Casino Gaming in America:

Key Findings of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (1997-99)

Most of [our] associates were unemployed or under-employed until gaming came to our area. Grand Casino gave them the opportunity to work and to support their families with dignity.
Beth Daniel, associate relations manager, Grand Casino Tunica (Miss.), Washington, D.C., meeting, Aug. 20, 1997

Before I was hired I spent nine months receiving unemployment benefits, after being laid off by a Fortune 500 restaurant company. As it turns out, losing my former job and coming to work for Hollywood Casino Aurora, after meeting my wife, is probably the best thing that has ever happened to me. I now manage ten supervisors with an hourly staff of about 120 people overall. Im well paid. I get good health benefits, including medical and dental insurance. Hollywood Casino has been responsible for change in Aurora and the change has been positive. It has also changed my life for the better.
Testimony of Rick Adams, food and beverage manager, Hollywood Casino Aurora (Ill.) Chicago site visit, May 20, 1998

Over the past five years we have grown from about one million in sales to about three and a half million. We have added two additional routes and employed an additional 20 people. Most of our recent growth has been the result of the boats.
Testimony of Mario DeBenedetti, owner, Milano Baking Company, Joliet, Ill., Chicago site visit, May 20, 1998

Since working in the casino industry, I havebeen able to purchase two homes. My husband, who also worked in the casino industry for ten years, left the industryand now successfully owns and operates his own business. I believe that if not for our dealings in Atlantic City, we would not have accomplished all that we have been able to do.
National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Kim Dolan, Washington, D.C., meeting, Aug. 20, 1997

[W]hen I look at the benefits that we get from casino gaming and when I walk and I see a park thats being rejuvenated that was a place where you couldnt walk through because you might get in trouble, when I see this park being rejuvenated, a slide for children to go and play and a jogging path for those of us who have weight problems to walk, then I say, hey and what Ive said to the casino industry that you ought to have a sign, at every place you ought to say your casino dollars at work because let me tell you, the casino dollars at work in Gary, Indiana are going to change that city in the way no other source of revenue could make that change.
National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Indiana state Sen. Earline Rogers, Chicago site visit, May 20, 1998

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S
I. II. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 ECONOMIC IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Executive Summary Impact of Gaming on the Nat ional Economy Economic Impact of Gaming in Sp ec ific Gaming Jur is dict ions Gaming Industr y as an Eng ine of Economic Grow th III. SOCIAL IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Executive Summary Soc ial Impact of Gaming in the United States Soc ial Impact of Gaming in Sp ec ific Gaming Jur is dict ions Measur ing Social Impacts Gaming and Crime Gaming and Bankruptcy I V. R E G U L AT I O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 Executive Summary Regulation and the Gaming Industr y Competition Between States V. DISORDERED GAMBLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Executive Summary A Complex Phenomenon Pre valence of Disordered Gambling Research and Pre vention Tr e a t m e n t VI. RESPONSIBLE GAMING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 Executive Summary C r e d i t P r a c t i c e s , AT M U s a g e a n d R e l a t e d P o l i c i e s Responsible Gaming Prog rams in Gaming Jur is dict ions Industr y Programs and Practices VII. CONCLUSION VIII. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

I. INTRODUCTION
The National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC) was established in 1996 by an act of Congress to conduct a comprehensive legal and factual study of gambling in the United States. In testimony at the first meeting of the NGISC on June 20, 1997, U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf laid out his charge to the panel: The task before you is as important as it is enormous. But your goal is really very simple. Today when a community, a town, a city, or even a state is considering the pros and cons of letting some kind of gambling activity start up, they have nowhere to go to obtain reliable and factual and unbiased answers to their questions. Your job is merely to make that information easily available to them. Thats it.1 Members of the commission met 17 times between June 1997 and June 1999 and traveled from coast to coast to seek the reliable and factual and unbiased information Rep. Wolf alluded to in his testimony. Hundreds of witnesses testified before the commission, resulting in many hundreds of pages of transcribed material. The following document is a review of information compiled from this testimony, as well as documents submitted to the commission for review. This report tells a uniquely American success story. It tells of hundreds of thousands of Americans who have found productive livelihoods working for the gaming industry. It tells of people who have made their way from welfare to work and others who have used the prosperity brought to their communities by the gaming industry to grow their own businesses. It tells of cities and towns that have been lifted out of dire straits and rebuilt, with gaming as part of the economic mix. It tells of good corporate citizens who have taken specific action to address certain economic and social needs. Looking again at the words of Rep. Wolf as he laid out the work plan for the commission: What I do askand what America demands of you, is to be open-minded, fair and undaunted in the pursuit of knowledge based on solid research.2 In that spirit, this document presents facts, not anecdote. It presents information, not propaganda. It presents a distillation of the solid research Rep. Wolf asked the commission to pursue. This report offers reliable and factual and unbiased answers to those questions that will inform a community, a town, a city, or even a stateconsidering the pros and cons of letting some kind of gambling activity start up.3 In answer to the question, What is our work here? Commission Chairwoman Kay Coles James stated, to do what the American people, through their elected representatives in Congress, have asked us to do, and that is to conduct a comprehensive, factual, and legal study of the social and economic impact of legalized gambling.4 Any such study of the social and economic impact of legalized gambling should include a full, complete and honest consideration of the information presented within this report.

National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, Washington, D.C., meeting, June 20, 1997. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Remarks of Kay Coles James, Washington, D.C., meeting, Aug. 19, 1997.
Casino Gaming in America American Gaming Association

II.

ECONOMIC IMPACT

Executive Summary
As Frank Fahrenkopf, president and CEO of the American Gaming Association (AGA), told the commission on Aug. 19, 1997, [E]conomic models or theories canbe evaluated through the prism of experience. Because of the experience of the last four or five years in a number of states that are new venues, theeconomic impacts of gaming on state and local communities can now be examined not by theory but by the actual results reflected in independently derived statistical data of state and local governments across the country.5 The following testimony and research submitted to the NGISC documents that the commercial casino industry is an engine of economic growth. Testimony from countless public officials, community leaders and others tells of the economic benefits gaming has brought to the nation, as well as individual cities and towns.

Impact of Gaming on the Nat ional Economy

Adam Rose of Pennsylvania State University conducted a study of the economic impact of gambling for the NGISC. Rose presented his findings at a commission hearing on Sept. 11, 1998. He reported: [M]y overall conclusionis that the aggregate direct and indirect regional economic impacts of the construction, operation and taxation of casinos are significantly positive. Broader economic costs are not trivial but they do not cancel out the more conventional gains. Broader negative impacts are offset by some longer-term positive impacts from tax revenue and subsequent spending on education, infrastructure, and redevelopment.6 Rose further noted that: The bottom lineis that a new casino of even limited attractiveness, placed in a market that is not already saturated will yield positive economic benefits on net to its host economy. I might add, most markets are not yet saturated; at the same time, not every casino will live up to expectations.7 Discussing his methodology, Rose told the commission: I read over 100 studies in compiling my report and gave a separate itemized evaluation of 27 of those as to about 20 important characteristics dealing with their findings, related to who the authors were, what the authors credentials were, who sponsored them. And the bottom-line of these studies, in looking at 27 of them, only two of the 27 came out with overall negative impacts; seven of the 27 studies came out with neutral impacts including some very slightly negative or very slightly positive; ten of the 17 (sic) studies concluded that the impacts were significantly positive; and eight of the 27, almost a third, suggested that the impacts would be highly positive.8

National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr., Washington, D.C., meeting, Aug. 19, 1997. 6 National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Adam Rose, New Orleans site visit, Sept. 11, 1998, 161. 7 Ibid, 166. 8 Ibid, 167.

Casino Gaming in America

American Gaming Association

Economic Impact of Gaming in Sp ec ific Gaming Jur is dict ions

To illustrate the economic impact of gaming at the state and local levels, officials from a variety of gaming jurisdictions across the country testified and submitted research to the NGISC. The following is a state-by-state breakdown of the evidence presented.

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Missouri Between 1990 and 1994, these Midwestern states legalized gambling. As in other jurisdictions, the impetus for legalization was economic development.
Indiana state Sen. Earline Rogers described the history of legalization in Indiana to the commission: In the late 1970s this region (Northwest Indiana) lost 70,000 jobs. United States Steel alone cut its work force from 25,000 to 7,500. Our population which once grew to 190,000, fell to below 135,000. For more than 15 years Northwest Indiana suffered. The federal government cut back programs intended to help local communities. Revenue sharing had become a mainstay in my community. Instead of offering the help necessary to meet this disaster, the state of Indiana investigated our local public assistance officials. Our attempts to recruit major businesses to locate in Northwest Indiana were not successful. The state of Indiana spent millions of dollars luring major manufacturing operations to Indiana, often spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for jobs. Not one was located in Northwest Indiana. We knew something different had to be done, when we found ourselves championing our economic development successes at a ribbon cutting for a McDonald's restaurant in Gary, Indiana. An opportunity was afforded to us in 1988 when the voters of the state of Indiana overwhelmingly repealed the state constitutional ban on lotteries. Opponents of gaming warned voters that repealing the ban on lotteries would allow pari-mutuel and casino gaming, along with the state run lottery. Despite those warnings that a yes vote would allow casino gaming, Hoosiers repealed the gaming ban. In January of 1989 we, the city of Gary and I as the author, introduced the first bill that would allow for casino gaming in Gary, and ours was land based casinos. In November of 1989, Gary conducted its own referendum on land based casinos and 60 percent of the voters approved land based casinos.9 Mayor Ann Hutchinson of Bettendorf, Iowa, offered the following explanation for the legalization of gaming in Iowa: The initiative for Iowas legislation on riverboat gambling actually came out of the Quad Cities area of which Bettendorf is a part, in the late 1980s as a response to an economic downturn in the area at that point in time. The Quad Cities was noted as a farming and construction equipment manufacturing center and always considered itself recession-proof until it hit the recession of the mid-1980s. At that point in time we lost 25,000 jobs in the area. Local leaders then were looking to an alternative to try to bring back some of the economic development in the area, and they looked toward tourism. And the Mississippi River, of course, is our greatest natural resource in that area for tourism, and gambling seemed to be a natural part because it is such a part of the history in the lower Mississippi River. The initial legislation in the State of Iowa was very strong in trying to bring back economic developmentand to create land based development in the area. So as a part of that, we were looking for development of hotels and that type of thing to create a property tax base in the area.10
National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Indiana state Sen. Earline Rogers, Chicago site visit, May 20, 1998. 10 National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Bettendorf, Iowa, Mayor Ann Hutchinson, Chicago site visit, May 20, 1998.
Casino Gaming in America American Gaming Association

Michael Belletire, administrator for the Illinois Gaming Board, described how the introduction of casino gaming had affected the economies of four states in the Midwest: In my personal view, the experiment with casino gambling in the midwest states has been generally positive. Those seeking to be operators in the midwest have been subjected to rigorous scrutiny. Safe and popular attractions have been built with meaningful capital investments. New jobs, with decent wages and fringe benefits, have been created. Local communities hosting riverboat casinos have, in the main, benefited from the experience with new revenues and infrastructure and in some instances a new sense of optimism about their economic future.11 Belletires observations about the contributions of casino gaming are confirmed by the following information developed by the Coalition of Midwestern Riverboats: The Illinois Riverboat Industry Generated more than $1.1 billion in revenues in 1996. Paid almost $261 million in taxes in 1997. Employed 11,000 people in 1997. A study of the impact of riverboat gaming on the Illinois economy in 1995 found that: Each dollar expended by the casino operations generated an additional 72 cents worth of activity elsewhere in the states economy. Each dollar of direct income provided to employees in the casino industry generates about $1.50 of additional income in the state. Each job created by the casino industry generates another 0.70 jobs in the economy.12 The Indiana Riverboat Industry According to the Casino Association of Indianas Growing with Indiana, the riverboat industry in that state: Generated $960 million in revenues in 1997. Paid $370 million in state gaming taxes in 1998. Employed more than 12,300 people in 1998 and paid more than $300 million in wages and benefits.13 The Iowa Riverboat Industry Generated $653 million in revenues in 1996. Paid more than $173 million in taxes in 1997. Employed 6,100 people in 1997.14

