c hapter 7. g ambling s impacts on p eople and laces · gambling’s impacts on people and places...

Gambling’s Impacts on People and Places Page 7-1

CHAPTER 7. GAMBLING’SIMPACTS ON PEOPLE AND

PLACES

“Gambling is inevitable. No matter whatis said or done by advocates oropponents in all its various forms, it is anactivity that is practiced, or tacitlyendorsed, by a substantial majority ofAmericans.”

1

Even the members of the previous federal studywould be astounded at the exponential growth ofgambling, in its availability, forms and dollarswagered, in the 23 years since they chose thewords above to begin their work. Today, thevarious components of legalized gambling havean impactin many cases, a significant oneonnumerous communities and almost every citizenin this nation. The principal task of thisCommission was to examine the “social andeconomic impacts of gambling on individuals,families, businesses, social institutions, and theeconomy generally.”2

The numbers involved are staggering: “Morethan $50 billion spent on legal commercialgames in 1997”3 employing more than 600,000individuals.4 In 1976 only a few states allowedgambling; today, 47 states and the District ofColumbia permit some form of gambling.5 Whatis even more astonishing is how little is knownand has been studied regarding the social andeconomic impacts of this diverse industry uponour nation. Despite the growing magnitude of theindustry and the widespread involvement of asignificant portion of the population, there is apaucity of research in this field. Much of whatdoes exist is flawed because of insufficient data, 1Final Report, Commission on the Review of the National Policy

Toward Gambling, p. 1 (Washington: 1976).2

Sec. 4 (a) (P.L. 104-169).3E.M. Christiansen, “An Overview of Gambling in the United

States,” testimony before the National Gambling Impact StudyCommission, p. 2, Virginia Beach, VA (February 8, 1999).4Ibid., p.7.

5The exceptions are Utah, Hawaii, and Tennessee.

poor or undeveloped methodology, orresearchers’ biases.

It is evident to this Commission that there aresignificant benefits and significant costs to theplaces, namely, those communities whichembrace gambling and that many of the impacts,both positive and negative, of gambling spillover into the surrounding communities, whichoften have no say in the matter. In addition,those with compulsive gambling problems takesignificant costs with them to communitiesthroughout the nation. In an ideal environment,citizens and policy-makers consider all of therelevant data and information as part of theirdecisionmaking process. Unfortunately, the lackof quality research and the controversysurrounding this industry rarely enable citizensand policymakers to truly determine the netimpact of gambling in their communities, or, insome cases, their backyards.

Many communities, often those sufferingeconomic hardship and social problems, considergambling as a panacea to those ills. Indeed, anumber of communities plagued by highunemployment have found a form of economicrenewal through gambling, particularly throughthe development of “destination resorts.”6 Inaddition, state, local, and tribal governmentshave received substantial revenues from taxes ongambling enterprises and lottery receipts.However, there are costs associated with thesedecisions and gambling cannot be considered apanacea for all economic problems in acommunity.

To the economist John Kenneth Galbraith,“People are the common denominator ofprogress.” Economic progress can only bemeasured by its impact on individuals.Gambling’s impact on people represents an evenmore complicated and understudied area.Certainly, segments of the industry, especiallythe resort, hotel, and commercial casinos,provide jobs with good pay and benefits. Theshort and long-term social benefits of work,

6

For the purposes of this document, “destination resorts” can bedefined as “those tribal or commercial casinos that offerrestaurants, retail, recreation, entertainment, and/or hotels inaddition to a number and variety of gaming opportunities.”

National Gambling Impact Study Commission Report


health care, training and education areundeniable. Some have argued that qualityentertainment, in and of itself, is a social benefitto communities and individuals.7

Many witnesses before the Commission arguedforcefully that gambling has been a good deal forhard pressed families and communities. In fact, ifthat were the whole story, our task would havebeen easy. What has made it complex is the factthat along with the real benefits of gambling,come equally undeniable and significant costs.

This Commission heard testimony about thegrowing numbers of individuals suffering fromproblem and pathological gambling, which oftenresults in bankruptcy, crime, suicide, divorce, orabuse. While recent studies have attempted to“quantify” these costs to society, theCommission knows that no dollar amount canrepresent what a lost or impaired parent, spouseor child means to the rest of the family.Furthermore, many of these costs are hidden andit is difficult to quantify the emotional damageand its long-term impact on families and theirchildren. As NORC indicated in its report, “In anumber of respects the tangible impacts fromproblem gambling can be thought of asanalogous to the economic impacts of alcoholabuse. In both situations, inappropriate and/orexcess participation in a legal and widelypursued leisure activity can exact an undesirabletoll in individuals, family, friends, and thesurrounding community.” In reality, it is thesehidden coststhe emotional costs of addictivebehaviorthat concern us far more than theannual economic expense of problem andpathological gamblers.

We recognize that some policymakers and citizenshave struggled and continue to struggle with thesesometimes conflicting impacts. Attempting todetermine the appropriate course of action for theircommunities while considering the introduction,expansion, or restriction of gambling, is a difficulttask. The Commission should begin byacknowledging that, at this time and based uponavailable information, we do not have a definitive 7

David Ramsey Steele, “Gambling is Productive and Rational,”Legalized Gambling, For and Against, Evans and Hance, ed.

answer for all those and challenge anyone whosuggests otherwise. What the Commission doesoffer in this chapter is a process and factors toconsider in assessing the benefits and costs ofgambling and its implications for businesses andpeople.

DETERMINING THE IMPACT OFGAMBLING

As the Commission noted earlier, and as theCommission will explicate in other chapters, thegambling landscape is neither well-studied norwell-understood. Studies have often beengenerally parochial, limited, and fragmentary. Todetermine the impact of the various forms ofgambling, the Commission has held hearingsthroughout the country, heard testimony on anumber of relevant topics, reviewed thousands ofarticles and comments, and considered academicresearch. In addition, the Commission initiatednew research through a number of projects,including studies by the National OpinionResearch Center (NORC) and an analysis ofprofessional literature by the National ResearchCouncil (NRC).

The NRC project involved a review of allexisting and relevant studies by representativesof a variety of scientific fields. In the end, NRCrecommended that further study be initiated.Study of the benefits and costs of gambling “isstill in its infancy.”8 Lamenting past studies thatutilized “methods so inadequate as to invalidatetheir conclusions,” the absence of “systematicdata,” the substitution of “assumptions for themissing data,” the lack of testing of assumptions,“haphazard” applications of estimations in onestudy by another, the lack of clear identificationof the costs and benefits to be studied, and manyother problems, NRC concluded the situationdemands a “need for more objective andextensive analysis of the economic impact thatgambling has on the economy.”

In addition to these activities, the Commissioninvited input from a number of sources affected by

8National Research Council, “Pathological Gambling: A Critical

Review,” (April 1, 1999) at 5-18.



gambling, particularly governors and other tribal,state, and local officials in jurisdictions in whichsome form of gambling is legalized, as well asorganizations representing those affected bygambling. Regrettably, some segments of thegambling industry were not as forthcoming inresponding to information requests as were others.In particular, many of the Indian tribes involved inClass III gambling, as well as the National IndianGaming Commission, refused to provideinformation to this Commission.9 This is in starkcontrast to the assistance provided by manycommercial gambling companies, the pari-mutuelindustry, and state and local officials. TheCommission, taking into account the tribalsovereignty issue, thought it more appropriate forCongress to address this than to utilize theCommission’s limited resources for legal remediesand sought information from alternative sourceswherever appropriate.

In attempting to determine the impact of gamblingon people and places, the Commission offers anumber of caveats for policymakers to consider.

First, social and economic impacts are not aseasily severable as policymakers would like. Infact, this is considered a false dichotomy formost individuals other than economists.Employment, for instance, is both an economicand a social benefit. Likewise, crime is both aneconomic and social cost.

Secondly, as was noted in the overview to thischapter, it is extremely difficult to quantifysocial costs and benefits. Some economistssuggest distinguishing between a “private” costand benefit and a “social” cost and benefit. NRCalso notes the confusion of “transfer effects”from “real effects.” For instance, in an economicanalysis of transfer effects, bankruptcy would notbe considered to be a cost by economists becausethe dollars are merely transferred. Nor would acasino job necessarily be considered a truebenefit, since other jobs may be available. While 9In testimony before the Commission, Rick Hill, the Chairman of

the association which represents tribes operating gambling facilities,stated, “We don’t trust you to give you the information. It is thatclear. Every time we give our financials [information] to someone,someone has used it against us,” Virginia Beach, VA (February 9,1999).

this may be true to economists, we know thatbankruptcy is indeed a “cost” to the individualsand families involved, just as a good job is atremendous benefit to that family.

Just as only net economic and social benefitsshould be included on the positive side oflegalized gambling’s ledger, only net social andeconomic costs should be tallied on the negativeside. Determining net costs associated withpathological gambling, for example, requires anunderstanding of what researchers call “co-morbidity,” described as “the co-occurrence oftwo or more disorders in a single individual.”10

Reviews of the literature indicate that substanceuse disorders, mood disorders such asdepression, suicidal thoughts, antisocialpersonality disorder, and attention-deficithyperactivity disorder may often co-exist withpathological gambling.11 To the extent thatresearchers can isolate the effects of pathologicalgambling on, for example, marital stability, fromthe effects of co-existing conditions like drugabuse can researchers determine the net negativeeffects of pathological gambling on marriages.

This task is challenging. As the NRC explains,“Evaluating studies of conditions that co-occurwith pathological gambling requires carefulformulation of research questions, such as: Doesgambling precede the onset of other disorders?Do certain disorders exacerbate pathologicalgambling? Is there a pattern of symptomclustering? Is the severity of one disorder relatedto the other? And is a standard assessmentinstrument used to collect data for both gamblingand the comorbid condition? Very fewpathological gambling studies have addressedeven one of these questions.”12

Third, what society terms “the gamblingindustry” actually involves segments that arequite different from one another. Destinationcasino resorts bear little resemblance toconvenience gambling. The former provides

10

National Research Council, p. 4-13.11

Ibid, pp 4-14 to 4-21.12

Ibid, p. 4-15.



numerous jobs, restaurants, shopping andentertainment as well as a number of games in ahighly regulated setting, while the latter involvesa relatively small number and type of games,creates few or no jobs, is far less regulated andfails to create significant beneficial economicimpact.

When the public considers “gambling,” they tendto think principally of casino style settings. Infact, there are 10 states with commercial casinos,sixteen states with tribal casinos (23 states haveeither commercial or tribal casinos or both.)Some of these are mega-resorts that includehotels, retail, dining and entertainment. For themost part, companies involved in this form ofgambling are publicly traded and highlyregulated. As a result, this is the one area of theindustry where some data and analyses of socialand economic factors exists.13

But, the reality is that the most prevalent formsof gambling are the ones found in mostneighborhoods: lotteries and other forms of“convenience” gambling.14 And in the past fewyears, Internet gambling sites enabled slotmachine and video poker style gambling to comeright into our homes. In many ways, these formsof gambling are far more troublesome than anyother, as the benefits are negligible, the level ofregulation minimal and the likelihood of abusemuch greater. Of greater concern to parents,convenience and Internet gambling are far moreaccessible to children and, unlike casino andpari-mutuel gambling, far more difficult toavoid. Further, the types of games typicallyoffered in convenience gambling facilities orover the Internet tend to be the fastest-paced and,therefore, most addictive forms of gambling.15

While the Commission has some idea of theimpact of gambling on our citizens, we mustacknowledge that the state of research is extremely

13

The pari-mutuel industry has also received a significant amount ofscrutiny and likewise was open and supportive of our study.14

“Convenience gambling” have been used to describe legal, stand-alone slot machines, video poker, video keno, and other electronicgambling devices (EGD’s).15

For more information, see chapter on “Pathological and ProblemGambling.”

incomplete and that much more work should bedone in the future. However, even without acomplete range of measurements, the Commissioncan begin the process of determining the netimpact of gambling. To this end, the Commissionwas able to conduct important analyses ofgambling’s economic and social costs andbenefits, based not only on the personalexperiences of individuals and communities, butalso on quantitative and qualitative factors. Thisrepresents only a beginning of the processbut itis a beginning. The Commission urgespolicymakers at all levels of government to acceptour challenge to evaluate and to critically test boththe economic and social costs and benefitsassociated with the introduction of, or continuationof, or restriction of gambling activities within theircommunities.

