In Nevada, there’s a new alternative for individuals who commit crimes — such as theft or fraud — that are motivated by their gambling addiction. The state has the nation’s only Gambling Treatment Diversion Court (GTDC), which gives these individuals an option to pursue treatment if they plead guilty to nonviolent crimes.
The GTDC is modeled after drug treatment courts, which haveproven successful around the country and are now in approximately half the nation’s counties. The Nevada court follows a pilot project in Amherst, New York.
The idea of specialty courts dates back to the 1960s during the Kennedy administration when prisons were getting too crowded, the cost of incarceration was high and rates of recidivism were significant. The theory behind the GTDC is that individuals can get the treatment they need, cease gambling, pay restitution to the aggrieved party, and go on to become productive members of society.
The process for enrolling in the GTDC system begins with a guilty plea in a criminal court. An assessment is then performed to confirm the existence of a gambling addiction and that the crime or crimes committed ultimately stemmed from the gambling addiction. Once the request to enroll is accepted, the applicant must pay a fee and commit to attending the GTDC at a prescribed frequency for a period of up to three years.
During this period of time, the individual must also wear a GPS device to ensure they don’t visit casinos or other places where gambling activity takes place. They must also consent to random drug tests. While many gambling addicts may not be drug users, the drug tests help ward off any “addiction switching” that may occur as a result of ending the gambling addiction.
Court sessions ensure accountability and provide opportunities for support group meetings. Program participants must also work one-on-one with a mental health practitioner specializing in gambling addiction. The participant must pay for this counseling, although loans and grants are available for those who can’t afford it. Should participants fail to meet the requirements or drop out early, they must serve the original sentence for their crime.
Judge Cheryl Moss has been the driving force in establishing the GTDC in Nevada. On the podcast “All In: The Addicted Gambler’s Podcast,” Judge Moss noted that she historically had about a dozen cases a year in family court that related to gambling addiction. As a result, she decided to get gambling assessments in certain custody and divorce cases.
According to Judge Moss, it’s been proven that specialty courts, such as the gambling diversion court, work. And it also saves the cost of incarceration, which in Nevada is approximately $24,000 per year per individual.
While the success of a gambling court is apparent, the challenge is getting judges to learn about it and appreciate its benefits to both the individual and the state. In addition to educating judges, it’s also important that criminal defense attorneys learn about the court so their clients know it’s an option.
The reception to the specialty court among those in the gambling industry and casinos seems favorable according to Judge Moss. She notes that some of the court’s participants have been casino employees, so the possibility for restitution rather than prison means the casinos will recoup at least some of their losses.
But in the end, more than financial restitution, it seems the option provided by the GTDC fulfills a moral imperative to demonstrate compassion and understanding. As Judge Moss says, “It gives people from all walks of life a second chance to be productive citizens.”
The State of New Jersey currently has two bills being considered to introduce gambling courts similar to the Nevada model. Action is expected on the bills later this year.
To help generate interest and awareness for such a court in Minnesota, Judge Moss suggests asking your congressman, senator or assemblyman to amend the state statute. It’s also helpful to spread the word to judges and help them realize that it’s possible to create such a court — and that it can be successful.
Various in-person and online games allow players to purchase randomized packs of rewards, such as collectible card packs and virtual items. Some places are imposing regulations on video games offering loot boxes—purchasable virtual containers with randomized items—as they seem to fit traditional definitions of gambling. Indeed, people who report more problem gambling symptoms tend to spend more on loot boxes. Due to some similarities with loot boxes, collectible card game ‘booster packs’ have come under scrutiny as well. Collectible card games (CCGs) allow for the purchasing of physical booster packs containing cards that are sealed and random in game value. This week, The WAGER reviews a study by David Zendle and colleagues that examined the association between problem gambling symptoms and the amount of money spent on physical booster packs of trading cards.
What was the research question?
What is the relationship between the severity of problem gambling symptoms and the quantity of money spent on collectible card game booster packs in real-world and digital stores?
What did the researchers do?
The researchers used a cross-sectional survey advertised on the online message board Reddit, and obtained 726 usable responses from participants 18 and older. About 60% of respondents were from the U.S., but many different countries were represented. The survey asked participants about CCG physical booster pack spending in (1) real-world stores and (2) digital stores within the past month. It also assessed problem gambling using the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI). The researchers used PGSI scores to classify respondents as non-problem gamblers (n = 429), low-risk gamblers (n = 244), moderate-risk gamblers (n = 35), and people experiencing gambling problems (n = 18). They then used Kruskal–Wallis tests to examine if respondents in different PGSI groups differed in terms of how much money they spent on physical booster packs in real-world stores and digital stores.1
What did they find?
