Upload
scot-bradley
View
215
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Policy Research Shop
Social Impacts of Gambling in the United States
Boyd LeverDavid Lumbert II
Anya Perret
Policy Research Shop
OutlineI. Research Methodology II. Summary of Findings
A. Structural assessment – structures varyB. Regulatory bodies, legislatures and health departments lack
coordinated tracking of social costs. Cannot say whether legalization causes social
harm– sufficient research does not exist. C. States with legalized gambling have programs, administered in
various ways, to address pathological gambling and allocate revenue.
D. Academic literature is inconclusive on social costs.
IV. Recommendations
Policy Research Shop
Research Methodology: Contacts
• Regulatory bodies (gaming commissions) in the 34 states with legalized casino gambling
• Committees with jurisdiction/leadership offices/legislative affairs offices in those states' legislatures
• Health departments/Mental Health Divisions/some nonprofit organizations
Policy Research Shop
Research Methodology: Inquiries• Commissions: Who in their state had jurisdiction
over social impacts of gaming and if they had any relevant information on social impacts, such as crime rates or increases in pathological gambling
• Legislatures: Asked if they had examined or held hearings on the social impacts of gaming since legalization
• Public Health: Attempted to connect with state health programs addressing or with jurisdiction over problem gambling, and asked if they tracked changes since legalization.
Policy Research Shop
Findings: Regulation• Of the 34 states studied, the structure of regulatory
bodies varies significantly:– 23 formed commissions, committees, and/or boards– 6 states have created departments or sanctioned
specialized divisions within pre-existing departments– 2 states expanded the authority of the pre-existing lottery
commissions
• State legislatures, after voting to pass legalization, do not tend to maintain oversight on social costs.
Policy Research Shop
Findings: Regulatory Bodies
Number of states with a regulatory body
Reports produced by regulatory bodies on social costs
34 (all) 1
• The duties of the regulatory body, independent of structure and location, consistently include adopting administrative rules, providing licenses to operators, and enforcing gambling laws.
Policy Research Shop
Findings: Legislative Oversight• Legislatures do not
usually form committees dedicated to gaming, and those that do usually pass regulations and monitor revenues.
• Commerce, legal affairs committees often have oversight.
Legislatures with committees dedicated to gaming
Number of hearings held that addressed social costs
8 5
Policy Research Shop
Findings: Problem Gambling Funding• None of the regulatory bodies have been mandated
and/or provided designated funding to research potential social costs in depth.
• Despite a lack of state-funded research, states with some form of legalized gambling acknowledge the need for problem gambling services.
• States that provide problem gambling services vis-à-vis health departments allocated between 0.25% and 2.0% of the annual revenue collected from gambling activities.
Policy Research Shop
Support for Problem GamblingNumber of states with health department administered programs to address problem gambling
Reports on social costs that have resulted in problem gambling
State level departments and/or divisions dedicated to gaming and/or problem gambling
Reports produced reports on social costs by those departments
States with a nonprofit "Council on Problem Gambling" that provides services and advocacy
19 5 3 1 30 (out of 34 studied)
Policy Research Shop
Findings: Academic• Academic studies have varying and contradictory
results regarding the potential crime-gambling relationship.
• Some studies suggest that social costs, such as an increase in crime, are concentrated within a 50-mile radius of a casino.
• Once gambling is legalized or expanded, it is rarely repealed and has not been repealed legislatively.
Policy Research Shop
Recommendations• If gambling is legalized, New Hampshire should
decide how to address potential social impacts. If the state is committed to monitoring social costs, this commitment must be mandated and resources need to be provided for the mandate.
• The legislature needs to decide if it will be involved, and if so, needs to make a commitment to oversight.
Policy Research Shop
Recommendations• The state must ask itself if there is adequate
infrastructure to help problem gamblers, and if not, what mechanism will be implemented to address the need for remedial services.
• Approximately 2% of revenues generated will be necessary to address the need for problem gambling services adequately.
Policy Research Shop
Recommendations
• The state may benefit from systematic data collection and long term analysis of the social impacts of gambling.
• Most states with legalized gambling have a local chapter of the non-governmental National Coalition on Problem Gambling. New Hampshire should consider creating a chapter.