Legalized gambling has had certain positiveeconomic effects in some of the communities inwhich it has been introduced. Hundreds ofemployees in several cities described the newand better jobs they had obtained with the adventof casinos. Some described relocating from otherstates to the sites of new casinos; others spoke ofleaving minimum-wage jobs in which they hadno benefits, to accept unionized jobs at thecasinos at higher compensation and withsignificant employment opportunities. Somedescribed the homes and cars they had been ableto purchase, and the health and retirementbenefits they had obtained by going to work forthe casinos. In other locations, tribal memberstestified that the advent of casinos on tribal landshad provided jobs where none had existed beforeand had improved hospital and clinic facilitiesand schools for the benefit of their children.They spoke with evident pride about theeconomic impact opportunities which legalizedgambling had made available to them, providingthem with economic resources, both personal andtribal, which they had been unable to obtainbefore the advent of legalized gambling on theirtribal lands. Further, several tribalrepresentatives testified that gambling revenuesare providing tribes with enough resources tomake investments in other industries andenterprises.



The Commission also heard from a number oflocal officials in jurisdictions where casinos arelocated. Among those who informed thecommissioners with their testimony were Elgin,Illinois, Mayor Kevin Kelly; Mayor Scott Kingfrom Gary, Indiana; Mayor James Whelan fromAtlantic City; as well as mayors from Bettendorf,Iowa, and Alton, Illinois. The Commission alsoheard from Mayors A.J. Holloway, BobbyWilliams, Bob Short, and Eddy Favre of Biloxi,Tunica, Gulfport, and Bay St. Louis, Mississippi,respectively. Without exception these electedofficials expressed support for gambling andrecited instances of increased revenues for theircities. They also discussed communityimprovements made possible since the advent ofgambling in their communities and reviewed thegeneral betterment of life for the citizenry intheir cities and towns.

In the community analysis conducted by NORC,other communities reported growth in the hotelindustry, more money for local government, andincreased construction. In two of the tencommunities studied, property values werereported to have improved. Three communitiesreported an increase in retail establishments; tworeported a decline. The NORC 100 communitydatabase analysis of casino proximity reportedthat there is a statistically significant casinoeffect on per capita casino spending; on 4 of 5employment measures and on 7 of 16 incomeearnings measures. This analysis also found thatthere is a marked decrease in the percentage ofthe labor force that is unemployed; a slightincrease in construction earnings; an increase inactual per capita construction earnings; and asubstantial percentage increase in earnings inhotel and lodgings and recreation andamusements industries.16

While pointing out that legalized gambling hassocial and economic costs, the NRC notes that“the recent institutionalization of gamblingappears to have benefited economicallydepressed communities in which it is offered.”17

16

National Opinion Research Council (April 1, 1999), pp. 70, 76-77.17

NRC, (April 1, 1999), p. Exec-1.

More specifically, “the benefits are borne out inreports, for example, of increased employmentand income, increased tax revenues, enhancedtourism and recreational opportunities, and risingproperty values.”18

But there were other factors brought to theattention of the Commission. In Atlantic Cityand elsewhere, small business owners testified tothe loss of their businesses when casinos came totown.19 As evidence of this impact, fewbusinesses can be found more than a few blocksfrom the Atlantic City boardwalk. Many of the“local” businesses remaining are pawnshops,cash-for-gold stores and discount outlets. Onewitness noted that, “in 1978 [the year the firstcasino opened], there were 311 taverns andrestaurants in Atlantic City. Nineteen years later,only 66 remained, despite the promise thatgaming would be good for the city’s own.”20

Other citizens testified to the lack of job securitythey had encountered in tribal casinos, theabsence of federal and state anti-discriminationlaws, and the lack of workers’ compensationbenefits.

NORC found “no change in overall per capitaincome” after the introduction of casinos, “as theincreases [in certain industries] are offset byreductions in welfare and transfer payments aswell as a drop-off in income from restaurants andbars.”21

In its survey of leaders in 10 casinocommunities, NORC found mixed perceptionsabout the economic impact of casinos.Respondents in 5 of the 10 communities citednew employment opportunities as a “verypositive advantage.” However, “Respondents inthe other four communities indicated thatunemployment remained a problem, despiteformer hopes to the contrary.” Unemployment

18

Ibid., p. 5-1.19

See, for instance, testimony of Joseph Faldetta to the NationalGambling Impact Study Commission, Atlantic City, N.J., (January22, 1998).20

Ibid.21

NORC, p. 70.



among Indian tribes remains extremely high.Respondents in six of the communitiescomplained that the casinos provided low-payingand/or part-time jobs with no benefits.

It bears stating the obvious in this discussion: Anumber of formerly struggling communitiesacross this nation have undergone an economicrenaissance in recent years without turning togambling. It is also worth noting that much of arecent wave of casino expansion occurred in theearly 1990’s, when the country was mired in aneconomic recession. So, for example, while theCommission heard testimony of the casino-inspired “Mississippi Miracle,” in reality theunemployment rate in Mississippi declined atabout the same rate as the national average in theyears from 1992 to 1998.22

GROWTH AND EMPLOYMENT

A number of arguments have been advanced topromote gambling in an area or to demonstrate itspositive impact. The most significant areassociated with economic growth andemployment. As was noted earlier, it is importantto distinguish among the various forms ofgambling. Two segments, casinos and pari-mutuel,are the most labor intensive aspects of gambling.23

In 1996 more than half a million people wereemployed by the legal gambling industry, earningmore than $15 billion.24

In 1996 Arthur Anderson conducted a study onbehalf of the American Gaming Association todetermine the influence of casino gambling on theAmerican economy. They found that in 1995 thecasino industry recorded $22-25 billion in totalrevenues, paid a total of $2.9 billion in direct taxes(including federal and state, property, constructionsales and use, and gambling taxes), directly

22

Mississippi’s unemployment rate declined from 8.2 percent in1992 to 4.8 percent in 1998. The national unemployment ratedeclined from 7.5 percent to 4.1 percent in that same period.23

E.M. Christiansen, Gambling and the American Economy, 556Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science(James Frey, ed) at 43 (March 1998).24

Ibid.

employed almost 300,000 people and paid $7.3billion in wages, paid an average national wage ofapproximately $26,000 (which exceeds that paidin most related fields) and invested $3 for every $1earned, created 13 direct jobs for every $1 millionin revenues, supported 400,000 indirect jobspaying $12.5 billion in wages, and spent a largemajority of its revenues within the United Stateson payroll, taxes and other expenses.25

The economic benefits of casino gambling havebeen especially powerful in economicallydepressed communities where opportunities foreconomic development are scarce. State, local,and tribal government officials from othercommunities with casino gambling testified withnear unanimity to the positive economic impactof gambling. Mayor James Whelan of AtlanticCity told the Commission that “Atlantic Citywould be dead without casino gambling.”26 Whenmembers of the Commission visited the AtlanticCity Rescue Mission, its director, Barry Durman,who says he personally opposes gambling,agreed with the Mayor on this point, but alsonoted that at least 22 percent of the homelessserved by the Mission say gambling is the causeof their homelessness.27

State Senator Earline Rogers, whose districtincludes Gary, described that city’s efforts over a15-year period to replace the 70,000 jobs lost dueto the decline of the steel industry:

“Our attempts to recruit major businesses tolocate in Northwest Indiana were not successful.The State of Indiana spent millions of dollarsluring major manufacturing operations toIndiana, often spending hundreds of thousands ofdollars for jobs. Not one was located inNorthwest Indiana. We knew something had tobe done when we found ourselves championingour economic development successes at a ribbon

25

Arthur Anderson L.L.P., Economic Impacts of Casino Gamingin the United States, Volume 1: Macro Study (December 1996).26

James Whelan, testimony Before the National Gambling ImpactStudy Commission, Atlantic City, New Jersey (January 21, 1998)(Mayor of Atlantic City).27

Rev. Barry Durman, written testimony before the NationalGambling Impact Study Commission, Atlantic City Site Visit(January 21, 1998) p. 17.


Gambling’s Impacts on People and Places -7

cutting for a McDonald’s restaurant in Gary,Indiana.”28

Indiana legalized casino gambling in 1993, andwithin a few years, casinos opened in Gary.Now, the city has started to turn itself around,rebuilding its streets and replacing outmodedpolice cars.29

Unlike many industries, casino gambling createsfull-time, entry-level jobs, which are badlyneeded in communities suffering from chronicunemployment and underemployment. Dozensof casino workers testified that these economicbenefits are felt in the home and not just at cityhall. Calvin Chandler, who left college to carefor his mother, told the Commission about hisefforts to find work in Gary, Indiana, before thelegalization of casino gambling:

“The infamous steel mills of Gary were slowlydying and they weren’t and haven’t been hiringmany. So basically I ended up bouncing betweentemporary jobs such as lifeguarding for the boysand girls club and bartending at a local loungeand off and on doing some substitute work atelementary schools.”30

When the Majestic Star Casino opened, Mr.Chandler, a single father, found work as abartender. Now, he has the financial resources tosupport his young daughter and finish college.31

Before coming to Las Vegas from California 5years ago, Silvia Amador worked as a maid for$4.75 an hour and relied on welfare to make endsmeet; today, she cleans rooms at the Las VegasHilton, no longer depends on welfare, and earnsenough money to give her family “anything theyneed.”32

28

Earline Rogers, testimony Before the National Gambling ImpactStudy Commission, Chicago, Illinois (May 30, 1998) (Indiana StateSenator).29

Ibid.30

Calvin Chandler, testimony before the National Gambling ImpactStudy Commission, Chicago, Illinois (May 20, 1998).31

Ibid.

32Silvia Amador, testimony Before the National Gambling Impact

Study Commission, Las Vegas, Nevada (November 10, 1998)(Guest Room Attendant, Las Vegas Hilton).

Other casino workers described how a steady joband secure livelihood enables them to prepare forcontingencies and plan for the future. FrancesBrewin, 33 a food server at the Atlantic CityHilton, described how important her employer-paid medical benefits became after her husbandwas disabled and forced to take early retirement.When his medical benefits ran out, she was ableto support him through a long period of illness.

Olivetta Scott, a booth cashier at the CircusCircus Hotel and Casino, told the Commission,“I am 58 years old and in four years, I can retireif I want to. I will be a burden to no one, myfamily, or the government. I have my unionpension and I have my social security to relyon.”34 Rosendo and Gloria Caldera, who live inInglewood, California, and work at theHollywood Park Casino, were able to send theirchildren to Boston University and the Universityof Southern California. According to Mr.Caldera, “We have faith that we’ll continue tohave good jobs so that we can continue to sendthem to school. We’d like to give them the besteducation for their future and for that of thecommunity.”35

Research conducted on behalf of theCommission confirms the testimony of thesecasino workers and government officials thatcasino gambling creates jobs and reduces levelsof unemployment and government assistance incommunities that have legalized it. In its analysisof 100 gambling and non-gamblingcommunities, NORC found that in communitiesclose to newly opened casinos, “unemploymentrates, welfare outlays, and unemploymentinsurance decline by about one-seventh.”36

33

Frances Brewin, testimony Before the National Gambling ImpactStudy Commission, Atlantic City, New Jersey (January 21, 1998)(Food Server, Atlantic City Hilton).34

Olivetta Scott, testimony before the National Gambling ImpactStudy Commission, Las Vegas, Nevada (November 10, 1998).35

Rosendo Caldera, Testimony Before the National GamblingImpact Study Commission, Del Mar, California (July 29, 1998).(Food Server, Hollywood Park Casino, Inglewood, California).36

NORC, “Gambling Impact and Behavior Study: Report to theNational Gambling Impact Study Commission,” (April 1, 1999), p.v.



Additionally, NORC found increased per capitaincome in the construction, hotel and lodging,and recreation and amusement industries.However, “no change is seen in overall percapita income as the increases noted above areoffset by reductions in welfare and transferpayments as well as a drop-off in income fromrestaurants and bars...”37 In other words, therewere more jobs in the communities NORCstudied after casino gambling was establishedthan before. Although income in thosecommunities stayed the same, more came frompaychecks and less from government checks thanbefore.

The Commission also heard testimonyquantifying job quality in the casino industry,and these data show that in terms of income,health insurance, and pension, casino jobs in thedestination resorts of Las Vegas and AtlanticCity are better than comparable service sectorjobs. Matthew Walker, director of research andeducation for the Hotel Employees andRestaurant Employees International Union,which represents approximately 75,000gambling industry employees nationwide,testified that from 1977 through 1996, realincome for Atlantic City casino workersincreased at a much higher rate than real incomefor service-sector employees in New Jersey andthe United States as a whole. Moreover, since1989, real income for Atlantic City casinoworkers has continued to rise, while real incomefor New Jersey and U.S. service workers hasdeclined. In 1996, 83 percent of Atlantic City’sunionized casino workers were covered byfamily health insurance, almost twice thepercentage of New Jersey and U.S. serviceworkers with family coverage. In 1993, the mostrecent year for which comparative data wereavailable, 95 percent of the union’s Atlantic Citymembers were earning pension benefits, ascompared to 45 percent of the private-sectorworkforce nationally.38

37

Ibid., p. 70.

