UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
Date:______
I, ______, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in:
It is entitled:
This work and its defense approved by:
Chair: ______
EVALUATING LEGALIZED CASINO GAMBLING AS A TOOL FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
A CASE STUDY OF DEARBORN COUNTY, INDIANA
A Thesis Submitted to the
Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Community Planning
In the Department of Planning of The College of Design, Art, Architecture and Planning
2004
by
Chris Sandfoss
B.A., Northern Kentucky University, 2002
Committee Chair: Dr. Chris Auffrey Committee Member: Dr. Roger Barry ABSTRACT
Casino gambling has risen in popularity in the United States over the past three decades. In 1978, only one state, Nevada, permitted casino gambling. By 2003, the number of states in which casino gambling was legal had risen to 301. In 1970, gross revenue from casino gambling totaled $540 million. In 2003, casinos won more than $26 billion from all customers. Public opinion remains divided on the issue of casino gambling. It has become a tool of economic development employed by many communities. Casinos attract visitors who often spend money within a community and generate additional tax revenue for government. Despite providing economic benefits, casino gambling may also cause social externalities such as increased crime, bankruptcy and problem gambling. In 1996 a riverboat casino facility opened in Lawrenceburg, Indiana. Tax revenue from the casino is shared among the city of Lawrenceburg, where the casino is docked, Dearborn County and the state. This revenue is a boost to Dearborn County, a small community that relies heavily on residential taxes. This paper will evaluate the decision to permit riverboat gambling in Dearborn County by comparing the benefits and the costs. Do the economic benefits generated by casinos outweigh the economic and social costs related to gambling?
Keywords: Legalized Casino Gambling/Gaming, Pathological/Problem Gambling, Economic Development, Social Costs, Public Interest
1 Includes Land-based, riverboat, racetrack and American Indian casinos
I would like to thank my parents for supporting me throughout my life
and my friend Meghan for guiding me through this process.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 5 Chapter 2: Review of Literature ...... 7 History of Legalized Gambling in the United States...... 7 Economic Impact of Casino Gambling...... 10 Casino Industry Employment ...... 13 Casino Gambling in Indiana ...... 15 Tax Revenue ...... 30 Identifying Costs and Benefits of Gambling ...... 32 Crime...... 32 Problem Gambling...... 38 Social Costs of Problem Gambling...... 42 Legal Costs...... 44 Social Service Costs...... 44 Employment Costs...... 44 Individual and Family Costs ...... 45 Previous Social Cost Studies ...... 45 Chapter 3: Methodology...... 48 General Statement of Purpose...... 48 Estimating Social Costs ...... 48 Measuring Direct Economic Benefits...... 49 Measuring Indirect Socio-Economic Benefits and Costs ...... 50 Selecting Comparative Counties...... 50 Comparative Analysis...... 56 Measure of Economic Benefits...... 56 Chapter 4: Findings ...... 59 Fiscal Impacts upon Dearborn County ...... 59 Comparing Social Costs...... 59 Comparing Direct Economic Benefits...... 61 Comparing Indirect Socio-Economic Benefits and Costs ...... 69 Income...... 69 Housing Values...... 72 Unemployment...... 74 Crime...... 75 Chapter 5: Analysis & Conclusions ...... 79 Recommendations...... 81 References...... 83
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Commercial Casinos by State...... 8 Table 2.2: Legalized Gambling by Type by State in 2003 ...... 9 Table 2.3: Casino Employment by State in 2002 ...... 14 Table 2.4: Locations of Indiana Casinos...... 15 Table 2.5: Argosy Casino Timetable of Operations ...... 17 Table 2.6: Total Project Development through December 17, 1997...... 18 Table 2.7: Annual Gross Gaming Revenue per Casino ...... 19 Table 2.8: Annual Admissions per Casino ...... 20 Table 2.9: Frequency of Visits and Average Travel Times for Casino Patrons Sample...... 26 Table 2.10: Casino Admission & Revenue for July 2002 ...... 29 Table 2.11: Casino Admission & Revenue for August 2002...... 29 Table 2.12: Graduated Tax Schedule for Gaming Revenue ...... 30 Table 2.13: Graduated Tax Status for Each Casino for FY 2003 ...... 32 Table 2.14: American Psychiatric Association DSM–IV Criteria for Pathological Gambling...... 40 Table 2.15 Criteria for Designating Gambling Problems ...... 41 Table 2.16: National Rates of Pathological and Problem Gamblers among Adults...... 41 Table 2.17: Summary of Social Cost Estimates...... 47 Table 3.1: Population of Study Area Counties, 1990 & 2000 ...... 54 Table 4.1: Estimated Social Costs of Gambling in Dearborn County in 2000...... 60 Table 4.2: Incentive Payments per Argosy Development Agreement...... 