Monitoring Gambling Impacts and Preventing Gambling Harm in

Massachusetts

Rachel A. Volberg11th European Conference on Gambling Studies &Policy Issues

September 14-16, 2016

Funding Declaration & Acknowledgements

• This study was funded by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission

• Many thanks to the members of the SEIGMA research team

BACKGROUND

2011 Expanded Gaming Act

• Allows for resort style casinos in three geographically diverse regions

• No more than one casino in each region

• Allows for one slots parlor statewide (not geographically restricted)

Features of the Expanded Gaming Act

•Regulators required to give equal importance to –establishing a viable casino industry

–minimizing and mitigating negative impacts

•Host communities given a strong voice

•PG issue framed explicitly through a public health lens

•Central role of research to enhance responsible gambling and minimize problem gambling

• Funds to conduct research and provide services to problem gamblers and their families ensured

MGC Research Agenda

• MGC launched its research agenda in 2012

• Components currently include:

– Impact study (SEIGMA)

– Cohort study (MAGIC)

– Crime component

– Evaluation of RG activities (RGICs, SE, play mgmt)

– Strategic plan for PG services

SEIG

MA

Ove

rvie

w

SEIGMA’s Topic Areas

Social & Health Impacts

• General population surveys

• Targeted population surveys

• Online panel surveys

• Secondary data collection

Economic & Fiscal Impacts

• REMI modeling using primary & secondary data

• Community comparison analysis

• Profiles of host communities

• Real estate data analysis

Problem Gambling Services Evaluation

• General population surveys

• Online panel surveys

• Online focus groups

• Secondary data collection

Cohort Study (MAGIC)

• Focus on incidence & etiology

• Launch delayed due to repeal referendum

• Wave 1 = Baseline Population Survey

• Stratified sample drawn based on risk profile

• Wave 2 launched March 2015– Achieved sample = 3139

• Wave 3 expanded quex developed

• Wave 3 launched in March 2016– Achieved sample = 2455

Additional Components of MGC Research Agenda

• MGC crime analyst obtains quarterly updates on police incident reports from host & surrounding communities

• Intended to provide real time data for timely deployment of local police resources

• Higher-geography data will be analyzed for SEIGMA

• Voluntary self-exclusion

• Responsible Gambling Information Centers in gaming venues

• Play management system to be offered to all loyalty card customers

• Evaluation contracted to Cambridge Health Alliance, Division on Addictions

Crime Evaluation of RG Efforts

BASELINE GENERAL POPULATION SURVEY

Social & Health Impacts Analysis

Bas

elin

e P

op

ula

tio

n S

urv

ey M

eth

od

s

Survey Methodology

• Sample drawn from a list of addresses

• Respondents could complete online, on paper, or by telephone

• Data collected from Sept. 2013 – May 2014

• Sample size of ~10,000

Gam

bli

ng

Att

itu

des

Impact of Gambling Expansion on State

13.1%

27.4%

20%

31.1%

8.3%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Very Harmful SomewhatHarmful

Equal harm orbenefit

SomewhatBeneficial

Very Beneficial

Pe

rce

nt

Perceived impact of gambling in Massachusetts

Gam

bli

ng

Par

tici

pat

ion

Past-year Gambling Participation

72%

59%

32%

22%

13%

12%

3%

3%

2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Overall

All lottery

Raffles

Casino

Sports betting

Private wagering

Horse racing

Bingo

Online

Percent

Gambling participation by activity

Gam

bli

ng

Par

tici

pat

ion

Past-year Gambling Participation by Gender, Age, and Race/Ethnicity

76%

69%

57%

71%77%

69%64%

68%

76%

51%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Male Female 18-24 25-34 35-64 65+ Hispanic Black White Asian

Gender Age Race/Ethnicity

Pe

rce

nt

Gambling by gender, age and race/ethnicity

Gam

bli

ng

Par

tici

pat

ion

Past-year Casino Participation by Gender, Age, and Race/Ethnicity

24%19%

16%

29%

21% 18% 16%

23% 23%18%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Male Female 18-24 25-34 35-64 65+ Hispanic Black White Asian