National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Michael Belletire, Chicago site visit, May 20, 1998. Regional Economics Applications Laboratory (REAL), The Impact of Riverboat Casino Gambling on the Illinois Economy 1995 (Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois, April 3, 1998), executive summary. 13 Casino Association of Indiana, Growing with Indiana, 1998 Positive Impact Report (Indianapolis, Ind.: Casino Association of Indiana, 1998). 14 Arthur Andersen, Economic Impacts of Casino Gaming in the United States, Volume 2: Micro Study (Washington, D.C.: American Gaming Association, 1996), executive summary, 5-6.
12

11

Casino Gaming in America

American Gaming Association

The Missouri Riverboat Industry Generated more than $571 million in revenues in 1996. Paid $167 million in taxes in 1997. Employed more than 12,000 people in 1997.15 In 1997, Charles Leven, professor emeritus of economics at Washington University, and Don Phares, professor of economics and public policy at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, were commissioned by Civic Progress of St. Louis to conduct a study of the economic impact of gaming in Missouri. In their study submitted to the NGISC, Leven and Phares found that: In 1997 the casino gaming industrydirectly and indirectly generated more than three-quarters of a billion dollars worth of new spending in the states economy. Because of casino gaming, personal income grew by over $500 million. State and local governments received over $225 million in new tax revenues. Almost 18,000 new jobs were added to the economy.16 The Leven-Phares study also revealed that: Of the $589 million spent at casinos for gaming and nongaming purchases, only about $90 million or 15 percent, goes out of state as interest payments, depreciation, reserves, federal and social security taxes, or profits (although most casinos were not profitable in 1996). The rest goes to pay for casino operating expenses ($332 million) and taxes to state and local governments ($167 million). Of casino operating expenses about $114 million went for wages and the rest ($218 million) for other expenses. Also, as the money spent on casino operations was spent and re-spent in the state, $277 million of additional business volume was generated indirectly by purchases of inputs and spending of labor income. About $167 million went to state and local governments: of this amount, $147 million came from the 20 percent tax on net gaming receipts (18 percent goes for education) and the $2 admission fee, with an additional $20 million in various other taxes paid, such as property, sales, and earning taxes. As this tax money was spent and re-spent, it too had a ripple effect throughout the economy, resulting in an additional $179 million of indirectly induced spending.17 The study further found that: The impact of gaming on Missouri state and local government has been somewhat concentrated. The $93 million going to the state of Missouri from the 18 percent tax on gaming has gone entirely to education primarily K-12 education. For 1996, this amount represents about 8 percent of the total funding for the Missouri school foundation formula and approximately 49 percent of the new funding for the foundation formula over the previous year. Other state revenues also have risen by $29 million, as a result of the admission fee and other taxes paid by casinos. Taxes to local government have come from the 2 percent gaming tax, the one-dollar local share of admission fees, and other revenues. The resulting funds are small relative to the total Missouri state budget and even small compared to big city budgets, but for small cities with gaming, casino revenues have made a major difference in their fiscal positions.18
Information compiled from numerous sources by the Coalition of Midwestern Riverboats. Charles Leven and Don Phares, The Economic Impact of Gaming in Missouri (St. Louis: Civic Progress, April 1998), executive summary. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid.
Casino Gaming in America American Gaming Association

15 16

Mississippi Riverboat gaming was approved in 1990, and the first casino opened its doors in August 1992. Mayors of four different cities in Mississippi explained how economic considerations drove the legalization of gaming:
Mayor A.J. Holloway of Biloxi explained that: Our decline began in the 80s when the bottom fell out of the oil industry in Louisiana and Texas. We lost a large section of the tourist trade from our area. We had hotels in bankruptcy. They couldnt pay their water bills. The golfers, who we depended on to visit us each winter, were finding better accommodations in other places. We were a tourist town with no tourists. Nine years ago, I was a member of the city council and I could tell you firsthand this was a disaster for city government. The declining tax revenue meant we were six to nine months behind paying our bills. We were barely meeting the city payroll. We were having to borrow money on next years property taxes to pay this years bills. Then wed have to turn right back around and pay off the loan with the taxes we collected in January and February. City employees took 10 percent pay cuts and city services suffered as our roads and infrastructure began to crumble. All of that changed in 1992 when a majority of the citizens of our community approved dockside gaming.19 Mayor Bobby Williams of Tunica testified that: We had high unemployment and low wages. We had high taxes and very low revenue. We had high welfare and low economy. We were experiencing no growth at all and all of the equipment that the town owned was old and worn out. Our sewer lines were dilapidated, water lines were too small. The town was really going down. The casinos came to Tunica back in 92 and it seemed like since then everything has changed.20 Mayor Bob Short described the state of the economy in Gulfport prior to the advent of gaming: Our businesses were closing. The ones that was (sic) staying open was (sic) hoping that gaming would come along. We had a 7 percent unemployment rate. There was (sic) very few jobs that had good insurance packages, health benefits or both members of the family working. This is all before gaming.21 Mayor Eddy Favre of Bay St. Louis told the commission: Our daily lifestyle has benefited greatly from the revenues generated by gaming. Highlights of our accomplishments include the following: City property taxes were reduced by 85 percent, providing a direct benefit of this new industry for all our residents, even those choosing never to cross the threshold of Casino Magic. Sales tax revenues have increased by 100 percent since the opening of Casino Magic in 1992. A renewed atmosphere for new business development and existing business expansion has evolved.
19 National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Biloxi, Miss., Mayor A.J. Holloway, Biloxi, Miss., site visit, Sept. 10, 1998, 148-49. 20 National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Tunica, Miss., Mayor Bobby Williams, Biloxi, Miss., site visit, Sept. 10, 1998, 155-56. 21 National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Gulfport, Miss., Mayor Bob Short, Biloxi, Miss., site visit, Sept. 10, 1998, 161.

Casino Gaming in America

American Gaming Association

Over 1500 direct and indirect job opportunities, most with income and benefits never before available, has (sic) been added to what was a depressed job market in the 1980s.22 With the opening of Beau Rivage in February 1999, the state would have 31 casinos, making Mississippi the third-largest gaming jurisdiction in the United States. According to Gov. Kirk Fordice, The State of Mississippi is now a national leader in economic recovery, and theres no doubt it is attributed in part to the gaming industry. About 25 to 30 percent of what I like to call the Mississippi Miracle is due to casino gaming.23 In The Mississippi Miracle: How The State With The Worst Odds Ended Up With The Winning Hand, the Harrison County Development Commission reports that the states gaming industry: Generated in excess of $2 billion in 1998, following 12 straight months of record activity. Contributed more than $1 billion in additional tax revenues as a result of gaming and related development since 1992. Produced 10 percent of the states annual budget in 1998 approximately $160 million in gaming tax collections and $140 million in new sales and income taxes. Augments nearly every facet of the state budget through gaming tax revenues. Generates more than 54,000 jobs and an annual payroll of $1.1 billion through direct and indirect employment. Invested more than $7 billion in construction of casinos, hotels, retail outlets, golf courses, parking structures and other amenities. Purchased almost $104 million in food and beverages from local vendors in 1997.24

Nevada No state has had legalized gambling longer than Nevada, which authorized casinos in 1931. The industry is a source of tremendous economic development for the state. According to the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority and Nevada Commission on Tourism:
Visitors made 42.2 million trips to the state in 1997, spending $25 billion. In FY 1997, statewide gross gaming revenues were $7.8 billion. In 1997, Nevadas hospitality/gaming industry directly employed 307,500 people, roughly 35 percent of Nevadas work force, and was directly and indirectly responsible for 60 percent of the statewide employment total as of 1995. The industry had a direct annual payroll of approximately $5.7 billion in FY 1996, representing 25 percent of all wages paid statewide, single-handedly adding $10.3 billion to personal incomes in the state. The total contribution to federal, state and local taxes from Nevadas gaming industry is estimated to be $2.2 billion annually. For every 10 jobs directly stemming from the hospitality industry, roughly seven additional jobs are created elsewhere in the states economy.25
National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Bay St. Louis, Miss., Mayor Eddy Favre, Biloxi, Miss., site visit, Sept. 10, 1998, 271-72. 23 Harrison County Development Commission, The Mississippi Miracle: How The State With The Worst Odds Ended Up With The Winning Hand (Gulfport, Miss.: Harrison County Development Commission, September 1998). 24 Ibid, 5-7. 25 Nevada Commission on Tourism, Gaming. Made In Nevada: Creating Pride, Opportunity and Hope in the Silver State (Carson City, Nev.: Nevada Commission on Tourism, 1998).
Casino Gaming in America American Gaming Association

22

In testimony before the commission, U.S. Sen. Richard Bryan of Nevada summarized the impact of gaming on the state: For us in Nevada, gaming has been a great success story. Overall, you are going to find that the casino segment of the gaming industry, particularly that portion involved in large scale resort operations and tourist destinations, is a good employer, a high job potential employer, an employer who pays good wages and offers better than average benefits and a good neighbor in the community.26

New Jersey A statewide referendum authorized gaming for Atlantic City in 1976; the first casinos opened two years later. New Jersey Attorney General Peter Verniero presented a brief history of gaming in New Jersey to the commission. Verniero testified that:
Prior to the introduction of gaming, Atlantic City, one of the East Coasts premier resorts at the turn of the century, was hurting. Many hotels were having financial difficulties and were forced into bankruptcy and ultimately closed. Tourists were no longer coming to this seaside town, and this had a devastating impact to the shore area. The city was in desperate need of help. On November 2, 1976, everything changed. That was the day New Jersey voters passed a referendum legalizing casino gaming in Atlantic City.27 Sometimes referred to as the experiment, casino gaming in New Jersey has generated an investment of approximately $6 billion during the past 20 years, as reported by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission.28 As U.S. Sen. Robert Torricelli stated in testimony before the NGISC, It cannot be overstated and it cannot be said enough. Casino gaming saved Atlantic City and its people.29 The New Jersey Casino Control Commission reports that the gaming industry: Created gross casino gaming revenues of $3.79 billion in 1996. Paid revenue taxes totaling $303.2 million in 1996. Generated $717 million for redevelopment projects in Atlantic City (including investments in low and moderate income housing, historic restoration projects and nonprofit facility improvement) as well as an additional $69 million for projects statewide since 1984 through contributions to the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA). Provides 50,000 full and part-time jobs with a payroll exceeding $1 billion before fringe benefits. Contributed to the creation of another 48,000 indirect jobs with wages of almost $1 billion in 1994. Spent $1.54 billion on goods and services with more than 3,400 companies in New Jersey and almost $2.5 billion with more than 8,000 companies across the United States in 1996. Expects to invest $5 billion or more for the development of casino hotel facilities during the next several years.30

26

National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of U.S. Sen. Richard Bryan, Washington, D.C., meeting, Aug. 19,

1997. National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Peter Verniero, Atlantic City, N.J., site visit, Jan. 21, 1998. New Jersey Casino Control Commission, Casino Gambling In New Jersey: A Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (Atlantic City, N.J.: New Jersey Casino Control Commission, January 1998), 17. 29 National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of U.S. Sen. Robert Torricelli, Atlantic City, N.J., site visit, Jan. 21, 1998. 30 New Jersey Casino Control Commission, A Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission.
28 27