62 Table 4.3: Estimated Fiscal Impacts upon Dearborn County in 2000 ...... 64 Table 4.4: Estimated Fiscal Impacts upon Lawrenceburg City in 2000...... 65 Table 4.5: Estimated Fiscal Impacts upon Lawrenceburg School Corporation in 2000 ...... 66 Table 4.6: Estimated Combined Total Net Benefits for Lawrenceburg and Dearborn County in 2000...... 66 Table 4.7: 2002 Mean Property Tax Rates by County...... 68 Table 4.8: Median Household Income, for Study Area Counties, 1989 & 1999..70 Table 4.9: Per Capita Income, for Study Area Counties, 1989 & 1999 ...... 71 Table 4.10: Median Value of Specified Owner-Occupied Housing for Study Area Counties, 1990 & 2000 ...... 73 Table 4.11: Unemployment Rates for Study Area Counties, 1990 & 2000 ...... 74 Table 4.12: Violent Crime Rates per 100,000 by County in 2000 ...... 78 Table 4.13: Property Crime Rates per 100,000 by County in 2000...... 78 Table 5.1: Annual County Share of Admission Tax Compared to County Budget ...... 81 Table 1A: Selection of Counties by Population Density ...... 86 Table 2A: Selection of Counties by Racial Distribution ...... 87 Table 3A: Selection of Counties by Unemployment Rate...... 88
2 Table 4A: Selection of Counties by Median Household Income ...... 89 Table 5A: Selection of Counties by Per Capita Income ...... 90 Table 6A: Selection of Counties by Poverty Rate ...... 90 Table 7A: Selection of Counties by Vacancy Rate...... 91 Table 1B: Selected Crime Statistics for Dearborn County, Indiana ...... 93 Table 2B: Selected Crime Statistics for Adams County, Indiana...... 94 Table 3B: Selected Crime Statistics for Bartholomew County, Indiana ...... 95 Table 4B: Selected Crime Statistics for DeKalb County, Indiana...... 96 Table 5B: Selected Crime Statistics for Huntington County, Indiana...... 97 Table 6B: Selected Crime Statistics for Marshall County, Indiana...... 98 Table 7B: Selected Crime Statistics for Morgan County, Indiana...... 99 Table 8B: Selected Crime Statistics for Shelby County, Indiana ...... 100 Table 9B: Selected Crime Statistics for Warrick County, Indiana ...... 101 Table 10B: Selected Crime Statistics for Clermont County, Ohio ...... 102
3
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: States Allowing Commercial Casino Gambling in 2003 ...... 8 Figure 2.2: Total Casino Visitors in 2002 as Percent of U.S. Population Over 21...... 10 Figure 2.3: Most Popular Forms of Legal Gambling in 2002 ...... 11 Figure 2.4: Casino Gambling Compared to Other Forms of Entertainment...... 11 Figure 2.5: Increase in Total Casino Gaming Revenue from 1992 to 2002 in Billions...... 12 Figure 2.6: Increase in Casino Tax Revenue from 2001 to 2002 in Millions...... 13 Figure 2.7: Location of Indiana Casinos...... 16 Figure 2.7: Percentage of Gaming Revenue by Casino in 2003...... 21 Figure 2.8: Casino Location in Local Context...... 23 Figure 2.9: Casino Location in Regional Context Showing Distances to Major Metropolitan Areas...... 24 Figure 2.10: Place of Residence for Casino Patrons Sample...... 25 Figure 2.11: Frequency of Visits and Average Travel Times for Casino Patrons Sample...... 26 Figure 2.12: Approximate Casino Market Draw ...... 27 Figure 2.13: Crime Rates Compared to the Number of U.S Counties with Casinos, 1977-1996...... 33 Figure 2.14: Crime Rates Before and After Gambling Began in all Casino Counties ...... 36 Figure 3.1: Location of Study Area Counties ...... 55 Figure 4.1: Tax Base Comparisons for 1999 Assessed Property Value ...... 67 Figure 4.2: 2002 Mean Net Property Tax Rates by County ...... 68 Figure 4.3: Median Household Income, for Study Area Counties, 1989 & 1999 ...... 70 Figure 4.4: Per Capita Income for Study Area Counties, 1989 & 1999 ...... 71 Figure 4.5: Median Value of Specified Owner-Occupied Housing for Study Area Counties, 1990 & 2000 ...... 73 Figure 4.6: Unemployment Rates for Study Area Counties, 1990 & 2000 ...... 75 Figure 4.7: Violent Crime Rates per 100,000 for Study Area Counties, 1994-2000...... 76 Figure 4.8: Property Crime Rates per 100,000 for Study Area Counties, 1994-2000 ...... 77
4
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Gambling is defined as a game of chance in which “two or more parties place something of value at risk, in the hope of winning something of greater value, where who wins and loses depends upon the outcome of events that are unknown to the participants at the time of the bet” (Collins 2003, 15). There are many forms of gambling that fit this definition such as wagering on the outcomes of sporting events, playing games of chance and buying chances to win lotteries. Even investing in the stock market or buying insurance can be considered gambling. However, buying stock or insurance is an investment where wealth is shared and which both parties seek the same outcome, unlike gambling, which is a zero-sum game, meaning that on person’s winnings are another’s losses (Collins 2003, 17).
