Gamblefree Day and Kiwi Third-Party Exclusions

For the last eight years, September 1 has been Gamblefree Day in New Zealand, when problem gambling is highlighted. One of the methods that New Zealand has adopted to combat problem gambling is self-exclusion. The guidelines for exclusion seem very sophisticated, and they include provisions for casinos to involuntarily exclude suspected problem gamblers and for family members and other third parties to raise a call for increased scrutiny that could lead to an involuntary exclusion. As the guidelines note, "One of the most common indicators of problem gambling is notification from a relation, friend or family member of the patron." Many areas of New Zealand allow for multi-venue exclusions. In July, one locale with pokie machines was forced to turn off the machines for two days because a gambler seeking exclusion was not, in fact, excluded.

Skycity operates hotels and casinos in New Zealand. If a Skycity casino wants to exclude a suspected problem gambler, it gives the gambler a chance to voluntarily self-exclude first -- but given that a refusal to self-exclude will lead to an imposed two-year ban, it is hard to endorse the notion that such an exclusion is fully voluntary.

New Zealand also promotes responsible gambling by requiring slot machines to display a clock and the amount won or lost, along with reminders to take breaks.

Self-Exclusion as a Substitute for Mandatory Limits?

The Australian government is attempting to require that all players of "pokies" (electronic gaming machines) at clubs and pubs choose an expenditure limit. When they hit that limit, the players would have to wait (24 hours?) before they could resume gambling. The Australian loyal opposition is looking into alternative measures, including a national self-exclusion system. Perhaps more controversial is the possibility of third-party or family exclusions, where someone can be barred from gambling following an application not from the gambler him or herself, but from a close family member. Of course, family exclusions already exist in Singapore -- and in Australia! Another measure that the opposition is considering is to remove ATM access at gambling locales for would-be punters on the exclusion list. The inquiry by the Australian opposition is slated to be completed by the end of the month.

Less-than-Voluntary Exclusion

The Self-Exclusion blog has made a point of detailing exclusion orders, particularly in Singapore, that are not fully voluntary. A recent report (71-page pdf here) on self exclusion from casinos in British Columbia notes (page 14) that people who administer the program do not see all participants as being uncoerced: "...not all clients signed up completely voluntarily as some were pressured by family or friends, while others signed up because they needed to show someone else (e.g. the bank, a judge) that they were doing something to address their gambling problem." The coerced excluders also were viewed as being the most likely to try to violate their exclusion order.

The April, 2011 report with this information was prepared for the British Columbia Lottery Corporation by the BC Centre for Social Responsibility. The report provides both a fine review of previous work on gambling self-exclusion and a new longitudinal analysis on the British Columbia program; I hope to draw on this source for some more posts soon.

Foreign Workers in Singapore Flock to Self-Exclude

The Self-Exclusion blog speculated that foreign workers in Singapore might feel a bit of pressure from their employers to self-exclude from the Singapore casinos, and this is one prediction that seems to have been borne out: "many Singaporer companies are refusing to renew their foreign employees work permits unless they agree to give the casinos a wide berth."

The excluded list is not public, so how do employers know that their employees have self-excluded? The employer-assisted procedure involves an application form that is filled out in part by the employer, and in part by the employee, and signed by both parties. The completed form is submitted by the employer, however. Employers, therefore, can monitor whether their employees fill out and sign their portion of the form.

Singapore's National Council on Problem Gambling goes to great lengths to stress that these employer-facilitated exclusions must be voluntary on the part of the employee. But just how voluntary are they if an employee who won't agree to self-exclude will not get to keep his or her job? Here's the claimed purpose of the program:

The Consolidated Foreigner Form is to facilitate/assist employers to help their foreign workers apply for self-exclusion from the casinos. This is because many foreign workers, especially Work Permit holders, may not be proficient in English or our other official languages. They may not be aware that they can opt to exclude themselves from the casinos or understand how to apply for exclusion orders. Therefore, we are providing this option for employers to facilitate/assist their foreign workers to apply for self-exclusion.

The amazing popularity of the program with foreign workers suggests that in practice, the employer-facilitated process is more about employer coercion than about empowering foreign employees to satisfy their latent desires to self-exclude.

The same article linked above gives the overall exclusion numbers in Singapore, circa July, 2011:

In total, around 18,000 self exclusion orders are now in place at Singapore’s casinos, of which 70% are from foreigners. In addition to the 12,660 foreign workers excluded from the casinos, the number of locals excluding themselves from visiting Singapore’s casinos has also risen from 3,500 to 5,389.

Involuntarily Unwelcome, but not Excluded

Singapore and parts of Australia allow family members to initiate an inquiry that could result in a family member being excluded from casinos. The overriding of individual autonomy makes such programs more objectionable, to my mind, than voluntary self-exclusion programs. In “Handling Corporate Social Responsibility: A Third Way,” (Gaming Law Review and Economics 14(5): 355-361, 2010), William N. Thompson offers a compromise that North American casinos might want to consider. Family members can initiate an inquiry that could result, not in a gambler being excluded, but in a gambler being made to feel unwelcome or worse. (These consequences would be implemented for gamblers whose betting was creating significant harms for him- or her-self or for others.) Such unwelcome folks would be removed from all marketing campaigns, denied credit from the casino, and not allowed to collect large jackpots. (These three sanctions are standard elements of self-exclusion, too.) But the unwelcome would be allowed into casinos. Thompson suggests that toleration of their (unwelcome) presence could be at the discretion of the casinos: "They could be asked to leave casino premises at any time by casino authorities without any legal recourse." If casinos are generally intolerant of the unwelcome visitors, then the compromise begins to look a lot like an involuntary, third-party exclusion.