38 Matthew Walker, testimony before the National GamblingImpact Study Commission, Atlantic City, New Jersey (January 22,

Within the casino industry, destination resortstend to create more and better quality jobs thanother kinds of casinos. In the Commission’scasino survey conducted by NORC, the casinosthat responded were divided into three groups:the top 25 casinos in terms of revenue; othercommercial casinos; and, tribal casinos. Almostall of the casinos in the first group aredestination resorts, and all but four areunionized. By contrast, a much smallerproportion of the other two groups aredestination resorts. Moreover, fewer of thesmaller commercial casinos and none of thetribal casinos are unionized. Annual salarieswere, on average, $26,000 in the largest casinos,$20,500 in the smaller commercial casinos, and$18,000 in the tribal casinos. Employercontributions to employee health and retirementplans were also higher in the large casinos.39

Pari-Mutuel

Another segment of the gambling industry with asignificant impact on the economy is the pari-mutuel industry, which is legal in 43 states. Withover 150 racetracks in the United States, horseracing generates annual gross revenues ofapproximately $3.25 billion, based on a handle, orgross revenues, of $15.357 billion annually.40

While comparatively small in terms of revenue,the industry has an extensive network ofconnections throughout the economy. These arelocated primarily in the agro-industrial sectorwhere, in addition to the racing industry itself, anumber of related occupationssuch asveterinarians, owners of stables, and othersowetheir livelihoods entirely or partly to the industry.Total employment has been estimated at 119,000,of which track and off-track betting (see below)operations constitute 36,300 jobs, maintenance of

1998) (Director of Research and Education, Hotel Employees andRestaurant Employees International Union).39

NORC, p.2.40

E.M. Christiansen, Gaming and Wagering Business (July andAugust, 1998).



competing horses 52,000, and breeding 30,800.41

A 1994 study for the California Horsemen’sBenevolent and Protective Association reportedthat the horse-racing industry directly created14,700 jobs in that state. The industry generatedover $800 million in direct expenditures, such aspayroll, taxes, and purchases, including $129million paid to governments from taxes onwagering, $306 million spent on operations at thewagering facilities, $253 million on racing stableoperations, and $123 million for horse breedingoperations.42 Overall, James Hickey of theAmerican Horse Council has submitted evidenceto the Commission that the annual impact of thepari-mutuel industry on the U.S. economy is $34billion supporting 473,000 jobs.43

Native American Tribal Government Gambling

Tribal gambling accounted for $6.7 billion inrevenues in 1997.44 “Two-hundred and eightyseven tribal gambling facilities operated, most ofthem small; the eight largest account for morethan forty percent of all revenue.”45 It isestimated that approximately 100,000individuals are employed in Indian gamblingfacilities, but a breakdown of employeesindicating how many are Indian is not generallyavailable. A study by the San FranciscoExaminer prior to the state’s referendum voteindicated that Indian casinos in Californiaemployed nearly 15,000 individuals in 1998,only 10 percent of whom are Native American.46

In testimony that same month before theCommission’s Indian Gambling Subcommitteein Del Mar, California, Native Americans were

41

Barents Group, The Economic Impacts of the Horse Industry inthe United States, Volume 1: National Summary, at 19 (December9, 1996).42

Thalheimer Research Associates, The Economic Impact of theCalifornia Race Horse Industry, at iii-iv (January 1994).43

James J. Hickey, Jr., Retreat Briefing Materials for the NationalGambling Impact Study Commission, at 1 (February 4, 1999).44

Christiansen, Op.cit., p. 11.45

Ibid., p. 23.46

“Tribal Gaming,” San Francisco Examiner (August 2, 1998), p.A-14.

estimated to be approximately five percent of thetotal gambling industry workforce in the state.47

According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),156 tribes are involved in gambling activities. TheIndian Gaming Regulatory Act limits use ofrevenues to three purposes: “1) to fund tribalgovernment operations or programs; 2) to providefor the general welfare of the Indian tribe and itsmembers; and, 3) to promote tribal economicdevelopment.”48 Forty-seven tribes have a percapita payment plan approved by BIA.

Some tribes have used this opportunity to rebuildinfrastructure, diversify holdings, reduceunemployment, and contribute to the surroundingcommunities. Again, the unwillingness ofindividual tribes, as well as that of the NationalIndian Gaming Association (the tribes’ lobbyists)and the National Indian Gaming Commission (thefederal agency that regulates tribal gambling), toprovide information to this Commission, afterrepeated requests and assurances ofconfidentiality, limited our assessment totestimony and site visits. While the social benefitsto some tribes appear evident, information abouteconomic benefits of Indian gambling cannot befactually proven, other than through estimates,because they have not been forthcoming withinformation they perceive to be “proprietary.” Oneperceived economic benefit to both the tribes andthe general populationreduction of the relianceupon taxpayer-funded federal assistancehas notmanifested itself to date. For the most part,requests for federal assistance from tribes involvedin gambling have continued.49 As an example, theMashantucket Pequots, whose Foxwoods facilityin Connecticut is the largest casino in the worldand grosses more than $1 billion in annual

47

Testimony before the National Gambling Impact StudyCommission, Del Mar, CA (July 29, 1998).48

25 U.S.C. 2710 (b)(1-3).49

One in-depth report noted: “Sudden wealth has not sated thestrong sense of entitlement of some tribes. Minnesota’s Fond du LacChippewas voted against spending $9 million to replace adilapidated school even though the tribe had $30 million in bankedcasino revenues. The United States has an obligation to Indianpeople, and I’m going to hold them to it,” the tribe’s chairman toldthe Minneapolis Star Tribune recently.” (Sean Paige, “Gambling onthe Future,” Insight Magazine, December 12, 1997, p.6.)



revenues for the 550 tribal members, still received$1.5 million in low-income housing assistance in1996 and continues to receive other federalfunds.50

While casinos have been an extraordinaryeconomic success story for a handful of Indiantribes,51 for most they have brought considerablyfewer benefits. Wayne Taylor, chairman of theHopi tribe, testified, “With the exception of a veryfew, very small and very fortunate tribes … whohave had extraordinary success with tribalgambling, the majority of tribes across the countrystill find it very difficult to reconcile the obligationand responsibilities side of their ledger with theincome side.”52 As of the writing of this report,the unemployment rate among Native Americanscontinues to hover around 50 percent.53

Other Gambling Industries

Other segments of gambling have a significanteconomic impact upon places and people, but thebenefits do not include large-scale growth oremployment. Most lottery directors testified thatthe impact of lottery revenue was beneficial to thestate and its citizens, but, in the cases whererevenue distribution was specified, no state couldprove that program funding would not exist in theabsence of lotteries. To the contrary, several statesexperienced reductions in actual general fundingfor programs for which lottery revenue wasearmarked. Nor are the economic implications ofregressive taxation given much consideration. AsDr. Philip Cook, a leading researcher undercontract to the Commission, stated, “It’sastonishingly regressive. The tax that is built intolottery is the most regressive tax we know.”54 In

50

Ibid.51

According to the 1997 NIGC Audit Reports, the 8 largestoperations account for more than 40 percent of the more than $6billion in gross revenues, 20 operations account for 50 percent of thetotal, and 45 operations account for 71 percent of revenues.52

Wayne Taylor, testimony before the National Gambling ImpactStudy Commission (July 30, 1998), Tempe, AZ.53

Liz Hill, “Senate Oversight Hearing Addresses Welfare Reformand Indian Country,” Indian Country Today (April 26, 1999).54

Dr. Philip Cook, Meeting of the National Gambling Impact StudyCommission (March 19, 1999).

addition, the inordinate number of lottery outletsin poor neighborhoods and the reliance upon asmall number of less-educated and poorindividuals for the bulk of the proceeds causes usserious concern. In fact, Cook and his colleague,Dr. Charles Clotfelter, found that lottery playerswith incomes below $10,000 spend more than anyother income group, an estimated $597 per year.Further, high school dropouts spend four times asmuch as college graduates. Blacks spend fivetimes as much as whites. In addition, the lotteriesrely on a small group of heavy players who aredisproportionately poor, black, and have failed tocomplete a high school education. The top 5percent of lottery players (who spend $3,870 ormore) account for 51 percent of total lottery sales.Several government officials suggested that astate’s only alternative to a lottery was a taxincrease. Limiting spending, reducing the size ofgovernment, or seeking alternative revenuesources were rarely mentioned.

No economic benefit to either a place or a personwas advanced by proponents of conveniencegambling. There are no national statistics thatindicate the specific impacts of neighborhoodgambling and there are few significant state-widestudies.

We did hear compelling testimony indicatingthat neighborhood gambling is a phenomenonthat should be more widely studied, andtherefore should be a serious topic of inquiry inthis Final Report. Las Vegas Mayor Jan Jonessaid that, in her view, neighborhood gamblinglocations are places where children and familiesroutinely visit. She spoke of entering a grocerystore and seeing parents playing slot machineswith children sitting behind them. Children seegambling as part of the same environment ascandy and soda. Such encounters with gamblingmay lead to higher rates of adolescent gamblingand problem/pathological gambling in later life.Such availability also harms economicdiversification, because some corporations fromboth inside and outside the state may object torelocation to an environment that allowsneighborhood gambling. And sadly,convenience gambling is often found inneighborhoods where the money spent on



gambling could otherwise be spent on necessarygoods and services.55

One commentator has called neighborhoodgambling a “paradoxical perversity,” because inMassachusetts convenience stores have become“shrines to the shill” and “neighborhoodgambling dens.”56 The evidence available to us,so far, indicates there are no measurable societalbenefits to be derived from the introduction orcontinuation of convenience gambling facilities;that these facilities benefit only a few operators,while bringing gambling into neighborhoods inclose proximity to children and families. Theycarry with them all of the negative costsassociated with gambling, while offering none ofthe economic benefits that may be contributed todestination-style casinos.

A Careful Look at Economic Benefits

For some areas, it may well be argued thatgambling has a measurable and significanteconomic impact. For other areas, the boon maybe less clear. Even in the face of the apparentbenefits touted by many in Atlantic City, at thetime the Commission visited in January 1998,the unemployment rate stood at 12.7 percent,notwithstanding the legalization of gambling in1978. That rate was considerably above both thenational rate and the rate of unemployment forthe rest of New Jersey at that time. It is unclear,therefore, whether the introduction ofcasino-style legal gambling in New Jersey hasproduced all of the benefits that are usuallydescribed by those who promote it.

One indirect method to get a qualitative sense ofthe net effects of gambling is to look at its effecton property values. An increase in propertyvalues reflects growing attractiveness of alocation. For example, if a new factory increasesproperty values in a metropolitan area, butdepresses them near its location, one can drawconclusions about the near-by and the broader

55

Mayor of the City of Las Vegas, Jan Jones, testimony before theNational Gambling Impact Study Commission, Las Vegas Nevada,(Nov. 10, 1998) (transcript available at http:\\www.ngisc.gov).56

Get Keno Out of the Corner Store, The Patriot Ledger (Quincy,MA), 18 (July 2, 1997) (editorial).

impacts of the factory. This method has beenapplied to evaluate the effects of airports, wastedisposal, and other public sector activities. It hasalso been used to estimate the consequences ofcasino gambling on the economy of acommunity. Needless to say, it is not a simplematter to extract the effect of any particularpresumed cause on property values.

One study that looked at counties that addedcasinos between 1991 and 1994 suggests severalconclusions concerning the effect of gambling onproperty values. First, the counties thatintroduced gambling had relatively poor growthin property values before the introduction ofgambling (compared to similar counties). Theintroduction of gambling increased the rate ofgrowth of property values, making it similar tothat in comparable counties that lacked casinos.The greatest effect of the introduction ofgambling is on commercial property values, withresidential property values not raised at all,perhaps even lowered by casino gambling.57

One theme running through the testimonyreceived before the Commission was that theeconomic benefits were generally mostpronounced within the immediate vicinity of thegambling facilities, while the social costs tendedto be diffused throughout a broader geographicregion. In Tunica, Mississippi, the advent oflegalized gambling provided jobs for an area ofextreme poverty. Many citizens of Tunica haveundoubtedly benefited by the increase in thewage base and the increased ability of its citizensto purchase homes and other amenities. Somearea towns have even been adopted by theindustry to improve employee preparation. TheCommission heard similar testimony fromrepresentatives of other economically depressedcommunities such as Gary, Indiana andnumerous tribal lands in Arizona and elsewhere.But the Commission also received substantialtestimony from people outside thesecommunities about losses of business andtourism, infrastructure problems and economic

57

L.M. George, B.M. Ambrose, and P. Linneman, “What We Needto Know About Casino Gambling,” Wharton Real Estate Review,Vol. 11, no. 1 (Spring 1998).



costs related to problem and pathologicalgambling resultant from the expansion ofgambling into nearby communities. (See Table7-1).