Casino Gaming in America

American Gaming Association

Gaming Industr y as an Eng ine of Economic Grow th

Testimony and reports presented to the NGISC also refuted claims from gambling opponents that casino gaming creates a substitution effect that the industry takes from other established businesses without creating growth of its own within the economy. For example, the New Jersey Casino Control Commissions Casino Gambling in New Jersey: A Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission reported that Atlantic City is experiencing a multibillion-dollar redevelopment renaissance as a result of the gaming industry and this is transforming the area into a major meeting destination. The $7 billion renaissance is creating a second wave of growth for the city.31 In testimony presented to the commission, Jimmy Heidel, executive director of the Mississippi Department of Economic and Community Development, noted: From an economic development perspective, legalized casinos in Mississippi have spawned a variety of secondary growth, all of which is helping to diversify the Mississippi economy: hotel, golf courses, restaurants, related food services. And I also add home building, retail realtor services, hardware stores, retail stores, media advertising, printing companies, utilities services, dry cleaners and laundries and a variety of other recreational and entertainment options. We have more industries and corporations looking at the State of Mississippi than we ever have in (our) history, and Im not talking about small projects. Im talking about projects exceeding $400 million in investment, some as high as $1.6 billion.32 Tom Thanas, corporation counsel/city attorney for Joliet, Ill., testified: Whats happened to the discretionary dollars of our residents? I know youll hear later on that riverboat gaming companies cannibalize the local economy. Thats not the case in Joliet. We have new bowling alleys opening up. We have multi-plex theatres opening up. We have bookstores opening up. We have golf courses opening up. A week from Friday we have the Route 66 raceway which will attract 130,000 people the last weekend in May for a national event for racing. Those are all discretionary dollars that are staying in the city of Joliet and that our residents are able to spend on those activities.33 On Sept. 11, 1998, at an NGISC hearing in New Orleans, Adam Rose, professor at Pennsylvania State University, testified: Is a casino more like a factory or a restaurant? And this is a common analogy used in the literature in this area, and the key issue is whether a casino serves an external market so that it can bring new money into an area rather than just re-circulating dollars that are already there. And the answer hinges on characteristics of individual facilities, but in most cases a casino is much more like a factory and can be an engine of regional growth. A related question is: How large is the spending substitution effect of casino gambling of resident patrons on site, or how much does the spending simply displace other local spending in the area? More recently there have been a rash of studies that suggest that substitution effect can be as high as 100 percent or more, but I found more of the credible studies to come up with estimates between 35 to 75 percent for casinos that serve a mix of tourists and residents.
31 32

New Jersey Casino Control Commission, A Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, 19. National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Jimmy Heidel, Biloxi, Miss., site visit, Sept. 10, 1998, 93, 95. 33 National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Tom Thanas, Chicago site visit, May 20, 1998.
Casino Gaming in America American Gaming Association

Also, the question arises: How large is the substitution effect with respect to other gambling activities? And the answer here is that the substitution effect is rather low, except for charitable gaming.34 Further arguing against the substitution theory is the evidence of economic growth that has been generated by the practice of earmarking gaming revenues for development projects. Typical of this practice is that found in Atlantic City, where a percentage of revenues from casino gaming properties have been earmarked for revitalization and development projects within the city and across the state of New Jersey. As reported by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission: The Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) is an independent authoritycreated to authorize the expenditure of casino reinvestment funds in Atlantic City and other urban-aid municipalities throughout the state. Each casino has the option to invest 1.25 percent of its gross revenue for CRDA-approved redevelopment projects or pay an additional 2.5 percent of gross revenue to the Casino Revenue Fund. Since its creation in 1984, CRDA has committed $717 million to projects for the redevelopment of Atlantic City and an additional $69 million for projects throughout the state. Projects have included street widening, beautification and other road improvements housing construction and restoration. The Atlantic City Casino Parking Fee was authorized in 1993. Casino parking facilities are required to impose a minimum charge of $2. The fees collected are placed in a special fund held by the State Treasurer, for use by the CRDA to finance public improvements in the Atlantic City area. Those funds are currently being used to finance development of Atlantic Citys corridor, near the new Convention Center. Atlantic City Casino Parking Fee Revenues Collected 1994: $14,312,261 1995: $15,567,093 1996: $15,473,93035 The Mississippi Miracle also has been fueled by earmarked tax revenues. As reported in The Mississippi Miracle: How The State With The Worst Odds Ended Up With The Winning Hand: Since their inception, gaming taxes have been used to augment nearly every facet of the state budget. As an example, funding for education has increased by 32 percent, and an additional 10 percent increase is planned in the Fiscal Year 1999 budget. In 1997 alone, highway construction totaled over $220 million. Over 128 Fortune 500 companies have rediscovered Mississippi and the economic benefits of doing business here. As a result, former residents are returning home, and new ones are moving to the state. The catalyst for this widespread recovery can be traced back to the well-planned and well-regulated arrival of the gaming industry.36

34 35

National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Adam Rose, New Orleans site visit, Sept. 11, 1998, 162-63. New Jersey Casino Control Commission, Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, 18-19. 36 Harrison County Development Commission, The Mississippi Miracle, 5, 7.

10

Casino Gaming in America

American Gaming Association

III. SOCIAL IMPACT

Executive Summary
The big picture view of the impact of the gaming industry on society in the United States shows, unequivocally, that this business is a net positive for the American people as a generator of jobs, tax revenues and commercial development, among other benefits. This translates into generous social benefits, which are too often lost in discussions that revolve around so-called social costs of gaming. Any discussion of the social impact of gaming should weigh the benefits against the costs the accuracy of which is highly questionable for a full and fair consideration of the issue. As numerous studies and testimony before the NGISC revealed, the casino industry has made an invaluable contribution in the welfare-to-work area, providing tens of thousands of jobs to those formerly on welfare or receiving unemployment benefits. In the process, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) payments have decreased appreciably in gaming communities, as have food stamp distributions. The casino gaming industry has improved the lives of its employees and their families by elevating work force job skill levels with special education and training programs. Gaming companies also provide superior job benefits, such as top-notch health care and day care programs. Testimony also revealed the casino profession has been a major contributor to charitable organizations throughout the country. Hundreds of thousands of hours in volunteer time have been donated to worthy causes along with millions of dollars. Women, minorities and those with disabilities have been primary beneficiaries of the casino gaming industry. Women and minorities account for a large percentage of the casino work force. Furthermore, businesses owned by women and minorities benefit from procurement by casinos, which consistently exceeds rates set by government authorities for purchasing from this sector. The commission investigated some of the common claims made about the social costs associated with casino gaming and found that they were either greatly exaggerated or completely false. The panels research indicated that crime does not increase with the advent of this activity in a community. In fact, crime often decreases after gaming arrives. The same studies showed that bankruptcy is no more prevalent in gaming communities than in non-gaming communities. There is widespread evidence to support the gaming industry in the United States as a progressive, positive force in American life. The following outlines testimony and research presented to the NGISC regarding the social impacts of casino gaming at the national, state and local levels.

Casino Gaming in America

American Gaming Association

11

Soc ial Impact of Gaming in the United States

It is clear that the gaming industry contributes positively to the American economy, bringing generous social benefits by creating employment and other opportunities for millions of people. Despite these benefits, much discussion centers on the alleged social costs of gaming, which have been variously enumerated as crime, bankruptcy and an elevation in pathological gambling. In one of the most recent studies of the social costs of legalized gaming, Peter Reuter, a professor at the School of Public Affairs at the University of Maryland and a consultant to the NGISC, concluded: There is surprising consistency in both the statistical and interview data. Casinos have had quite modest effects on the measured social problems of the cities in which they have been introduced to in recent years.37 A study conducted for the NGISC by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) reported on the results of its community database research, in which it compiled and examined information from 100 randomly selected communities as well as 10 communities within 50 miles of a casino. The study found that those communities closest to casinos experienced a 12 percent to 17 percent drop in welfare payments, unemployment rates and unemployment insurance.38 A number of gaming employees testified before the commission during the course of its hearings. Typical of this testimony was that offered by Stephen Karaisz, Jr., an employee with the Hilton Gaming Corporation, who told the commission: When people ask me if I like what I do, I tell them its not what I do, its what I am. What Ive become. (The casino industry provides) security for your family as well as providing excellent benefits packages, retirement and investment opportunities, low cost loans and mortgage payments, housing starts, tuition reimbursement and scholarships for our kids.39

Soc ial Impact of Gaming in Sp ec ific Gaming Jur is dict ions

The commission heard a number of public officials testify about the positive, progressive social benefits the gaming industry has brought to their jurisdictions. Among these was Jeff Griffin, mayor of Reno, Nev., and chairman of the U.S. Conference of Mayors Task Force on Gaming: In my city of Reno, gaming is part of a diverse economy, with non-gaming businesses relocating to Reno due to an ideal tax structure and an enviable quality of life. With legalized gambling in Nevada, citizens of our communities benefit from the absence of state income taxes, corporate income taxes, and the presence of an expanding economy resulting from this tax structure. Although we are a city of modest size, we are able to support big city amenities such as a philharmonic orchestra, a ballet, an opera company, a thriving downtown arts district, and a performing arts theatre hosting Broadway touring shows.40 Kenneth Murphree, county administrator for Tunica County, Miss., told the commission: The gaming industry hashad a dramatic effect on county government and its ability to provide services.
Peter Reuter, The Impact of Casinos on Crime and Other Social Problems: An Analysis of Recent Experiences (Baltimore: Greater Baltimore Committee, January 1997), vi. 38 National Opinion Research Center, Gambling Impact and Behavior Study (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1999). 39 National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Stephen Karaisz, Jr., Washington, D.C., meeting, Aug. 20, 1997. 40 National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Reno, Nev., Mayor Jeff Griffin, Virginia Beach, Va., meeting, Feb. 8, 1999.
37

12

Casino Gaming in America

American Gaming Association

Weve been able to implement a housing rehabilitation program for elderly and handicapped homeowners. You have to understand there is (sic) tremendous needs for improvement to substandard housing and were able to address those issues now. We have funded a public transportation program through the Aaron Henry Foundation which is facilitating our workers now to be able to get the jobs. Were able to fund that for them. We have a youth recreation program with a brand new $2 million facility. I just refer to it as somewhat of a YMCA type facility but its able to get our children where we can have good recreation, good leadership and be exposed to those things that they formerly just werent getting in Tunica County. Weve increased elderly services for meals and transportation and for homemaker services. We have hired through Mid-State Opportunity, a local community action agency, an advisor to work with atrisk teenagers, those who have dropped out of school or are just struggling in school, to assist them with a transition from school into the workforce. We bought a new emergency communications system for the county. We have a new landfill which is operated by the largest landfill company in the United States. In 1992we didnt have 24-hour medical service available in Tunica County. We had one doctors office which was open about 40 hours a week to attend to medical needs. After hours or on weekends, you had to travel some 40 miles to adjacent counties to get medical services. We have contracted with the Methodist Health Care System, the largest medical health care provider in the mid-south, who has opened a 24-hour medical clinic in Tunica County now. We purchased four new fire trucks. Weve increased the funding and staff for our sheriff s department and constructed a new jail. Like all communities, our jails overcrowded. We made extensive improvements to the water and sewer systems and improvements to our county roads. We focused a lot of the income that we received these first few years on water and sewer and road systems to try to support this casino industry to secure and stabilize these jobs. Thats what its all about, trying to get these people good jobs and thats what weve achieved. Wevefunded a full-time youth court counselor. Weve created summer youth jobs for our young people. Weve been able to provide financial support to the Tunica County Literacy Council for adult education and literacy. Weve expanded our local library. We have a new agricultural exposition facility under construction.41 Mayor Kevin Keely of Elgin, Ill., informed the commission: A fair assessment of the casino would not be complete without considering the Grand Victoria foundation, a charitable organization funded by gaming profits. Since March of last year the foundation has contributed over three and a half million dollars to philanthropic causes throughout the region.42 A number of studies and publications also provided details on the social impact of gaming in the various gaming jurisdictions.

