Apr 25, 2020 | ADVOCACY, PROFESSIONALS, SPORTS BETTING
On March 3, 2020, Susan Sheridan Tucker, NPGA executive director, and Brianna Doura-Schawohl, director of advocacy for the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG), addressed the Minnesota senate’s Government Finance and Policy and Elections Committee. They advocated for funding for problem gambling in SF1894. The following are some excerpts from this testimony (the complete testimony can be found at www.northstarproblemgambling.org/advocacy.
“We insist that any measure affecting the availability of gambling must provide for those adversely affected by this activity and will oppose any bill that does not include these provisions.”
“Governor Walz recognized March as Problem Gambling Awareness Month. All over the country organizations like ours will make special efforts throughout the month to educate all that problem gambling is an addiction, a public health issue and treatment is available and works.”
“We must not expand an industry without making provisions for the real people and their families who suffer the psychological, emotional and financial consequences from this insidious addiction.”
“Unlike the bill introduced last session, this version fails to set aside any money for treatment, training, prevention, research and responsible gambling. This is a huge missed opportunity for Minnesota to set a new standard for its gaming industry. Nor does it provide enough language to identify whose standards the new commission will use to prevent compulsive and problem gambling.”
“The United States is undergoing a rapid and massive expansion of gambling since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Murphy vs. NCAA in May 2018. NCPG and the NPGA urge including the following four principles in the bill.”
- Ensure that any expansion legislation includes dedicated funds to prevent and treat gambling addiction.
- Require operators to implement responsible gaming programs that include comprehensive employee training, access to self-exclusion programs, ability to set limits on time and money spent on betting, and specific requirements for the inclusion of help/prevention messages in external marketing.
- Identify an agency or entity with the tools and expertise to enforce responsible gaming requirements and create a comprehensive self-exclusion program.
- Conduct research on the prevalence of gambling addiction prior to expansion and at regular periods thereafter in order to monitor impacts of gambling and have data that will support evidence-based mitigation efforts.
“Why wouldn’t Minnesota want to include consumer protection tools? Gaming regulators around the world are adopting more responsible gambling programs because they have made this connection and acknowledge they would prefer to have healthy players participate in their business.”
“We ask that before this bill goes any further, please build in the provisions NPGA and NCPG support. Any and all gambling expansion should mandate adequate consumer protections and set aside at least 1% of the funds from the tax revenue to support Minnesota’s problem gambling programs. We look forward to working with the authors of the bill to ensure that any expansion of sports betting comes with the greatest benefit to the state, at the least risk to its citizens.”
Feb 24, 2020 | ADVOCACY, HEALTHY PLAY, PROFESSIONALS, RESEARCH, SPORTS BETTING
While much of the emphasis of problem gambling programs is on making sure that people with disordered gambling are able to find the help they need, it’s also important to understand the attitudes and beliefs of those who play responsibly.
Such insights can help inform policies and practices designed to prevent and reduce potential harms associated with gambling.
One of the ways to objectively identify and measure the extent of responsible play within a sample of players is through the positive play scale (PPS). The PPS looks at a gambler’s beliefs and behaviors and can be used by those in the gambling industry to assess the effectiveness of responsible gambling strategies, identify specific areas for future focus, and examine the potential value of new responsible gambling initiatives aimed at promoting healthy patterns of gambling.
With this in mind, MNAPG commissioned Richard Wood, PhD, a noted gambling researcher, to study the level of responsible gambling in Minnesota starting in September 2019. The study, which sampled 1,517 Minnesota players, will provide a benchmark so that future changes in responsible gambling behavior, as measured by the PPS, can be noted over time in response to prevention messaging targeted to players’ behaviors and beliefs.
BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS MEASURED
The study measured two sets of beliefs: personal responsibility (the extent to which a player believes they should take ownership of their gambling behavior) and gambling literacy (the extent to which a player has an accurate understanding about the nature of gambling.) The survey also measured two sets of behaviors: honesty and control (extent to which players are honest with others about their gambling behavior and feel in control of their behavior) and pre-commitment (extent to which a player considers how much money and time they should spend gambling).