Gender Age Race/Ethnicity

Pe

rce

nt

Casino participation by gender, age and race/ethnicity

Gam

bli

ng

Par

tici

pat

ion

States Most Visited for Casino Gambling

64,6%

10,2%

9,1%

1,9%

1,9%12,3%

States most visited for casino gambling

Connecticut

Rhode Island

Nevada

New Jersey

New York

Other

Pro

ble

m G

amb

lin

g

Problem Gambling Prevalence

27,5%

63,4%

7,5%

1.7%

Problem gambling prevalence

Non gambler

Recreational gambler

At-risk gambler

Problem gambler

Pro

ble

m G

amb

lin

g

Problem Gambling Status by Gender, Race/Ethnicity, & Education

2,7%

0,7%

5,8%

1,4%

3,7%

1,8%

1,3%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

Male Female Hispanic* Black White Asian* HS orGED

Somecollege

BA MS+*

Gender Race/Ethnicity Education

Pe

rce

nt

Problem gambling by gender, race/ethnicity and education

Pro

ble

m G

amb

lin

g

Problem Gambling Prevalence by Type of Gambling

0 5 10 15 20

All gambling

Raffles

All lottery

Traditional games

Instant games

Casino

Private wagering

Sports betting

Daily games

Horse racing

Online

Percent

Problem gambling prevalence by type of gambling

Problem gambling

STRATEGIC PLAN FOR PROBLEM GAMBLING SERVICES

Overview

Pro

ble

m G

amb

lin

g S

erv

ices

Eva

luat

ion

Strategic Plan for Prevention and Treatment

• In 2014, MA DPH contracted with Education Development Center’s (EDC) Massachusetts Technical Partnership for Prevention to develop a strategic plan for problem gambling services in MA

• The resulting strategic plan:– Provides an overview of existing PG-related services in

MA – Incorporates key findings identified in a SEIGMA white

paper– Provides recommendations for how best to utilize

available funds

Pro

ble

m G

amb

lin

g S

erv

ices

Eva

luat

ion

SEIGMA Research Activities in Support of Strategic Plan

• SEIGMA survey data

– Baseline Population Survey

– Online Panel Survey

• MCCG Problem Gambling Helpline data

• Online focus group with treatment providers

Pro

ble

m G

amb

lin

g S

erv

ices

Eva

luat

ion

Awareness of Media Campaigns & Programs

Pro

ble

m G

amb

lin

g S

erv

ices

Eva

luat

ion

Mass Council Helpline Data

Pro

ble

m G

amb

lin

g S

erv

ices

Eva

luat

ion

Mass Council Website Data

Pro

ble

m G

amb

lin

g S

erv

ices

Eva

luat

ion

Analysis of MCCG Helpline Data Summary of Key Findings

• Majority of gambler callers were middle-aged men

• Majority of concerned others were women

• Most common reasons for seeking help were financial problems, emotional health issues, and relationship issues

• MCCG made ~900 referrals to state-run treatment centers

• MCCG also made ~2600 referrals to other sources

Pro

ble

m G

amb

lin

g S

erv

ices

Eva

luat

ion

Online Focus Group Summary of Key Findings

• Providers use a variety of screening tools in various different ways

• Providers set treatment goals and evaluate treatment outcomes in different ways

• Providers differ in their opinions regarding treatment goals and outcomes

• Providers have a number of unmet needs – Desire for skills-based clinical training opportunities

– Desire to be part of a community of practice

– Desire for clinical supervision and mentorship

– Greater ability to track/evaluate/improve client outcomes

– More outreach to raise awareness about available services

Pro

ble

m G

amb

lin

g S

erv

ices

Eva

luat

ion

Common Themes Identified

• Information about gambling behavior and problems in Massachusetts can be used to tailor prevention messages and target outreach efforts

• At-risk and problem gambling prevalence estimates and information about concerned others can be used to estimate treatment volume and plan for treatment-seekers

• Improved data collection regarding help- and treatment-seekers in the Commonwealth is needed

• Improved problem gambling service administration is needed—clinical supervision, best practices, standardized practices, evaluation, etc.

LOOKING AT THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Key Findings from the

SEIG

MA

Ove

rvie

w

Host Communities and Areas of Study

30

Eco

no

mic

& F

isca

l Im

pac

ts A

nal

yses

Real Estate Analysis

• Focus on baseline conditions in/around host communities

– Residential properties

• Sales, sale price, rents

– Commercial/industrial properties

• Inventory, net absorption, lease rates

– Analysis at multiple scales

• Host community, surrounding communities, immediate region, distance from casinos

Eco

no

mic

& F

isca

l Im

pac

ts A

nal

yses

Plainville Sales Trends

• Small market, dominated by SF home sales

• Upward trend, but highly variable

Eco

no

mic

& F

isca

l Im

pac

ts A

nal

yses

SF Home Sales “Hot Spots”Areas of Concentrated Single-family Home Sales, 2008 to 2014

Eco

no

mic

& F

isca

l Im

pac

ts A

nal

yses

Construction of PPC

• Collected construction data on Plainridge Park

• Finalizing report of construction spending and its impacts– This analysis will change slightly with the inclusion of

design and engineering.