There is general agreement that legalizedgambling has offered regulators the opportunityto locate gambling activities where incomes aredepressed, thus providing, in some cases, aneconomic boost to needy people and places. Sodoing, however, has the negative consequence ofplacing the lure of gambling proximate toindividuals with few financial resources. TheCommission is concerned about the significantdanger posed by the continuing expansion oflegalized gambling into places where theeconomy is already prospering. In the extreme,the Commission can imagine competition amonglocalities driving the extent and location ofgambling toward an outcome in which mostgambling establishments are just one morebusiness in prosperous areas, most employeesare people who easily could get other jobs, andtherefore, the economic benefits are small. Notonly are the net benefits in these new areas low,but the benefits to other, more deserving placesare diminished due to the new competition. And,as competition for the gambling dollarintensifies, gambling spreads, bringing with itmore and more of the social ills that led us torestrict gambling in the first place. It is easy toimagine jurisdictions competing for thegambling dollar, with the consequentoverexpansion of legalized gambling; shrinkingsocial benefits are overwhelmed by rising socialcosts.

What the Commission can agree on is thatanalysis of the economic effects of gambling ispoorly developed and quite incomplete. Further,almost all studies have been conducted byinterested parties. These typically have gone nofurther than to estimate local jobs and incomefrom the gambling industry. But since theeconomic effect of an activity is its value addedabove what the same resources would be addingto value if employed elsewhere, these studies aredeficient and may mislead readers to concludethat the introduction of gambling activities in anarea will result in significant benefits without

attendant costs, which may, in fact, overwhelmthe benefits. Without an estimate of theopportunity cost of the resources used ingambling, the Commission can generate nomeaningful estimate of its net effect. Beyondthis, the social costs of gambling are soimportant to regulatory decisions that even anaccurate estimate of the net income generated bythe gambling industry would constitute only thestart of a full cost-benefit analysis. No onenottribal leaders, governors, mayors orcitizensshould make, or should be forced tomake, a decision without an assessment of botheconomic and social benefits and costs.

The NRC concluded in its report to theCommission that while gambling appears to havenet economic benefits for economicallydepressed communities, the available data areinsufficient to determine with accuracy theoverall costs and benefits of legal gambling. TheNRC study stated that pervasive methodologicalproblems in almost all existing studies preventfirm conclusions about the social and economiceffects of gambling on individuals, families,businesses, and communities, generally.

Crime

Historically, there is a view that theintroduction of legalized gambling willincrease crime in a community. It is alsoclaimed that legalized gambling reducescrime because it eliminates incentives forillegal gambling. Since the types of crimeinvolved in each of these hypotheses aredifferent, it is not surprising thatproponents of both views are able toadvance research to support their views.The reliability of many of these studies,however, is questionable. As onecommentator observed:

The story of the relationship betweenlegalized casino gambling and streetcrime is far from written. Theproblem is that although a great dealhas been written on the subject, somuch of the writing on all sides is



bombast and blather that it is difficultto discern any strong facts.58

Some of the more thorough studies examinecrime and pathological gambling. Notsurprisingly, the findings reveal that manyproblem and pathological gamblers steal orcommit other crimes to finance their habit.According to the National Research Council, “Asaccess to money becomes more limited,gamblers often resort to crime in order to paydebts, appease bookies, maintain appearances,and garner more money to gamble.”59 InMaryland, a report by the Attorney General’sOffice stated: “[c]asinos would bring asubstantial increase in crime to our State. Therewould be more violent crime, more juvenilecrime, more drug- and alcohol-related crime,more domestic violence and child abuse, andmore organized crime. Casinos would bring usexactly what we do not needa lot more of allkinds of crime.”60 Some commentators linkcrime to pathological gambling, where addictedgamblers steal or commit other crimes to financetheir habit. The Commission heard repeatedtestimony of desperate gamblers committingillegal acts to finance their problem andpathological gambling, including a Detroit manwho faked his own son’s kidnapping to pay backa $50,000 gambling debt,61 a 14-year hospitalemployee in Iowa who embezzled $151,000from her employer for gambling,62 and the wifeof a Louisiana police officer who faced 24counts of felony theft for stealing to fund herpathological gambling.63 In a survey of nearly

58

William J. Miller and Martin D. Schwartz, Casino Gambling andStreet Crime, 556 Annals supra note 6 at 133-4.59 Lesieur, 1987; Meyer and Fabian (1992).60

J. Joseph Curran, Jr., The House Never Loses and MarylandCannot Win: Why Casino Gaming is a Bad idea: Report to the JointExecutive-Legislative Task Force to Study Commercial GamingActivities in Maryland at E1 (October 16, 1995). (Attorney Generalof Maryland).61 Mike Harris, testimony before the National Gambling ImpactStudy Commission, Chicago, Illinois (May 21, 1998).

62 Marlys Popma, testimony before the National Gambling ImpactStudy Commission, Chicago, Illinois (May 21, 1998).63 Donna Kelly, testimony before the National Gambling ImpactStudy Commission, Biloxi, Mississippi (September 10, 1998).

400 Gamblers Anonymous members, 57 percentadmitted stealing to finance their gambling.Collectively they stole $30 million, for anaverage of $135,000 per individual.64 Onewitness before the Commission indicated that“80 to 90 percent of people in GamblersAnonymous will tell you they did somethingillegal in order to get money to gamble.” A lot ofthem do white collar crimes, fraud, credit cardand employee theft.”65 In Louisiana, one manconfessed to robbing and murdering six elderlyindividuals to feed his problem with gambling onelectronic gambling devices.66

But beyond pathological gambling, tracing therelationship between crime and gambling hasproven difficult. One problem is the scope of thestudies being done: some look at street crimealone, others include family crimes, still othersmay simply look at adolescent gambling, andothers include white collar crime. Anotherproblem is differentiating the effects of gamblingfrom the effects of tourism in general. Nevadaconsistently has one of the highest crime rates inthe nation. Several researchers suggest this iscaused more by tourism than it is by the nature ofthe gambling industry. Is the crime surrounding anupscale Las Vegas resort similar to crimesurrounding an amusement park? Are the volumeand types of crimes comparable?

Despite having few answers to these questions,policymakers continue to push or pull gamblingbased on a real or perceived, positive or negative,relationship between gambling and crime.

The Commission attempted to investigate therelationship between crime and legalizedgambling through two studies mentioned hereand elsewhere in this Final Report: the NRC andNORC reports. The results from these two

64

Henry Lesieur, testimony Before the National Gambling ImpactStudy Commission, Atlantic City, New Jersey (January 22, 1998)(Institute for Problem Gambling).65

Edward Looney, testimony Before the National Gambling ImpactStudy Commission, Atlantic City, New Jersey (January 22, 1998)(Executive Director, New Jersey Council on CompulsiveGambling).66

Jarvis DeBerry and Rhonda Bell, Deadly Compulsion, NewOrleans Times-Picayune at A1 (November 23, 1997).



studies suggest that a relationship may existbetween gambling activity and the commissionof crime, but concluded that insufficient dataexists to quantify or define that relationship.More study is necessary to isolate the exactrelationship between crime and legalizedgambling. This result highlights similarconclusions reached by many in the researchfield, scholars who lament the paucity ofinformation. Yet, one study also found thatpeople within communities that host legalizedgambling believe crime rates are up. We are notprepared to discount these views in thecommunity. Rather, they are troubling anddemand greater research, clarity, and knowledge.

The NORC study found that pathologicalgamblers had higher arrest and imprisonmentrates than non-pathological gamblers.67 A thirdof problem and pathological gamblers had beenarrested, compared to 10 percent of low-riskgamblers and 4 percent of non-gamblers. About23 percent of pathological gamblers have beenimprisoned, and so had 13 percent of problemgamblers.68There are economic costs associatedwith arrests and imprisonment. Problem andpathological gamblers account for about $1,000in excess lifetime police costs each. The 32percent of pathological gamblers arrested had alifetime arrest cost of $10,000.69

Evidence provided to the Commission presentedanother side to this issue. A study by the chair ofthe Department of Criminal Justice at VirginiaCommonwealth University found that:

An examination of arrest trends forembezzlement, forgery and fraud in nineof the largest casino markets shows noconsistent pattern, although morejurisdictions report more decreases thanincreases in arrests.70

67

NORC, Gambling Impact and Behavior Study (April 1, 1999).68

Ibid.69

Ibid.70

Jay S. Albanese, Ph.D., Professor and Chair, Department ofCriminal Justice, Virginia Commonwealth University. “CasinoGambling and White Collar Crime: An Examination of the

Jeremy Margolis, a former director of the IllinoisState Police, who also served as assistant U.S.attorney for the Northern District of Illinois andwas the Illinois inspector general, published acomprehensive review of available informationon gambling and crime. His study, “Casinos andCrime: An Analysis of the Evidence,”

71wasbased upon 10 jurisdictions that havecommercial casinos. In testimony before theCommission he stated that he found littledocumentation of a causal relationship betweenthe two. Taken as a whole, the literature showsthat communities with casinos are just as safe ascommunities that do not have casinos.

FINANCIAL AND CREDIT ISSUES

The Commission found wide-spread perceptionamong community leaders that indebtednesstends to increase with legalized gambling, asdoes youth crime, forgery and credit card theft,domestic violence, child neglect, problemgambling, and alcohol and drug offenses.72

One of the issues of most concern to thisCommission is the ready availability of credit inand around casinos, which can lead toirresponsible gambling and problem andpathological gambling behavior. Forty to sixtypercent of the cash wagered by individuals incasinos is not physically brought onto thepremises.73 Each year casinos extend billions ofdollars in loans to their customers in the form ofcredit markers. Additional sums are charged bycasino customer on their credit cards as cashadvances. Casinos charge fees for cash advancesranging from 3 percent to 10 percent or more.74

According to the Casino Chronicle (as footnotedby I. Nelson Rose), the twelve casinos inAtlantic City issued approximately $2.13 billion

evidence” Presented at “Gambling and Gaming: Winners orLosers?" (April 30, 1999), p.32.

71 An Analysis of the Evidence, Dec. 1997

72 Ibid.

73 Robyn Taylor Parets, “Cash Advances: Second GenerationMoney Dispensing Terminals Can Increase Casino Profit,”International Gaming & Wagering Business (September 1996), p.S8.

74 Ibid., p. S9.



in credit markers in 1997. Of this extendedcredit, $543,174,000 remained outstanding aftercustomers left the casinos. However, through thebanking system, an additional $434,400,000 ofoutstanding debt is collected, leaving only 1.3percent left in unpaid loans, which is generallylower than other unpaid consumer debt.75 Still,the true debtthat is, the amount the customersowed when they walked out of the casinos, stillexceeded $108 million20 percent of the debt.

The credit marker policies in Nevada are similarto those of the casinos in Atlantic City. Creditmarkers are extended to patrons who passthrough a background credit check. Nevada andAtlantic City casinos use the services of CentralCredit, Inc. to determine a customer’s credithistory. In addition, both jurisdictions use othernational credit agencies. Practices of extendingcredit markers are reviewed by regulators andindependent accountants hired by casinos.Inconsistencies in accounting are reported to theregulators, and Nevada casinos that use impropermethods to collect on outstanding debts aresubject to disciplinary action. Credit markersextended in Nevada casinos account forapproximately ten percent of casino revenues.This figure does not include the third party creditextensions from ATM’s, credit cards, or othercredit providers.76

Providing estimates on the amount of creditextended for gambling purposes through creditcards remains problematic. Unlike casinos, creditcard companies do not have to report theamounts borrowed for gambling purposes. Nordo casinos report information on credit cardadvances, according to the president of CentralCredit.77 Furthermore, casinos do not know howmuch money is received by customers directlyfrom a credit card advance or ATM machine.Many ATM’s and debit cards have limits on theamount of money dispensed within a 24-hour

75 I. Nelson Rose, “The Role of Credit in the Third Wave of LegalGambling,” Gambling and The Law (Anthony Cabot ed) (1999), pp.3-7.

