This article is available in:
HTML
Cats and dogs. Democrats and Republicans. Lotteries and advocates for problem gamblers: All natural enemies in the eyes of
the public.
Yet cats and dogs can be the best of friends. Democrats and Republicans do come to bipartisan agreements. And lotteries and
problem gambling advocates can work together for the benefit of all.
There are many good reasons for lotteries and the problem gambling community to work cooperatively. From a lottery's perspective,
it is far better to be viewed as part of the solution than as part of the problem. And most importantly, it's the right thing
to do. From the problem gambling advocate's perspective, an informed and aware lottery is less likely to inadvertently engage
in practices that might exacerbate the problem. Plus, a lottery can provide resources and expertise difficult to find anywhere
else.
Ten years ago, contacts between the two groups were few and far between. Sessions on problem gambling were rarely, if ever,
found at lottery conferences, and lottery industry representatives were equally unlikely to be invited to participate in problem
gambling conferences. Neither group understood the other's concerns or the environment in which each had to work.
Certainly the situation has improved dramatically since then. We're not strangers at each other's conferences. Many in the
lottery industry have at least some understanding of the science behind addictions treatment and prevention. The number of
states and provinces that contribute to programs for problem gamblers has increased substantially.
But there is still a degree of mistrust and suspicion of each other's motives on both sides. To some extent this is understandable.
The interests of each group will never completely coincide. And we (the lottery industry) must recognize that they (the problem
gambling community) have a responsibility to examine our practices and call them into question when appropriate, just as we
have a responsibility to point out when they overstate or misstate their case. To a greater extent, though, mistrust stems
from the persistence of myths and misconceptions that each side has of the other.
In trying to identify and understand these myths, I have arrived at what I will modestly call “Feeney's law”: For every myth,
there is an equal and opposing countermyth. Let me now identify some of the more egregious myths that get in the way of an
effective working relationship. However, you must always keep in mind “Feeney's caveat”: Most myths contain some element of
truth.
Some certainly are, and some anti-gambling zealots have seized on problem gambling as a way to advance their moral objections,
but these individuals are the exception rather than the rule. Many even gamble at least occasionally, and even most recovering
compulsive gamblers don't begrudge others their entertainment. The National Council on Problem Gambling and its state affiliates
maintain a neutral stance on gambling. They will, however, question industry practices they believe will adversely affect
problem gamblers or exacerbate the problem. This is appropriate and often useful, though it can be uncomfortable. With a good
relationship a lottery will hear these criticisms from these organizations directly rather than through the media or at a
legislative hearing.
This myth stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how lotteries function as public agencies. Government agencies are
not subject to the same pressures to maximize revenue as are private businesses. While most elected officials find higher
revenues better than lower revenues, rarely does this preference override the greater public sector requirement of social
responsibility. Few, if any, lottery officials have their compensation directly linked to increased sales; profit-sharing
plans are not standard practice in the public sector. And irresponsible practices have a funny way of becoming the subject
of legislative hearings and investigative news reports, something any lottery director dearly wishes to avoid. It is a well-known,
though rarely spoken, fact of public sector life that the penalties for screwing up generally outweigh the rewards for doing
well. This creates a strong incentive for lotteries, and those who govern them, to be risk-averse, and irresponsible sales
and marketing practices are risky.
Yet there are examples of lotteries acting in irresponsible ways. I believe without exception these happen through ignorance
rather than malicious intent. Ignorance is best overcome through collaboration and constructive engagement. Public accusations
and counterclaims based on mutual misunderstanding of motive serve no one well.
Another truism of public sector life is that no good deed goes unpunished. Consider this statement by “Minnesotans Against
Gambling:” “The Minnesota State Lottery itself gives money for compulsive gambling treatment. Is this an admission it is producing
gambling addicts?” (And is a donation to the American Cancer Society an admission that the donor causes cancer?)
But consider also this statement from an article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune: “Kathleen Porter, director of the Compulsive
Gambling Treatment Program, a division of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, said it's possible that the lottery
— which funds the program with more than $2 million annually — actually does more to fight problem gambling than promote it.”
Most people, including some lottery opponents, will recognize and respect a lottery for doing the right thing.
There are certainly those who will reject any money or assistance from lotteries or other gambling entities as impure, and
some will be quite vocal in their criticism of those who accept such money. They are, however, few and far between. Most of
the leading gambling researchers and service providers are quite happy to accept a lottery's assistance as long as (and this
is a major caveat) it comes with no strings attached. A lottery cannot expect to review and approve research results, or a
hotline's outreach plan. Technical assistance is appropriate, and one of the most important skills a lottery can offer, but
the end product's complete independence is a necessity.
The number of problem gamblers who cite the lottery as their game of choice is small. Repeated analysis of calls to hotlines
and admissions to treatment programs confirms this fact. For example, the Iowa Department of Human Services has reported that
6 percent of the calls to the state's problem gambling hotline relate to lottery play.
