MASSACHUSETTS GAMING
COMMISSION
RESEARCH DRIVEN PROBLEM GAMBLING MITIGATION
JANUARY 10, 2014
AN ACT ESTABLISHING EXPANDED GAMING
On November 22, 2011, Governor Deval Patrick signed Chapter 194
“An Act Establishing Expanded Gaming in the Commonwealth”
1 | MASSGAMING COMMISSION
THE MASSACHUSETTS GAMING COMMISSION
The Gaming Act created an
independent body
responsible for overseeing
and implementing the
licensing process.
2 | MASSGAMING COMMISSION
PRINCIPLES OF THE GAMING ACT
•
Transparent and competitive bidding of licenses
•
Maximum long-term value to the Commonwealth
•
Expansion of economic development benefits across regions of the
state
•
Protecting host and surrounding communities by addressing
all social impacts and costs
•
Ensuring rigorous public safety, regulatory and enforcement
mechanisms will be the best in the country
3 | MASSGAMING COMMISSION
LEGISLATION DETAILS:
FLOW OF FUNDS
Revenues derived from gaming are allocated by law to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Local Aid Stabilization Fund
Manufacturing Fund
Community College Fund
Mass Cultural Council
Gaming Economic Development
Mass Tourism Fund
Local Capital Projects Fund
Debt Reduction
Health Care Payment Reform Fund
Community Mitigation Fund
Public Health Trust Fund
Race Horse Development Fund
Gaming Local Aid Fund
Transportation Infrastructure and Development Fund
4 | MASSGAMING COMMISSION
COMMUNITY MITIGATION FUND
Community Mitigation Fund: created by the Legislature to address
impacts after a gaming facility is operational.
•
6.5% of the revenue from Category 1 Licensees is distributed to the Community
Mitigation Fund.
•
In addition, 10% of the gaming licensing fees, with the exception of initial licensing
fees, is also placed in the Community Mitigation Fund.
•
Funds to be expended “to assist the host community and surrounding communities in
off-setting costs related to construction and operation of a gaming establishment
including,” water/sewer, education, transportation, infrastructure, housing,
environmental issues and public safety.
•
A Community Mitigation SubCommittee and Local Community Mitigation Committees,
including members from host and surrounding communities, will advise the
Commission.
5 | MASSGAMING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST FUND
Public Health Trust Fund: Intended to assist social services and public health
programs dedicated to addressing problems associated with compulsive
gambling including, but not limited to, gambling prevention and addiction
services, substance abuse services, educational campaigns to mitigate the
potential addictive nature of gambling and any studies and evaluations
necessary, including the annual research agenda to ensure the proper and
most effective strategies.
• 5.0% of the revenue from Category 1 Licensees is distributed to the Public
Health Trust Fund.
• Annual fee of not less than $5,000,000 to provide programs to deal with
compulsive gambling and other addictions
6 | MASSGAMING COMMISSION
MASSACHUSETTS GAMING COMMISSION
RESEARCH AGENDA
BACKGROUND
2011 Expanded Gaming Act is unique in enshrining the role of research to enhance
responsible gambling & minimize problem gambling in MA
Section 71 of Gaming Act requires MGC to establish an “annual research agenda” to assist
in understanding the social and economic effects of casino gambling in MA & in making
annual scientifically-based recommendations to the Legislature
3 essential elements to the research agenda:
• Understand the social & economic effects of expanded gambling
• Baseline study of problem gambling and existing prevention & treatment programs
• Facilitate independent studies to obtain scientific information relevant to enhancing responsible
gambling and minimizing harmful effects
FEATURES OF THE PROJECT
First-of-its-kind gambling monitoring system that will
• Provide stakeholders in MA with a neutral database for strategic analysis & decision-making
• Generate early warning signs of changes in social & economic impacts of new & existing forms of
gambling in MA
• Promote responsible gambling & mitigate problem gambling through refinement of services
A comprehensive approach that establishes the impacts of casino gambling:
• At a Massachusetts-wide level
• At a regional level
• At a local level
A ‘state of the art’ analytic framework for socioeconomic impact studies and a multiple
methods research strategy
• Employs primary & secondary data collection/analysis
• Quantitative & qualitative research methods
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
1.
Measure ‘impacts’ rather than ‘costs and benefits’.
2.
Comprehensively assess all potential economic and social impacts.
3.
Avoid applying arbitrary monetary values to non-monetary impacts.
4.
Apply basic economic principles to evaluate the positive or negative nature of
economic impacts.
5.
Recognize that assessing overall nature of the observed impacts is sometimes a
qualitative assessment that often involves some subjectivity.
6.
Identify how much money is involved, where it is coming from, and where it is going.
7.
Establish both the micro and macro geographic impacts.
8.
Speculate on what the situation would have been without the introduction of the new
form of gambling.
9.
Assess impacts for years before and for years after the introduction of new gambling
venues/opportunities.
