Public‑health witnesses urge annual campus gambling awareness as student betting rises
Loading...
Summary
Public‑health students, researchers and the Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling urged the committee to pass SB 381, requiring at least one annual gambling awareness program at public higher‑education institutions and enabling contracts with nonprofits to provide clinical expertise and screening. Witnesses cited campus studies showing elevated rates of gambling and problem gambling among undergraduates since online betting expansion.
Public‑health researchers, students and the Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling testified in support of SB 381, saying that recent expansions in online sports betting and prediction‑market platforms have increased gambling exposure among college students and elevated the risk of problem gambling.
Chen Jing, a Yale School of Public Health master’s student, said a UConn‑led study covering more than 3,200 undergraduates across 30 Connecticut colleges found that nearly three in four students gambled in the past year and about one in 12 met clinical criteria for serious problem gambling. Chen recommended campus programs contract with nonprofits embedded in Connecticut’s treatment infrastructure to bring clinical capacity to campuses.
Ling Xiao, also a Yale public‑health student, noted the heightened vulnerability of 18‑ to 25‑year‑olds and recommended the bill’s flexibility—one awareness program per academic year and the ability to contract with nonprofits—so campuses can adapt programming. The Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling said its prevention grants and campus screening work can partner with colleges to provide outreach and screening events and urged creative engagement tactics to reach students.
Lawmakers asked about funding and program evaluation; witnesses said many prevention activities can be delivered with existing grants and community partners but suggested the committee consider sustained prevention funding to ensure statewide coverage. The committee did not vote and requested follow‑up on program design and funding pathways.