76 Robert Faiss and Thomas Coats, testimony to the NationalGambling Impact Study Commission, Las Vegas, Nevada(November 11, 1998).

77 Rose, Gambling and the Law.

period and on each withdrawal. According toInternational Gaming & Wagering Business,“Casinos have found a way around this dilemmaby utilizing credit card cash advance services …[that] allow players to access as much cash asthey want.”78 As a result, some individuals areable to spend far more than they can afford andincur dangerously high debts.

In at least one tribal casino (Foxwoods),Commissioners were told that ATM machinesoffered cash advances without even thesafeguard of a so-called “PIN” to prevent misuseof stolen or lost credit cards. It seems clear to usthat additional consideration of the restrictionand regulation of credit practices permitted inand around casinos must be given bypolicymakers reviewing gambling activities inand near their communities.

During the Commission meeting in Nevada,Thomas Coatis, the Director for ConsumerCredit Counseling Services in Des Moines, Iowa,testified on the changes in credit availability andbankruptcy in Iowa with the rise in availablegambling outlets. According to his testimony, atthe beginning of the project in the late 1980’s,two to three percent of the people seekingcounseling services attributed their creditproblems to gambling. Today, approximately 15percent of counseling goes to individuals withgambling attributed to the core of their creditconcerns. The project has grown to six officestreating over 400 new cases each month.Furthermore, the agency offers a gamblinghotline to provide assistance with individualswho feel they have a gambling problem. Thishotline, 1-800-BETSOFF, averages almost 300crisis calls each month.

Coates shared with the Commission a suicidenote from one man in Iowa who had accrued$60,000 in credit card debt at a local casino: “Inever thought of gambling prior to two or threeyears ago. I really can’t blame anyone butmyself but I sincerely hope that restrictions areplaced upon credit card cash availability atcasinos. The money is too easy to access andgoes in no time. My situation is now one of 78 Parets, Op.Cit., p. S8.



complete despair, isolation and constantanxiety.”

The Commission also heard numerous stories ofpathological gamblers forced into bankruptcy asa result of problem and pathological gambling.Nearly one in five (19.2 percent) of the identifiedpathological gamblers in the NORC surveyreported filing bankruptcy. This compares torates of 4.2 percent for non-gamblers and 5.5percent for low-risk gamblers.79 Twenty-twopercent of nearly 400 members of GamblersAnonymous surveyed had declared bankruptcy.80

Personal anecdotes were very compelling. TheCommission heard about a couple along theMississippi Gulf Coast, both of whom begangambling excessively at the casino, who lostapproximately $70,000. When they received aletter from a credit card company demanding$10,000 in payment, the couple made a last-ditcheffort to recoup the money at the casinos. Theylost $2,000, then filed bankruptcy.81

Nineteen percent of Chapter 13 bankruptcies inthe State of Iowa involved gambling-relateddebt. Bankruptcies in Iowa increased at a ratesignificantly above the national average in theyears following the introduction of casinos. Nineof the 12 Iowa counties with the highestbankruptcy rates in the state had gamblingfacilities in or directly adjacent to them.

OTHER ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Other economic impacts are mentionedelsewhere in this report. Costs include lostproductivity of workers impaired by problem orpathological gambling and the cost to society fortreatment programs.82 While precise dollar costs

79 NORC, p.46.80 Lesieur, testimony before the National Gambling Impact StudyCommission, Atlantic City, NJ (January 1998).81 McCormick, Biloxi Site Visit82 The gambling industry asserts that it contributes toward state-administered treatment programs through gaming tax revenues.Interestingly, NORC’s analysis of the casino survey states that 96percent of the 25 largest casinos provide gambling treatmentcoverage for their employees.

are not yet available to measure these losses, therapid expansion of gambling into so manycommunities is likely to produce exponentialgrowth in these costs with attendant burdens inbusiness and social services.

Additional economic benefits, includingimprovements in community infrastructure,particularly in transportation, as well as areduction in public assistance spending areevidenced in the Commission’s research. InBiloxi, the Commission received testimony oncapital investment, and new development, newcar and home purchases. Joliet, Illinois testifiedas to the reduction in their bond debt and newsources of capital investment. The Commissionalso received a study from Coopers and Lybrandthat highlights employee impacts on charitablegiving, volunteerism, and other positiveeconomic impacts. In public comments to theCommission, many individuals recountedpersonal transformations that they attributed, inpart, to a job in the casino industry and theimpact these have had in their ability tocontribute in a meaningful way to thecommunity. Walter Caron, a cook at CaesarsPalace, told the Commission, “I now have anexpanded sense of community, and I realizemore of my responsibilities to thatcommunity.”83

LOCAL EFFECTS

Finally, while the national impact of gambling issignificant, the greatest impact is felt at the locallevel. In some locales, gambling has been a criticalcomponent of community economic developmentstrategies. For example, the Nevada ResortAssociation and the Nevada Commission onTourism found that the gambling/hospitalityindustry created gross state-wide revenues ofalmost $8 billion in 1997; contributed $2.2 billionannually to federal, state and local taxes; paidtaxes representing one-third of the state’s generalfund revenues forecast for 1997-99; generatedabout $36.5 million in county-level revenues in

83 Walter Caron, testimony before the National Gambling ImpactStudy Commission, Las Vegas, NV (November 10, 1998).



fiscal year 1997; directly employed 307,500people and was directly and indirectly responsiblefor 60 percent of the state employment total;disbursed salaries of nearly $6 billion,representing one quarter of all wages paid state-wide in 1996; added $10.3 billion to personalincomes; and contributed an estimated $30.6billion to the state’s business receipts, representing63 percent of Nevada gross state product in1995.84

Nevada, however, is unique. Roughly 85 percentof Nevada’s gambling revenues come from out-of-state tourists. Thus, Nevada receives theeconomic benefits of the dollars lost to gambling,while the attendant social and economic impactsof unaffordable gambling losses are visited on thefamilies and communities in the states from whichthose individuals come. Every other gamblingvenue in the United States is far more reliant onspending by citizens in a far more concentratedgeographic area. In many cases, gamblingoperations are overwhelmingly dependent onspending by local citizens. For instance, a surveyof 800 riverboat gamblers in Illinois found morethan 85 percent lived within 50 miles of the casinoin which they were gambling.85

In New Jersey, the gambling industry is also asignificant factor in the local and state-wideeconomy. The New Jersey Casino ControlCommission, in a report to this Commission,found that the gambling industry created grosscasino gambling revenues of $3.79 billion in 1996;paid revenue taxes totaling $303.2 million in1996; generated $717 million for redevelopmentprojects in Atlantic City (including investment inlow and moderate income housing, historicrestoration projects and nonprofit facilityimprovement) as well as an additional $69 millionfor projects state-wide since 1984 throughcontributions to the Casino ReinvestmentDevelopment Authority (CRDA); provided 50,000

84

Nevada Commission on Tourism, Gaming. Made in Nevada.Creating Pride, Opportunity and Hope in the Silver State andNevada Resort Association, Media Fact Book (November 10-11,1998)..85

Ricardo C. Gazel and William N. Thompson, “Casino Gamblersin Illinois: Who Are They?” Better Government Association, (1996)p.7.

full and part-time jobs with a payroll exceeding $1billion before fringe benefits; contributed to thecreation of another 48,000 indirect jobs withwages of almost $1 billion in 1994; spent $1.54billion on goods and services with more than3,400 companies in New Jersey and almost $2.5billion with more than 8,000 companies across theUnited States in 1996; and expects to invest $5billion or more for the development of casinohotel facilities during the next several years.86

Similar pictures of the economic impact of casinoshave been found in Mississippi and elsewhere.87

Las Vegas is heralded as an economic successstory even by those who oppose gambling inother jurisdictions. Las Vegas weathered therecessionary years of the early 90’s better thanmany cities, and its economy performs well evenwhen gambling revenues are flat. During 1998,the city posted significant gains in economicindicators such as employment, taxable sales,and home sales.88 At the end of 1998, the city’sunemployment rate was just 2.8 percent.Statewide unemployment reached an all-timelow of 3.1 percent in December 1998, andNevada led the nation in job growth for thefourth quarter of 1998.89

These are impressive economic statistics,demonstrating a profound economic impact interms of economic growth employment. However,the economic boons of gambling are not always soclear cut. In a study of four Western miningcommunities that introduced gambling, one studyfound that gambling:

“Transformed employment, physical space, andrevenues to become the dominant industry in allfour towns. Soon retailers from car dealers toladies’ ready-to-wear would sell out or convert tocasino operations. The citizens who had voted forgambling with the vision that restaurants and bars, 86

New Jersey Casino Control Commission, “Casino Gambling inNew Jersey,” A Report to the National Gambling Impact StudyCommission (January 1998).87

American Gaming Association.88

Monica Caruso, “Economy ends year with gains,” Las VegasReview-Journal, (March 17, 1999), p. 1D.89

“Nevada jobless rate falls to lowest in history,” Associated Press,(February 3, 1999).



maybe even the bakery, might each have a fewslot machines in the fronts of their businessesnecessarily would soon find that businessesnecessarily accommodated slot machines first, andonly services that supported the playing of slotmachines would survive. Everywhere, mostly run-down buildings that had been previously valued ata few thousand dollars were selling for a fewhundred thousand. Not only buildings but streetsand sewer and water lines would be renovated or,where possible, simply torn down for a newstructure. And all of this was happening as roughlyfour times as many visitors were coming to townto check out the possibilities of getting richquickly or at least to be able to have fun in wayspreviously impermissible.90

Once gambling enters a small community, thecommunity undergoes many changes. Localgovernment becomes “a dependent partner in thebusiness of gambling.”91

THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF GAMBLING

In considering the overall net impact of gamblingon people and places, it is critical that socialcosts and benefits be included in this assessment.Unfortunately, because of difficulties inquantifying this impact, it appears that manypolicymakers have been forced to makedecisions about expanding gambling without thebenefit of this assessment, or, at best, with onlyan assessment of the perceived social impact.

Historically, communities have embraced orrejected gambling based upon perceived socialimpacts, concern about criminal activities andmoral positions. Even among our nation’sFounding Fathers, much was written warningabout the dangers of gambling. In the past,reasons for outlawing or limiting gamblingincluded its negative impact on character andconcern about promoting the myth that “lady

90

Katherine Jensen and Audie Blevins, The Last Gamble: Bettingon the Future in Four Rocky Mountain Mining Towns at 9. (1998).See also Blevins and Jensen, “Gambling as a CommunityDevelopment Quick Fix,” Annals, at 109-123.91

Ibid.

luck” was more likely to improve one’s situationthan would hard work, education, andperseverance.

The Commission heard a significant amount oftestimony and reviewed advertising materialsthat clearly suggested that lotteries andconvenience gambling, in particular, sometimespreyed upon this kind of thinking among themost vulnerable populationsimmigrants,minorities, and economically disadvantagedindividuals. Numerous witnesses questioned theapparent contradictory message from statesrequiring work in exchange for welfare benefitsand at the same time, promoting the lotto as aquick and easy means to profit without work.

As was often noted, credible studies of theseforms of gambling are especially lacking. Howcan we begin to measure the social impact ofindividuals who spend their children’s milkmoney or cash their welfare checks to buy lotterytickets, as the Commission heard during visits toconvenience stores? We cannot, but theCommission can acknowledge that whengambling is promoted as “the only way to getahead” and, in particular, targets those who donot have “leisure dollars” to spend, the economicand social, indeed, the moral fabric of our nationis damaged.

One of the costs of gambling that theCommission are just beginning to betterunderstand concerns problem and pathologicalgambling. While the Commission certainly havealways known that some individuals have“problems” with gambling, in recent years thishas been recognized as a clinical psychologicaldisorder. Today, millions of families throughoutthe nation suffer from the effects of problem andpathological gambling. As with other addictivedisorders, those who suffer from problem orpathological gambling engage in behavior that isdestructive to themselves, their families, theirwork, and even their communities. This includesdepression, abuse, divorce, homelessness, andsuicide, in addition to the individual economicproblems discussed previously. The impact ofthese problems on the future of our communitiesand the next generation is indeterminable. (SeeTable 7-2).



Today, proponents of gambling argue that, whilegambling may be abused like many otheractivities, it is generally a form of entertainmentpracticed responsibly by millions of Americans.To its credit, the commercial casino industry hasrecently promoted several initiatives aimed atencouraging and understanding responsible“gambling” behavior, including the productionof professional training materials for casinoemployees and guidelines for advertising.