National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Kenneth Murphree, Biloxi, Miss., site visit, Sept. 10, 1998, 111-13. 42 National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Elgin, Ill., Mayor Kevin Keely, Chicago site visit, May 20, 1998.
Casino Gaming in America American Gaming Association

41

13

Nevada From Gaming. Made In Nevada: Creating Pride, Opportunity and Hope in the Silver State:
The number of Nevadans whose incomes fall below the poverty level remains below the national average. As of 1995, Nevada reported that 11 percent of the population had incomes below the poverty level. During that same period, the percentage of the population below the poverty level nationally was nearly 14 percent. Nevada falls below the national average in the number of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients. Nationally, 51 out of every 1,000 residents receive AFDC payments; only 26 out of every 1,000 Nevadans receive similar payments. The number of food stamp program recipients in Nevada falls below the national average. In Nevada, 61 of every 1,000 Nevadans vs. 96 per 1,000 persons nationally receive food stamp allocations.43

New Jersey From Casino Gambling in New Jersey: A Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission:
The Pharmaceutical Assistance to the Aged and Disabled Program allows income eligible participants to purchase medical prescriptions for a $5 payment, regardless of the actual cost of the prescription. Over 210,000 citizens throughout New Jersey enjoy the benefits of this unique program funded by casino revenue.44 Development of the casino industry has made a significant impact upon individuals (sic) dependence on government assistance. [I]n 1977, 6,900 Atlantic City residents were receiving welfare assistance and 5,300 were receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). By 1997, only 3,200 received welfare and 3,000 received AFDC. While Atlantic Citys population was increasing, it witnessed a remarkable 54 percent decrease in those receiving welfare and a 44 percent reduction of AFDC payments. It is apparent that the increase of employment opportunities has contributed significantly to this decline.45 Atlantic City casinos have increased their combined purchasing from businesses owned by minorities and women from a low in 1990 of 2.86 percent ($35.1 million) to 24 percent ($252.3 million) in 1996. This is particularly significant because the regulatory goal is only 15 percent.46 From Limitations in the Workplace: A Survey & Study of Atlantic City Casinos: 8.2 percent to 12.3 percent of the persons working at the Atlantic City casinos are disabled. That finding stems from our survey in which about three quarters of the nearly 45,000 employees at the casinos took the time to fill out a survey form that asked about their medical conditions, their activity limitations and their demographic characteristics. the conclusion must be that the percentage of disabled persons employed at the Atlantic City casinos compares favorably with the percentage of persons in the labor pool, no matter how that pool is determined.47

Nevada Commission on Tourism, Gaming. Made In Nevada: Creating Pride, Opportunity and Hope in the Silver State, 24. New Jersey Casino Control Commission, A Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, 18. 45 Ibid, 26. 46 Ibid, 28. 47 Bureau of Economic Research, Limitations in the Workplace: A Survey & Study of Atlantic City Casinos, report to the New Jersey Casino Control Commission (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University, State University of New Jersey, October 1998), 64.
44

43

14

Casino Gaming in America

American Gaming Association

New Jersey state legislator Kenneth LeFevre testified before the commission on state social programs that benefit from casino funding: Id like to mention two of the largest individual programs funded primarily by casino tax revenues because together they receive more than half of the tax dollars. Im referringto the Pharmaceutical Assistance to the Aged or Disabled, or PAAD, and the Lifeline Program. Consider the Lifeline Program of heating assistance. The Lifeline Program islargely funded by the casino tax revenue and has an annual budget of about $30 million. A needy senior or disabled citizen can receive $225 in just one year to help defray the cost of their heating bill. Statewide more than 140,000 senior and disabled citizens receive this assistance.48

Mississippi From The Mississippi Miracle: How The State With the Worst Odds Ended Up With The Winning Hand:
Since 1992, Mississippi casinos have donated more than $25 million in cash and in-kind services to over 3,000 organizations statewide. They have funded scholarships; provided transportation for crippled and burned children; refurbished piers; air-conditioned community theaters; rebuilt churches damaged in fires; preserved cemeteries; built playgrounds, basketball courts, and shelters for disadvantaged children; paid for summer camp tuitions, bought high school band equipment; purchased food, clothing, school supplies, and toys for battered women and their children; helped the elderly with utility bill and pest control assistance; built libraries in rural communities; and funded doublelung transplants, eye exams and glasses for those in need. In addition, they have sponsored educational programs and counseling sessions on such topics as compulsive gambling, illiteracy, gang prevention, civil rights, childbirth/teenage pregnancy, and environmental awareness.49

Measur ing Social Impacts

In a 1999 report prepared for the commission, the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences criticized many of the existing analyses on the impact of casino gaming for their methodological flaws. There is a plethora of studies with implicit but untested assumptions underlying the analysis that often are either unacknowledged by those performing the analysis, or likely to be misunderstood by those relying on the results, reported the NRC study. The NRC also pointed to common failings in the current research, including reliance on estimates derived from other studies and simplistic before-and-after comparisons that attempt to attribute either positive or negative changes to gambling.50

Gaming and Crime To address questions concerning the impact of casino gaming on crime rates, the commission heard testimony from public officials, law enforcement and government regulators and gathered evidence from other experts in the field.
Twenty-four sheriffs and chiefs of police from gaming jurisdictions around the country submitted Crime and Gaming: Statement of Findings to the commission on Sept. 11, 1998, in New Orleans. This statement by the law enforcement officers indicated that they saw no connection between gaming and crime in their jurisdictions.
48 National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of New Jersey state Rep. Kenneth LeFevre, Atlantic City, N.J., site visit, Jan. 21, 1998. 49 Harrison County Development Commission, The Mississippi Miracle, 30. 50 National Research Council, Pathological GamblingA Critical Review (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999).

Casino Gaming in America

American Gaming Association

15

New Jersey Attorney General Peter Verniero testified before the commission that: [O]ther statistics show that when adjusted for ever increasing visitor volumecrime is actually lower today then before the advent of casinos. In 1977, prior to casinos, the visitor adjusted crime rate was almost 70 crimes per 1,000 people. In 1996, this number dropped to fewer than 53 crimes per 1,000 people, a decrease of almost 25 percent.51 The New Jersey Casino Control Commission reported that: A person in Atlantic City is less likely to be a victim of crime today than in 1977. Atlantic City is clearly safer today than it was in 1977. The reduction in crime may be directly associated with the increase of employment opportunities and implementation of a number of programs to improve police effectiveness.52 Donald Sandridge, mayor of Alton, Ill., testified before the commission that: The critics of riverboat gaming projected increases of crime, prostitution and organized crime activities. As a former police chief, I was concerned about those projections, but none of those have occurred. In fact, that is probably a crime-free area around the Belle (riverboat casino). Our States Attorney, Bill Haine, had commented that the downtown area is one of the safest areas in Madison County. In fact, to quote Bill, Theres been absolutely no crime problem occurring in Madison County which has resulted from the operation of the Alton Belle casino on Alton, Illinois riverfront.53 Bob Waterbury, executive director of the Mississippi Coast Crime Commission, reported to the commission that: Our crime office has no direct evidence to indicate that casinos have caused an increase of crime along our three-county coast from 1994 to 1997.54 Mayor Ann Hutchinson of Bettendorf, Iowa, told the commission that: Our Police Department does not report any incidents of crime specifically within the area. We have some EMS calls for emergency medical service. We have contacted the social agencies in Scott County. They do not see any impact.55

Gaming and Bankruptcy Personal bankruptcy rates in the United States increased by 41 percent from 1994 to 1996 a time of dramatic gaming expansion.
To investigate a possible link, the commission heard testimony from bankruptcy experts. Typical of the information they received was that supplied by Rudy Cerone, an active member of the American Bankruptcy Institute and the immediate past chairman of the Bankruptcy Section of the Louisiana State Bar Association. Cerone told the commission: [T]he increase in consumer bankruptcies has little or nothing to do with gambling in the gross amount. Its mainly credit card companies pushing their products on the consumers and the ease
National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Peter Verniero, Atlantic City, N.J., site visit, Jan. 21, 1998. New Jersey Casino Control Commission, A Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, 29. 53 National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Alton, Ill., Mayor Donald Sandridge, Chicago site visit, May 20, 1998. 54 National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Bob Waterbury, Biloxi, Miss., site visit, Sept. 10, 1998, 249. 55 National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Bettendorf, Iowa, Mayor Ann Hutchinson, Chicago site visit, May 20, 1998.
52 51

16

Casino Gaming in America

American Gaming Association

of the bankruptcy laws allowing consumers an easy way out. Those are the two main factors for the great rise in bankruptcies, not only here in Louisiana, but across the country.56 A survey conducted for the commission by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) confirmed the statements made by these witnesses. According to the survey, which compiled and examined information from 100 randomly selected communities as well as 10 communities within 50 miles of a casino, casino proximity did not contribute to increased bankruptcy, crime or infant mortality.57

56 57

National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Rudy Cerone, New Orleans site visit, Sept. 11, 1998, 221. National Opinion Research Center, Gambling Impact and Behavior Study.
American Gaming Association

Casino Gaming in America

17

I V. R E G U L A T I O N

Executive Summary
Casino gaming is one of the most highly regulated industries in the United States, as strictly regulated as the banking, securities or nuclear energy industries. In Nevada and New Jersey alone, more than 1,000 regulators work at a cost to the industry of an estimated $70 million.58 Casino license applicants must fill out lengthy questionnaires and personal disclosure forms, (the personal disclosure form employed by the Illinois Gaming Board runs 54 pages) providing details on such matters as: Identity of family members Residential history (can go back as far as 25 years) Employment history Educational history (can go back as far as grammar school) Litigation history Licensure history Financial/tax information (not only for the prospective licensee but also for spouses and children and sometimes other family members) The industry is regulated by the states, but public ownership of the casino companies results in multiple levels of oversight. First, publicly held gaming-entertainment companies are subject to regulation by, and file extensive and regular disclosures with, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which also retains regulatory authority over them. In essence, the SEC provides a second regulatory layer over the gaming-entertainment business. Many retirement funds also own a large portion of the industrys stock. This level of investment adds yet a third layer of regulation public opinion. Large, publicly traded corporations are extremely sensitive about negative publicity or any issue that might raise concerns with stockholders, stockbrokers and investment analysts. In sum, there is very little about the gaming industry that is not dissected, studied, zealously inspected and carefully regulated. The following outlines testimony and reports presented to the NGISC on state regulation of the casino gaming industry.

58 Jeremy Margolis, Casinos and Crime: An Analysis of the Evidence (Washington, D.C.: American Gaming Association, December 1997), 44.

18

Casino Gaming in America

American Gaming Association

Regulation and the Gaming Industr y

U.S. Sen. Robert Torricelli of New Jersey testified before the NGISC that there (is) no industry in America more regulated than the casino industry.59 The senators testimony on this point focused on the strict and successful regulation of the industry within his state, although his words could have been applied to regulatory practices in all gaming jurisdictions. States exercise scrupulous and intense regulation of gaming, a prerogative reserved to them by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which declares, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The following is a breakdown of testimony and materials presented to the NGISC detailing regulation of the casino gaming industry in specific gaming states.