Gambling is not a new phenomenon; people have participated in gambling for thousands of years. Archeologists have found dice within ancient Egyptian tombs. There are accounts of gambling among soldiers from Ancient Greece and Rome. Gambling occurred in Europe through the Middle Ages and Renaissance. European settlers brought gambling activities to the New World where Native Americans already wagered on sporting events (Thompson 1997, 5-7).
Today’s free market economy has allowed gambling to become commercialized.
Companies provide gambling as a for-profit venture. Commercial casinos offer different gambling opportunities to the public. Casino gambling has seen phenomenal growth in the United States over the past three decades. People are attracted by the potential to win money, while the casinos make an overall profit.
5 The issue of legalized casino gambling represents a dilemma for public policy- makers. There is no other industry in the United States where the “…profitability of companies is so overwhelmingly dependent on what the law permits, requires, and prohibits” (Collins 2003, 1). “(T)he gambling industry is expected to contribute special positive economic benefits to the jurisdiction in which it operates” (Collins 2003, 2).
Casinos pay higher taxes, create jobs, contribute to public and special interests and attract tourism to an area. Local governments can capitalize on this economic success. Yet casinos also bring with them actual and perceived problems such as crime. In this sense, for a government to opt to permit casino gambling as a strategy of economic development seems to be a gamble in and of itself. This paper will analyze the effects of legalized gambling that have occurred in Dearborn County, Indiana since a casino opened there in
1996. The paper will identify the effects and compare the positive economic benefits to any negative effects described above. This paper is not intended to judge the morality of gambling, but to simply discuss the legalization of casino gaming as a strategy of economic development.
6 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
History of Legalized Gambling in the United States
Casino gambling has emerged to become one of the most popular forms of entertainment in the United States. There has been significant growth in the casino gambling industry in the past fifteen years, as several states have legalized casino gaming. Nevada was the first state to legalize casino gambling when it did so in 1931, although, at that time most other states outlawed all forms of gambling. The casino industry was considered a fringe sector, plagued by criminal activity and corruption.
That view began to change in 1976, when New Jersey voted to allow casino gambling in
Atlantic City. Casinos began to open in several other states, first appearing in mining towns and on Indian reservations (Eadington 1999, 173). Today 432 commercial casinos operate in 11 states (see Figure 2.1 & Table 2.1). In addition, 16 other states allow casinos on American Indian Reservations (23 total, including 7 states that also allow commercial casinos) and 3 states (6 total) permit casino gaming at racetracks (American
Gaming Association, 2003; see Table 2.2). Major casinos are operated by publicly traded corporations and subject to strict government policy, which erased the stigma that the casino industry was linked to corruption and organized crime (Eadington 1999, 176).
The states that do not allow any form of casino gambling are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Virginia and Wyoming. In some coastal states, including Florida and Georgia, cruise lines operate gambling “boats to nowhere”, which travel outside U.S. territorial waters to allow patrons to gamble (Grinols 2000, 8-9).
7 Figure 2.1: States Allowing Commercial Casino Gambling in 2003
Table 2.1: Commercial Casinos by State Number of Year of State Operating Casinos Legalization Colorado 42 1990 Illinois 9 1990 Indiana 10 1993 Iowa 131 1989 Louisiana 162 1991 Michigan 3 1996 Mississippi 29 1990 Missouri 11 1993 Nevada 2493 1931 New Jersey 13 1976 South Dakota 38 1989 1. Includes 10 riverboat and 3 racetrack casinos 2. Includes 14 riverboat, 1 land-based and 1 racetrack casino 3. Includes only locations with at least 1 million in gaming revenue Source: American Gaming Association, 2003
8 Table 2.2: Legalized Gambling by Type by State in 2003 Land-Based American Indian Racetrack Limited Stakes Riverboat Casinos Casinos Casinos Casinos Casinos Alabama Alaska Arizona X Arkansas California X Colorado X X Connecticut X Delaware X Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho X Illinois X Indiana X Iowa X X X Kansas X Kentucky Louisiana X X X X Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan X X Minnesota X Mississippi X X Missouri X Montana X Nebraska X Nevada X X New Hampshire New Jersey X New Mexico X X New York X North Carolina X North Dakota X Ohio Oklahoma X Oregon X Pennsylvania Rhode Island X South Carolina South Dakota X X Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington X West Virginia X Wisconsin X Wyoming Source: American Gaming Association, 2003
9 Economic Impact of Casino Gambling
In 2002, more than one-quarter of the U.S. population over the age of 21 (51.2 million people) made 297 million separate trips to a casino. That averages to 5.8 trips per casino patron (see Figure 2.2). Casino gambling has become one of the largest forms of entertainment. The number of trips patrons made to casinos in 2002 exceeded the number of trips to zoos, aquariums, and regular season professional baseball games combined (see Figure 2.4). There is evidence that may suggest that casino patrons decrease their spending on other goods and services, which could harm other local businesses that would lose out on the revenue that is captured by the casino. This would not be the case for casinos that primarily serve tourists, as tourist dollars would not be spent in the community otherwise. In actuality, tourists who visit a casino may spend more money at local businesses (Adam Rose & Associates, 1998).