• Developed data collection relationships with PMA, Pinck, MGC, MGM, and Plainridge Park

Eco

no

mic

& F

isca

l Im

pac

ts A

nal

yses

Plainridge Park Project Background

• Property includes four main structures

– Racetrack, grandstand and simulcast building, casino, parking garage

• The track carried over, the grandstand was remodeled, and the casino and parking garage are new

• Construction took approximately 14 months and cost $115 million

Eco

no

mic

& F

isca

l Im

pac

ts A

nal

yses

Spending by Quarter

$7,2$10,8

$18,4

$31,6

$20,6$3,2

$4,9

$9,5

$4,4

$4,8

$10,4

$15,6

$27,9

$36,0

$25,4

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015

Spen

din

g (M

illio

ns

of

$)

Casino Garage

Eco

no

mic

& F

isca

l Im

pac

ts A

nal

yses

Share of Construction Spending

MA85%

NH2%

CT0%

RI2%

Other11%

Eco

no

mic

& F

isca

l Im

pac

ts A

nal

yses

Total Quarterly Workers and Wages

74

726

998

415

$1,1

$7,4

$9,7

$3,3

$0,0

$2,0

$4,0

$6,0

$8,0

$10,0

$12,0

0

200

400

600

800

1.000

1.200

Plainville andSurroundingCommunities

Rest of Bristoland Norfolk

Counties

Rest of State Outside of MA

Total Q

uarterly W

ages (Millio

ns)

Tota

l Qu

arte

rly

Wo

rker

s

Total Employment Total Wages

Eco

no

mic

& F

isca

l Im

pac

ts A

nal

yses

Total Employment Impacts by Region

Total Employment (Job-Years) 2014 2015Bristol and Norfolk Counties 400 355

Rest of Southeastern MA 53 61

Boston Metro 102 102

Rest of Central MA 18 20

Lower Pioneer Valley 2 2

Rest of Western MA 0 0

Total 576 540

Eco

no

mic

& F

isca

l Im

pac

ts A

nal

yses

Weekly Lottery Outlet Data

• MA Lottery is providing sales data by outletand by game

– Reports on weekly sales for 8,028 outlets

• Outlet specific data is unique opportunity and big advantage

• Allows analysis of lottery sales by community, by driving time and/or distance from casino, and by game

