Self-Exclusion 101
Self-exclusion has become a buzzword among the international gaming community, but when asked to explain the process, many of us are at a loss. What are the key elements of a self-exclusion program and who is eligible? How does it work and what are the restrictions? As more states consider developing these programs, a primer on the basics of self-exclusion is in order.
Self-exclusion programs are administered on a state-by-state basis by the gaming regulatory bodies in each state. Currently, five of the 11 casino states in the country – Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri and New Jersey – have self-exclusion programs. Louisiana has proposed a program that is expected to be adopted in the coming months. In addition, many individual gaming companies have introduced their own property-based self-exclusion programs.
Kevin Mullally, executive director of the Missouri Gaming Commission, developed the first state-based self-exclusion program in 1996. According to Mullally, the Missouri program was created in response to a citizen's request to be banned from the state's excursion gambling boats because he found himself unable to control his gambling. During development of the program, Mullally received spirited comments from the treatment community in Missouri and other states that such a proposal could, in fact, make the disordered gambling problem worse.
"They noted that while our intentions were good, the only way people can truly get better is if they take control and take on the responsibility for keeping themselves out of the casinos," he said. "It is wrong to put the responsibility in the casino's hands because then the individual never really takes a step in acknowledging his problem or trying to fix it. And this allows him to ultimately blame the casino if he fails."
Under the provisions of Missouri's program, the problem gambler agrees to accept responsibility for staying off excursion gambling boats by adding himself to the List of Disassociated Persons. If he chooses to violate the program and is caught on a boat, he will be arrested for trespassing. In addition, the commission requires all licensees to remove individuals in the program from their direct marketing lists, deny people in the program check cashing privileges and participation in players' clubs, and to consult the list before paying out any jackpot of $1,200 or more. Individuals who want to put themselves on the list can do so at any riverboat casino property or at one of three regional commission offices.
According to Mullally, each casino in the state is responsible for devising its own method of distributing the list to managers and employees, and maintaining the privacy of the individuals on the list is of utmost importance. Local casinos are permitted to share the list with their parent company. An operator can be penalized for using the list for purposes other than the self-exclusion program or for knowingly giving casino privileges to people on the list.
"You can't penalize a casino for the occasional screw-up in their database," Mullally said. "That's just part of business."
If a disassociated person in Missouri receives marketing materials from a casino operator, he is responsible for notifying the commission so the problem can be corrected. A recent addition to the program allows disassociated persons to enter a riverboat casino for the purposes of carrying out duties of their employment.
The Missouri program has served as the model for several other state programs. While elements of the programs are similar, there are some key differences across state borders, most notably in the number of years a person remains on the self-exclusion list once he signs on to the program. In Missouri and Michigan, individuals who place themselves on the List of Disassociated Persons remain on the list for life.
"These differences between the programs really is an indication of the evolution of research over the past five years," Mullally said. "When we created our program, you didn't hear anything about harm reduction, but now it's more common. There is more research indicating people can change. We're in the process of taking a look at the lifetime issue, and it's certainly worthy of debate. An argument can be made that you can reach more people with a program that isn't for life."
According to Mullally, the Missouri Gaming Commission recently received a $25,000 appropriation for research to evaluate the effectiveness of the state's voluntary self-exclusion program. In partnership with the Port Authority of Kansas City, which also is providing resources for the study, the state is expected to announce in January 2003 a joint request for proposals for the research program.
In addition, Mullally will chair a National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) committee that will look at the various industry and state-based self-exclusion programs across the country and develop a best practices model. Mullally hopes to present the results of this review at the NCPG's annual conference in June 2003.
"One of the things we've noticed is that, while there are a lot of self-exclusion programs being developed, there is not a lot of uniformity because there are no best practices to guide the process," said Keith Whyte, executive director of NCPG. "We are going to use this process to come up with some common sense guidelines."
Treatment providers also caution that self-exclusion must be placed in the context of the entire spectrum of problem gambling programs.
"It is very important that self exclusion is not seen as a panacea, that it's not seen as a total response to problem gambling," Whyte said. "Self-exclusion alone does nothing to help get problem gamblers into treatment. It has to be part of a larger comprehensive treatment initiative."