But, when one talks about the social benefits ofgambling as entertainment, opponents ofgambling are quick to qualify this benefit, notingthat gambling itself is an inherently flawedproduct because a certain percentage of thosewho engage in it will always suffer problems.Proponents point to evidence that the vastmajority of those who gamble do not suffer or donot admit to having problem or pathologicalgambling problems. Yet among those for whomgambling is a regular activity, the risks appearmuch higher. A survey of 530 patrons atgambling establishments conducted for thisCommission showed that 13 percent of thosepatrons were classified as lifetime problem orpathological gamblers.

In fairness, many segments of the gamblingindustry have begun to address this issue. But anenormous amount must be done by the publicand private sectors, as well as by researchers,treatment providers, insurance programs andindividuals to address the negative and harmfulconsequences of compulsive gambling. This isdiscussed in greater detail in the chapter on“Problem and Pathological Gambling.” For thepurposes of this chapter, the Commission willdiscuss the impact of problem and pathologicalgambling behavior on individuals. In discussingour findings, the Commission must rely on thelimited research available, anecdotal informationand our own observations as the Commissiontraveled across the nation. While theCommission agree that this discussion should beshaped by scientific analysis, as evidenced by thecommitment of more than half of our budget toresearch studies, the Commission cannotdiscount the weight of the personal testimony

presented to us by individuals who haveexperienced these problems first-hand.

PROBLEM AND PATHOLOGICALGAMBLING

For millions of Americans, problem andpathological gambling is a serious consequenceof legal and illegal gambling. Part of ourchallenge has been to pin down the exact numberof individuals suffering from these disorders.Virtually every study varies in these estimations.For example, a Harvard University meta-analysisconcluded that approximately 1.6 percent, or 3.2million, of the American adult population arepathological gamblers.92 The combined rate ofproblem and pathological gambling in 17 stateswhere surveys have been conducted ranges from1.7 to 7.3 percent.93 In Oregon, the lifetimeprevalence of problem and pathologicalgambling is 4.9 percent.94 Recent studies inMississippi and Louisiana indicate that 7 percentof adults in these states have been classified asproblem or pathological gamblers.95

The two principal studies sponsored by thisCommission found that the prevalence ofproblem and pathological gambling in Americais troubling. NRC estimates that, in a given year,approximately 1.8 million adults in the UnitedStates are pathological gamblers. NORC foundthat approximately 2.5 million adults arepathological gamblers. Another three million of

92

Howard Shaffer, et. al., Estimating the Prevalence of DisorderedGambling Behavior in the United States and Canada: A Meta-Analysis (1997).93

See Rachel Volberg, Gambling and Problem Gambling in NewYork: A 10-Year Replication Survey, 1986 to 1996, Report to theNew York Council on Problem Gambling (1996) and Lynn S.Wallich, Gambling in Texas: 1995 Survey of Adult and AdolescentBehavior, Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse (1996).Cited in Henry R. Lesieur, “Cost and Treatment of PathologicalGambling,” 556 Annals AAPSS, at 154 (March 1998).94

Rachel A. Volberg, Gambling and Problem Gambling inOregon: Report to the Oregon Gambling Addiction TreatmentFoundation at 37 (August 26, 1997).95

Rachel A. Volberg, Gambling and Problem Gambling inMississippi: Report to the Mississippi Council on CompulsiveGambling at 31 (November 1996).



the adult population are problem gamblers. Over15 million Americans were identified as at-riskgamblers. About 148 million Americans are low-risk gamblers. Approximately 30 millionAmericans have never gambled at all.96 Whilesome believe that lifetime prevalence rates areoverstated, others believe that past year rates areunderstated.

Reasonable people, including those with clinicalexpertise, disagree over the exact number ofindividuals suffering from gambling disordersand the relevance of “problem” versus “at-risk.”While getting an exact number is important forscientists, policymakers and treatment providers,more important is the acknowledgement that asignificant number of individuals arepathological, problem or at-risk gamblers. And itis time for the public and private sector to cometogether in a meaningful way to address theseproblems.

The Commission is united in our concern forthose currently suffering from problem gamblingand our desire to prevent this problem in thefuture. The Commission also agrees that thisshould be a public-private partnership and thatgovernment at all levels should commitresources for research into the study andtreatment of problem gambling.

ADOLESCENT GAMBLING

Adolescent gamblers are more likely than adultsto become problem or pathological gamblers.NRC estimates that as many as 1.1 millionadolescents between the ages of 12 and 18 arepathological gamblers, which is a much higherpercentage than adults.97 In the NORC study,adolescent problem and pathological gamblingwas found to be at the same rate as adults, butthe at-risk rate was double the adult rate.98 NRCnoted that “adolescent measures of pathologicalgambling are not always comparable to adult

96

NORC at 6-10.97

NRC at 3-9.98

NORC at 61-4.

measures and that different thresholds foradolescent gambling problems may exist.”

With a growing number of underage gamblers,the social consequences of this illegal behaviorare significant. In NRC’s survey of literature,they found that the percentage of adolescentswho report having gambled during their lifetimeranges from 39 to 92 percent, with 39 percentfunctioning as an outlier, with the next highestpercentage as 62.99 The median was 85 percent.NRC also found that the prevalence ofadolescent gambling during the past year rangedfrom 52 to 89 percent, with a median value of 73percent.100

And the impact is felt throughout the nation. In asurvey of 12,000 Louisiana adolescents, one-quarter reported playing video poker, 17 percenthad gambled on slot machines and one in 10 hadbet on horse or dog racing.101 In Oregon, 19percent of youths ages 13 to 17 reported havinggambled in a casino, with 12 percent havingdone so in the past year.102 In Massachusetts, 47percent of seventh-graders, and three-quarters ofhigh school seniors, reported having played thelottery.103 (See also Figure 7-1.)

The conclusion is startling, but confirmed byevery study: children are gambling, even beforethey leave high school. NORC did note“adolescents were notably absent from casinoplay, with barely one percent reporting anycasino wagers. This presumably reflects well onthe enforcement efforts of casino operators,among other factors.” NRC, however, examined

99

NRC at 3-9.100

NRC at 3-9.101

James Westphal, et. al., “Final Report Statewide BaselineSurvey Pathological Gambling and Substance Abuse, LouisianaAdolescents (6th Through 12th Grades), School Year 96-97,”Department of Psychiatry, Louisiana State University MedicalCenter, (April 27, 1998), p. 14.102

Matthew J. Carlson and Thomas L. Moore, “AdolescentGambling in Oregon: A Report to the Oregon Gambling AddictionTreatment Foundation,” (December 1, 1998).103

Howard J. Shaffer, “The Emergence of Youthful Addiction: ThePrevalence of Underage Lottery Use and the Impact of Gambling,”Massachusetts Council on Compulsive Gambling (January 13,1994), p. 12.



Table 7-1

Financial Characteristics and Effects by Type of Gambler

Lifetime Gambling Behavior

Characteristic

Non-gambler

Low-Risk

At-

Risk

ProblemGambler

Path.Gambler

Any unemployment benefits, 12 mos. 4.6 4.0 10.9 10.9* 15.0**

Received welfare benefits, 12 mos. 1.9 1.3 2.7 7.3* 4.6

Household income, 12 mos. (RDD) $36,000 $47,000 $48,000 $45,000 $40,000

Household debt, current (RDD) $22,000 $38,000 $37,000 $14,000 $48,000

Filed bankruptcy, ever 4.2 5.5 4.7 10.3φ 19.2*

Statistical significance of differences between groups tested using multivariate logistical regression, with controlvariables for age, gender, ethnicity, education, child in household, and alcohol and drug use/abuse. Gamblers with noproblems were used as the base group.

Significance tests: pathological and problem types tested separately; statistically significant at the: *** = 0.01 level; **= 0.05 level. * = 0.10 level. Pathological and problem types combined for significance testing; statistically significant atthe: φφφ =0.01 level; φφ = 0.05 level. φ = 0.10 level.

Table 7-2

Percentage of Lifetime and Past-Year Gambler Types by Health, Mental Health,Substance Abuse, and Other Problems

Non-Gamblers

Low-RiskGamblers

At-RixkGamblers

ProblemGamblers

Path.Gamblers

ProblemLifetime Past

YearLifetime Past

YearLifetime Past

YearLifetime Past

YearLifetime Past

Year

Health poor/fair, past year 22.8 21.0 14.0 12.3 15.7 13.2 16.3 22.6 31.1 29.6

Mentally troubled (currently)(RDD only)

10.7 14.6 15.9 17.1 26.5 28.5 42.3 24.2 41.9 66.5

Mental health tx, past year 5.1 6.9 6.8 6.3 6.4 10.1 12.8 5.4 13.3 12.9

Emotionally harmful familyargument about gambling

NA 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.8 6.8 15.8 10.5 53.1 65.6

Manic symptoms, ever NA 0.7 NA 1.6 11.3 17.6 16.8 13.4 32.5 40.1

Depressive episode, ever (RDDonly)

NA 0.1 NA 1.0 8.6 17.4 16.9 5.2 29.1 20.0

Alcohol/drug dependent, ever(RDD only)

1.1 0.9 1.3 1.8 5.6 13.3 12.4 13.9 9.9 20.0

Drug use 5+ days, past year 2.0 2.4 4.2 5.1 9.2 13.5 16.8 16.1 8.1 13.9

Any job loss, past year 2.6 4.8 3.9 3.6 5.5 2.1 10.8 0.0 13.8 25.0

Bankruptcy, ever 3.9 3.3 5.5 6.4 4.6 10.9 10.3 13.8 19.2 10.7

Arrested, ever 4.0 7.0 10.0 11.9 21.1 25.7 36.3 25.0 32.3 26.4

Incarcerated, ever (RDD only) 0.4 — 3.7 — 7.8 — 10.4 — 21.4 —

Source: National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, Gemini Research, and The LewinGroup. Gambling Impact and Behavior Study. Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission.April 1, 1999. Table 9, p. 29.



Figure 7-1

Adolescent Past-Year Gambling by Type of Game

Source: National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, Gemini Research, and TheLewin Group. Gambling Impact and Behavior Study. Report to the National GamblingImpact Study Commission. April 1, 1999. Figure 9, p. 62.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Perc

en

tag

e

Casino Track Store Bingo Unlicensed Lottery Private

25.7

7.1 6.8 6.19.1

51.8

11.5

1.1 2.2 3.8 5.5

10.213.1

28.2

18 years or older 16 or 17 years old

Figure 9. Past-Year GamblingParticipation by Type of Game



thirteen relevant studies and found that a medianof 27 percent of adolescents reported havinggambled in a casino, while 10 percent reportedhaving done so in the past year.104 While themajority gamble on illegal activities, asignificant number gamble on legal forms ofgambling. This fact alone raises serious andtroubling concerns regarding the accessibility ofgambling, particularly convenience type, and theineffective safeguards that are presently in place.

Parents simply cannot rely upon the governmentor the industry to prevent underage gambling.

NRC surveyed the relevant research literature onrates of problem and pathological gamblingamong adolescents. In the past year, the studiesfound that adolescent problem and pathologicalgambling combined ranged from 11.3 to 27.7percent, with a median of 20 percent. Forpathological gamblers only, these studiesestimated rates between 0.3 to 9.5 percent, with amedian of 6.1 percent. For lifetime adolescentpathological and problem gambling, the range ofestimates was between 7.7 and 34.9 percent, witha median of 11.2 percent. For pathologicalgamblers only, the estimates ranged from 1.2percent to 11.2 percent, with a median of 5.0percent.105

NORC, in a survey of 500 youths ages 16 to 17,found that the combined rate of pathological andproblem gambling was 1.5 percent. But thisfigure may be low. The estimate was based onresponses by youth who reported they had lostmore than $100 or more in a single day or as anet yearly loss. When this constraint is removed,the figure jumps up to three percent.106 Otherfactors may have also led to under-reportingsince the consent of a parent or guardian wasrequired in order for a minor to participate in theNORC interview. Youths gambled differentlyfrom adults, using private and unlicensed games,such as card games or games of skill, sports

104

NRC, p. 3-24.105

NRC at 3-10.106

NORC at 57-60.

pools, and lotteries, especially instant lotterytickets.107

It may be important to note the impact ofproximity to legalized gambling on adolescents.One study found that college students in NewYork, New Jersey, and Nevada had higher ratesof gambling than did students in Texas andOklahoma.108 Oddly, South Carolina law allowsfor anyone to play video poker, which someresearchers have called the “crack-cocaine” ofgambling because of its highly addictive nature.There is no age limit to play. But there is an agelimit of 21 years on who can collect the earningsof play.109

Several studies have shown that pathologicalgambling is associated with alcohol and druguse, truancy, low grades, problematic gamblingin parents, and illegal activities to financegambling. How does one place a dollar value—acoston that conduct? How do we, as a nation,quantify the value of lost opportunities to theseyoung individuals?