Figure 2.2: Total Casino Visitors in 2002 as Percent of U.S. Population Over 21
51.2 Million Casino Visitors 26%
Source: American Gaming Association, 2003.
10 Figure 2.3: Most Popular Forms of Legal Gambling in 2002
Wagering on Horse or Dog Wagering over Racing the Internet 6% 1% Sports Betting 22%
Lottery 46%
Casino Gambling 25%
Source: American Gaming Association, 2003.
Figure 2.4: Casino Gambling Compared to Other Forms of Entertainment
1630
586
297
134 106.5
Movie Theaters Rounds of Golf Casinos Zoos, Aquariums & Major and Minor Wildlife Parks League Regular Season Baseball Games
Source: American Gaming Association, 2003.
11
The casino industry grew by 3 percent from $25.7 billion in total revenue in 2001 to $26.5 billion in 2002. Missouri saw the greatest increase in casino revenue at 18 percent; followed by Indiana (16%), Colorado (14%), South Dakota (13%), Louisiana
(10%), Michigan (10%) and Iowa (5%). Illinois, Mississippi, Nevada, and New Jersey each saw slight growth (see Figure 2.5). This revenue translates into an immense source of tax revenue for state and local governments. Direct gaming taxes generated over $4 billion in taxes to state and local governments in 2002, an increase of $400 million from the previous year (see Figure 2.6). Racetrack casinos have seen incredible growth in the past few years. In the six states that permit casino style gambling at racetracks, tax revenue increased by more that $140 million to $718 million in 2002.
Figure 2.5: Increase in Total Casino Gaming Revenue from 1992 to 2002 in Billions
$30.0 $26.5 $25.7 $24.5 $25.0 $22.2
$19.7 $20.0 $18.2 $17.1 $16.0
$15.0 $13.8
$11.2 $9.6 $10.0
$5.0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Source: American Gaming Association, 2003.
12 Figure 2.6: Increase in Casino Tax Revenue from 2001 to 2002 in Millions
$800.0 718.7 $700.0 666.1 2002 2001 $600.0 544.7
$500.0 414.2 403.7 $400.0 357.6 331.7
$300.0 249.3 249.1
$200.0 92.8 $100.0 5.1 $0.0
a o is ta rad no ana ana ppi ada sey o li Iow isi i ev er ako Il ichigan issouri Indi siss N J D Col Lou M M ew Mis N outh S
Source: American Gaming Association, 2003.
Casino Industry Employment
The casino industry employed over 350,000 people in 2002. This number was a decrease of 14,000 workers from 2001, which is attributed to the economic decline following Sept 11, 2001 (American Gaming Association, 2003). Although the majority of jobs tend to be relatively low-skilled, low-paying service positions, evidence does however suggest that tips increase wages to higher than average for the service industry.
Many unionized casino workers are also more likely to receive health benefits and pensions that “exceed the national average” (Adam Rose & Associates, 1998).
13 Table 2.3: Casino Employment by State in 2002 State Employment Colorado 7,132 (2001) Illinois 10,923 Indiana 16,555 Iowa1 8,799 Louisiana1 18,329 Michigan 8,286 Mississippi 31,343 Missouri 11,500 Nevada 191,759 New Jersey 44,820 South Dakota 1,511 (2001) Total 350,957 1 Includes employment at racetrack casinos Source: American Gaming Commission, 2003.
Despite the perception that gambling is a vice that has negative implications on society, legalized casino gambling has quickly become a strategy of economic development for local governments. The casino industry pays one of the highest corporate tax rates in the country (American Gaming Association). Communities are able to use this high tax return to fund improvements to infrastructure, education and other government services. Governments are forced to choose between capturing or losing this tax revenue. “Localities are pressured to introduce gambling, especially if neighboring jurisdictions are operating casinos that feed off the local market”
(Felsenstein 1999, 410). Gambling can also occur at Internet gaming sites that are operated by offshore companies and thus are not subject to taxation.
14 Casino Gambling in Indiana
The State of Indiana passed the Riverboat Gambling Act, effective July 1, 1993.
The act legalized riverboat casino gambling and established the Indiana Gaming
Commission to issue a maximum of eleven casino operator licenses and to regulate the operation of casinos and related activities. There are currently ten riverboat casinos operating in Indiana. These casinos are located on Lake Michigan and the Ohio River
(Indiana Gaming Commission).