Nevada On this subject, Jeff Griffin, mayor of Reno, Nev., and chairman of the U.S. Conference of Mayors Task Force on Gaming, informed the commission that:
As Mayors of Americas cities, it is our primary goal to communicate to you and future federal panels that casino gaming is, in fact, a state and local issue. As an exception, we recognize that Indian gaming is uniquely a federal issue. Any recommendations put forth by this commission must be predicated on the recognition of this fundamental truth casino gaming is a state and local issue.60 In testimony before the NGISC, U.S. Sen. Richard Bryan of Nevada reviewed the purpose, history and administrative practices of the gaming regulatory system in his state: There is no more crucial state responsibility than to have good, honest, thorough regulation. Gaming is a cash business. Any business based on cash, whether it is a bank or other financial services industry or the gaming industry should be well-regulated. We didn't start that way in Nevada. We made mistakes along the way. But today, Nevada has an exemplary system of regulation. I was Attorney General when we closed the Aladdin, and governor when we removed the entire ownership and management of the Stardust, two major strip hotel operations in our state. I have seen the industry at its worst and at its best. The gaming industry started slowly in Nevada, but reached a period of rapid growth in the 1940s. By the mid 1950s, there was a recognition that if this industry were to be allowed to continue, the state had to play a stronger regulatory role. Over the next 20 years, the regulatory structure was completely revamped. Today, Nevada has a two-tier system, with a gaming commission as a quasi-judicial 5-member commission granting and denying applications for gaming licenses and imposing disciplinary measures, and the gaming control board with 3 full-time members to handle all administrative and regulatory functions as well as making licensing and disciplinary recommendations to the full commission. Included in the 1971 law revising the regulatory structure was this statement, The continued growth and success of gaming is dependent upon public confidence and trust that gaming licensing is conducted honestly and competitively. That the rights of creditors and licensees are protected and that gaming is free from criminal and corruptive elements. Public confidence and trust can only be maintained by strict regulation of all persons, locations, practices, associations, and activities related to the operation of licensed gaming establishment and the manufacture and distribution of gambling devices and equipment.
National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of U.S. Sen. Robert Torricelli, Atlantic City, N.J., site visit, Jan. 21, 1998. 60 National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Reno, Nev., Mayor Jeff Griffin, Virginia Beach, Va., meeting, Feb. 8, 1999.
Casino Gaming in America American Gaming Association

59

19

Every aspect of the casino operation in Nevada is closely regulated. Every operator and/or owner, key employee, and those seeking to buy into a gaming establishment must be licensed. All gaming employees must continually maintain an approved work permit. The average license investigation for a major size casino takes more than 9 months and costs between $400,000.00 to $700,000.00, all paid by the applicant. The application process includes extensive background checks on all those even marginally affiliated with a new facility. An important element of the Nevada license process is that the burden of proof is on the applicant. The state does not have to prove that the applicant is not acceptable. Instead, the applicant has to prove that he or she is worthy of a license from the state. The gaming control board has a budget of $20.7 million for 1997, and employs more than 400. Their gaming agents have the powers of law enforcement officers. Post-license investigations are constant to detect any such problem as hidden ownership interest or organized crime involvement. The enforcement division of the control board works on a 24-hour, 7-day week inspecting facilities and equipment, conducting undercover operations and monitoring work permits of employees. The control board tests and must approve all electronic and mechanical gaming devices. Violation of Nevada gaming laws can result in fines, temporary revocation of a license, or a permanent ban from any participation or work in the gaming industry.61 U.S. Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, former chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission, told the NGISC that: Gaming works well in Nevada for one main reason, proper regulation. The commodity in gaming is cash. This tends to invite problems. With the close scrutiny in Nevada and Atlantic City the major criminal operatives likely have moved to the under or unregulated environments.62

New Jersey In testimony before the NGISC, U.S. Sen. Robert Torricelli recounted a brief history of the considerations behind the development of the regulatory policies for casino gaming in New Jersey:
[I]n frank conversation, let us return to another judgment of 20 years ago. I was fortunate to work in the Governors office at that time as a young law student. Many of us did not realize the full financial benefit that would come to New Jersey. We had hopes, but we werent sure. We did, however, live with another fear, and that is that casinos in Atlantic City and this industry would attract some of the worst elements in our society; that organized crime and petty thieves and others would come to Atlantic City and enter our state, ruin the industry, and victimize our people. Let me be clear on this issue. Not only is there no industry in America more regulated than the casino industry. There are no casinos in the world that are more tightly supervised and regulated than casino gaming in the State of New Jersey. New Jersey had reason to fear organized crime entering this industry. Today New Jersey has every reason to be proud. We won the fight.63

61

National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of U.S. Sen. Richard Bryan, Washington, D.C., meeting, Aug. 19,

1997. National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, Las Vegas site visit, Nov. 10, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of U.S. Sen. Robert Torricelli, Atlantic City, N.J., site visit, Jan. 21, 1998.
63 62

20

Casino Gaming in America

American Gaming Association

Documents submitted to the NGISC describe the regulation of casino gaming operations in New Jersey as follows: The New Jersey Casino Control Act The adoption of the Casino Control Act by the New Jersey Legislature created the Casino Control Commission and the Division of Gaming Enforcement. The principal regulatory purposes of the two agencies are: to ensure that only persons of good character, honesty and integrity participate in the casino industry; to ensure the close supervision of all gaming operations; to ensure the full and accurate assessment and collection of all taxes, fees and penalties generated by casino operations; and to administer the regulation of casino properties to foster and enhance the redevelopment of Atlantic City and its hospitality industries. Regulatory Oversight The Casino Control Commissionemploys a staff of 361 with a budget of $23 million. The commission is vested with the power to promulgate all regulations interpreting and enforcing the provisions of the act, including the power to issue, deny, revoke, suspend or limit any required gaming affiliated licenses and to hear and decide all complaints for violations of the Casino Control Act. The Division of Gaming Enforcementinvestigates all license applicants, prosecutes all complaints brought under the Casino Control Act and monitors casino equipment and operations. In 1997, the division employed a staff of 373 and had a budget of $31 million. Licensing System It is through the licensing system that criminal elements are kept out of the casino industry. No other industry undergoes such severe scrutiny scrutiny which includes not only the individuals working for casino licensees, but also businesses doing business with the casinos. In 20 years of casino regulation in New Jersey, there has not been any scandal involving organized crime in casino operations. A casino license applicant must establish the integrity of all financial sources and the qualifications of each person who is required to be qualified. This includes each officer, director, principal employee, each person who directly or indirectly holds any beneficial interest or ownership of the securities issued by the corporation and any person who in the opinion of the commission has the ability to control the corporation or elect a majority of the board of directors. Issuance of a casino license to a corporate applicant also requires qualification of every holding company and intermediary company of the applicant. Casino licenses are initially issued for three successive one-year terms and renewed for periods of up to four years thereafter. The commission may reopen licensing hearings at any time. The casino license application fee is a minimum of $200,000, although the total cost may increase depending upon the cost of investigating and considering the application. The casino license renewal fee is a minimum of $100,000 for each one-year license renewal and minimum of $200,000 for longer renewal terms. Disqualification Criteria The commission will not license any person who is disqualified pursuant to section 86 of the Casino Control Act. The criteria include: a conviction of finding by the commission that the applicant has committed one of the enumerated offenses or an offense found to be inimical to the act; the willful failure to
Casino Gaming in America American Gaming Association

21

reveal any fact material to qualification or supplying any information which is untrue or misleading as to any material fact pertaining to qualification; the pursuit of economic gain in an occupational manner which is in violation of the criminal or civil policies of New Jersey; identification as a member of organized crime or an inimical association with a member of organized crime or a career offender cartel; and contumacious defiance of any official investigatory body when such body is engaged in investigating crimes related to gaming, official corruption or organized crime activity. Employees of Licensees The Casino Control Act requires casino key employees and all other casino employees to be licensed or registered before starting employment in a casino. The Act also provides for the temporary licensing of employees. The different credentials reflect the employees level of responsibility for the casinos operations. Casino key employees occupy managerial and supervisory positions and possess the highest credentials. All licensees must satisfy the affirmative licensing criteria of demonstrating their good character, honesty and integrity and their financial stability, integrity and responsibility. Licensees and registrants also are subject to the disqualification criteria of the act. From 1978 through 1996, the commission processed 118,061 employee license applications and 163,755 employee license renewals. Casino Service Industries All casino service industries offering goods and services which directly relate to casino gaming activity and their owners, management and supervisory personnel and principal employees having the responsibility for services to a casino licensee must satisfy the standards established for casino key employees, except residency, in order to be licensed. All casino service industries that provide non-gaming goods and services on a regular or continuing basis must be licensed once they reach a monetary threshold. Such enterprises are required to establish the good character, honesty and integrity of the enterprise and of each person required to be qualified. (NOTE: This requirement addresses the issue of the infiltration into the gaming industry by the criminal element through means other than direct casino ownership.) Businesses are required to be licensed once they have attained the specified dollar amounts in their business transactions with any casino operator. Since 1978, the commission has permitted 48,176 enterprises to conduct business with casino licensees and has prohibited 1,572 from doing so. Political Contribution Prohibition The Casino Control Act prohibits political contributions by any applicant for or holder of a casino license, or any holding, intermediary or subsidiary company. The prohibition extends to any officer, director, key casino employee or principal employee of any of these companies, and any person or agent acting on behalf of these entities.64

64

New Jersey Casino Control Commission, A Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, 7-11.
Casino Gaming in America American Gaming Association

22

Competition Between States

As to the question of whether competition between states has eroded the effectiveness of regulatory policies, Michael Belletire, administrator (staff director) for the Illinois Gaming Board, informed the commission: One of the questions put to us was whether competition has lead (sic) to a race to the bottom in terms of regulation. The answer to that question is a firm no. If there is a race between our midwestern states it is not a sprint, nor even a mile run, but a marathon. It has been eight years since Iowa and Illinois first authorized riverboat casinos and nearly six years since Missouri and Indiana followed suit. Since initial authorization of riverboat casinos in these states there have been only a few significant changes that have served to liberalize the regulatory and policy approach to gambling in the midwest. If there is one theme common to midwestern regulation of gambling it is not competition but cooperation. Our agency and its sister agencies in Iowa, Missouri, Indiana and Michigan have adopted what I consider to be a model of inter-governmental collaboration and cooperation. It is standard operating procedure for each of the midwestern regulatory agencies to share background information and to examine carefully the implications of adverse action taken by another jurisdiction. There is a fundamental recognition on the part of the midwestern state regulators that we rise and fall with one another when it comes to effective and tight control of casino gambling.65

Belletire, Frank Catania, Steve DuCharme, Mel Fisher, Chuck Patton, George Turner and Dennis Neilander, NGISC Paper on Regulation, prepared for the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, 1999.
Casino Gaming in America American Gaming Association

65 Mike

23

V. D I S O R D E R E D G A M B L I N G

Executive Summary
As the National Gambling Impact Study Commission stated in its final report, the overwhelming majority of people gamble for entertainment purposes and experience no adverse consequences whatsoever. However, a small percentage do not gamble responsibly.66 The American public is increasingly aware of the issue of disordered gambling. But it is not an issue that is easy to explain or understand. That complexity has led to the development of disparate and often conflicting information about the number of people who suffer from gambling problems. Opponents of gaming have put the numbers as high as 11 percent of the U.S. adult population, but a national survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) for the NGISC concluded that the percentage is far lower closer to 1 percent of the U.S. adult population. The following outlines testimony and materials presented to the NGISC on the prevalence of disordered gambling, treatment for problem gamblers, and responsible gaming practices in gaming jurisdictions and individual casino properties.

A Complex Phenomenon
Disordered gambling like most addictive behaviors is complex and difficult to understand. Further complicating matters, there is a lack of agreement on terms used by researchers, doctors, social scientists and others involved in this field of study. And no gold standard or respected benchmark exists against which those working in the field can judge the accuracy of a screening instrument. This has made it extremely difficult to determine with any accuracy how many people truly suffer from this addiction. In fact, disordered gambling has been called the hidden illness, because unlike substance abusers, those addicted to gambling do not come home with liquor on their breath or walk with a stumbling gait. As recently as the 1960s, disordered gambling was considered a character flaw or a moral weakness. Howard J. Shaffer, director of the Harvard Medical School Division on Addictions; lead author of one of the most highly regarded studies to date on disordered gambling, Estimating the Prevalence of Disordered Gambling Behavior in the United States and Canada: A Meta-analysis; associate editor of The Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment; and current editor of The Journal of Gambling Studies, testified before the NGISC that, Attempts to understand compulsive and pathological gambling resemble someone trying to shoot a fish in a clear, calm pool of water with only a bow and arrow. While it is easy to see the fish and take aim, refraction makes the task almost impossible.67

Pre valence of Disordered Gambling

A national survey conducted for the NGISC by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) concluded that less than 1 percent of the population can be classified as pathological gamblers. According to the survey, 0.6 percent of the U.S. adult population experiences serious problems with gambling. On the subject of access, the commission research was inconclusive. While researchers reported a link between increased access to legalized casino gaming and higher prevalence rates when combining data from the patron and phone surveys, the phone survey results alone did not show a similar link. According to NORCs final report, differences in prevalence gathered through phone interviews with 2,400 adults and 500 youth ages 16 and 17 across the country were not statistically significant.68
66 67

National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Final Report, June 1999, 1-1. National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Howard J. Shaffer, Atlantic City, N.J., site visit, Jan. 22, 1998, 1. 68 National Opinion Research Center, Gambling Impact and Behavior Study.