10. Report the limitations and parameters of these results.
SOCIAL RESEARCH: METRICS AND DATA
•
•
PROBLEM
•
GAMBLING and •
RELATED INDICES •
•
•
CRIME
•
•
•
LEISURE ACTIVITY •
•
Prevalence of PG
Treatment provision
Treatment/prevention costs
Personal bankruptcy rates
Suicide rates
Divorce rates
Child welfare involvement rate
Crime rates
Costs of gambling-related crime
Percentage of populace who gamble
Demographic characteristics of
gamblers
EMPLOYMENT
•
Employment and unemployment
rates
# people directly employed by
casinos
HOUSING
•
•
Owner-occupied vs. rental unit ratio
Multi-unit housing and mobile homes
•
•
•
•
•
Treatment & Prevention Providers
Population Surveys
Secondary Data (e.g., ABI, ISP)
Key Informants
Focus Groups
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Secondary Data (NIBRS)
Population Surveys
Key Informants
Population Surveys
Patron Surveys
License Plate Surveys
Focus Groups
•
•
Secondary Data (e.g., U.S. Census)
Key Informants
Gambling Venue Operators
Employee Surveys
Secondary Data (e.g. U.S. Census)
SOCIAL RESEARCH: METRICS AND DATA
EDUCATION
• School enrollments
• Secondary Data (e.g., MA DOE)
• Demand for specific services (e.g., ESL) • Key Informants
• Poverty
SOCIOECONOMIC • Health insurance
• Participation and expenditure on
INEQUALITY
• Secondary Data
• Population Surveys
• Patron Surveys
gambling as a function of income level
ATTITUDES
•
•
•
•
Toward impacts of future venues
Toward impacts of established venues
Toward gambling generally
Toward further expansion
PUBLIC HEALTH
•
•
•
•
•
•
Health care utilization
Cost of gambling-related comorbidities
Health care facilities
Social welfare programs
Health habits
Perception of health, MH status
• Population Surveys
• Focus Groups
• Secondary data (e.g., MA BRFSS, Acute
Hospital Case Mix Database, All Payer
Claims Database, MA ETA, MA DOL, BLS
QCEW)
• Focus Groups
• Key Informants
SOCIAL RESEARCH: METRICS AND DATA
QUALITY OF
LIFE/SOCIAL
CAPITAL/VALUES
ENVIRONMENTAL
• Happiness and life satisfaction
• Perceived social capital
• Personal values
• Population Surveys
• Focus Groups
• Key Informants
• Environmental attributes
• Population Surveys
• Key Informants
(e.g., noise, traffic congestion, etc.)
BASELINE STUDY: WHAT WILL WE LEARN?
1. What are the baseline levels of social & economic variables and their inter-relationships
before casinos become operative in Massachusetts?
2. What is the current prevalence of gambling in Massachusetts?
a.
Demographic, game type, and geospatial pattern of gambling in MA?
3. What is the current prevalence of problem gambling in MA (+ actual # PGs)?
a.
Demographic, game type, and geospatial pattern of PG in MA?
b.
Social, health, and economic consequences of PG?
c.
# PGs that desire treatment and # seek treatment?
d.
Where do PGs go to receive treatment in MA?
e.
What barriers exist to treatment seeking?
f.
What PG prevention and treatment services currently exist in MA?
g.
How aware is the general public of existing PG prevention initiatives?
h.
How well do PG prevention and treatment services match up to best practices?
OPERATIONAL STUDY
Purpose
• Determine impacts of new gambling venues on socioeconomic indices
• Determine effectiveness of PG prevention & treatment to mitigate impacts
Data Sources
• Secondary Data
• Baseline & Follow-up Population Surveys
- General Population (n = 10,000)
- Targeted Population (n = 4,000)
- Online Panel (n = 5,000)
•
•
•
•
Gambling Venue & Government Data + Employee Survey
Patron Surveys & License Plate Surveys
Key Informant Interviews
Focus Groups
Geographic Levels: State; Region; Community
Temporal Parameters: Annual Summaries (primarily)
• for years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018
OPERATIONAL STUDY: WHAT WILL WE LEARN?
1. What are the nature, characteristics and magnitude of the social and economic impacts
of legalized casino and slot parlor gambling in Massachusetts?
2. What is the geospatial and demographic pattern of these impacts?
3. What is the relationship between casino and slot parlor availability and gambling
impacts?
4. Do these social and economic impacts change over time?
5. Which individuals, groups, organizations and sectors in Massachusetts benefit most
and least from legalized casino and slot parlor gambling?
6. What does the data suggest about potential future impacts of further gambling
expansion?
7. What has been the effectiveness of strategies to mitigate the negative impacts of
expanding gambling in Massachusetts (particularly problem gambling)?
ADVANCING THE RESEARCH AGENDA
Longitudinal Cohort Study
• Follows a group of people over time with a shared experience – exposure to
new forms of gambling
• Provide detailed etiological information about how gambling and problem
gambling develops, progresses, and remits.
• The information collected through a cohort study has significant value as it
will highlight risk and protective factors important in developing effective
prevention, treatment, and recovery support services.
17 | MASSGAMING COMMISSION
CONCLUSION
Our goal is to conduct a world-class, comprehensive, rigorous & high-quality study of the
impacts of gambling in MA.
Our Research Team provides capabilities and experience relevant to all of the requirements set
forth in MGC RFR (and to Expanded Gaming Act’s research agenda).
We are committed to employing a public health approach.
We are committed to meeting the highest standards of intellectual excellence.
We are committed to working collegially with the full range of stakeholders in MA.
Thank you!
For additional information, please contact:
Mark Vander Linden
Director of Research and Problem Gambling
Mark.vanderlinden@state.ma.us
(617)979-8445