Self-Reporting Self-Exclusion Enforcement Lapses

The purposely enigmatic title of this post refers to those occasions when a self-excluded gambler sneaks back into the casino, or is sent promotional material that is verboten under the exclusion agreement. The problem is, of course, that excluded gamblers are among the best customers for a casino. Casino owners, therefore, would seem to have a significant monetary incentive to look the other way when a self-excluder presents him or herself at the gambling venue. To counter this incentive, regulators subject casinos to fines when they fail to enforce exclusion agreements. An Illinois casino once was fined $800,000 for marketing to self-excluded customers.

The newest (and most popular) Illinois casino is the Rivers Casino in Des Plaines, which opened in July, 2011. It was a little slow in figuring out this self-exclusion thing, though: "In its first few weeks of operation, the northwest suburban casino sent promotional materials to four people, authorized two cash advances to one person and issued players’ rewards cards to seven others, all of whom are in the self-exclusion program, said Gene O’Shea, spokesman for the Illinois Gaming Board." The fine was $25,000, which represents a discount due to the self-reporting of the violations.

Attempted violations of self-exclusion orders are common. Rivers Casino, according to the linked article, caught 149 people on the self-exclusion list at the casino premises through March 1, 2012.

Aussie Pokies Controversy Boosts Self-Limitation and Self-Exclusion

We noted last month how the push for mandatory betting limits in Australia was, perhaps inadvertently, promoting enhanced self-exclusion as a sort of compromise from opponents of the mandatory limits. Voluntary self-limitation is another policy that is garnering support:

Australia's biggest pokies operator Woolworths has lobbied the federal opposition to tackle problem gambling with voluntary pre-commitment measures, despite the limited success of its own trial of optional bet limit cards....At last year's Woolworths annual general meeting, it was revealed only 11 per cent of registered players had taken up an offer of voluntary cards under the ALH trial, which started in 2009.

Eleven percent seems fairly significant to me. Meanwhile, in New South Wales, the potential to self-exclude from multiple venues, and to do so over the internet, also is being introduced:

WITH just the click of a button, problem gamblers living anywhere in NSW will be able to use a secure website to ban themselves from their local clubs....The technology allows problem gamblers to complete a legally binding self exclusion document in the presence of a gambling counsellor or a trained facilitator at their local club. Previously the individual had to visit each club individually.

Additionally, the problem gambler can now choose to ban themselves from multiple clubs rather than the time consuming process of visiting each venue and repeating the process time and again. Problem gamblers are provided with the following self-exclusion options: banning from the club, banning from any area of the club with poker machines and banning from any area of the club where gambling takes place such as poker machines, Keno and ClubTAB.

The internet sign-up is probably an upgrade over an earlier, unfortunate suggestion from Victoria, Australia, that those seeking to self-exclude call a hotline that, uh, promotes betting.

Don't Use a Fake ID to Gamble in Singapore...

...at least if you are on the exclusion list. Two gamblers have been arrested for using someone else's ID, allegedly without the permission of the relevant someone elses. "If convicted, they face a fine of up to $10,000, or a jail term of up to 10 years, or both." 

Wow, these sound like cases for a little behavioral triage for problem gambling treatment; these people need help, not prison.

Missouri Backs Off Lifetime Bans

Missouri offered the first state-wide self-exclusion system in the US, and the only bans available have been permanent, for life. Some of the more than 16,000 people who have signed up for the lifetime bans apparently would like to have their bans lifted, and have let the gambling commission know of their preference. Missouri has complied, converting the lifetime bans into five-year bans. I am all for offering a new set of bans of varying lengths, but the retroactive changes I am less sure about. Further, it looks as if all future bans will be for five years -- though if a person signs up for a second ban, then it would be of lifetime duration. (Unless Missouri does some more retroactive tinkering...)

I learned about the changes here. The article doesn't state what steps an excluded gambler has to take to be reinstated. Some states require a certification from a problem gambling professional indicating that the applicant is capable of controlled gambling.

Most of the people on Missouri's self-exclusion list will be eligible for reinstatement shortly: "The gaming commission said there are 16,148 people on the self-exclusion list, and 11,427 of them could be eligible to remove themselves starting March 31."

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.

Illinois Casinos and Self-Exclusion

The lack of recent posting is due to my neglect and not to any slowdown of developments in the fast-paced world of exclusion and other commitment devices. One neglected article from last October contained some interesting information about the state-wide casino self-exclusion program right here in Illinois. Here are three tidbits:

(1) "Harrah’s employees receive a $500 reward if they catch one of the individuals from that [self-exclusion] database in their casino."

