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

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

4. 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

5. 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

6. Canada Province/ # of casinos Date imple- mented Length of ban/Revocable Penalty for breach # of current exclusions British Columbia 19 19996 months to lifetime, yes None741 Alberta 16 20006 months to 3 years, no Trespassing charge 661 total Saskatchewan 7 1997Up to 5 years, yes Trespassing charge 394 total* Manitoba 2 1989 – 19932 years, No Trespassing charge 390 545 total Ontario 8 1994 – 19996 months to indefinite, yes Trespassing charge & fine >2000 total Quebec 3 1993 – 19966 months to 5 years, no None3,331 Nova Scotia 2 1995Indefinite, yesNone826 total

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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