Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Monitoring Gambling Impacts in Massachusetts: Honing Strategies and
Preventing Harm
Rachel A. Volberg
International Conference on Gambling & Risk Taking
June 6-10, 2016
Funding Declaration & Acknowledgements
• This study was funded by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission
• Many thanks to the members of the SEIGMA research team
BACKGROUND
2011 Expanded Gaming Act
• Allows for resort style casinos in three geographically diverse regions
• No more than one casino in each region
• Allows for one slots parlor statewide (not geographically restricted)
Features of the Expanded Gaming Act
•Regulators required to give equal importance to –establishing a viable casino industry
–minimizing and mitigating negative impacts
•Host communities given a strong voice
•PG issue framed explicitly through a public health lens
•Central role of research to enhance responsible gambling and minimize problem gambling
• Funds to conduct research and provide services to problem gamblers and their families ensured
MGC Research Agenda
• MGC launched its research agenda in 2012
• Components currently include:
– Impact study (SEIGMA)
– Cohort study (MAGIC)
– Crime component
– Evaluation of RG activities
– Strategic plan for PG services
SEIG
MA
Ove
rvie
w
SEIGMA’s Topic Areas
Social & Health Impacts
• General population surveys
• Targeted population surveys
• Online panel surveys
• Secondary data collection
Economic & Fiscal Impacts
• REMI modeling using primary & secondary data
• Community comparison analysis
• Profiles of host communities
• Real estate data analysis
Problem Gambling Services Evaluation
• General population surveys
• Online panel surveys
• Online focus groups
• Secondary data collection
Cohort Study (MAGIC)
• Focus on incidence & etiology
• Launch delayed due to repeal referendum
• Wave 1 = Baseline Population Survey
• Stratified sample drawn based on risk profile
• Wave 2 launched March 2014 – Achieved sample = 3139
• Wave 3 expanded quex developed
• Wave 3 launched in March 2015
Additional Components of MGC Research Agenda
• MGC crime analyst obtains quarterly updates on police incident reports from host & surrounding communities
• Intended to provide real time data for timely deployment of local police resources
• Higher-geography data will be analyzed for SEIGMA
• Voluntary self-exclusion
• Responsible Gambling Information Centers in gaming venues
• Play management system to be offered to all loyalty card customers
• Evaluation contracted to Cambridge Health Alliance, Division on Addictions
Crime Evaluation of RG Efforts
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR PROBLEM GAMBLING SERVICES
Overview
Pro
ble
m G
amb
lin
g S
erv
ices
Eva
luat
ion
Strategic Plan for Prevention and Treatment
• In 2014, MA DPH contracted with Education Development Center’s (EDC) Massachusetts Technical Partnership for Prevention to develop a strategic plan for problem gambling services in MA
• The resulting strategic plan: – Provides an overview of existing PG-related services in
MA – Incorporates key findings identified in a SEIGMA white
paper – Provides recommendations for how best to utilize
available funds
Pro
ble
m G
amb
lin
g S
erv
ices
Eva
luat
ion
SEIGMA Research Activities in Support of Strategic Plan
• SEIGMA survey data
– Baseline Population Survey
– Online Panel Survey
• MCCG Problem Gambling Helpline data
• Online focus group with treatment providers
Gam
bli
ng
Att
itu
des
Impact of Gambling Expansion on State
13.1%
27.4%
20%
31.1%
8.3%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Very Harmful SomewhatHarmful
Equal harm orbenefit
SomewhatBeneficial
Very Beneficial
Pe
rce
nt
Perceived impact of gambling in Massachusetts
Gam
bli
ng
Par
tici
pat
ion
Past-year Gambling Participation
72%
59%
32%
22%
13%
12%
3%
3%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Overall
All lottery
Raffles
Casino
Sports betting
Private wagering
Horse racing
Bingo
Online
Percent
Gambling participation by activity
Pro
ble
m G
amb
lin
g
Problem Gambling Prevalence
27.5%
63.4%
7.5%
1.7%
Problem gambling prevalence
Non gambler
Recreational gambler
At-risk gambler
Problem gambler
Pro
ble
m G
amb
lin
g S
erv
ices
Eva
luat
ion
Awareness of Media Campaigns & Programs
Pro
ble
m G
amb
lin
g S
erv
ices
Eva
luat
ion
Mass Council Helpline Data
Pro
ble
m G
amb
lin
g S
erv
ices
Eva
luat
ion
Mass Council Website Data
Pro
ble
m G
amb
lin
g S
erv
ices
Eva
luat
ion
Analysis of MCCG Helpline Data Summary of Key Findings
• Majority of gambler callers were middle-aged men
• Majority of concerned others were women
• Most common reasons for seeking help were financial problems, emotional health issues, and relationship issues
• MCCG made ~900 referrals to state-run treatment centers
• MCCG also made ~2600 referrals to other sources
Pro
ble
m G
amb
lin
g S
erv
ices
Eva
luat
ion
Online Focus Group Summary of Key Findings
• Providers use a variety of screening tools in various different ways
• Providers set treatment goals and evaluate treatment outcomes in different ways
• Providers differ in their opinions regarding treatment goals and outcomes
• Providers have a number of unmet needs – Desire for skills-based clinical training opportunities
– Desire to be part of a community of practice
– Desire for clinical supervision and mentorship
– Greater ability to track/evaluate/improve client outcomes
– More outreach to raise awareness about available services
Pro
ble
m G
amb
lin
g S
erv
ices
Eva
luat
ion
Common Themes Identified
• Information about gambling behavior and problems in Massachusetts can be used to tailor prevention messages and target outreach efforts
• At-risk and problem gambling prevalence estimates and information about concerned others can be used to estimate treatment volume and plan for treatment-seekers
• Improved data collection regarding help- and treatment-seekers in the Commonwealth is needed
• Improved problem gambling service administration is needed—clinical supervision, best practices, standardized practices, evaluation, etc.