24

Casino Gaming in America

American Gaming Association

These results were in line with the results of Shaffers meta-analysis, which estimated that 1.29 percent of the U.S. adult population could be classified as having serious pathological problems incident to gambling. In his testimony before the commission, Shaffer described various other salient results of his study: Our new research reveals that during the past 23 years, in spite of higher rates of disordered gambling among adolescents and substance abusing or psychiatric patients in treatment, only the adult segment of the general population has shown an increasing rate of gambling disorders.69 (NOTE: Language from the study: adolescentsare among the least likely to avoid gambling simply because it is illicit, unavailable, or socially proscribed. Also, (adolescents) will tend to gamble regardless of the availability of legalized gambling. Consequently, for these groups, the prevalence rates of disordered gambling will be influenced less meaningfully by the growth of legally available gambling. In fact, it is possible that as gambling becomes more mainstreamthen (adolescents) might begin to move away from any form of licit gambling because it will not offer the opportunity for the expression of anti-social motives.70) Among the risk factors for gambling disorders, gender, age, psychiatric status and family history appear among the most prominent. For example, adults in treatment for substance abuse or other psychiatric disorders are almost nine times more likely to have a level three gambling disorder during their lifetime, when compared with adults from the general population. Similarly, adolescents from the general population and college students have a greater risk of experiencing a gambling disorder compared with their adult counterparts by a factor of two-and-a-half to three times. Males from the adult general population are almost two times more likely than their female counterparts to suffer level three gambling problems during their lifetime. Male college students are almost four times more likely to have serious gambling problems, compared with their female counterparts. The rate increase we observed among adults from the general population could be due to many factors. For example, during the past two decades theres been an increased availability and accessibility to gambling. Theres been an increased social acceptance of gambling. There are few messages about the potential risks and hazards of gambling. Theres been an increasing desire to participate in risktaking activities in general. And, perhaps, theres been a decline in the belief that one can achieve the American dream, a growing sense of emotional discomfort, a malaise or dysthymia among the American people. All of these things could play a role in increasing the rate for disordered gambling among the general adult population. Observers tend to think that disordered gambling is growing in direct proportion to the expansion of legalized gambling opportunities. This may not be an accurate perception. Assessing shifting social trends is very difficult without evidence from prospective research, andwe have no prospective research to date. However, gambling certainly has expanded much more rapidly than the rate of disordered gambling. We do know that. Tobacco, arguably the most virile and objective chemical dependence, has been widely available, and despite this wide availability tobacco has a much smaller user base than 20 years ago. We must conclude that availability is not a sufficient, sole explanation for the increased rate of gambling as an addictive disorder in the United States. In part, the history of gambling research inadvertently has fueled this very perception that expanded gaming, and by expanded I mean lottery, casino, charitable gaming, is the sole course of increased gambling problems. And, the reason for this is that early gambling prevalence studies tended to focus
69 National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Howard J. Shaffer, Atlantic City, N.J., site visit, Jan. 22, 1998, 4-5. 70 Howard J. Shaffer, Matthew N. Hall, and Joni Vander Bilt, Estimating the Prevalence of Disordered Gambling Behavior in the United States and Canada: A Meta-analysis (Boston: President and Fellows of Harvard College, 1997), 76.

Casino Gaming in America

American Gaming Association

25

on the adult general population. This is the population segment with the lowest rate of gambling disorder. More recentlytheir research interests have become much more diversified and theyve examined young people and other high-risk population segments. Consequently, the shifting evidence provided by more recent studies of new population segments with higher rates of the disorder have, perhaps, biased the prevailing subjective impressions of our disordered gambling prevalence rates. Shaffer also described some of the misconceptions about gambling disorders and the shortcomings of existing research: At the risk of being misinterpreted and misrepresented, Id like to note that many economists, researchers and social policymakers have made two important assumptions about disordered gambling that are often incorrect. Its incorrect that all gamblers who experience problems with gambling eventually progress to become level three or pathological gamblers. Secondly, its incorrect to assume that once someone becomes a disordered gambler only professional treatment will arrest the problem. Just as most people who occasionally feel depressed do not progress to a state of clinical depression, most gamblers with level two gambling-related problems do not experience a progression to level three states. Furthermore, without precise estimates of the duration of gambling disorders, and the extent of people who recover without any treatment at all, its not possible to estimate accurately the economic and social impact of disordered gambling. While the rate of disordered gambling among adults may continue to increase, such an increase is not without end. Just as Americans have been reducing their use of tobacco and alcohol during the past two decades, in spite of the widespread availability of these products, the rates of gambling excess will also begin to diminish as people learn of the potential personal and social risks associated with gambling. This has happened on two previous occasions, its likely to happen again.71 (NOTE: Language from the study: We can anticipate that, like the very slow adjustment people have made to the information about tobacco-related dangers, or the repeal of prohibition of beverage alcohol, the informal and formal social controls to provide protection against gambling problems will emerge slowly.72)

Research and Pre vention

Beyond prevalence rates for disordered gambling, the NGISC also looked at what steps are being taken in the research community to enhance understanding of disordered gambling. Christine Reilly, executive director of the National Center for Responsible Gaming (NCRG), which was established by the gaming industry in 1996 to fund research on disordered gambling, testified before the commission on how the NCRG has generated increased attention to gambling disorders throughout the addictions research field. In her testimony, she noted, One of the original objectives for the NCRG was to serve as a catalyst to encourage other funding sources to support disordered gambling research. We are very proud to have already achieved this objective with the recent announcement of the first-ever-funding initiative on pathological gambling by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NCRG played a role in this develNational Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Howard J. Shaffer, Atlantic City, N.J., site visit, Jan. 22, 1998, 4-5. 72 Howard J. Shaffer, et al., A Meta-analysis, 57-58.
71

26

Casino Gaming in America

American Gaming Association

opment by demonstrating the enormous potential of the field for not only understanding pathological gambling, but also for illuminating addictive disorders in general.73 According to other testimony, the NCRG is creating a field of problem gambling research that is earning the respect and participation of the scientific community across the globe. Testifying at the Atlantic City commission hearing, pioneer gambling researcher Rachel Volberg noted, Gambling researchershave been calling for some kind of effort to fund research for many years. The National Center is the first effort that weve seen, and I absolutely have to applaud the casino industry for coming up with that particular method, its a peer reviewed, scientifically sound way of getting research done.74

Tr e a t m e n t
The NGISC also heard testimony on a variety of treatment approaches for problem gamblers. However, Shaffer said to the NGISC in his testimony that any discussion of treatment for disordered gambling should reference this cautionary note: most gamblers with level two gambling-related problems do not experience a progression to level three states. Further, in addition to professional treatment, there are many different pathways out of disordered gambling. Gamblers Anonymous, perhaps, is best known, but natural recovery is certainly another pathway out of disordered gambling. Current research has not identified reliable methods for determining which gamblers will develop gambling disorders, or who will recover with or without treatment.75 Various experts in the study and/or treatment of addictive behaviors presented testimony to the NGISC. Among these were: John Eades, Ph.D., a treatment counselor from Winchester, Tenn.: As regards treatment, I concur with Henry James, the famed Harvard psychologist who said that permanent behavior change only comes from having a spiritual transformation. From 20 years of working with alcohol and drug addicted individuals and observing them over time, Ive found that those who had the healthiest recovery were those who returned to active participation in a church and firm belief in God. The gambling addict needs tools for living. In our society, these tools were forged on the anvil of Christianity. Honesty, service, simplicity, responsibility, self denial, perseverance, tolerance, reverence, faith, wisdom, and love of oneself, neighbor and God provides the necessary tools to build a new and healthy life for the gambling addict.76 Robert Ladouceur, a professor at Laval University in Quebec: [W]eve conducted a well controlled study where cognitive correction was the main component, paired with other different therapeutic ingredients. The methodology was pretty stringent. Results showed 85 percent success for the treated patients, and those who were in the control group, only 6 percent had any success.

73 74

National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Christine Reilly, Las Vegas site visit, Nov. 11, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Rachel Volberg, Atlantic City, N.J., site visit, Jan. 22, 1998. 75 National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Howard J. Shaffer, Atlantic City, N.J., site visit, Jan. 22, 1998, 5. 76 National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of John Eades, New Orleans site visit, Sept. 11, 1998, 24-25.
Casino Gaming in America American Gaming Association

27

Not only was the treatment effective but it was also efficient. The average total time for a patient was 16 hours.77 Reece Middleton, executive director of the Louisiana Association on Compulsive Gambling: We will open in northwest Louisiana a residential treatment center for compulsive gamblers unable to maintain abstinence in an outpatient setting. We will utilize a proven combination of group and individual therapies, education, nutrition and involvement in the 12-step recovery process. This we believe to be the most effective method of addressing the problem. Its patterned after the highly successful Brecksville VA programs designed by Dr. Custer, and Dr. Hunters program at Charter, Las Vegas.78

77 78

National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Robert Ladouceur, New Orleans site visit, Sept. 11, 1998, 31. National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Reece Middleton, New Orleans site visit, Sept. 11, 1998, 38-39.
Casino Gaming in America American Gaming Association

28

VI. RESPONSIBLE GAMING

Executive Summary
With commission research indicating the prevalence rate of disordered gambling in the United States is around 1 percent, state governments and individual casino companies have taken steps to address disordered gambling in casino facilities and communities where they operate. Both the industry and government have instituted policies pertaining to casino credit and usage of automated teller machines (ATMs) on the casino floor. In addition, each gaming jurisdiction has instituted comprehensive, effective voluntary and legislated responsible gaming programs tailored to specific gaming communities. Finally, the casino industry is responding to meet the challenge of instituting responsible gaming programs and practices at its individual properties. The following presents a record of testimony and reports submitted to the NGISC outlining these specific efforts and initiatives.

C r e d i t P r a c t i c e s , AT M U s a g e a n d R e l a t e d P o l i c i e s
Gaming opponents contend that liberal credit policies and the availability of ATMs within casinos are promoting gambling addictions and causing casino patrons to gamble excessively. The NGISC heard testimony from experts in the field on these issues and about industry and governmental policies pertaining to credit and the usage of ATMs. Below are excerpts from that testimony. Robert Faiss, chairman of the Administrative and Gaming Law Department at Lionel Sawyer & Collins: In 1997, Nevada casinos reported gross gaming revenue of approximately $7.5 billion. Credit play is estimated to account for approximately 5 percent to 15 percent of the total amount wagered at all Nevada casinos. Although my comments today are limited to Nevada, I should note that the issuance of credit by a casino is subject to regulatory control in each of the seven gaming states that authorize a casino to grant credit. Each state requires the casino to determine that the patron is worthy of the amount of credit granted. Casino credit is granted to a player at his or her specific request and only in the amount requested by the player, if such amount is warranted. Casinos do not publicly advertise the availability of credit to attract patrons. Nevada casinos are subject to strict regulations regarding the information they collect before they grant credit to a casino patron. Nevada Gaming Commission Regulation 6.120 requires a casino to document that it has received information from either a bona fide credit-reporting agency, a legal business that has extended credit to the patron, or a financial institution at which the patron maintains an account. Alternatively, the casino may grant credit to a patron if its own records or records at another casino indicate that the patron has established credit and that the patron has paid substantially all of the previous outstanding debt and there is a reasonable basis for granting the credit to the patron. Most casinos require additional information in order to satisfy themselves of the patrons creditworthiness as part of the casinos required internal control procedures. Internal controls are the measures adopted within a business to safeguard its assets, check the accuracy and reliability of its accounting data, promote operational efficiency and encourage adherence to prescribed managerial policies. While each Nevada casino is free to adopt its own internal control system, these systems must be approved by the Gaming Control Board as meeting minimum standards. The casinos submitted system is continually evaluated by the regulators and by the casinos independent accountants who must

