Casino Self-exclusion Programmes: A Review of the Issues

Nadine Nowatzki and Robert Williams

Alberta Gaming Research Institute

University of Lethbridge

Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada

Casino Self-exclusion Outline

Prototypical model

Overview of self-exclusion in Canada

Effectiveness of self-exclusion

Recommendations on how to improve it

The Prototypical ProgrammePamphlets and/or website explain programme

Individuals can sign up at casinos Fill out application and have photo taken Are advised that help is available

May apply to all casinos in jurisdiction, does not apply to other gambling venues

Names and photographs of individuals are distributed to casinos in jurisdiction

Prototypical Programme, Cont’d

Individuals removed from mailing lists

Casinos refer to list before issuing player cards,

cashing cheques, paying jackpots, etc

Usually irrevocable, requirements for re-entry vary

Self-exclusion enforced by security personnel

Violation of contract may result in trespass charge

Many casinos also have involuntary exclusion lists

CanadaProvince/

# of casinos

Date imple-mented

Length of ban/Revocable

Penalty for breach

# of current

exclusions British Columbia 19

1999 6 months to lifetime, yes

None 741

Alberta 16

2000 6 months to

3 years, no

Trespassing charge

661 total

Saskatchewan 7

1997 Up to 5

years, yes

Trespassing charge

394 total*

Manitoba 2

1989 – 1993 2 years,

No

Trespassing charge

390

545 total Ontario 8

1994 – 1999 6 months to

indefinite, yesTrespassing charge & fine

>2000 total

Quebec 3

1993 – 1996 6 months to

5 years, no

None 3,331

Nova Scotia 2

1995 Indefinite, yes None 826 total

Effectiveness of Casino Self-exclusion

Requires person to admit to problemNo way of knowing how many individuals re-enter casino during time of exclusion Does not apply to other forms of legal/illegal gambling Ladouceur et al (2000)- 30% of participants completely stopped gambling once excludedNetherlands- 40% of problem gamblers were reached by Holland casino prevention policyOverall utilisation rates in Canada are between .4% and 1.5% for problem gamblers

Recommendation #1: Mandatory Promotion

Promotion in many venues is not visible,

and where present is promoted indirectly

Previous studies indicate that many

people are not aware of its existence

Some casinos do not take requests for

self-exclusion seriously

Recommendation # 2: Irrevocable Contracts, Minimum

Ban Length of 5 YearsSelf-exclusion has little value if

individuals can revoke contract

Substance abuse literature supports

longer periods to prevent relapse

Evidence that patrons prefer longer,

irrevocable contracts

Recommendation # 3: Jurisdictional Standardisation and UniformityIn parts of Europe: self-exclusion applies to all casinos in the country

In Canada: province-wide (except Québec)

In parts of USA: each venue within a jurisdiction could have a unique list

Patrons should not have to enter casino to sign-up or renew self-exclusion

Recommendation # 4: Extend exclusion to all gaming venues;

restrict all gambling to gaming venues

Large amount of gambling takes place outside of casinos

Apply self-exclusion to other venues:

Bingo halls, racetracks, online gaming, etc

Remove electronic gaming machines from non-gaming venues

Recommendation # 5: Computerised Identification Checks

for Enforcing Self-exclusionWeakness of security: many self-excludees are easily able to enter venues Excludees often try to change their appearance As number of excludees increases, enforcement

becomes more difficult for security staff

Holland casino: mandatory identification and registration in computerised database results in instant detection

Recommendation # 6: Penalties for Both Venue and Gambler

Upon BreachGamblers should face penalty: must take

responsibility for actions. Trespass charge provides deterrent

Venues should face financial penalty to ensure

compliance

With computerised registration, this issue is

irrelevant

Recommendation # 7: Optional Counselling & Mandatory

Gambling Education Seminar

Mandatory counselling may not work self-motivation and willingness to

participate are important in recovery

Responsible gambling awareness

seminar (as in Manitoba): review of past gambling history, info on how

gambling works, plan for returning to gamble

Recommendation # 8: Increased Training & Education of Employees

To recognize and approach problem gamblers Easier to treat problems at earlier stages

The Netherlands: computerised registration monitors visiting frequency of guests, provides notification upon increases Staff approach guest upon sudden increase Self-exclusion or visit limitation may be recommended Many problem gamblers do not believe they have a

problem- important to be proactive

ConclusionsSelf-exclusion has the potential to be an effective tool for assisting problem gamblers

Existing programmes a step in the right direction but need to be improved

‘Philosophy’ behind responsible gaming different in North America

More research is needed on these programs

Holland Casino: successful prevention of problem gambling not an obstacle to profit