Nevertheless, that number is not zero. There are some people who are addicted to lottery products, and there are also those
who, while not addicted, may suffer harm from spending too much money on a high lotto jackpot. The lottery industry cannot
pretend that problem gambling has nothing to do with them. It does.
Some do not, but most do in some way, shape, or form. The North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries Web
site (www.naspl.org) has an extensive list of what each state is doing in support of programs for problem gamblers. Would that the rest of the
gambling industry had such a record!
Still, many problem gambling advocates do not understand that lotteries are not free to dispense lottery revenues as they
choose. Most of us are closely regulated by state or provincial legislatures who justifiably believe that it is their right
to decide where lottery profits will be spent. There have been several instances of lottery directors urging elected officials
to use lottery proceeds to fund problem gambling programs only to be turned down. But lotteries can, and do, contribute to
the solution in ways other than funding by providing technical expertise, in-kind contributions, and educating employees,
retailers, and the general public.
Well, money is nice, and they certainly need it. But there are several examples of lotteries and problem gambling organizations
that have worked together productively even though elected officials refuse to release funding.
Again, good public relations is nice, and lotteries certainly need it. But it shouldn't be the main reason to establish a
relationship, and in my experience, it generally isn't. Face it: most lottery managers are not in this business just for the
money. They derive some of their satisfaction from helping to raise money for good causes and from a belief in the concept
of public service. They want to do the right thing. And helping to alleviate the suffering caused by problem gambling (whether
caused by lotteries or not) is the right thing to do.
Beyond money and public relations, what do we have to offer each other? Most nonprofit organizations would dearly love to
have a lottery's abilities and expertise in areas like marketing, advertising, graphics, purchasing, technology, and all the
other things they do so well. And lotteries have ready access to some audiences, such as players, retailers, and perhaps elected
officials that problem gambling groups do not. They, in turn, offer lotteries expertise and a sounding board to go to before
they inadvertently do the wrong thing.
Lotteries and problem gambling organizations both employ some of the finest people it's been my privilege to know, and they've
taken great strides in working together. The last few years have seen a general movement from confrontation to cooperation
between the two groups, and this has only been to the benefit of both. By recognizing the myths and countermyths for what
they are, we can break down the stereotypes that prevent us from accomplishing even more.
Myth: This is the director of a problem gambling council. Countermyth: This is a lottery director. Copyright © 2020 | Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Journal Information
Journal ID (publisher-id): jgi
ISSN: 1910-7595
Publisher: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Article Information
© 1999-2003 The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Publication date: December 2002
Publisher Id: jgi.2002.7.7
DOI: 10.4309/jgi.2002.7.7
Lotteries and the Problem Gambling Community: Myths and Countermyths
Affiliation: Minnesota State Lottery, Roseville, Minnesota USA, E-mail: donf@msl.state.mn.us
[This article prints out to about nine pages.]
Reprinted courtesy of the North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries © 2002 from their journal Lottery Insights, February 2002.
This Opinion article was not peer-reviewed by the Electronic Journal of Gambling Issues: eGambling.
We gratefully acknowledge permission by the North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries © 2002 to use this
article, originally printed in Lottery Insights, February 2002. Information on this association can be found at: http://www.naspl.org/ and their publications are available at: http://www.nasplnrl.org/pubs.asp.
For correspondence: Don Feeney, Research Director, Minnesota State Lottery, 2645 Long Lake Road, Roseville, Minnesota, USA
55113, Phone: (651) 635-8239, E-mail: donf@msl.state.mn.us
Don Feeney holds a master of public policy degree from the John F. Kennedy School of Government (Harvard University), an M.Sc.
in statistics from the University of Minnesota, and a B.Sc. in applied mathematics from Brown University. He has been Research
and Planning Director at the Minnesota State Lottery since 1991. Prior to joining the lottery, he was Trend Analysis Director
for the Minnesota State Planning Agency and a policy advisor to former Governor Rudy Perpich. He serves on the boards of the
National Council on Problem Gambling, the Northstar Problem Gambling Alliance, and the Minnesota Problem Gambling Advisory
Committee.
Article Categories:
Editor-in-chief: Nigel E. Turner, Ph.D.
Managing Editor: Vivien Rekkas, Ph.D. (contact)
Myth: Problem gambling advocates are anti-gambling.
Countermyth: Lotteries need the revenue from problem gamblers in order to maximize profits.
Myth: By working with the problem gambling community, lotteries will be criticized for “causing” the problem and for having
ulterior motives.
Countermyth: By working with lotteries, advocates for problem gamblers will be accused of “selling out.”
Myth: Lotteries don't contribute to the problem.
Countermyth: Lotteries don't contribute to the solution.
Myth: They only want us for our money.
Countermyth: Lotteries only want us for public relations.
What can we both do to explode the myths?