Survey of Regulatory Practices in the Gaming Industry

The American University was asked to analyze the variance in types of regulations governing gaming enterprises, as well as the range of practices that gaming establishments follow. Survey Instrument There are three survey instruments for our three sets of respondents—industry gaming, tribal gaming, and regulators for each. The instruments were developed by our methodologist, Dr. Robert Dudley, in consultation with our project's legal advisor, Professor Caroline S. Cooper, and policy specialist, Dr. Amy Bunger Pool. Research staff went through thirteen formal iterations of the survey instruments. All three were then approved by ACIR and provided to research staff of NGISC in consultation with the research subcommittee of NGISC. Broad categories of regulation sought to document the universe of common types of gaming specific regulation in existence, the extent or degree of regulation, an empirical measure of how actual regulation differs from perceptions of regulation, and the cost of gaming specific regulation. Specific areas of inquiry include types of gaming, largest source of gaming revenue, background checks, fingerprinting, reporting of gaming receipts, audits, maintenance of records, licensing, fee payments, on-site inspections, social service expenditures, regulation, accuracy of equipment, training for employees, ratio of employees to receipts, alternative activities at gaming establishments and other attractions in the gaming complex. Sample Selection At the request of the research subcommittee , the scope and population of the survey was changed from our originally proposed research. Our potential sample population includes 140 tribal gaming outlets, 25 industry gaming outlets, and corresponding regulators. For the latter, regulators vary in form from NIGC field offices, state regulators, local regulators, and tribal government regulators. The twenty-five industry gaming outlets chosen for this survey represent an across the board selection of gaming activities in the twelve states which comprise the top quartile of industry gaming handle in 1997. Within the limitations of the sample size, we have attempted to represent a number of outlets for each gaming form. We have also attempted to cover the geographical span of the survey states, with particular emphasis on those which have casino gaming. This is not a statistically representative sample; rather it is a selection of gaming outlets in the various states. The selection was based on numerous criteria and it emphasizes casinos and riverboats because of their relative weight in the total gaming handle. In an effort to balance types and sizes of casinos relative to tribal outlets, state regulators were …