LOOKING AT THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Key Findings from the
Eco
no
mic
& F
isca
l Im
pac
ts A
nal
yses
Real Estate Analysis
• Focus on baseline conditions in/around host communities
– Residential properties
• Sales, sale price, rents
– Commercial/industrial properties
• Inventory, net absorption, lease rates
– Analysis at multiple scales
• Host community, surrounding communities, immediate region, distance from casinos
Eco
no
mic
& F
isca
l Im
pac
ts A
nal
yses
Plainville Sales Trends
• Small market, dominated by SF home sales
• Upward trend, but highly variable
Eco
no
mic
& F
isca
l Im
pac
ts A
nal
yses
SF Home Sales “Hot Spots” Areas of Concentrated Single-family Home Sales, 2008 to 2014
Eco
no
mic
& F
isca
l Im
pac
ts A
nal
yses
Construction of PPC
• Collected construction data on Plainridge Park
• Finalizing report of construction spending and its impacts – This analysis will change slightly with the inclusion of
design and engineering.
• Developed data collection relationships with PMA, Pinck, MGC, MGM, and Plainridge Park
Eco
no
mic
& F
isca
l Im
pac
ts A
nal
yses
Plainridge Park Project Background
• Property includes four main structures
– Racetrack, grandstand and simulcast building, casino, parking garage
• The track carried over, the grandstand was remodeled, and the casino and parking garage are new
• Construction took approximately 14 months and cost $115 million
Eco
no
mic
& F
isca
l Im
pac
ts A
nal
yses
Spending by Quarter
$7.2 $10.8
$18.4
$31.6
$20.6 $3.2
$4.9
$9.5
$4.4
$4.8
$10.4
$15.6
$27.9
$36.0
$25.4
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015
Spen
din
g (M
illio
ns
of
$)
Casino Garage
Eco
no
mic
& F
isca
l Im
pac
ts A
nal
yses
Share of Construction Spending
MA 85%
NH 2%
CT 0%
RI 2%
Other 11%
Eco
no
mic
& F
isca
l Im
pac
ts A
nal
yses
Total Quarterly Workers and Wages
74
726
998
415
$1.1
$7.4
$9.7
$3.3
$0.0
$2.0
$4.0
$6.0
$8.0
$10.0
$12.0
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Plainville andSurroundingCommunities
Rest of Bristoland Norfolk
Counties
Rest of State Outside of MA
Total Q
uarterly W
ages (Millio
ns)
Tota
l Qu
arte
rly
Wo
rker
s
Total Employment Total Wages
Eco
no
mic
& F
isca
l Im
pac
ts A
nal
yses
Total Employment Impacts by Region
Total Employment (Job-Years) 2014 2015 Bristol and Norfolk Counties 400 355
Rest of Southeastern MA 53 61
Boston Metro 102 102
Rest of Central MA 18 20
Lower Pioneer Valley 2 2
Rest of Western MA 0 0
Total 576 540
Eco
no
mic
& F
isca
l Im
pac
ts A
nal
yses
Weekly Lottery Outlet Data
• MA Lottery is providing weekly sales data by outlet (weekly sales for 8,028 outlets)
• Outlet specific data is unique opportunity and big advantage
• Allows analysis lottery sales by community, by driving time and/or mileage from casino, and by game
Eco
no
mic
& F
isca
l Im
pac
ts A
nal
yses
Percent Change in Lottery Sales by City Jun-Dec 2015 vs Jun-Dec 2014
Barnstable
Bourne
Brewster
Chatham
Dennis
Eastham
Falmouth
Harwich
Mashpee
Orleans
Provincetown
Sandwich
Truro
Wellfleet
Yarmouth
Adams
Alford
Becket
Cheshire
Clarksburg
Dalton
Egremont
Florida
Great Barrin
Hancock
Hinsdale
Lanesborough
Lee
Lenox
Monterey
Mount Washin
New Ashford
New Marlboro
North Adams
Otis
Peru
Pittsfield
Richmond
Sandisfield
Savoy
Sheffield
Stockbridge
Tyringham
Washington
West Stockbr
Williamstown
Windsor
Acushnet
Attleboro
Berkley
Dartmouth
Dighton
Easton
Fairhaven
Fall River
Freetown
Mansfield
New Bedford
North AttlebNorton
Raynham
RehobothSeekonk
SomersetSwansea
Taunton