Zendle and colleagues did not find evidence for an association between problem gambling and quantity spent on booster packs in real-world stores (see Figure). Even though there was a statistically significant relationship for problem gambling and the quantity of money spent on booster packs in digital stores, the effect was too small to be considered clinically significant. There was also no significant difference in quantity spent on booster packs between people with and without gambling problems.
Figure. Problem gambling severity and spending (in US dollars) on booster packs in real-world stores among survey respondents (total n = 726). Although the authors performed their statistical tests on mean ranks, we provide medians to illustrate the trends across PGSI categories. The interquartile range (IQR) around each median was $39 for people without gambling problems (n = 429), $50 for low-risk gamblers (n = 244), $69 for moderate-risk gamblers (n = 35), and $119 for people experiencing gambling problems (n = 18). Click image to enlarge.
Why do these findings matter?
This study suggests that while booster packs in collectible card games may appear similar to gambling in some ways, users do not seem to engage with them in ways comparable to traditional gambling activities. Thus, regulations—like those developed for loot boxes—might not be necessary for booster packs. This suggests that there is likely a difference in the ways that players interact with physical booster packs and digital loot boxes. Ultimately, the findings were cross-sectional, so the researchers could not establish causality; additional longitudinal and/or experimental research would help better illuminate the specific factor that accounts for the difference in loot box and booster packs’ relationship with problem gambling symptoms.
Every study has limitations. What are the limitations of this study?
Participants were recruited from Reddit’s online message boards targeting fervent players of collectible card games. An over-representation of enthusiastic players in the study’s sample may lead to findings that are not representative of more casual players. Social desirability bias through self-reporting may also contribute to participants misrepresenting their true spending or gambling behaviors. The most severe PGSI category had only 18 people in it, which likely limited the chances that the authors would statistically detect a difference among groups.
For more information:
Do you think you or someone you know has a gambling problem? Visit the National Council on Problem Gambling for screening tools and resources. For additional resources, including gambling and self-help tools, please visit The BASIS Addiction Resources page.
— Taylor Lee
______________
[1] The authors used rank transformations and Kruskal–Wallis tests to replicate past research in this area, and because they could not be sure if their spending data would meet the normality distribution assumptions of ANOVA.
As more and more states expand access to sports and online gambling — amid ever-advancing technology — the need for comprehensive compliance and consumer protection will be critical to minimizing the harm to gamblers.
Advanced technology is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it provides easier access to gambling options, as one can place their bets on the bus, on a lunch break or from their home, playing with little to no disruption. For those with a gambling problem, this could exacerbate the harms. However, on the flip side, with so much data being collected on the player (and information used by the operator for marketing purposes and to keep players engaged), there are opportunities to do more advanced player interventions if they appear to be exhibiting problem behavior. This means that as more gambling migrates to online platforms, regulators and operators can no longer turn a blind eye to customers who are not playing responsibly.
Gambler education is one key to reducing harm for those who gamble online. Bettor Safe (www.bettorsafe.org) is a new consumer education campaign designed to highlight the risks of illegal betting sites and provide consumers with resources to improve their understanding of online betting. Currently, online gambling and sports betting is not legal in Minnesota. This means that those engaging in these activities are being directed to offshore, unregulated sites. Bettor Safe points out the differences between regulated sites and unregulated sites. It is currently running campaigns in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, two early adopters of sports and online gambling.
Bettor Safe was developed by the founders of GEOComply, the iGaming industry’s go-to for reliable, accurate and precise geolocation services. GEOComply has been expanding its offering beyond its primary focus of geolocation into areas such as multi-state KYC (Know Your Customer) and digital ID verification, payment and fraud analytics, and responsible gaming. Bettor Safe is the first initiative of GEOComply’s Conscious Gaming, a separate nonprofit that is developing responsible gambling tools as a way of giving back to the industry.
The annual New Horizons Conference in Responsible Gambling, hosted by the British Columbia Lottery Corporation (BCLC), attracts critical and forward thinkers that consider how the gambling industry can improve its role in developing meaningful responsible gambling tools. Last year, BCLC committed itself to a long-term aspirational goal of future proofing the industry — a point where no gambling revenue would be generated by those exhibiting problem gambling or gambling disorder. This year’s theme was Player Health Reboot: Resetting the Future.
Futurist Sanjay Khanna detailed the large-scale environmental and societal changes the globe is grappling with and how this era will impact the future of the gambling industry. Khanna explained how influences like climate change and the proliferation of smart phones and social media will affect player health, social resilience and the future concept of play. He offered suggestions on how operators, product designers and policy makers can use technology, innovation and diversity to ‘reset’ and prepare for a future that is positive, resilient and sustainable. He emphasized that player health needs to be considered by design and incorporated into the early inception of new products and services.