Casino Gaming in America

American Gaming Association

29

report any deficiencies to the Gaming Control Board. Once a casino adopts an internal control system and submits the system to the Gaming Control Board, the casino is bound by regulation to follow it. The failure to comply with its internal control submission subjects the casino to disciplinary proceedings. The Nevada industry through its individual members and the Nevada Resort Association Task Force for Responsible Gaming has worked closely with Nevada Gaming authorities and the Nevada Council on Problem Gambling to support a Nevada gaming regulation that among other things, requires casinos to adopt a program allowing patrons to exclude themselves from receiving casino credit and check-cashing privileges. While Nevada casinos have always granted casino credit, Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) were only introduced in Nevada casinos during the late 1980s. The trend to use ATMs is not unique to Nevada casinos. In 1997, there were 180,000 ATMs in the United States, up from 139,000 in 1996. Various non-bank businesses specifically servicing the automated teller market are responsible for the majority of the growth. ATMs are offered by casinos as a convenience to their customers. As the average transaction at a casino property is less than $200, customers do not appear to be abusing that convenience. There is no way to identify whether the money was used to gamble and because gaming accounts for only about half of revenues in major Nevada resorts it is doubtful that all such advances were used for gaming. The presence of ATMs apparently has not caused visitors to overextend themselves. According to a review of figures from the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority and the State Gaming Control Board, the average Las Vegas visitor in 1997 spent less money per day than before the machines were introduced in casinos. Nevadas new regulation to address problem gambling also requires Nevada casinos to post signs on all ATMs and credit card advance machines identifying where patrons with gambling problems may turn for help. There are those who argue that gambling credit is driving casino patrons into bankruptcy. This argument is not supported by empirical, validly scientific studies. The Nevada experience in fact rebuts the argument that gaming credit is a major factor in bankruptcy filings. Las Vegas compares favorably to other cities in its bankruptcy filings for 1997, ranking 65th among metropolitan areas in bankruptcy filings per capita.79 I. Nelson Rose, professor of law at Whittier Law School: Casinos have been criticized for being too lenient in their granting of credit. This criticism may be justified on public policy grounds, if it is true that they are encouraging excessive gambling. But the small amount of uncollectable accounts show that, from a business and economic point of view, casinos are not too lax in their credit standards.80 Casino credit policy also was discussed in Casino Gaming In New Jersey: A Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission: New Jersey permits a system of restricted check cashing or counter check system whereby the casino operator is permitted to accept a check from a patron only if the check is drawn on a personal checking account that has been verified by the casino and the check is deposited for collection within

79 80

National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Robert Faiss, Las Vegas site visit, Nov. 11, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of I. Nelson Rose, Las Vegas site visit, Nov. 11, 1998.
Casino Gaming in America American Gaming Association

30

a specified time period after acceptance. A counter check is a multi-part form given to the patron by the casino and is made negotiable with the players bank information. A patron is permitted to redeem a counter check by purchasing it for cash or cash equivalent prior to its deposit by the casino licensee. Pursuant to credit rules adopted by the commission, a patron may not cash counter checks in excess of his or her previously established credit limit. A casino may not approve a credit limit until a thorough verification of the credit application submitted by the patron has been completed. Although the commission does not impose any absolute limit on the amount of credit that may be extended to an individual, the commissions rules do require that all patron credit limits be supported by information contained in the patrons credit file. The restricted counter check system has some deterrent value for compulsive gamblers by requiring a more careful, considered decision on whether to gamble beyond cash on hand in the verified bank account.81

Responsible Gaming Prog rams in Gaming Jur is dict ions

Each gaming jurisdiction has instituted comprehensive voluntary and legislated responsible gaming programs. The following reports submitted to the NGISC described programs in place in specific states:

Nevada The Nevada Gaming Commission requires restricted and non-restricted gaming licensees to establish programs that address problem gambling (Regulation 5.170). These programs must include the following elements:
Each licensee shall post or provide in conspicuous places or new gaming and cage areas and cash dispensing machines located in gaming areas written materials concerning the nature and symptoms of problem gambling and the toll-free telephone number of the National Council on Problem Gambling or a similar entity approved by the chairman of the board that provides information and referral services for problem gamblers. Each licensee shall implement procedures and training for all employees who directly interact with gaming patrons (work) in gaming areas. That training shall, at a minimum, consist of information concerning the nature and symptoms of problem gambling behavior and assisting patrons in obtaining information about problem gambling programs. Each licensee that engages in the issuance of credit, check cashing, or the direct mail marketing of gaming opportunities, shall implement a program containing the elements described below, as appropriate, that allows patrons to self-limit their access to the issuance of credit, check cashing, or direct mail marketing by the licensee. As appropriate, such programs shall contain, at a minimum, the following: a) The development of written materials for dissemination to patrons explaining the program. b)The development of written forms allowing patrons to participate in the program. c) Standards and procedures that allow a patron to be prohibited from access to check cashing, the issuance of credit, and participation in promotion of gaming opportunities. d)Standards and procedures that allow a patron to be removed from the licensees direct mailing and other direct marketing regarding gaming opportunities at that licensees location. e) Procedures and forms requiring the patron to notify a designated office of the licensee

81

New Jersey Casino Control Commission, A Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, 11.
American Gaming Association

Casino Gaming in America

31

within 10 days of the patrons receipt of any financial gaming privilege, material or promotion covered by the program. There is a curfew on the Las Vegas Strip and some adjoining streets for those under the age of 18 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. Friday, Saturday and legal holidays. Juveniles out during those times must be with their parents or guardians, or on their way to work. Anyone under the age of 18 must be off the public streets between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and also between 12 midnight and 5 a.m. Friday, Saturday, legal holidays and summer vacation. A Clark County ordinance provides that arcades throughout the county must keep minors under 18 out of arcades from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. weekdays and from midnight to 5 a.m. on weekends. It also requires that security guards be present in arcades and establishes guidelines for training the security guards on how to spot potential pedophiles and child stalkers.82

New Jersey Legislative Initiatives to Address Compulsive Gambling

The State Legislature, conscious of the issue of compulsive gambling, incorporated statutory provisions to address this important concern. The Casino Control Act includes advertising parameters and the allocation of revenues to compulsive gambling programs collected via fines and penalties. Any on-site advertising of casino or casino simulcasting operations must include the phrase Bet With Your Head Not Over It or some comparable language approved by the commission. All advertising that appears in print, or on a billboard or sign must contain the words If you or someone you know has a gambling problem and wants help, call 1-800-GAMBLER or some comparable language approved by the commission. In addition, the first $600,000 in fines collected by the commission each fiscal year are forwarded to the Department of Health. Of this amount, $500,000 is provided to the Council on Compulsive Gambling of New Jersey and $100,000 is allocated to compulsive gambling treatment programs in the state. Juvenile Gambling The Casino Control Act provides that: No person under the age at which a person is authorized to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages shall enter or wager in a licensed casino or simulcasting facility; provided, however, that such a person may enter a casino or simulcasting facility by way of passage to another room. Juveniles are allowed to cross the gaming floor provided that the casinos have in place a security plan to address the issue of underage gambling. Personnel who work on the floor in casinos have been trained in the identification of juveniles. Thousands of employees are now sensitive to this problem in addition to those security guards who roam the floor with juvenile identification as their sole function. In recent years, there has been an increase in the amount of resources dedicated to this area by the law enforcement agencies and a greater likelihood that a juvenile identified gambling will be taken into custody.83

82 83

Nevada Resort Association, Media Fact Book (Las Vegas: Nevada Resort Association, 1998). New Jersey Casino Control Commission, A Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, 30-31.
Casino Gaming in America American Gaming Association

32

Iowa In Iowa, the Department of Public Health administers a public education and treatment program funded with 0.3 percent of the gross lottery revenue and 0.3 percent of the adjusted gross receipts from the riverboat casinos and the racetracks. The Iowa Gambling Treatment Program provides education, referral and counseling services for persons affected by problem gambling behavior, while also disseminating problem gambling information to the public.
Specific elements of the program include assessments and counseling for individuals and families on an outpatient basis; a 24-hour telephone helpline, 1-800-BETS OFF, linking gamblers and concerned persons with provider agencies offering local counseling and educational programs; and a Web site (www.1800betsoff.org). The program also sponsors statewide educational sessions on problem gambling behavior, providing advice to counselors, clergy, human resources personnel, mental health clinicians, social workers, health care professionals and other interested parties. Using the Iowa Communications Network, gambling treatment experts and clinicians provide training and insight on problem gambling. To further disseminate these educational messages, the program engages in a variety of techniques. A resource library on problem gambling and a clearinghouse serve Iowans by distributing materials such as videotapes, brochures and curriculum guides. Public service announcements also are placed on television, radio, billboards, and in newspapers to address problem gambling and its effects on gamblers, family members and friends. The program is overseen by a gambling treatment advisory committee, which provides advice and guidance on strategies and direction. Thousands have contacted the program, which has responded to their need for services and information related to problem gambling behavior. Family members can also get help as well as gamblers who are affected. The program serves Iowans through its wide network of resources set up to handle the crises and challenges due to excessive behavior related to the many types of gambling activities available in Iowa. Gambling stakeholders, including the Iowa Lottery and the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission, cooperate with the program to address problem gambling behavior.84

Industr y Programs and Practices

The NGISC also heard testimony from those within the casino industry and others who work with the industry about how this sector is responding to meet the challenge of instituting responsible gaming programs and practices. Following are some excerpts from testimony that is representative of that heard by the commission: Tom Brosig, president and chief executive officer of Grand Casinos: Grand Casinos strives to be aggressive and innovative in responding to problem gambling issues. We are only one of many companies with a strong commitment to the subject before you. At Grand Casinos we have programs in place throughout our operations to help our employees recognize and respond to the signs of problem gambling. In addition, we are committed to public efforts to promote responsible gambling. Our company mission statement relative to this issue is as follows: At Grand Casinos we recognize that certain individuals may not be able to responsibly enjoy the entertainment product we offer; we
84

Iowa Gaming Association and Iowa Gambling Treatment Program, Uniform Standards for Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission Licensees to Use in Addressing Problem Gambling, prepared for the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission, 1999.

Casino Gaming in America

American Gaming Association

33

believe that it is our responsibility to be sensitive to our employees, customers, and host communities by proactively addressing problem gambling. At Grand Casinos we will: educate our employees and provide them with resources to help themselves and others; provide information and assistance to our customers; fund research and contribute to agencies that assess the prevalence and address the treatment of gambling disorders; participate in industry programs and initiatives at the national and community level to increase awareness and ensure that accurate information is placed in the public domain; and lastly, prevent underage gambling of all kinds. From our earliest beginnings, we knew that we didnt endorse an ideology of profit at any cost; we knew that we wanted to understand problem gambling behavior; we knew we wanted to expose our staff to the characteristics and attributes associated with problem gambling; we knew we wanted to educate our staff to the various stages of the disorder and determine what we as a company could do; we knew we wanted to do the responsible thing; what we didnt know was how to do the things we knew we should be doing. So we turned to the experts. I contacted Betty George, the executive director of the Minnesota Council on Compulsive Gambling. Initially, Betty was hesitant to get involved with a casino operator, perhaps believing, as many do, that our business was responsible and to blame for the condition that she treated. Despite her hesitancy, we began a relationship and developed a partnership which exists today. In 1992 we realized that even the experts didnt have the answers. We helped organize and fund the Minnesota Public Policy Think Tank, a conference inviting all the stakeholders in the issue of problem gambling from both the public and private sectors. This was a watershed event and resulted in a roadmap for the State of Minnesota in addressing the issue of problem gambling. In Mississippi, we again helped organize and fund a similar think tank sponsored by the governors office. The results of this think tank also shaped public policy in Mississippi, and along with other critical planning initiatives, enabled the Mississippi Council on Compulsive Gambling to be founded and funded. Both Minnesota and Mississippi think tanks focused on a need to concentrate efforts toward prevention of youth gambling addiction. Our active participation in this process continued with the work at the national level as Grand helped organize and fund the North American Think Tank on Youth Gambling Issues held at Harvard University in 1995. At Grand Casinos, our programs focus on awareness and education. The experts have told us the best way to help someone with a gambling disorder is to make the resources and referrals of professional assistance available and easily accessible. Something as simple as providing a brochure which publicizes a helpline number, we have been told, can make a difference for someone when they are ready to seek help for their problem. We make sure the Compulsive Gambling Helpline phone number is displayed throughout our properties, both in the public access areas and in the staff and support areas; we print the helpline phone number on brochures and posters; we put it on our business cards, on Player cards, on ATM and credit card advance receipts, on credit card applications and correspondence, in hotel directories, and on the in-room videos played in our hotels. Weve also developed a public service announcement about problem gambling featuring the helpline phone number. This PSA has been requested and provided to more than a dozen state councils on compulsive gambling. Weve adopted a responsible gaming tag line: When you need to win, you need to quit which we print on our marketing collateral and include on our print and television advertising.