Westport
Aquinnah
Chilmark
Edgartown
Gosnold
Oak Bluffs
Tisbury
West Tisbury
Amesbury
Andover
Beverly
Boxford
Danvers
Essex
Georgetown
Gloucester
Groveland
Hamilton
Haverhill
Ipswich
Lawrence
Lynn
Lynnfield
Manchester
Marblehead
Merrimac
Methuen
Middleton
Nahant
Newbury
Newburyport
North Andove
Peabody
Rockport
Rowley
Salem
Salisbury
SaugusSwampscott
Topsfield
Wenham
West Newbury
Ashfield
Bernardston
Buckland
Charlemont
Colrain
Conway
Deerfield
Erving
Gill
Greenfield
Hawley
Heath
Leverett
Leyden
Monroe
Montague
New Salem
Northfield
Orange
Rowe
Shelburne
ShutesburySunderland
Warwick
Wendell
Whately
Agawam
Blandford
Brimfield
Chester
Chicopee
East Longmea
Granville
HampdenHolland
Holyoke
Longmeadow
Ludlow
Monson
Montgomery
Palmer
Russell
Southwick
Springfield
Tolland
Wales
Westfield
West Springf Wilbraham
Amherst
Belchertown
Chesterfield
Cummington
Easthampton
Goshen
Granby
Hadley
Hatfield
Huntington
Middlefield
Northampton
Pelham
Plainfield
Southampton
South Hadley
Ware
Westhampton
WilliamsburgWorthington
Acton
Arlington
Ashby
Ashland
Ayer
Bedford
Belmont
Billerica
Boxborough
Burlington
Cambridge
Carlisle
Chelmsford
Concord
DracutDunstable
Everett
Framingham
Groton
Holliston
Hopkinton
Hudson
Lexington
Lincoln
Littleton
Lowell
Malden
Marlborough
Maynard Medford
Melrose
Natick
Newton
North Readin
Pepperell
Reading
Sherborn
Shirley
Somerville
Stoneham
Stow
Sudbury
Tewksbury
Townsend Tyngsborough
Wakefield
Waltham
WatertownWayland
Westford
Weston
Wilmington
Winchester
Woburn
Nantucket
Avon
Bellingham
Braintree
Brookline
Canton
CohassetDedham
Dover
Foxborough
Franklin
Holbrook
Medfield
Medway
Millis
Milton
Needham
Norfolk
Norwood
Plainville
Quincy
Randolph
SharonStoughton
Walpole
Wellesley
Westwood
Weymouth
Wrentham
Abington
Bridgewater
Brockton
Carver
DuxburyEast Bridgew
Halifax
Hanover
Hanson
Hingham
Hull
Kingston
Lakeville
Marion
Marshfield
Mattapoisett
Middleboroug
Norwell
Pembroke
Plymouth
Plympton
Rochester
Rockland
Scituate
Wareham
West Bridgew
Whitman
Boston
Chelsea
Revere
Winthrop
Ashburnham
Athol
Auburn
Barre
Berlin
Blackstone
Bolton
Boylston
Brookfield
Charlton
Clinton
DouglasDudley
East Brookfi
FitchburgGardner
Grafton
Hardwick
Harvard
Holden
Hopedale
Hubbardston Lancaster
Leicester
Leominster
Lunenburg
Mendon
Milford
Millbury
Millville
New Braintre Northborough
Northbridge
North Brookf
Oakham
Oxford
Paxton
Petersham
Phillipston
Princeton
Royalston
Rutland
Shrewsbury
Southborough
Southbridge
Spencer
Sterling
Sturbridge
Sutton
Templeton
Upton
Uxbridge
Warren
Webster
Westborough
West Boylsto
West Brookfi
Westminster
Winchendon
Worcester
(10,700](6,10](4,6](2,4](0,2](-2,0](-5,-2][-70,-5]No data
Eco
no
mic
& F
isca
l Im
pac
ts A
nal
yses
Percent Change by City w/in 30 minute Drive
of Plainridge Park Jun-Dec 2015 vs Jun-Dec 2014
Attleboro
Berkley
Easton
Mansfield
North Attleb
Norton
Raynham
Rehoboth
Seekonk
Taunton
Holliston
Hopkinton
Bellingham
Canton
Dedham
Foxborough
Franklin
Medfield
Medway
Millis
Norfolk
Norwood
Plainville
Sharon
Stoughton
Walpole
Westwood
Wrentham
Bridgewater
Lakeville
Middleboroug
West Bridgew
Blackstone
Hopedale
Mendon
Milford
Millville
Southborough
Upton
Westborough
(10,40](6,10](4,6](2,4](0,2](-2,0](-5,-2][-14,-5]
CONCLUSION
Lessons We Have Learned
• Developing & maintaining relationships is vital
• Regular communication is essential
• Collaboration needed to effectively assess & address gambling impacts
– But requires extensive resources of time & good will
• Challenges in balancing feedback & best practices