Facial Recognition, and Extending Exclusions

In April we noted that Ontario was in the midst of installing cameras tied to facial recognition software to help enforce casino exclusions. Apparently the system is now up and running in 19 of Ontario's 27 casinos, with complete coverage slated by the end of the year. One big hurdle that the proponents of the technology claim to have overcome is safeguarding the information identifying gamblers from intrusions by hackers.

The last line of the linked article indicates one potential penalty that can be applied to a self-excluded gambler who attempts to breach the agreement by sneaking into a casino. The regulatory agency can unilaterally extend the length of the exclusion of such miscreants, turning a voluntary self-exclusion into a third-party, mandated exclusion. I would hope that this move would be complemented with a positive step, an offer of treatment for gambling addiction. People who violate exclusion agreements, particularly ones with non-trivial penalties attached for non-compliance, are indicating that they have relatively serious control problems, perhaps even within the subset of gamblers who exclude -- so there is something to be said for directing treatment resources at these people. Angela Hawken, who promotes the analgous approach for drug users within the criminal justice system, calls such treatment targeting "behavioral triage."

Mandated Exclusion from Alcohol

An underused tool for drug regulation is to revoke (for some period of time) a person's right to consume a drug, if that person has previously been violent or otherwise seriously misbehaved under the influence of the drug. Drunk drivers often lose their right to drive, but not their right to drink. In the case of repeat DWI offenders, South Dakota has a program that is effective at removing the privilege to consume alcohol. One can imagine that people might sign up for voluntary alcohol exclusion or limitation (as they do for gambling), if the implementation (including enforcement) of the exclusion were not too onerous. I think that many people would welcome a cheap, transparent, easy-functioning ignition interlock device in their car, too -- most people (when non-intoxicated) are not anxious to drive when they are unsafe or liable for arrest, though they might drive drunk anyway in the absence of an enforceable pre-commitment. (OK, "pre-commitment" is sort of a redundancy, but it is a popular one!)

An important 1933 book on alcohol policy, by Fosdick and Scott, includes (page 49) some information about exclusion. They are outlining how they think legal licensed alcohol sellers should be regulated following the (then imminent) demise of Prohibition. (Fosdick and Scott prefer state monopoly stores to licensed sellers for distilled alcohol, but they nevertheless provide detailed suggestions for how a licensing system might best be implemented.) "Rules are also necessary forbidding sale to minors, habitual alcoholics, paupers, mental defectives and to anyone who is drunk." The quoted sentence concludes with a footnote, which among other things indicates that Rhode Island has a law in which "an order of interdiction is prescribed for persons receiving town aid and for those whose relatives have filed complaint." That is, the Rhode Island alcohol law exhibited features that are replicated in current gambling regulations in Singapore.

My interest in mandated as well as voluntary exclusion derives in large measure by my belief that the (future) regulatory system for currently-prohibited drugs should, in many instances, include these elements.

Exclusion By NGO in Macau?

For a place that does a huge gambling business, Macau seems a bit behind the curve in self-exclusion. Apparently only 72 people are part of the state-sponsored program, according to this article in the Macau Daily Times. (Some Macau casinos are connected to global businesses that run their own self-exclusion programs.) But these 72 are not all self-excluded. Rather, like Singapore, Macau allows for family-initiated exclusions. And in one respect, Macau goes further than Singapore: exclusion orders can start from requests by reputable non-governmental organizations:

Director of DICJ, Manuel das Neves, explained to Macau Daily Times the law “is not clear” on what type of exclusions can be imposed besides self-exclusion. So, the Government tries to be flexible about it, accepting also applications presented by relatives – with medical proofs of the person’s pathology - and “credible” and recognized NGOs. Among the latter are organisations from Hong Kong, who have requested that some residents from the neighbouring region are not allowed in Macau casinos.

In the meantime, Singapore's second resort casino, Marina Bay Sands, opened for business last week. Some excluded gamblers in Singapore, as elsewhere, try to defy their bans.

Singapore Casino Exclusions Update

Two weeks ago we noted that the opening of the first resort casino in Singapore had sparked a spate of self-exclusions as well as a few family exclusions, where family members intervene to have someone barred from the casino. The extent of exclusions continues to grow, to 426 self-excluders (previously 264) and to 37 family exclusions (from 31). But these numbers are dwarfed by what Singapore calls third-party exclusions. These arise automatically: gamblers who are undischarged bankrupts, and those receiving public assistance, are not allowed into the current and future Singapore casinos. So far, 28,690 people have received an automatic exclusion.

Singapore Exclusion List Grows

Singapore's first destination-style casino opened in February, 2010, so the self-exclusion program that the government had established for permanent residents and citizens (but not for non-resident foreigners) has become relevant. As of last week, 264 people had applied for self-exclusion. A second resort casino in Singapore is now scheduled to open in April, and the exclusion orders will apply to both locations.

Beyond standard self-exclusion, Singapore offers "Family Exclusion" possibilities: a close family member can apply to have another family member excluded from the casinos. The application sets in motion an inquiry, and if a panel decides that the gambler in question is engaged in problem gambling, the exclusion will be granted -- even if the decision is counter to the wishes of the gambler him or herself. So far, 31 people have been excluded through this family intervention process.

The new casino allows people to pre-specify loss limits, but so far, no customers have imposed them. For internet gambling, I think there is something to be said for mandatory choice of pre-specified loss limits, as well as time constraints.