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.