Table 2.4: Locations of Indiana Casinos Year Casino Location County License Awarded Casino Aztar Evansville Vanderburgh 1995 Argosy Casino & Hotel Lawrenceburg Dearborn 1996 Horseshoe Casino Hammond Hammond Lake 1996 Hyatt Grand Victoria Rising Sun Ohio 1996 Majestic Star Casino Gary Lake 1996 Trump Hotel Casino Gary Lake 1996 Blue Chip Casino Michigan City LaPorte 1997 Harrah's East Chicago East Chicago Lake 1997 Caesars Indiana Harrison County Harrison 1998 Belterra Casino & Resort Vevay Switzerland 2000 Source: Indiana Gaming Commission, 2004.
15 Figure 2.7: Location of Indiana Casinos
Source: Indiana Gaming Commission, 2004.
16 On June 30, 1995, the Indiana Gaming Commission issued a Certificate of
Suitability for a Riverboat Owner’s License allowing a casino to be docked in
Lawrenceburg. The Argosy Casino opened in Lawrenceburg, Indiana on December 13,
1996. The riverboat casino, which is currently the largest operating in the world, is approximately 75,000 square feet and can accommodate 4,400 passengers and crew.
Their permanent land-based facilities include an 187,000 square foot pavilion and a 300- room hotel, which opened in 1998 (Klacik 2001, 2-3).
Table 2.5: Argosy Casino Timetable of Operations Issuance of Certificate of Suitability July 30, 1995 Issuance of Five-Year Owner’s License December 10, 1996 Commencement of Full-time Gaming December 13, 1996 Latest Annual License Renewal December 10, 2002 Source: Indiana Gaming Commission, 2004.
The Argosy Casino and hotel is owned and operated by the Indiana Gaming
Company L.P. (Indiana Gaming Commission 2001). Its parent company Argosy Gaming
Company also operates five other riverboat casinos in Alton, Illinois (near St. Louis,
Missouri), Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Joliet, Illinois (near Chicago), Riverside, Missouri
(near Kansas City), and Sioux City, Iowa. The Argosy Gaming Company is publicly
traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the ticker symbol AGY. (Argosy
Gaming Company 2004). For purpose of this report, the term “Argosy” will be used to
refer to the Argosy Casino in Lawrenceburg unless otherwise indicated.
As of July 1, 2001, Argosy had spent $237.5 million on project development in
Lawrenceburg, $71.5 more than the $166.1 million that was agreed to in the Certificate of
Suitability (Klacik 2001, 3). Over 83% of the total project development ($198.2 million)
17 was spent prior to and during the casino’s first year of operation through December 31,
1997 (Center for Urban Policy Research and the Environment 1998, 2).
Table 2.6: Total Project Development through December 31, 1998 in Millions. Amount Promised in Expenditure 1997 Actual 1998 Actual Difference Certificate of Suitability Riverboat $ 48,000 $ 36,900 $ 3,291 $ (11,100) Gaming Equipment $ 19,000 $ 17,900 $ 13,235 $ (1,100) Entertainment Complex1 $ 96,000 $ 127,700 $ 15,949 $ 31,700 Soft Costs2 $ 3,125 $ 15,700 $ - $ 12,575 Total Project Development $ 166,125 $ 198,200 $ 32,475 $ 64,550 1. Entertainment Complex includes land-based facilities including the hotel, restaurants and parking. 2. Soft Costs include payroll and operating expenditures prior to opening of the casino. Source: Indiana Gaming Commission, 1999.
Through December 2003, Indiana Casinos have won more than $11.975 billion from patrons. The Argosy has been the most profitable of Indiana’s, collecting over
$2.16 billion in gross gaming revenue in its first 7 years of operation (see Table 2.9).
Over 3.9 million people visited the Argosy in 2003. That year the casino made almost
$392 million in gross gaming revenue, which amounted to 18% of the total gaming revenue in the state (see Figure 2.7).
18
149,879 9,675,911 24,781,234 34,163,713 38,038,961 38,581,664 41,373,160 35,924,779 26,289,651 Total 248,829,072
sino a not open 2,468,993 3,431,049 3,576,732 3,485,580 3,008,799 3,165,215 2,664,331 1,795,318 23,596,016
Trump C
not open 1,657,308 2,821,022 3,487,657 3,143,116 3,075,279 3,192,983 2,547,868 1,797,564 21,722,797 jestic Star a M
e d o n h o s e m not open s 2,484,955 5,498,234 5,708,267 5,792,687 5,375,620 5,338,657 4,766,533 3,778,642 r m 38,743,595 o a H H
.
E
o s g ' a h c not open not open a i 3,453,747 4,878,404 5,182,366 5,633,578 5,910,383 5,062,388 3,868,094 r h 33,988,960 r a C H
646,774 not open 3,065,981 3,724,605 3,241,380 3,101,284 2,656,619 2,170,154 1,592,754 20,199,551
Grand Victoria
149,879 o Aztar 2,311,480 2,086,712 2,100,010 1,987,971 2,119,898 2,077,097 1,961,284 1,526,453 16,170,905
Casin
449,903 not open not open not open 4,250,267 4,553,679 5,373,147 5,164,537 3,578,173 1 23,369,706
Caesars Indiana
not open not open 1,142,260 3,575,094 3,645,628 3,811,722 3,923,204 3,384,262 2,670,288 22,152,458 on, 2003.