One recent study found that gambling behaviorwas significantly associated with multiple drugand alcohol use. For 28 percent of thosesurveyed in the same study, gambling wasassociated with carrying a weapon at least oncein the past 30 days, and for those who reported aproblem with gambling the figure rose to 47percent. Violence was also associated withgambling: while nearly one-fourth of the non-gambling students reported having fought in thelast 30 days, the figure rose to 45 percent forthose who reported gambling and 62 percent forthose who reported problems attributed togambling. In addition, the researchers suggested

107

NORC at 4.108

Henry Lesieur, et. al., “Gambling and Pathological GamblingAmong University Students,” 16 Addictive Behavior, at 517-527(1991).109

ibid. Telephone conversation with Thomas Landes, PublicInformation Officer, Office of the Attorney General of SouthCarolina, staff of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission,S.C. (December 10, 1998).



that the data may have been significantlyunderreported.110

In the Harvard meta-analysis, it was noted that“… compared to adults, youth have had moreexposure to gambling during an age whenvulnerability is high and risk-taking behavior is anorm; consequently, these young people havehigher rates of disordered gambling than theirmore mature and less vulnerablecounterparts.”111

A study presented to the commission byLouisiana State University Professor JamesWestphal also drew a link between compulsivegambling and criminal behavior among youth.Louisiana adolescents in juvenile detention areroughly four times as likely to have a seriousgambling problem as their peers. Further, two-thirds of the juvenile problem gamblers indetention reported stealing to finance theirgambling.112

RESPONDING TO ADOLESCENTGAMBLING

While the chapter, “Problem and PathologicalGambling,” will address the clinical aspects ofthis subject, there have been a variety of localinitiatives to address youth gambling. In GreatBritain, “Parents of Young Gamblers,” a supportorganization, has been developed to directlymeet the needs of very young pathologicalgamblers and their families.113 Such an approachallows for relaxation training, avoidance ofgambling opportunities, and family and peersupport, including supervision of a young

110

Proimos, et al. “Gambling and Other Risk Behaviors Among 8th

and 12th Grade Students,” Pediatrics, Vol. 102, No. 2 (August1998).111

Howard Shaffer, et al., Estimating the Prevalence of DisorderedGambling Behavior in the United States and Canada: A Meta-Analysis (1997), p. 5.112

James R. Westphal, “Adolescent Gambling Behavior,”Louisiana State University Medical Center—Shreveport, presentedto the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Las Vegas(November 11, 1998).113 Jean Schroeder, “Youth and Gambling: A Review ofLiterature,” Report of the North American Training Institute (1995).

person’s money.114 One creative example of out-reach is within America’s Southeast Asiancommunity. Several organizations, including theUnited Cambodian Association of Minnesotaand the Lao Family Community of Minnesota,developed a prevention and education programto inform young Southeast Asians about thehazards of adolescent gambling.115 A similarbooklet has been created for the generalpopulation by the Minnesota Institute of PublicHealth.116 The Minnesota Council onCompulsive Gambling has prepared a packagecontaining a booklet, loose-leaf papers, and avideo targeted to teenage gambling.117 The goalof the materials is to enhance critical thinkingand to help identify compulsive behaviors.

Some sectors of the legal gambling industry havetaken the initiative to begin to address adolescentgambling. For example, the Nevada RetailGaming Association has developed a program topost stickers on slot and video poker games towarn against illegal gambling by adolescents.The Nevada Council on Problem Gambling hascreated literature to distribute to casinos andplayers. Several conferences have been fundedby the gambling industry to increase researchand awareness. Recognizing the importance ofthese problem, the American GamingAssociation (AGA) created a task force todevelop underage gambling prevention programsand policies and established a partnership withthe National Center for Missing and ExploitedChildren to address the issue of missing andunattended children in casinos. Standards havebeen set for employee awareness of attempts atunderage gambling, communication withemployees about how to stop underagegambling, and guest awareness that underage

114

See Mark D. Griffiths, “Factors in Problem Adolescent FruitMachine Gambling: Results of Small Postal Survey,” 9 Journal ofGambling Studies, 31-47 (1993).115

Roger Svendsen, Southeast Asian Youth Prevention EducationProgram (pamphlet), developed in conjunction with the MinnesotaInstitute of Public Health (April 1997).116 Roger Svendsen and Tom Griffin, Gambling: Choices andGuidelines (pamphlet) (1993).117

North American Training Institute, Wanna Bet (booklet, papers,and video) (September 1998)



gambling will not be tolerated. On-going trainingand orientation efforts are underway. Theindustry has made several statements thatadolescent gambling is neither wanted noracceptable.118 In 1997, both AGA PresidentFrank Fahrenkopf and casino owner DonaldTrump spoke against adolescent gambling andurged casino employees to keep adolescents outof casinos.119

These efforts are a start, but far more that postingwarning signs and training some employeesneeds to be done. Adolescent gambling is oneissue on which there is considerable commonground among the industry, parents, anti-gambling advocates, clergy, and city officials.The prevalence of adolescent gambling is aserious problem which demands a broadcoalition of efforts. The Commission has heardtestimony from some who argue that the casinoindustry should shoulder the burden for fundingprevention programs targeting underagegambling. The Commission believes that theresponsibility rests with all sectors of theindustry, including tribal and state governments.

SUICIDE

For those with destructive and dependentbehavioral problems, an additional concern issuicide. Commissioners heard repeatedtestimony about suicide and attempted suicide onthe part of compulsive gamblers. In AtlanticCity, the Commission heard about a 16-year-oldboy who attempted suicide after losing $6,000 onlottery tickets.120 In Chicago, Commissionersheard about a middle-aged couple in Joliet,Illinois, who both committed suicide after thewife accumulated $200,000 in casino

118

See American Gaming Association, Responsible GamingResource Guide, Second Edition at 3-11 to 3-19, x-1 to x-5.119

ABC News 20/20, Where Are Their Parents?: Children RoamCasinos While Parents Gamble (air date September 12, 1997).120

Testimony of Edward Looney, Executive Director, Council onCompulsive Gambling of New Jersey, Before the NationalGambling Impact Study Commission, Atlantic City, New Jersey(January 22, 1998).

debt.121When evaluating the economic benefitsof a proposed new facility, policymakers shouldalso give serious consideration to consequencessuch as these.

According to the National Council on ProblemGambling, approximately one in fivepathological gamblers attempts suicide. TheCouncil further notes that the suicide rate amongpathological gamblers is higher than for anyother addictive disorder.122

A survey of nearly 400 Gamblers Anonymousmembers revealed that two-thirds hadcontemplated suicide, 47 percent had a definiteplan to kill themselves, and 77 percent stated thatthey have wanted to die.123

University of California-San Diego sociologistDr. David Phillips found that “visitors to andresidents of gaming communities experiencesignificantly elevated suicide levels.” Accordingto Phillips, Las Vegas “displays the highestlevels of suicide in the nation, both for residentsof Las Vegas and for visitors to that setting.” InAtlantic City, Phillips found that “abnormallyhigh suicide levels for visitors and residentsappeared only after gambling casinos wereopened.” Visitor suicides account for 4.28percent of all visitor deaths in Las Vegas, 2.31percent of visitor deaths in Reno, and 1.87percent of visitor deaths in Atlantic City.Nationally, suicides account for an average of.97 percent of visitor deaths.124

A study commissioned by the American GamingAssociation to counter Phillips’ findings explainsthe suicide rates in Las Vegas not as a result ofgambling but rather as a result of the city’sgeographic and demographic characteristics.

121

Testimony of Joe Clark, Before the National Gambling ImpactStudy Commission, Chicago, Illinois (May 20, 1998) (ExecutiveDirector, Illinois Family Institute)122

National Council on Problem Gambling, Problem andPathological Gambling in America: The National Picture, at 14-15(January 1997).123

Edward Looney124

Elevated Suicide levels Associated with Legalized Gambling,27 Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior, at 373-378 (December1997).



University of California-Irvine Social Ecologyprofessors Richard McCleary and KennethChew, using different methodologies thanPhillips, concluded that suicide rates in LasVegas are comparable to other Western cities.They account for the high rates by analyzing therapid growth of many Western cities, whichresults in a large population without establishedroots to a community. They concluded, “Instrong contrast to the Phillips study, ourinvestigation shows that...suicide levels in U.S.Casino resort areas are about average comparedto non-gaming areas.”125 While these studiesmay account for the different rates, they bothconclude that Las Vegas has the highest residentsuicide rate in the nation.

The Centers for Disease Control and Preventionconducted a study of suicide and nowhere in thisstudy was gambling mentioned as a cause. Whatthe study did reveal was that:

A spectrum of social and environmentalfactors have been associated with suicidalbehavior. For example, levels ofresidential instability, unemployment,and other indicators of limited economicopportunity may be higher incommunities with higher suicide.Similarly, suicide rates are higher incommunities with low levels of socialintegration and unstable socialenvironments.126

Other observers have noted the fact that Nevadaregularly reports the highest rate of suicideamong all 50 states. For 1995, that rate was morethan twice the national average.127 Testimonybefore the Commission indicated that, fornumerous reasons, the magnitude of the linkbetween gambling and suicide may beunderstated. For instance, Commissioners heardthat gambling-related suicides and suicide

125

Rob Bhatt, Industry Engages Suicide Debate, Las VegasBusiness Press, at 1 (October 12, 1998)126

Christian Marfels, Ph.D., Visitor Suicides and ProblemGambling in the Las Vegas Market: A Phenomenon in Search ofEvidence, Gaming Law Review, Vol. 2, No. 5 (1998), p.472.127

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the UnitedStates: 1998 [118th Edition], Washington, D.C. at 105 (1998).

attempts often are not reported as suicides,128 nottied to gambling, or disguised so as not to looklike a suicide.

DIVORCE

The Commission likewise heard abundanttestimony and evidence that compulsivegambling introduces a greatly heightened levelof stress and tension into marriages and families,often culminating in divorce and othermanifestations of familial disharmony. In LasVegas, Michelle “Mitzi” Schlichter testified howshe eventually ended her marriage to formerNFL quarterback Art Schlichter after his secondincarceration for gambling-related activities.129

In Biloxi, Mississippi, a school teacher testifiedhow her 30-year marriage to a prominent GulfCoast attorney crumbled after the husbanddeveloped an obsession with casino gambling.130

In Tempe, Arizona, Gwen Bjornson testifiedbefore the Commission how her 5- and7-year-old sons’ “lives are forever changedbecause I was compelled to divorce their father,a compulsive gambler. Divorce is one of themost painful things that we, as adults, sometimesmust face. Yet, without divorce, I am very muchin doubt that I would have skirted a completemental breakdown.”

In NORC’s survey, 53.5 percent of identifiedpathological gamblers reported having beendivorced, versus 18.2 percent of non-gamblersand 29.8 percent of low-risk gamblers. Further,NORC respondents representing two millionadults identified a spouse’s gambling as asignificant factor in a prior divorce.131

NRC concluded, “Many families of pathologicalgamblers suffer from a variety of financial,

128 Testimony of Chris Anderson before the National GamblingImpact Study Commission, Chicago, Illinois (May 20, 1998).(Executive Director, Illinois Council on Compulsive Gambling).129

Testimony Before the National Gambling Study Commission,Las Vegas, Nevada (November 8, 1998).130

Testimony of Robin, Before the National Gambling ImpactStudy Commission, Biloxi, Mississippi (September 10, 1998).(witness)131

NORC, at 48,49.



physical, and emotional problems.” NRCreviewed studies showing that spouses ofcompulsive gamblers suffer high rates of avariety of emotional and physical problems.132

In a survey of nearly 400 Gamblers Anonymousmembers, 18 percent reported experiencing agambling-related divorce. Another 10 percentsaid they were separated as a direct consequenceof their gambling.133

HOMELESSNESS

Individuals with gambling problems seem toconstitute a higher percentage of the homelesspopulation. The Atlantic City Rescue Missionreported to the Commission that 22 percent of itsclients are homeless due to a gamblingproblem.134 A survey of homeless serviceproviders in Chicago found that 33 percentconsidered gambling a contributing factor in thehomelessness of people in their program.

Other data presented to the Commission furthersubstantiated this link. In a survey of 1,100clients at dozens of Rescue Missions across theUnited States, 18 percent cited gambling as acause of their homelessness.135 Interviews withmore than 7,000 homeless individuals in LasVegas revealed that 20 percent reported agambling problem.136 Again, whether this iscaused by gambling or by other factors related toaddictive behavior is unclear, but homelessnessand gambling should be included in futureresearch.

