Policy Research Shop Social Impacts of Gambling in the United States Boyd Lever David Lumbert II Anya Perret

Policy Research Shop Outline I.Research Methodology II.Summary of Findings A.Structural assessment – structures vary B.Regulatory bodies, legislatures and health departments lack coordinated tracking of social costs. Cannot say whether legalization causes social harm– sufficient research does not exist. C.States with legalized gambling have programs, administered in various ways, to address pathological gambling and allocate revenue. D.Academic literature is inconclusive on social costs. IV.Recommendations

Policy Research Shop Research Methodology: Contacts Regulatory bodies (gaming commissions) in the 34 states with legalized casino gambling Committees with jurisdiction/leadership offices/legislative affairs offices in those states' legislatures Health departments/Mental Health Divisions/some nonprofit organizations

Policy Research Shop Research Methodology: Inquiries Commissions: Who in their state had jurisdiction over social impacts of gaming and if they had any relevant information on social impacts, such as crime rates or increases in pathological gambling Legislatures: Asked if they had examined or held hearings on the social impacts of gaming since legalization Public Health: Attempted to connect with state health programs addressing or with jurisdiction over problem gambling, and asked if they tracked changes since legalization.

Policy Research Shop Findings: Regulation Of the 34 states studied, the structure of regulatory bodies varies significantly: – 23 formed commissions, committees, and/or boards – 6 states have created departments or sanctioned specialized divisions within pre-existing departments – 2 states expanded the authority of the pre-existing lottery commissions State legislatures, after voting to pass legalization, do not tend to maintain oversight on social costs.

Policy Research Shop Findings: Regulatory Bodies Number of states with a regulatory body Reports produced by regulatory bodies on social costs 34 (all)1 The duties of the regulatory body, independent of structure and location, consistently include adopting administrative rules, providing licenses to operators, and enforcing gambling laws.

Policy Research Shop Findings: Legislative Oversight Legislatures do not usually form committees dedicated to gaming, and those that do usually pass regulations and monitor revenues. Commerce, legal affairs committees often have oversight. Legislatures with committees dedicated to gaming Number of hearings held that addressed social costs 85

Policy Research Shop Findings: Problem Gambling Funding None of the regulatory bodies have been mandated and/or provided designated funding to research potential social costs in depth. Despite a lack of state-funded research, states with some form of legalized gambling acknowledge the need for problem gambling services. States that provide problem gambling services vis-à- vis health departments allocated between 0.25% and 2.0% of the annual revenue collected from gambling activities.

Policy Research Shop Support for Problem Gambling Number of states with health department administered programs to address problem gambling Reports on social costs that have resulted in problem gambling State level departments and/or divisions dedicated to gaming and/or problem gambling Reports produced reports on social costs by those departments States with a nonprofit "Council on Problem Gambling" that provides services and advocacy (out of 34 studied)

Policy Research Shop Findings: Academic Academic studies have varying and contradictory results regarding the potential crime-gambling relationship. Some studies suggest that social costs, such as an increase in crime, are concentrated within a 50-mile radius of a casino. Once gambling is legalized or expanded, it is rarely repealed and has not been repealed legislatively.

Policy Research Shop Recommendations If gambling is legalized, New Hampshire should decide how to address potential social impacts. If the state is committed to monitoring social costs, this commitment must be mandated and resources need to be provided for the mandate. The legislature needs to decide if it will be involved, and if so, needs to make a commitment to oversight.

Policy Research Shop Recommendations The state must ask itself if there is adequate infrastructure to help problem gamblers, and if not, what mechanism will be implemented to address the need for remedial services. Approximately 2% of revenues generated will be necessary to address the need for problem gambling services adequately.

Policy Research Shop Recommendations The state may benefit from systematic data collection and long term analysis of the social impacts of gambling. Most states with legalized gambling have a local chapter of the non-governmental National Coalition on Problem Gambling. New Hampshire should consider creating a chapter.