Another thought-provoking session was presented by Dr. Brett Abarbanel, director of research at the International Gaming Institute at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. She examined the definition of gambling and how elements of gambling and chance appear in unexpected ways in video games, Esports, virtual reality and other applications.
Dr. Abarbanel explained how the word gambling can mean different things to different people. She noted that it can mean a casino game, a slot machine, a poker game, the flipping of a coin at the start of a sports contest, or when rolling the dice in a board game. Regulators in jurisdictions worldwide are challenged by these questions in determining the legality of emerging video-gaming elements such as loot boxes.
“Game developers, toy designers and spectator- engagement tool creators who are putting these things together may not even realize the potentially legal and certainly social ramifications of even just adding a simple random number generator to their games or other gambling-like elements,” says Dr. Abarbanel. “How we define gambling really starts to come into play.”
As most people know, the American healthcare system has not treated people of color (POC) equitably. The pandemic has focused attention on the disparities between Whites and People of Color, as COVID fatalities are much higher for POC than Whites. Add in the racial unrest occurring in our own backyard — and around the country — and you get a sense of the stresses faced by POC. As a result, traditional counseling that White people might access is not the first choice for POC seeking help.
A virtual webinar conducted by Dr. Deborah Haskins, Ph.D., LCPC, ACS, MAC, ICGC-II, BACC, CEO, Mosaic Consulting and Counseling Services and President of the Maryland Council of Problem Gambling, highlighted some of the cultural interpretations among POC, examined some of the cultural considerations influencing gambling disorder, and introduced the cultural attunement model in her program Cultural Competency, Equity and Inclusion and Disordered Gambling Treatment and Prevention. Dr. Haskins stressed the need to understand cultural context when considering clients of color. Problem gambling is perceived as a “White man’s problem” because the approach to prevention seems only geared to Whites and POC do not see themselves represented.
Dr. Haskins provided overviews of various communities, including African American, Native American, Southeast Asians and Latinx. Each have very different views of gambling and how, when and where to seek help. Talk therapy is not the best fit for many communities and Dr. Haskins suggested we need to do more to shift the way in which we design and support problem gambling programs. She also described the cultural attunement model whereby counselors incorporate these five dimensions into a program:
1. Acknowledge the pain of cultural oppression.
2. Employ acts of cultural acceptance — ability to maintain a balanced perspective about one’s talents, successes and failures. Try to emphasize the positives to buoy their spirits since they have been so marginalized.
3. Act with cultural reverence. This requires that counselors think/listen/act from the heart and bring forth feelings of wonderment regarding how people bring meaning into their lives.
4. Engage in mutuality — cultural kinship — appropriate sharing of common experiences.
5. Possess the capacity to “not know” and be culturally open. The client is the true expert on their lives so tap into the expert knowledge they possess.
Overall, there needs to be new ways in which we approach treatment for POC. There must be real awareness of social and economic justice and understanding of past traumas (Adverse Childhood Experiences – ACES screening). Dr. Haskins stressed that we need to acknowledge the pathologies along with the resilience and keep stressing prevention.
This spring NPGA is offering its inaugural International Gambling Counselor Certification Board (IGCCB) clergy/spiritual leader training. We seek to expand outreach throughout Minnesota and among community groups that don’t necessarily see counseling/treatment as their first step towards help. The goal of the program is to increase the knowledge and equip influential community leaders with some basic understanding of problem gambling. The program provides spiritual leaders an opportunity to interact with each other as they seek to increase their community’s awareness of the issue of problem gambling, reduce any stigma related to problem gambling and facilitate discussions about ways in which harm can be minimized.
As part of this initial training, eight leaders from the Twin Cities Nigerian community will learn about gambling disorder, who it impacts, available resources, and how to engage in conversations that help those impacted as well as educating their congregations and community groups.
Each of the eight individuals will take 16 hours of online course work in the following eleven modules:
Definitions and Diagnostic Criteria
Special Populations and Gambling Disorders: Women and Multicultural
Scope and Prevalence of Disordered Gambling
Assessing Gambling Disorder
Co-Occurring Disorders and Gambling Disorders
Screening for Gambling Disorder and Impacts of Gambling
Best Practices and Evidence-Based Strategies for Treatment of Gambling Disorder: Motivational Interviewing
Family Intervention
Financial Issues and the Meaning of Money
Neurobiology and Psychopharmacology
Special Populations and Gambling Disorders: Youth and Older Adults
In early May, the group convened on Zoom with a trained spiritual facilitator to discuss possible scenarios and ways they can engage their community member in a meaningful and resourceful way. Those who completed the full 24 hours will receive a certificate of completion. The IGCCB offers an actual certification that can be obtained by doing additional community project work, but for this inaugural program NPGA opted for the certificate. We will revisit this once we’re well past the restrictions of COVID.
