UC Davis - Economic and Social Impact of Indian Gaming in the U.S.

Last Friday, Oct. 26, the Economic and Social Impact of Indian Gaming in the U.S. conference was held at the University of California at Davis.

Katherine Spilde Contreras, the managing director for the Center for California Native Nation at UC Riverside, presented research suggesting that gaming has been extremely helpful to both gaming and non-gaming tribes. Contreras is a former researcher at Harvard University.

"Gaming has emerged as a de facto government program," Contreras said.

Contreras said she is often asked if the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) is working. She said that she replies "For whom?" For gaming tribes, she said, "everything you want to go up goes up," including income, employment and educational attainment. As proof, she detailed a 2000 Harvard study that compared data from the 1990 and 2000 Censuses. Real per capita income went up 36 percent for gaming tribes and 21 percent for non-gaming tribes, compared to 11 percent for the U.S. as whole--something she attributes largely to the advent of gaming in several states across the country.

The poverty rate fell 11.8 percent for gaming tribes and 6.9 percent for non-gaming tribes, while remaining essentially flat across the general population. Even though tribal gaming had barely gotten started in California in 2000, our state's Indians posted even more impressive gains. California gaming tribes posted a gain in per capita income of over 50 percent over 10 years.

However, Contreras warned against the growing stereotype of rich Indians. In 1990, she said, Indians' per capita income was one third of the U.S. average, college attainment was half as high, and unemployment was three times as high. Even by 2000, gaming Indians had a poverty rate of 26.1 percent, while non-gaming Indians had a rate of 29.7 percent, compared to a rate of only 9.2 percent for the general population. At current rates, she said, it would still take another half century for Indians to catch up to the rest of the country. "That comes as a shock to people who drive by a casino and think, 'Everything's great, it may even be better than where I live," Contreras said.

She also noted the money that California gaming tribes distribute. This included $101 million annually to non-gaming tribes, and $3 million to the state Office of Problem Gambling.

Just how prevalent is problem gambling? That is a subject Dean Gerstein's has studied extensively as vice provost and director of research at Claremont Graduate University and in his former role at the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. His conclusion? There is far more problem gambling--and far more gambling overall--than there used to be. The gamblers themselves have often just "been assumed," he said, and not really taken into consideration in the cost/benefit analysis of casinos. Legal gambling nationwide was only a $1 billion a year business as recently as the 1970s, Gerstein said. It's now approximately a $100 billion a year business. Back then, he said, about two-thirds of adult citizens participated in gaming in a given year--a group that includes both hardcore gamers and occasional lottery ticket buyers. These days, he said, over 85 percent of people participate in some form of legal gambling in a given year. Indian gaming is a huge and growing part of that business. During the morning session, National Indian Gaming Commission chairman Phil Hogen said that tribal gaming revenues hit $25 billion last year, up from only $6.3 billion in 1996. There are now more three million "problem" gamblers and two million "pathological" gamblers in this country, he said. These classifications are "recognized mental disorders," he noted.

"Relative to the cost of alcoholism or some other disorders, this is not a big number," Gerstein said. "That's a disappointing number to some who wanted overwhelming evidence."

Despite the stereotype of retirees intently pulling away at slot machines, Gerstein said, those over 65 actually have significantly lower rates of problem gambling than younger people. "Often, if you walk into a casino you're impressed by the number of people who are over 65. You have to go back on a Friday night. It's a very different demographic."

While "problem gambling has existed far longer than Indian gaming," as Contreras noted, Gerstein said that the location of Indian casinos could be a cause for concern. They tend to be concentrated on the edges of large urban areas--providing a constant temptation to those with gambling problems. "The perfect place for a casino is in the middle of a desert," Gerstein said. "Importing and exporting consumers is the perfect model. That's the model Las Vegas and Atlantic City were built on. That's not the model Indian casinos in California are built on."

Full Article:
http://www.capitolweekly.net/news/article.html?article_id=1784

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Personal comment:

Just more evidence that these tribal opponent’s stereo-typical arguments are just that -stereotypes that do not hold water. They have argued that only the gaming tribes are benefiting from the gambling industry.

Real per capita income went up 36 percent for gaming tribes and 21 percent for non-gaming tribes, compared to 11 percent for the U.S. as whole and the poverty rate fell 11.8 percent for gaming tribes and 6.9 percent for non-gaming tribes, while remaining essentially flat across the general population.

Tribal opponents see the tribe as very, very wealthy. In the article above Contreras warned against the growing stereotype of rich Indians, and goes on to state that “At current rates, she said, it would still take another half century for Indians to catch up to the rest of the country.”

Opponents have also argued that the Indian casinos are packed full of problem pathological gamblers and that we must do something about it. As Gerstein says above, "Relative to the cost of alcoholism or some other disorders, this is not a big number That's a disappointing number to some who wanted overwhelming evidence."

Again, these groups get the facts and answers but just don’t like what they hear.

The National Gambling Impact Commission report pointed out "the vast majority of Americans gamble recreationally and experience no measurable side effects related to their gambling, or they choose not to gamble at all." In other words, approximately 99% or more of the people going into the casino are perfectly normal happy citizens who go, by their own free will, to enjoy and entertain themselves by gambling, or to see a show or perhaps have dinner or perhaps all three.

Anti-casino groups paint a picture of a building full of sick people gambling away their houses and families and the Tribe laughing all the way to the bank. The fact is, according to the report, that only about 5% of the gaming industry’s revenue is generated by individuals with a gambling disorder. Overall, casino patrons spend their money wisely.

Should we not make alcohol and drug abuse, which devastates many more lives and families than does problem gambling does, as our top priority? Again I believe these opponents should address the much larger problem of drug and alcohol abuse before being so concerned with the extremely small percentage of people who have a gambling problem.

Why aren’t POLO and POSY having emergency town hall meetings to deal with this much more destructive addiction? Why aren’t they sending petitions to stop more liquor licenses from being issued? Why aren't we seeing full page ads advocating awareness and education for alcohol and drug abuse?

Why aren’t we doing more to save the 13% of the problem drinkers? Should we close liquor stores? Shut down the wineries? Should we punish the 87% of the population who drink responsibly to save this 13%? Oh yeah, I forgot, these groups are among the 87% of the population who drink responsibly so we can’t do that.