34

Casino Gaming in America

American Gaming Association

Experts have told us to educate our employees and help them recognize the signs of disordered gambling behavior. In concert with the Minnesota Council on Compulsive Gambling, we have developed two original training classes for employees. The first we call Red Flags and Referrals, and its objectives are to help our employees understand company policy related to problem gambling. All of our employees who work on or around the gaming floor either have or will participate in this training. The second training class is related to underage gambling. In every gaming jurisdiction, strict laws prohibit those under the legal age from participating in gambling activity; however, the law in and of itself is not enough to ensure that minors do not gamble. Training for our security staff and others begins with an understanding of why minors are at risk for developing gambling disorders. Our employees wear buttons with the message WE check IDs to provide a visible reminder to everyone that we will prevent underage gambling to the fullest extent possible. New employees are introduced to Grand Casinos policies and practices regarding problem gambling during their orientation. Finally, specialized training is provided for those managers who volunteer to take a role in intervening with those customers suspected of have a gambling disorder.85 Reece Middleton, executive director of the Louisiana Association on Compulsive Gambling: Ive worked with a number of casinos in training their employees in signs and symptoms of compulsive gambling and underage gambling; Ive worked with a number of casinos in setting up procedures and policies with regard to intervention officers of the day or intervention officers as a group or a category, senior supervisors, and so on. Its unusual for me to go a week without receiving more than one call from a senior casino executive about a customer that they have a concern about, and they refer those persons to our office for evaluation, assessment and referral into treatment. My experience, in working throughout the state of Louisiana, has been that the casino management is responsive to the request for self-banning, if you will. As a matter of fact, the way it came about that the self-banning law got more workable was at the request of a casino manager with whom I was meeting, and I just happened later that day to be meeting with the number two officer of the state police, and we mentioned this earlier conversation and he got us in touch with the director of the state police, and a system was established to make it easier and more workable and more convenient for a person to self-ban.86

85 National 86

Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Tom Brosig, New Orleans site visit, Sept. 11, 1998, 41-50. National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Testimony of Reece Middleton, New Orleans site visit, Sept. 11, 1998, 65.

Casino Gaming in America

American Gaming Association

35

VII. CONCLUSION
Before the NGISC, the relatively young casino-entertainment industry was studied primarily through the use of models and theories. With the industrys expansion beyond Nevada and New Jersey in the 1990s, this was no longer necessary. The models and theories of the past could now be evaluated through the prism of experiences these states have had with casino gaming in recent years. Independently derived statistical data from state and local governments across the country could now provide the actual, reliable, factual and unbiased results Rep. Frank Wolf sought to uncover when he outlined a work plan for the commission. The information compiled in Casino Gaming in America presents material the NGISC gathered through extensive testimony and thorough research. This report serves as a comprehensive reference tool detailing the impact of casino gaming on our nation and discusses responsibilities and activities in the area of responsible gaming.

Economic Impact
According to testimony and reports submitted to the NGISC, casino gaming has had a net positive impact in the communities where casinos operate. In established gaming jurisdictions such as Nevada and New Jersey, gaming has been a source of tremendous economic development, generating investment and employment opportunities. Testimony from officials in states such as Mississippi, Iowa, Louisiana and others revealed similarly favorable economic results from the introduction of gaming. In these areas, gaming has helped rebuild a lagging tourism industry and revitalized once-depressed communities, providing jobs and investment. Expert testimony and industry reports also helped refute claims by gambling opponents that casinos create a substitution effect, cannibalizing other entertainment businesses in a given community. To the contrary, several officials noted significant secondary new business growth in areas where casinos have been introduced, as well as the fact that tax revenues from casino properties have led to community improvement projects that have helped transform local gaming communities.

Social Impact
While opponents have purported that alleged social costs of gambling outweigh the economic benefits of introducing a casino, materials submitted to the NGISC indicated that, in reality, the casino gaming industry actually contributes significant social benefits to communities in which it operates. Submitted reports outlined specific instances where communities exhibited drops in welfare payments, unemployment rates and unemployment insurance after the introduction of a casino property. Testimony from specific jurisdictions also pointed to the positive social impacts of casino gaming, finding particular benefits for minorities and women, whose employment and business opportunities have increased in casino communities. Various officials also testified to the significant charitable contributions of individual casinos in their areas and noted that substantial neighborhood improvement projects had been made possible due to casino funds. The NGISC also heard from experts who refuted critics claims about alleged social costs of casino gaming. According to this testimony, the introduction of casino gaming into the community does not lead to an increase in crime or bankruptcy filings.

36

Casino Gaming in America

American Gaming Association

Regulation
Additional information presented to the NGISC revealed that the casino gaming industry is one of the most highly regulated industries in the United States. The industry is regulated by individual states, and public ownership of gaming-entertainment companies results in several additional levels of oversight from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as well as scrutiny from stockholders and the general public. This oversight makes the casino gaming industry one of the most transparent industries in the country.

Disordered Gambling and Responsible Gaming

Finally, the NGISC heard significant testimony and received several reports on the issue of disordered gambling. While opponents often put the number of people with gambling disorders at upwards of 11 percent of the population, expert testimony presented to the NGISC, as well as studies conducted on the commissions behalf, revealed the actual prevalence rate to be closer to 1 percent. In addition to an in-depth discussion of prevalence, experts presented information on current research and prevention efforts, including successful efforts by the industry-funded National Center for Responsible Gaming (NCRG) to create a field of gambling research that is earning the respect and participation of the global scientific community. Testimony also indicated that there have been several promising advances in problem gambling treatment strategies. Finally, testimony was presented indicating that both the casino gaming industry and individual gaming states have made significant progress in developing effective programs to promote responsible gaming among employees and patrons.

The information gathered by the NGISC through research and witness testimony demonstrated that the casino industry is a highly regulated, responsible business sector that benefits a broad cross-section of Americans.

Casino Gaming in America

American Gaming Association

37

VIII. REFERENCES
Arthur Andersen. Economic Impacts of Casino Gaming in the United States, Volume 2: Micro Study. Washington, D.C.: American Gaming Association, 1997. Belletire, Mike, Frank Catania, Steve DuCharme, Mel Fisher, Chuck Patton, George Turner and Dennis Neilander. NGISC Paper on Regulation, prepared for the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, 1999. Bureau of Economic Research. Limitations in the Workplace: A Survey & Study of Atlantic City Casinos, report to the New Jersey Casino Control Commission. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University, 1998. Casino Association of Indiana. Growing with Indiana, 1998 Positive Impact Report. Indianapolis, Ind.: Casino Association of Indiana, 1998. Coalition of Midwestern Riverboats. Overview of Midwestern Gaming, press materials distributed at National Gambling Impact Study Commission meeting. Chicago: Coalition of Midwestern Riverboats, 1998. Harrison County Development Commission. The Mississippi Miracle: How The State With The Worst Odds Ended Up With The Winning Hand. Gulfport, Miss.: Harrison County Development Commission, 1998. Holl, Wendy. Letter to U.S. Rep. Frank A. LoBiondo, Jan. 20, 1998. Iowa Gaming Association and Iowa Gambling Treatment Program. Uniform Standards for Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission Licensees to Use in Addressing Problem Gambling, prepared for the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission, 1999. Leven, Charles and Don Phares. The Economic Impact of Gaming in Missouri. St. Louis: Civic Progress, 1998. Margolis, Jeremy. Casinos and Crime: An Analysis of the Evidence. Washington, D.C.: American Gaming Association, 1997. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Michael Belletire, Chicago site visit, May 20, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Tom Brosig, New Orleans site visit, Sept. 11, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of U.S. Sen. Richard Bryan, Washington, D.C., meeting, Aug. 19, 1997. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Rudy Cerone, New Orleans site visit, Sept. 11, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Remarks of Chairwoman Kay Coles James, Washington, D.C., meeting, Aug. 19, 1997. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Kim Dolan, Washington, D.C., meeting, Aug. 20, 1997. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of John Eades, Las Vegas site visit, Sept. 11, 1998.

38

Casino Gaming in America

American Gaming Association

National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Washington, D.C., meeting, Aug. 19, 1997. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Robert Faiss, Las Vegas site visit, Nov. 11, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Bay St. Louis, Miss., Mayor Eddy Favre, Biloxi, Miss., site visit, Sept. 10, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Redenia Gilliam-Mosee, Washington, D.C., meeting, Aug. 20, 1997. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Reno, Nev., Mayor Jeff Griffin, Virginia Beach, Va., meeting, Feb. 8, 1999. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Biloxi, Miss., Mayor A.J. Holloway, Biloxi, Miss., site visit, Sept. 10, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Jimmy Heidel, Biloxi, Miss., site visit, Sept. 10, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Bettendorf, Iowa, Mayor Ann Hutchinson, Chicago site visit, May 20, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Stephen Karaisz, Jr., Washington, D.C., meeting, Aug. 20, 1997. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Elgin, Ill., Mayor Kevin Keely, Chicago site visit, May 20, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Robert Ladouceur, New Orleans site visit, Sept. 11, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of New Jersey state legislator Kenneth LeFevre, Atlantic City, N.J., site visit, Jan. 21, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Reece Middleton, New Orleans site visit, Sept. 11, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Kenneth Murphree, Biloxi, Miss., site visit, Sept. 10, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, Las Vegas site visit, Nov. 10, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Christine Reilly, Las Vegas site visit, Nov. 11, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Indiana state Sen. Earline Rogers, Chicago site visit, May 20, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Adam Rose, New Orleans site visit, Sept. 11, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of I. Nelson Rose, Las Vegas site visit, Nov. 11, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Alton, Ill., Mayor Donald Sandridge, Chicago site visit, May 20, 1998.
Casino Gaming in America American Gaming Association

39

National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Howard J. Shaffer, Atlantic City, N.J., site visit, Jan. 22, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Gulfport, Miss., Mayor Bob Short, Biloxi, Miss., site visit, Sept. 10, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Tom Thanas, Chicago site visit, May 20, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of U.S. Sen. Robert Torricelli, Atlantic City, N.J., site visit, Jan. 21, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Peter Verniero, Atlantic City, N.J., site visit, Jan. 21, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Rachel Volberg, Atlantic City, N.J., site visit, Jan. 22, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Bob Waterbury, Biloxi, Miss., site visit, Sept. 10, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of Tunica, Miss., Mayor Bobby Williams, Biloxi, Miss., site visit, Sept. 10, 1998. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Testimony of U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, Washington, D.C., meeting, June 20, 1997. National Opinion Research Center. Gambling Impact and Behavior Study, prepared for the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1999. National Research Council. Pathological Gambling A Critical Review. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999. Nevada Commission on Tourism. Gaming. Made In Nevada: Creating Pride, Opportunity and Hope in the Silver State. Carson City, Nev.: Nevada Commission on Tourism, 1998. Nevada Resort Association. Media Fact Book. Las Vegas: Nevada Resort Association, 1998. New Jersey Casino Control Commission (NJCCC). Casino Gambling in New Jersey: A Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Atlantic City, N.J.: New Jersey Casino Control Commission, 1998. Regional Economics Applications Laboratory (REAL). The Impact of Riverboat Casino Gambling on the Illinois Economy 1995, Urbana, Ill: University of Illinois, 1998. Reuter, Peter. The Impact of Casinos on Crime and Other Social Problems: An Analysis of Recent Experiences. Baltimore: Greater Baltimore Committee, 1997. Shaffer, Howard J., Matthew N. Hall and Joni Vander Bilt. Estimating the Prevalence of Disordered Gambling Behavior in the United States and Canada: A Meta-analysis. Boston: President and Fellows of Harvard College, 1997.

Casino Gaming in America

American Gaming Association

40