Blue Chip Casino
n n n n n 9 1 8 3 1 ssi e e e e e 3 5 9 2 1 p p p p p 9 9 6 0 6 , , , , , ions by Individual Patrons o o o o o 4
0 9 7 2 t t t t t 5 1 5 4 7 o o o o o 3 3 2 7 6 , , , , n n n n n
2 2 1 6 Belterra ng Commi
106,401 not open 3,282,229 6,663,041 7,309,966 7,546,866 7,424,904 5,943,724 3,935,342 ana Gami 42,212,473 Argosy Casino 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total Table 2.8: Annual Admissions per Casino 1. Includes Multiple Excurs Source: Indi
19 425 435 644 281 833 197 857 385 713 363, 216, 952, 870, 841, 646, 088, 371, 391, 338, 558, 687, 841, 061, 158, 975, Total $ 370, $ 1, $ 2, $ 1, $ 1, $ 2, $ 958, $ 1, $ 11,
080 985 520 940 414 317 476 668 400 sino a 357, 306, 775, 743, 055, 282, 630, 844, 996, not open $ 987, Trump C $ 81, $ 129, $ 137, $ 138, $ 128, $ 128, $ 124,
$ 119, 010 582 624 008 439 266 606 175 710 788, 304, 480, 248, 387, 183, 599, 695, 686, not open jestic Star a M $ 92, $ 52, $ 132, $ 882, $ 117, $ 115, $ 122, $ 138,
$ 111, 775 053 935 336 872 285 158 645 511 nd 064, 125, 223, 722, 549, 437, 158, 101, 491, not open mmo 921, Horseshoe Ha $ 262, $ 339, $ 210, $ 220, $ 315, $ 1, $ 95,
$ 231, $ 247, 525 263 230 056 986 367 888 419 850, 256, 133, 925, 933, 931, 258, 573, not open not open 566, Chicago Harrah's E. $ 206, $ 237, $ 279, $ 289, $ 266, $ 1, $ 175,
$ 111, 421 431 474 332 890 039 347 157 751 134, 864, 138, 549, 388, 356, 830, 045, 961, not open 039, $ 30, $ 163, $ 144, $ 152, $ 130, Grand Victoria $ 143, $ 136, $ 1,
$ 137, 093 831 677 070 021 922 753 775 408 134, 023, 487, 498, 625, 444, 505, 901, 182, o Aztar not reported Casin $ 94, $ 93, $ 96, $ 105, $ 825, $ 106, $ 107, $ 110,
$ 112, 083 625 520 846 029 305 408 438, 349, 518, 779, 734, 934, 754, not open not open not open 110, $ 264, $ 274, $ 14, $ 157, $ 214, $ 184, $ 1, Caesars Indiana 794 932 827 832 732 213 608 938 377, 363, 605, 192, 468, 625, 254, 888, not open not open 124, $ 36, $ 140, $ 160, $ 185, $ 207, $ 218, on, 2003. $ 1, $ 176, Blue Chip Casino ssi 383 461 263 352 307 379, 740, 812, 085, 741, not open not open not open not open not open Belterra ng Commi $ 353, $ 95, $ 14, $ 117, $ 125, 698 781 975 219 777 795 114 384 653 260, 246, 682, 773, 990, 422, 166, 916, 061, not open ana Gami 162, $ 346, $ 264, $ 2, Argosy Casino $ 344, $ 373, $ 391, $ 4, $ 128, $ 308, 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total Table 2.9: Annual Gross Gaming Revenue per Casino Source: Indi
20 Figure 2.7: Percentage of Gaming Revenue by Casino in 2003
Trump Casino 6% Argosy Majestic Star 18% 6%
Horseshoe Belterra Hammond 6% 16%
Blue Chip 10% Harrah's 13% Caesars Gran d Vict o ria 13% 6% Casino Aztar 5%
Source: Indiana Gaming Commission, 2003.
The success enjoyed by the casino has translated into tax benefits for the City of
Lawrenceburg, Dearborn County and the State of Indiana. According to the latest report to the community issued by Argosy, the casino has generated over $800 million in tax revenue for the state and local governments through January 2004 (Argosy Casino,
2004). There was a nearly 27% increase in total tax revenue paid by Argosy from 2002 to 2003 (Indiana Gaming Commission, 2002 & 2003). This increase was due in part to the advent of dockside gambling in August 2002 and 24-hour gambling, which was first allowed in July 2003 (Argosy Casino, 2004).
21 The casino revenue has allowed local governments the ability to provide services and
launch projects that would otherwise have not been possible. Some of the benefits
include:
• $25 million in road improvements in the seven years since the casino opened, compared to less than $1 million spent per year prior to the casino began operation • New $4 million Lawrenceburg City Fire Department Station and new equipment • $2.8 million for new police station for Lawrenceburg Police Department • Full-time EMT personnel • $50 million in city infrastructure improvements, including $11 million to expand the regional wastewater treatment plant • $3.6 million project to complete a levee to prevent flooding along the Ohio River • Upgrades to several community parks • School endowment fund that has provided four-year $1,700 per year scholarship to all Lawrenceburg High School graduates who attend college or technical school since 2002 (Argosy Casino, 2004).
