Casino Self-exclusion Programmes: A Review of the Issues

1. Casino Self-exclusion Programmes: A Review of the Issues Nadine Nowatzki and Robert Williams Alberta Gaming Research Institute University of Lethbridge Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada

2. Casino Self-exclusion Outline • Prototypical model • Overview of self-exclusion in Canada • Effectiveness of self-exclusion • Recommendations on how to improve it

3. The Prototypical Programme • Pamphlets and/or website explain programme • Individuals can sign up at casinos • Fill out application and have photo taken • Are advised that help is available • May apply to all casinos in jurisdiction, does not apply to other gambling venues • Names and photographs of individuals are distributed to casinos in jurisdiction

4. Prototypical Programme, Cont’d • Individuals removed from mailing lists • Casinos refer to list before issuing player cards, cashing cheques, paying jackpots, etc • Usually irrevocable, requirements for re-entry vary • Self-exclusion enforced by security personnel • Violation of contract may result in trespass charge • Many casinos also have involuntary exclusion lists

5. Canada

6. Effectiveness of Casino Self-exclusion • Requires person to admit to problem • No way of knowing how many individuals re-enter casino during time of exclusion • Does not apply to other forms of legal/illegal gambling • Ladouceur et al (2000)- 30% of participants completely stopped gambling once excluded • Netherlands- 40% of problem gamblers were reached by Holland casino prevention policy • Overall utilisation rates in Canada are between .4% and 1.5% for problem gamblers

7. Recommendation #1: Mandatory Promotion • Promotion in many venues is not visible, and where present is promoted indirectly • Previous studies indicate that many people are not aware of its existence • Some casinos do not take requests for self-exclusion seriously

8. Recommendation # 2: Irrevocable Contracts, Minimum Ban Length of 5 Years • Self-exclusion has little value if individuals can revoke contract • Substance abuse literature supports longer periods to prevent relapse • Evidence that patrons prefer longer, irrevocable contracts

9. Recommendation # 3: Jurisdictional Standardisation and Uniformity • In parts of Europe: self-exclusion applies to all casinos in the country • In Canada: province-wide (except Québec) • In parts of USA: each venue within a jurisdiction could have a unique list • Patrons should not have to enter casino to sign-up or renew self-exclusion

10. Recommendation # 4: Extend exclusion to all gaming venues; restrict all gambling to gaming venues • Large amount of gambling takes place outside of casinos • Apply self-exclusion to other venues: Bingo halls, racetracks, online gaming, etc • Remove electronic gaming machines from non-gaming venues

11. Recommendation # 5: Computerised Identification Checks for Enforcing Self-exclusion • Weakness of security: many self-excludees are easily able to enter venues • Excludees often try to change their appearance • As number of excludees increases, enforcement becomes more difficult for security staff • Holland casino: mandatory identification and registration in computerised database results in instant detection

12. Recommendation # 6: Penalties for Both Venue and Gambler Upon Breach • Gamblers should face penalty: must take responsibility for actions. • Trespass charge provides deterrent • Venues should face financial penalty to ensure compliance • With computerised registration, this issue is irrelevant

13. Recommendation # 7: Optional Counselling & Mandatory Gambling Education Seminar • Mandatory counselling may not work • self-motivation and willingness to participate are important in recovery • Responsible gambling awareness seminar (as in Manitoba): • review of past gambling history, info on how gambling works, plan for returning to gamble

14. Recommendation # 8: Increased Training & Education of Employees • To recognize and approach problem gamblers • Easier to treat problems at earlier stages • The Netherlands: computerised registration monitors visiting frequency of guests, provides notification upon increases • Staff approach guest upon sudden increase • Self-exclusion or visit limitation may be recommended • Many problem gamblers do not believe they have a problem- important to be proactive

15. Conclusions • Self-exclusion has the potential to be an effective tool for assisting problem gamblers • Existing programmes a step in the right direction but need to be improved • ‘Philosophy’ behind responsible gaming different in North America • More research is needed on these programs • Holland Casino: successful prevention of problem gambling not an obstacle to profit