(2) There are over 8,500 people on the Illinois self-exclusion list, which dates to 2002. Since that time, over 1,700 arrests have been made, presumably for excluded gamblers trespassing on casino property.

(3) The Illinois exclusion program involves a duration of five years, but reinstatement as an eligible gambler requires that a counselor provide an affidavit indicating that the individual is capable of controlled gambling. "More than 30 self-excluders have attempted to be removed from the list, the gaming board says. However, none of them have been able to provide sufficient evidence..." Wow.

Thanks to the author of the article, John Solymossy, for digging a little deeper than often is the case.

Update: The FAQ section of the Illinois Gaming Board's Self-Exclusion website gives a slightly different interpretation on reinstatement. Here it is:

The Illinois Self-Exclusion Program is for life. Removal from the list of Self-Excluded persons is very difficult. After five years a Self-Excluded person may request removal from the Self-Exclusion List. However, in order to be removed from the Self-Exclusion List, a Self-Excluded person must provide an affidavit from a licensed mental health professional who is also a certified gambling addictions counselor. The affidavit, which must be addressed to the Administrator of the Illinois Gaming Board, must attest and confirm that the licensed, certified gambling addictions counselor has determined that the Self-Excluded person no longer is a problem gambler and can gamble responsibly. Obtaining such an affidavit will be difficult.  The Administrator will take such an affidavit into consideration when deciding if a person should be removed from the Self-Exclusion List. If the submission meets the requirements for removal, there may be further investigation required by the IGB before considering the request. The IGB’s legal staff may also seek public action from the five members of the Illinois Gaming Board in order to remove a Self-Excluded person from the Self-Exclusion List.  In addition, a person seeking removal from the Self-Exclusion List must provide the following:

• Documentation as to treatment received for the person’s gambling problem, length of treatment, and names and qualifications of treatment providers.

• A written recommendation, from a qualified mental health professional who is a certified gambling counselor, as to the person's capacity to participate in gambling without adverse health and mental health risks or consequences related to gambling.  “Certified gambling counselor" means an individual who has completed a specific course of study in the treatment of problem gambling and has been certified by a certification organization acceptable to the Board. Those organizations include the following: National Council on Problem Gambling, American Compulsive Gambling Counselor Certification Board and the Illinois Dept of Human Services.

• Upon request of the Administrator, a written recommendation, from a second or subsequent physician or qualified mental health professional who is a certified gambling counselor, as to the self-excluded person's capacity to participate in gambling without adverse health and mental health risks or consequences related to gambling.

• All information required under Section 3000.755(a), including name, address, date of birth, social security number, a copy of the person’s driver’s license, a physical description and a current photograph.

• A statement informing the Administrator whether the person has been present at any riverboat gaming operations while on the Self-Exclusion List and, if so, the names of the riverboat operations at which the person was present and dates and times of attendance.

• A waiver of liability of the Board, its agents and the State of Illinois for any damages that may arise out of any act or omission committed by the person as a consequence of his or her removal from the Self-Exclusion List, including any monetary or other damages sustained in connection with the person's renewal of any gaming activities.

• A verified, written consent to the release of all of the person's medical and counseling records related to the proposed removal from the Self-Exclusion List.

• Any additional information, forms, recommendations, or other materials necessary, as determined by the Administrator, to demonstrate the elimination of the mental health or medical condition underlying the person's acknowledgement that he or she has been a problem gambler and unable to gamble responsibly.

Avoiding and Evading Exclusion Orders

The British Columbia report we lately have been drawing upon (71-page pdf here) indicates that most people who chose to self-exclude from BC casinos nevertheless continued to gamble, and on a somewhat regular (though not daily) basis, during their exclusion. Most of those who gambled during their exclusion did so at casinos, too, although some stuck to lottery games or keno. Many casino visits were made outside of BC, so these trips avoided but did not evade exclusion orders. Most self-exclusion clients did not evade their commitment. Nonetheless, most casino gambling that did take place during exclusion apparently occurred in BC casinos, in violation of exclusion agreements.

The self-exclusion clients generally -- and correctly -- believed that they could sneak back into BC casinos, even if most did not try. Further, those who were caught trying to gamble at a BC casino were escorted out, but generally no further sanction was applied; for the most part, even wins were paid out to excluded gamblers. Attempts to evade exclusion orders were highly skewed, with about ten percent of excluded gamblers persistently (at least weekly) trying to enter BC casinos, and much time of casino security personnel was devoted to trying to track these persistent violators. The BC report, not surprisingly, calls for improved detection and more sanctions for breaking an exclusion order. The additional sanctions should be of the helping, not the punishing variety, in keeping with the "behavioral triage" approach.