The success of the Argosy is due in part to its geographic location. Of the three casinos in southeastern Indiana, the Argosy is located closest to Cincinnati, Ohio. It is approximately fifteen minutes from the Greater Cincinnati / Northern Kentucky Airport and twenty minutes from downtown Cincinnati and is easily accessible from Interstate
275 and U.S. Route 50 (see Figure 2.8). The Cincinnati metropolitan area has a population of over 1.9 million from which the casino can draw according to the 2000
Census. Dearborn County borders both Ohio and Kentucky. The casino is able to capture patrons from these states, both of which do not permit casino gambling (see
Figure 2.9). The Argosy enjoys a larger regional market share unlike the three Indiana casinos located on Lake Michigan. These casinos compete in a larger, albeit more saturated market since Illinois also allows casino gambling.
22 Figure 2.8: Casino Location in Local Context
23 Figure 2.9: Casino Location in Regional Context Showing Distances to Major Metropolitan Areas
Source: ESRI, 1998
24 In November 2001, the Center for Urban Policy and the Environment of Indiana
University-Purdue University, Indianapolis, under contract with the Indiana Gaming
Commission, interviewed 109 patrons at the Argosy over a four-day period (from Friday to Monday). Patrons were asked a series of questions, including where they lived, the distance they traveled to get to the casino, how often they came to the casino and how long they stayed. Only 3% of interviewees lived in Dearborn County.
Figure 2.10: Place of Residence for Casino Patrons Sample
Dearborn County 3% All other states 10% Rest of Indiana 23%
Ohio 64%
Source: Indiana Gaming Commission, 2003
25 The average distance the patrons traveled to the riverboat was 86 miles. Of those that indicated that they were regular visitors, meaning they came at least once a week, the average trip was 46 miles.
Table 2.9: Frequency of Visits and Average Travel Times for Casino Patrons Sample Average Distance Frequency of Visits Percentage Traveled in Miles Regular at least once a week 28% 46 Somewhat regular more than twice a year 31% 73 Irregular twice a year or less 25% 127 First time 16% 123 Source: Indiana Gaming Commission, 2003
Figure 2.11: Frequency of Visits and Average Travel Times for Casino Patrons Sample
First time 16% Regular 123 miles 28% 46 miles
Irregular 25% 127 miles
Somewhat regular 31% 73 miles
Source: Indiana Gaming Commission, 2003
26 Figure 2.12: Approximate Casino Market Draw
Source: ESRI, 1998
27 In July 2002, the Indiana General Assembly approved dockside gambling or flexible boarding, allowing casinos to remain docked while patrons gambled. Prior to this, the boats were required to “cruise ” or leave their dock for two hours at a time while gambling occurred. All ten Indiana casinos applied for dockside gambling. The change increased casino attendance and profit. Attendance rose by 21% and gaming revenue was up by 15% from July to August 2002, the first month that Argosy began dockside gambling (see Tables 2.10 & 2.11) (Indiana Gaming Commission). When casinos were required to cruise for two hours at a time, total attendance was calculated by counting patrons once each time the boat disembarked, meaning that patrons were counted more than once if they remained on the boat for another cruise. This was recorded as a multiple excursion. Admission taxes were imposed for each patron that was on the boat for each cruise. Once dockside gambling was allowed, admission was counted only for the first time a patron entered the casino. This resulted in lower total admission counts when dockside gambling began, when in actuality the total number of visitors rose. This also decreased the tax share that the host counties received, since host counties are allotted a third of the admission tax, but do not receive any gaming revenue tax.
28 Table 2.10: Casino Admission & Revenue for July 2002 Turnstile Multiple Casino Total Admissions Total Revenue Count Excursions Argosy Casino 275,070 387,012 662,082 $30,973,281 Belterra 115,996 135,164 251,160 $10,385,276 Blue Chip Casino 174,691 173,829 348,526 $17,253,465 Caesars Indiana 248,648 309,547 558,195 $21,722,782 Casino Aztar 102,181 105,517 207,698 $8,879,535 Grand Victoria 108,582 123,637 232,219 $11,842,064 Harrah's East Chicago 243,468 251,805 495,273 $22,741,902 Horseshoe Hammond 244,251 216,378 460,629 $25,757,052 Majestic Star 175,821 118,832 294,653 $11,921,276 Trump Casino 169,084 123,175 292,259 $11,209,074 Total 1,857,792 1,944,896 3,802,694 $172,685,706 Source: Indiana Gaming Commission.
