Casino self‐exclusion programmes: A review of the issues¹

This paper would not have been possible without the help of many individuals in Canada and around the world. In particular, the authors wish to thank the following individuals for their contributions to this paper: Rhys Stevens (Alberta Gaming Research Institute Librarian, University of Lethbridge); Scott MacFarlane (Corporate Relations, British Columbia Lottery Corporation); Garry Acres, Cecil Chung, and Jan Desnoyers (Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission); Doug Casper (Saskatchewan Gaming Corporation) and Sarah Burns (Casino Regina); Clara Clarke and Kelly Langevin (Manitoba Lotteries Corporation); Susan Ramondt (Ontario Liquor and Gaming Commission); Daniel Dubeau (Director‐Problem Gambling Research and Prevention Department, Loto Québec); Joel Baltzer (Manager‐ Policy and Research, Nova Scotia Alcohol and Gaming Authority); Koos Paauw (Vice‐President of Security and Risk Control, Holland Casino); Eric von Vandelen (Secretary to the Board, Netherlands Gaming Control Board); Pieter Remmers (European Association for the Study of Gambling‐ the Netherlands); Julian Richfield (Sun International Casinos, South Africa); Goran Wessberg (Svenska Spel, Sweden); Joerg Haefeli (Careplay, Switzerland); Marvin Steinberg (Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling); and Jan McMillen (Australian Institute for Gambling Research).

Abstract

Casino self‐exclusion is a procedure by which individuals can have themselves banned from entering a casino. One of the purposes of this paper is to present information about the availability and features of these programmes. A second purpose is to make recommendations about how to best operate them based on cross‐jurisdictional analysis and lessons from the addiction literature. The first section of the paper describes the typical casino self‐exclusion programme, outlining the features common to most policies. The second section provides a detailed overview of the programmes operating in Canada in order to give the reader an appreciation of the procedural variations that exist. The third section discusses the effectiveness of self‐exclusion programmes. Finally, the fourth section contains recommendations on ways to improve effectiveness. When properly implemented, self‐exclusion can be a valuable tool in helping to curb problem gambling.

Notes

This paper would not have been possible without the help of many individuals in Canada and around the world. In particular, the authors wish to thank the following individuals for their contributions to this paper: Rhys Stevens (Alberta Gaming Research Institute Librarian, University of Lethbridge); Scott MacFarlane (Corporate Relations, British Columbia Lottery Corporation); Garry Acres, Cecil Chung, and Jan Desnoyers (Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission); Doug Casper (Saskatchewan Gaming Corporation) and Sarah Burns (Casino Regina); Clara Clarke and Kelly Langevin (Manitoba Lotteries Corporation); Susan Ramondt (Ontario Liquor and Gaming Commission); Daniel Dubeau (Director‐Problem Gambling Research and Prevention Department, Loto Québec); Joel Baltzer (Manager‐ Policy and Research, Nova Scotia Alcohol and Gaming Authority); Koos Paauw (Vice‐President of Security and Risk Control, Holland Casino); Eric von Vandelen (Secretary to the Board, Netherlands Gaming Control Board); Pieter Remmers (European Association for the Study of Gambling‐ the Netherlands); Julian Richfield (Sun International Casinos, South Africa); Goran Wessberg (Svenska Spel, Sweden); Joerg Haefeli (Careplay, Switzerland); Marvin Steinberg (Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling); and Jan McMillen (Australian Institute for Gambling Research).