132

NRC, p. 5-2.133 Testimony of Henry Lesieur, Before the National GamblingImpact Study Commission, Atlantic City, New Jersey (January 22,1998). (Institute for Problem Gambling)134

Atlantic City Mission, “Report to the National Gambling ImpactStudy Commission” Atlantic City, NJ (January 24, 1998) p. 17.135

International Union of Gospel Missions, “Nationwide Survey:Nearly One in Five at Missions Say Gambling a Factor in TheirHomelessness,” (March 12, 1998).136

Denise Cardinal, “More Beds Sought for Area’s GrowingHomeless Population,” Las Vegas Sun, (May 11, 1998).

ABUSE AND NEGLECT

Family strife created by gambling problems alsoappears in the form of abuse, domestic violenceor neglect. In Biloxi, Mississippi, a witnesstestified before the Commission how herhusband’s gambling problem affected theirrelationship: “I lived in fear daily due to hisagitation and outbursts of violence broken doors,overturned furniture, broken lamps, walls withholes in them. I haven’t the words to describethe hell that my life became on a daily basis.”137

NRC cites two studies showing that between onequarter and one half of spouses of compulsivegamblers have been abused.138 Six of the 10communities surveyed in NORC’s case studiesreported an increase in domestic violencerelative to the advent of casinos.139

One domestic violence counselor from HarrisonCounty, Mississippi, testified that a shelter therereported a 300 percent increase in the number ofrequests for domestic abuse intervention after thearrival of casinos. A substantial portion of thewomen seeking refuge reported that gamblingcontributed to the abuse.140

Other casino communities report similarexperiences. Rhode Island Attorney GeneralJeffrey Pine reported a “significant increase” indomestic assaults in the community of Westerly,R.I. after the opening of the Foxwoods casino 20minutes away.141 Maryland Attorney General J.Joseph Curran, Jr. has likewise reported alinkage between expanded gambling andincreases in domestic violence in numerous

137

Testimony of L.M., Before the National Gambling Impact StudyCommission, Biloxi, Mississippi (September 10, 1998). (Witness)138

NRC, p. 5-2.139

NORC, at 73.140

testimony of Rachel Caine before the National Gambling ImpactStudy Commission, Biloxi, Mississippi (September 10, 1998).(Program Director, Salvation Army Domestic Violence Shelter).141

Police Chiefs in Westerley and Hopkinton Announce Link ofCasino Gambling to Increases in Crime and Economic Hardship forFamilies,[press release], Department of the [Rhode Island] AttorneyGeneral (February 6, 1996).



locales.142 The Commission even receivedtestimony of several cases of spousal murder andattempted murder linked to problem andpathological gambling.143

Children of compulsive gamblers are often proneto suffer abuse, as well as neglect, as a result ofparental problem or pathological gambling. TheCommission heard testimony of numerous casesin which parents or a caretaker locked children incars for an extended period of time while theygambled. In at least two cases, the childrendied.144 It was brought to the Commission’sattention that cases of parents leaving theirchildren in the Foxwoods casino parking lotbecame so commonplace that Foxwoodsmanagement posted signs warning that suchincidents would be reported to the police.145 Thewell-publicized murder of a seven-year-old girlin a Nevada casino during the formation of thisCommission has brought significant attention tothe issue of children abandoned by their parentsinside gambling establishments.

In its case studies of 10 casino communities,NORC reported, “Six communities had one ormore respondents who said they had seenincreases in child neglect, and attributed thisincrease at least in part to parents leaving theirchildren alone at home or in casino lobbies andparking lots while they went to gamble.”146

Respondents in these communities did not reportnoticeable increases in child abuse. NORC notedthat the casino effect was not statistically 142

“The House Never Loses and Maryland Cannot Win: WhyCasino Gaming Is a Bad Idea,” Report of Attorney General J.Joseph Curran, Jr. on the Impact of Casino Gaming on Crime,Presented to the Joint Executive-Legislative Task Force to StudyCommercial Gaming Activities in Maryland at 32-33 (October 16,1995).143 Arnie Wexler, before the National Gambling Impact StudyCommission, Atlantic City, New Jersey (January 22, 1998). (WexlerAssociates); Joe Lambe, Kansas City Woman Found Guilty of '95Murder, Kansas City Star (December 14, 1996), at C1; and PetulaDvorak, Marrero Man Kills Wife, Self; Daughter Hears Shots, NewOrleans Times-Picayune (May 8, 1998), Pg. A1.144

Arnie Wexler, ibid.145

Stephanie Saul, Tribe Bets on Growth; High Stakes FoxwoodsExpansion Not Welcomed by All, Newsday (Aug. 11, 1997).146

NORC, at 78.

significant for the infant mortality measure. TheNRC, however, reported on two studiesindicating between 10 and 17 percent of childrenof compulsive gamblers had been abused.147

LOCAL EFFECT

While it is important for this Commission toacknowledge that, in certain areas, especiallythose which had been economically depressed,the advent of casino gambling has producedlocalized benefits to the communities in the formof new and better jobs, increased purchasingpower, and social support facilities (such asschools and hospitals), it is not appropriate tospeak of those benefits without immediatelyacknowledging both the unknown, and presentlyunmeasured negative effects in those samecommunities experienced by those citizens whodevelop problem or pathological gambling habitsand the wave effects which those persons causein their families, workplaces, and localcommunities. Nor is it appropriate to ignore thenegative effects that the introduction of legalizedgambling in one community may have on thesurrounding communities within its area ofinfluence. Elsewhere in this Report theCommission has recommended that statesrequire that thorough impact studies beconducted before new gambling facilities arepermitted. That is not a reflection of a biasagainst gambling facilities, but rather anacknowledgment of the paucity of evidence ofnet impact derived from the introduction ofgambling into an area where it does not alreadyexist. The Commission is committed to the ideathat local government agencies should makecareful and informed decisions about whether topermit gambling into their respectivejurisdictions. Since proposals for the introductionof new gambling facilities are usuallyaccompanied by assurances of economic benefitto the community or region, it is reasonable toexpect that there should be a careful and well-

147

NRC, at 5-2.



documented study of all aspects of gambling, theeconomic and social benefits and economic andsocial costs, before new facilities are approved.That is no more than the careful analysis that isrequired in most zoning and developmentalplanning decisions.

CONCLUSION

As the Commission noted earlier, in an idealenvironment, policymakers and citizensprudently consider all of the relevant facts beforecommitting themselves and their communities tomajor courses of action. This should be true forthose communities considering the legalizationor expansion of gambling activities, as theeconomic and social impacts of gambling aresignificant. Unfortunately, this is often not thecase for a number of reasons. The amount ofhigh quality and relevant research is extremelylimited. The perceived lure of enormouseconomic benefits and tax revenues leads someto disregard potential economic and social costs.And sadly, today’s political environment placesmore emphasis on “spin” than it does on facts,and too many of these decisions are turned intohigh-priced ballot issues.

The Commission fundamentally respects thewisdom of the American people to decide whatis best for themselves and for their families. AsThomas Jefferson wrote more than 200 hundredyears ago, “I know of no safe repository of theultimate power of society but the peoplethemselves.” The Commission further values theright of all Americans to make choices regardingthe legal activities in which they engagerecreationally. The Commission committed ourefforts to making certain that both electedofficials and their constituents have as muchinformation as possible on this industry fromwhich to make informed decisions. Theimplications for communities and individuals ofintroducing, expanding or restricting gamblingare far different and more complicated than theywere 20 years ago.

In testimony before the Commission in Chicago,Michael Belletire, the Administrator of theIllinois Gaming Board, commented on thedifficulties facing policymakers: “Overall, Iwould observe that riverboat gambling in theheartland has not been as detrimental or asmalignant to our social fabric as its criticscontend, or as important or as benign as theindustry makes it out to be. The answers are notall in and the experience is an evolving one.” In amacroeconomic sense, the Commission agreeswith this assessment.

In terms of economic impact, the Commissionnotes that the conventional way of looking at aparticular business activity involves citingstatistics such as gross sales, revenues andemployment. Strictly speaking, however, thesegross numbers do not represent a true calculationof the net benefits to society. In the first place,gross wages and profits tell the whole story onlywhen the resources and workers would not havebeen otherwise engaged. Secondly, policymakersneed to be concerned about the extent to whichthe economic output of a given activity—especially one that involves a closely regulatedbusiness—is greater that the costs that itgenerates.

Gambling, like any other viable business, createsboth profits and jobs. But the real question—thereason gambling is an issue in need ofsubstantially more study—is not simply howmany people work in the industry, nor how muchthey earn, nor even what tax revenues flow fromgambling. The central issue is whether the netincreases in income and well-being are worth theacknowledged social costs of gambling. Aftermuch testimony and a review of the existingeconomic literature, the Commission hasconcluded that it is currently impossible toobtain even a rough approximation of a true cost-benefit calculation concerning the economicimpact of legalized gambling. The Commissionbelieves that further economic research will help,but also understands that gambling’s impacts aremuch too complicated for even the mostsophisticated economic models.

Turning to the social impact of gambling, theprocess of finding ultimate answers is even more



difficult. No reasonable person would argue thatgambling is cost free. And no member of theCommission opposes aggressive additionalaction to deal with problem and pathologicalgambling. Here, as in the economic sphere, theCommission does believe that more research canlead to greater understanding and more informedpolicy. After all, making decisions about whetherto expand gambling or how to deal with itsconsequences may not be a science, butdecisionmaking surely will be aided by morescientific evidence.

Finally, in other chapters of this report and in ourconclusions, the Commission stresses ourconviction that we must do more to cope withgambling’s impact on the nation. The effects ofgambling on people and places is an immenselycomplicated issue. If the Commission is to charta sensible course in the future, it will requireconsiderably more research and considerablymore good judgment by both citizens andleaders.

RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Because of the easy availability of automatedteller machines (ATM’s) and credit machinesencourages some gamblers to wager more thanthey intended, the Commission recommends thatstates, tribal governments, and pari-mutuelfacilities ban credit card cash advance machinesand other devices activated by debit or creditcards from the immediate area where gamblingtakes place.

7.2 While the Commission recognizes that theresponsibility for children and minors lies firstand foremost with parents, it recommends thatgambling establishments implement policies tohelp ensure the safety of children on theirpremises and to prevent underage gambling.Policies that could be implemented include thefollowing:

Post local curfews and laws in public areasand inform guests traveling with minors ofthese laws.

Train employees working in appropriate areasto handle situations involving unattended

children, underage gambling, and alcohol andtobacco consumption or purchase.

7.3 The Commission recommends to state, localand tribal governments that (when consideringthe legalization of gambling or the repeal ofgambling that is already legal) they shouldrecognize that, especially in economicallydepressed communities, casino gambling hasdemonstrated the ability to generate economicdevelopment through the creation of quality jobs.

7.4 The Commission recommends to state, localand tribal governments that (when consideringthe legalization of gambling or the repeal ofgambling that is already legal) they shouldrecognize that lotteries, Internet gambling, andnon-casino electronic gambling devices do notcreate a concentration of good quality jobs anddo not generate significant economicdevelopment.

7.5 The Commission recommends to state, localand tribal governments that (when they areconsidering the legalization of casino gambling)casino development should be targeted forlocations where the attendant jobs and economicdevelopment will benefit communities with highlevels of unemployment and underemploymentand a scarcity of jobs for which the residents ofsuch communities are qualified.

7.6 The Commission recommends to state, localand tribal governments that studies ofgambling’s economic impact and studiescontemplating the legalization of gambling or therepeal of gambling that is already legal shouldinclude an analysis of gambling industry jobquality, specifically income, medical benefits,and retirement benefits, relative to the quality ofother jobs available in comparable industrieswithin the labor market.

7.7 The Commission recommends to state, localand tribal governments that when planning forgambling-related economic development,communities with legal gambling or that areconsidering the legalization of gambling shouldrecognize that destination resorts create moreand better quality jobs than casinos catering to alocal clientele.



7.8 The Commission recommends to state, localand tribal governments that communities withlegal gambling or that are considering thelegalization of gambling should look tocooperation between labor unions andmanagement as a means for protecting jobquality.

7.9 The Commission recommends that studentsshould be warned of the dangers of gambling,beginning at the elementary level and continuingthrough college.

Future Research Recommendations Page 8-32

c hapter 7. g ambling s impacts on p eople and laces · gambling’s impacts on people and places...

Documents