INITIAL FINDINGS
Most Minnesota players scored highest on personal responsibility, followed by honesty and control. However, more than half of all players scored medium or low on gambling literacy and pre-commitment. In fact, Minnesota’s pre-commitment scores were lower than those from three other states and Canada (which has invested more funds than the United States in responsible gambling initiatives over the last 10-plus years).
There were no significant differences in beliefs and behaviors based on gender. However, there were marked differences in PPS scores by age. While it’s not known why positive play increases systematically with age, it may have to do with overall exposure to responsible gambling messaging or that messaging is tailored to older people. The results show that the literacy rates are quite low among those aged 18-44, suggesting that better messaging can be developed for younger players.
As it relates to the various games people played, it was clear that those who limited themselves to lottery games had higher (better) PPS scores. Those who played a variety of games exhibited a lower PPS score, particularly for gambling literacy. It’s not clear if exposure to a range of games leads to decrements in positive play or whether those who do not hold positive play beliefs or engage in positive play behaviors are more apt to play multiple games more frequently.
Another key measurement was the relationship between positive play and satisfaction with gambling. Players were more satisfied with the gambling experience when they accepted personal responsibility for their gambling, were honest and in control about their gambling, and set limits on time and money spent. Surprisingly, gambling literacy did not correlate with player satisfaction. This was an unexpected finding and is something to be explored as we develop strategies. The results also suggest that segmentation is critical to understanding the responsible gambling needs of different players.
SURVEY IMPLICATIONS
The insights provided by this study will help us design and target prevention messaging to specific kinds of players, including by age or type of play. If we are to succeed in reducing the overall harm that gambling can have on individuals and families, it makes sense to develop multiple strategies that help build knowledge around the risks involved.
Jun 2, 2018 | ADVOCACY, SPORTS BETTING
Whether officially considered to be gambling or not, there are a number of recreational activities that can produce addictive behavior. We wrote about some of these activities in the Winter/Spring 2017 issue of Northern Light.
One activity, in particular, that seems to be increasing in popularity is the practice of box breaking, also known as card breaking. However, unlike other gambling or gambling-like activities, box breaking is not well understood by the general public or even to treatment professionals.
“I first came across this type of addiction in a client last year,” says John VonEschen, Northstar program manager and certified gambling counselor. “It’s not one that you see every day, but it clearly has the potential to devastate someone’s finances and produce behavior we would see as a gambling addiction.”
How it Works
A box break is an event in which a box or case of cards is divided up among collectors who purchase the right to receive cards as part of a random drawing. It’s similar to a raffle except that each participant is guaranteed to receive a certain number of cards.
These events are typically streamed live (or replayed on YouTube later) so participants can enjoy the excitement of seeing cards get “pulled” as the box is broken. The events are promoted as providing an opportunity for baseball card and sports memorabilia fanatics to obtain valuable cards at an affordable price.
“The live streaming of these events adds to the high that a participant can receive,” says John. “It’s not unlike the exhilaration that casino players can get when they’re at a casino.”
Some of the more common versions of box breaking include:
- The collector chooses a pack number from the box and watches as it’s opened live on air.
- The collector chooses their team in the box or case break. Each team will have a different price based on the checklist for the particular product.
- In a random drawing, a randomizer is used to determine draft order. After all cards have been pulled from a box, the top person gets first dibs at picking a card. The second person picks from the remainder of the box. The process continues until all cards have been pulled.
Although box breaks have gained popularity in recent years, they have been around since the mid 2000s. The exact definition of a box break varies from one breaker to another as every breaker has his or her own way of “breaking.”
While box breaking has the potential to create and feed a gambling addiction, it’s not clear whether the activity is officially considered to be gambling. Most state gambling statutes consider whether a game has: 1) a prize, 2) an element of chance in determining the winner, and 3) consideration (a payment or activity to participate). It can be argued that all three elements are present in at least some box breaks.
