the 2016 survey placed bets electronically.
  • 65% of NCAA men (44% of NCAA women) who bet on sports in the past year bet on the NFL (top sports wagering target for both men and women).
  • 20% of NCAA men (2% of NCAA women) in the 2016 study reported having played in fantasy leagues with an entry fee and prize money during the past year (similar to what was seen in the 2008 and 2012 surveys).
  • 11% of NCAA men (2% NCAA women) surveyed in 2016 said they had recently played daily or weekly online fantasy sports contests for money (these participants overlapped substantially with those who reported playing season-long fantasy games).
  • 76% of NCAA men (82% of NCAA women) are aware of the sports wagering rules in Division I (vs 68% of NCAA men and 64% of NCAA women in Division III).
• More than 25% of NCAA student-athletes are uncomfortable that people bet on college sports (NCAA, 2017).
• More than 50% of NCAA student-athletes do not think gambling entities should advertise at college sporting events or during college sports telecasts (NCAA, 2017).
• Participation in most gambling activities decreased from 2008 t0 2016 among all student-athletes despite the expansion of land-based and online gambling opportunities during this time (NCAA, 2017).
• Student-athlete gambling debts are a well-being concern, but also a worry for potential vulnerability to outside gambling influences (NCAA, 2017).

2014

• 57% of male student-athletes reported gambling in some form during the past year (Derevensky and Paskus, 2014).
• 39% of female student-athletes reported gambling in some form during the past year (Derevensky and Paskus, 2014).
• 9% of males and 0.2 percent of female student-athletes exhibit clinical signs of problem gambling (Derevensky and Paskus, 2014).
• 26% of male student-athletes report sports wagering for money despite NCAA prohibiting regulations (8% of these males report gambling on sports at least monthly) (Derevensky and Paskus, 2014).
• Males who participate in NCAA golf are approximately 3x more likely to wager on sports (or engage in other gambling behaviors) than other student-athletes (Derevensky and Paskus, 2014).
• Every person with a gambling problem tends to seriously impact a dozen other people: boyfriends, girlfriends, peers, teammates, coaches, parents and employers (Derevensky and Paskus, 2014).

College & Young Adult Veteran Data

2022

• 11.2% of younger adults aged 18–27 years showed the highest rate of at-risk gambling compared with older age groups (Metcalf et al, 2022).

*View Veteran data summary*

*Back to Categories List (top of page)*

College & Young Adult Women Data

2010

• 5% rate of non-college females were identified as struggling with problem gambling (Barnes, 2010).
• 2% rate of college females were identified as struggling with problem gambling (Barnes, 2010).
• 12% of non-college females report heavy gambling (compared to 6% of college females) (Barnes, 2010).
• 5% of non-college females struggle with gambling harm (compared to 2% of females attending college) (Barnes, 2010).
• The most popular forms of gambling for females are lottery, card games, pools and raffles, and bingo (Barnes, 2010).

*View Women data summary*

*View Gender Comparison data summary*

*Back to Categories List (top of page)*

College & Young Adult Risk Factors

• Age 18-24 years old (OASAS, 2020).
• Age 22-40 years old (Barnes et al., 2013) (Welte, 2011)
• Access and availability with technology (NCAA, 2023) (Derevensky and Paskus, 2014)
• Identifying as male  (Derevensky and Paskus, 2014) (Barnes, 2010)
• Identifying as Black  (Barnes, 2010).
• Lower socioeconomic factors (Barnes, 2017).
• Co-occurring disorders (Task Force on College Gambling Policies, 2009).
• Adolescence (brain in development until mid-twenties) (Task Force on College Gambling Policies, 2009).
• Binge drinking (Task Force on College Gambling Policies, 2009).

*Back to Categories List (top of page)*

College & Young Adult Protective Factors

• Be a non-gambler (Mazar et al., 2018)
• Policies prohibiting gambling on campus (Derevensky and Paskus, 2014) (Task Force on College Gambling Policies, 2009)
• Education and recovery support (Task Force on College Gambling Policies, 2009)

*Back to Categories List (top of page)*

Researched Recommendations

• Approach the issue of gambling harm as being among a number of things that can negatively impact student health and well-being to help the message resonate with college campuses (Derevensky and Paskus, 2014).
• Given the persistence of frequent gambling and problem gambling through adulthood, increased prevention and intervention efforts are warranted (Welte, 2011).

*Back to Categories List (top of page)*