Eco

no

mic

& F

isca

l Im

pac

ts A

nal

yses

Percent Change in Lottery Sales by CityJun-Dec 2015 vs Jun-Dec 2014

Barnstable

Bourne

Brewster

Chatham

Dennis

Eastham

Falmouth

Harwich

Mashpee

Orleans

Provincetown

Sandwich

Truro

Wellfleet

Yarmouth

Adams

Alford

Becket

Cheshire

Clarksburg

Dalton

Egremont

Florida

Great Barrin

Hancock

Hinsdale

Lanesborough

Lee

Lenox

Monterey

Mount Washin

New Ashford

New Marlboro

North Adams

Otis

Peru

Pittsfield

Richmond

Sandisfield

Savoy

Sheffield

Stockbridge

Tyringham

Washington

West Stockbr

Williamstown

Windsor

Acushnet

Attleboro

Berkley

Dartmouth

Dighton

Easton

Fairhaven

Fall River

Freetown

Mansfield

New Bedford

North AttlebNorton

Raynham

RehobothSeekonk

SomersetSwansea

Taunton

Westport

Aquinnah

Chilmark

Edgartown

Gosnold

Oak Bluffs

Tisbury

West Tisbury

Amesbury

Andover

Beverly

Boxford

Danvers

Essex

Georgetown

Gloucester

Groveland

Hamilton

Haverhill

Ipswich

Lawrence

Lynn

Lynnfield

Manchester

Marblehead

Merrimac

Methuen

Middleton

Nahant

Newbury

Newburyport

North Andove

Peabody

Rockport

Rowley

Salem

Salisbury

SaugusSwampscott

Topsfield

Wenham

West Newbury

Ashfield

Bernardston

Buckland

Charlemont

Colrain

Conway

Deerfield

Erving

Gill

Greenfield

Hawley

Heath

Leverett

Leyden

Monroe

Montague

New Salem

Northfield

Orange

Rowe

Shelburne

ShutesburySunderland

Warwick

Wendell

Whately

Agawam

Blandford

Brimfield

Chester

Chicopee

East Longmea

Granville

HampdenHolland

Holyoke

Longmeadow

Ludlow

Monson

Montgomery

Palmer

Russell

Southwick

Springfield

Tolland

Wales

Westfield

West Springf Wilbraham

Amherst

Belchertown

Chesterfield

Cummington

Easthampton

Goshen

Granby

Hadley

Hatfield

Huntington

Middlefield

Northampton

Pelham

Plainfield

Southampton

South Hadley

Ware

Westhampton

WilliamsburgWorthington

Acton

Arlington

Ashby

Ashland

Ayer

Bedford

Belmont

Billerica

Boxborough

Burlington

Cambridge

Carlisle

Chelmsford

Concord

DracutDunstable

Everett

Framingham

Groton

Holliston

Hopkinton

Hudson

Lexington

Lincoln

Littleton

Lowell

Malden

Marlborough

Maynard Medford

Melrose

Natick

Newton

North Readin

Pepperell

Reading

Sherborn

Shirley

Somerville

Stoneham

Stow

Sudbury

Tewksbury

Townsend Tyngsborough

Wakefield

Waltham

WatertownWayland

Westford

Weston

Wilmington

Winchester

Woburn

Nantucket

Avon

Bellingham

Braintree

Brookline

Canton

CohassetDedham

Dover

Foxborough

Franklin

Holbrook

Medfield

Medway

Millis

Milton

Needham

Norfolk

Norwood

Plainville

Quincy

Randolph

SharonStoughton

Walpole

Wellesley

Westwood

Weymouth

Wrentham

Abington

Bridgewater

Brockton

Carver

DuxburyEast Bridgew

Halifax

Hanover

Hanson

Hingham

Hull

Kingston

Lakeville

Marion

Marshfield

Mattapoisett

Middleboroug

Norwell

Pembroke

Plymouth

Plympton

Rochester

Rockland

Scituate

Wareham

West Bridgew

Whitman

Boston

Chelsea

Revere

Winthrop

Ashburnham

Athol

Auburn

Barre

Berlin

Blackstone

Bolton

Boylston

Brookfield

Charlton

Clinton

DouglasDudley

East Brookfi

FitchburgGardner

Grafton

Hardwick

Harvard

Holden

Hopedale

Hubbardston Lancaster

Leicester

Leominster

Lunenburg

Mendon

Milford

Millbury

Millville

New Braintre Northborough

Northbridge

North Brookf

Oakham

Oxford

Paxton

Petersham

Phillipston

Princeton

Royalston

Rutland

Shrewsbury

Southborough

Southbridge

Spencer

Sterling

Sturbridge

Sutton

Templeton

Upton

Uxbridge

Warren

Webster

Westborough

West Boylsto

West Brookfi

Westminster

Winchendon

Worcester

(10,700](6,10](4,6](2,4](0,2](-2,0](-5,-2][-70,-5]No data

Eco

no

mic

& F

isca

l Im

pac

ts A

nal

yses

Percent Change by City w/in 30 minute Drive

of Plainridge ParkJun-Dec 2015 vs Jun-Dec 2014

Attleboro

Berkley

Easton

Mansfield

North Attleb

Norton

Raynham

Rehoboth

Seekonk

Taunton

Holliston

Hopkinton

Bellingham

Canton

Dedham

Foxborough

Franklin

Medfield

Medway

Millis

Norfolk

Norwood

Plainville

Sharon

Stoughton

Walpole

Westwood

Wrentham

Bridgewater

Lakeville

Middleboroug

West Bridgew

Blackstone

Hopedale

Mendon

Milford

Millville

Southborough

Upton

Westborough

(10,40](6,10](4,6](2,4](0,2](-2,0](-5,-2][-14,-5]

CONCLUSION

Lessons We Have Learned

• Developing & maintaining relationships is vital

• Regular communication is essential

• Collaboration needed to effectively assess & address gambling impacts

– But requires extensive resources of time & good will

• Challenges in balancing feedback & best practices

Thank you!

For more information, visit:

www.umass.edu/seigma