Casino Gaming Regulation:

Roles of Five States and the National Indian Gaming Commission

RCED-98-97: Published: May 15, 1998. Publicly Released: Jun 15, 1998.

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Victor S. Rezendes
(202) 512-6082
contact@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the roles of the National Indian Gaming Commission and states in casino gaming regulation, focusing on: (1) information on the Commission's organization, staffing, funding, and responsibilities from 1991 through 1997; (2) similar information on state gaming agencies in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, and Washington, as it relates to casino gaming; and (3) views of the heads of the gaming agencies from the five states on the elements critical to regulating gaming.

GAO noted that: (1) in 1991, the Commission's organization consisted of three commissioners and six other staff; (2) by 1997, the Commission's staffing had increased to 37 and included two oversight offices--the Office of Contracts and Audits and the Office of Enforcement; (3) funding for the Commission, which comes from fees assessed on Indian bingo operations, appropriations, or cost reimbursements, increased from $1.6 million in 1991 to $4.6 million in 1997; (4) expenditures were greater than revenue during the last 4 fiscal years, but the use of carryover balances from prior years sustained the Commission; (5) during the early 1990s, the Commission promulgated regulations for the Indian gaming; (6) later, it focused on its responsibilities to: (a) monitor gaming operations; and (b) review or approve various gaming reports and submissions for both bingo and casino gaming; (7) the gaming agencies in the five states GAO reviewed vary considerably in their organization, staffing, and funding for casino gaming, a situation that reflects the differences in the scope and level of the responsibilities that state agencies have; (8) in fiscal year 1997, Nevada and New Jersey, the two states that almost exclusively regulate non-Indian casino gaming, had the largest organizations, in part, because they regulate all or almost all of the casino gaming in their states; (9) New Jersey had a staff of about 700 and a budget of about $54 million to license, monitor, and enforce the gaming requirements for 12 non-Indian casinos in Atlantic City; (10) Nevada had a staff of about 400 and a budget of $22 million to regulate over 2,400 gaming operations; (11) Arizona, Michigan, and Washington had smaller organizations and shared responsibilities with the tribes; (12) although these three states oversee about the same number of Indian gaming operations, staffing and funding levels varied; (13) licensing, monitoring, and enforcement activities also differed in these three states; (14) in all five states, gaming operations fund each state's regulatory or oversight program; (15) the heads of the gaming agencies in all five states GAO visited cited the importance of ensuring the integrity of gaming and identified what they viewed as critical regulatory elements; and (16) from their perspective, the critical elements are: (a) the use of accounting, administrative, and internal controls to assist the regulators and casinos in monitoring gaming operations; and (b) the licensing process, because it helps to identify and deter organized crime.

Sep 23, 2016

Sep 21, 2016

Sep 7, 2016

Aug 30, 2016

Aug 11, 2016

Jul 22, 2016

Jul 21, 2016

Jul 6, 2016

Looking for more? Browse all our products here