Table 2.11: Casino Admission & Revenue for August 2002 Turnstile Multiple Casino Total Admissions Total Revenue Count Excursions1 Argosy Casino 332,722 n/a 332,722 $35,697,093 Belterra 159,459 n/a 159,459 $11,351,444 Blue Chip Casino 241,879 n/a 241,879 $20,269,119 Caesars Indiana 315,802 n/a 315,802 $25,809,337 Casino Aztar 136,436 n/a 136,436 $10,418,851 Grand Victoria 145,298 n/a 145,298 $12,922,632 Harrah's East Chicago 331,766 34,439 366,205 $25,842,920 Horseshoe Hammond 343,417 n/a 343,417 $30,572,302 Majestic Star 154,942 18,711 173,653 $12,314,407 Trump Casino 153,501 20,300 173,801 $11,998,559 Total 2,315,222 73,450 2,388,672 $197,196,665 1. Harrah’s, Majestic Star and Trump did not begin dockside gambling until after August 1, 2002 Source: Indiana Gaming Commission.
29 Tax Revenue
The Indiana Gaming Code (IC4-33) imposes taxes on casinos in two ways. First casinos are required to pay an admission tax of $3.00 for every patron. The admission tax revenue is distributed as follows:
$1.00 is paid to the city in which the riverboat is docked (or to the county in such case that the riverboat is not docked within a city).
$1.00 is paid to the county in which the riverboat is docked (this is in addition to the gaming revenue tax described in the following section).
$0.10 is paid to the county convention and visitors bureau of the county in which the riverboat is docked.
$0.15 is paid to the State Fair Commission.
$0.10 is paid to the division of Mental Health and Addiction.
$0.65 is paid to the State Horse Racing Commission.
Second, casinos are taxed according to their yearly-adjusted gross gaming revenue from
July 1 to June 30. For casinos that do not allow dockside gambling, there is a flat tax of
22.5% on all adjusted gross gaming revenue. This was amended once dockside gambling was approved in July 2002. Now for casinos that conduct dockside gambling
(which all 10 Indiana casinos do), there is a graduated tax rate ranging from 15% to 35%
(see Table 2.12) (Indiana Code: Title 4, Article 33, Chapter 12).
Table 2.12: Graduated Tax Schedule for Gaming Revenue Taxation Adjusted Gross Receipts Rate $0 - $25,000,000 15% $25,000,001 - $50,000,000 20% $50,000,001 - $75,000,000 25% $75,000,001 - $150,000,000 30% $150,000,001 + 35% Source: Indiana Code: Title 4, Article 33, Chapter 13.
30 Revenue from wagering taxes is distributed as follows:
The first $33 million of tax revenue collected is set aside, to be distributed among all counties that do not have a casino according to ratio of that county’s population to all counties without a casino.
25% of the remaining wagering tax revenue is paid to the city (or the county) in which the riverboat is docked.
The remainder of the wagering tax revenue is retained by the state.
Tax revenue is calculated according to the fiscal year beginning on July 1 and ending on
June 30 of the following year. Wagering tax revenue is collected and distributed monthly according to this schedule by the State Treasurer (Indiana Code: Title 4, Article 33,
Chapter 13).
The Argosy was the second fastest of all Indiana casinos to exceed $150,000,000 in revenue and reach the 35% tax bracket during the 2003 fiscal year (see Table 2.13).
Even thought the fiscal year for the Indiana gaming industry begins on July 1, the dockside gambling provision and graduated tax schedule took effect for most casinos on
August 1. The Argosy reached $150,000,000 in taxable revenue by December 22, 2002, less than five months since the graduated rate was imposed. Including the Argosy, five of the ten Indiana casinos reached the 35% tax bracket for FY 2003. The remaining five grossed at least $75,000,000 to place them in the 30% tax bracket (Indiana Gaming
Commission).
31 Table 2.13: Graduated Tax Status for Each Casino for FY 2003 Casino Rate Date Reached Casino Rate Date Reached 15% 8/1/2002 15% 8/1/2002 20% 8/22/2002 20% 10/1/2002 Argosy 25% 9/14/2002 Grand Victoria 25% 12/16/2002 30% 10/8/2002 30% 2/22/2002 35% 12/22/2002 35% 15% 8/1/2002 15% 8/5/2002 20% 10/12/2002 20% 9/3/2002 Harrah's East Belterra 25% 12/27/2002 Chicago 25% 10/6/2002 30% 3/11/2003 30% 11/9/2002 35% 35% 2/13/2003 15% 8/1/2002 15% 8/1/2002 20% 9/8/2002 20% 8/26/2002 Blue Chip Horseshoe Casino 25% 10/20/2002 Hammond 25% 9/23/2002 30% 12/3/2002 30% 10/20/2002 35% 4/9/2002 35% 1/11/2003 15% 8/1/2002 15% 8/5/2002 20% 8/31/2002 20% 10/8/2002 Caesars Majestic Star Indiana 25% 10/3/2002 25% 12/15/2002 30% 11/5/2002 30% 2/18/2002 35% 2/18/2002 35% 15% 8/1/2002 15% 8/5/2002 20% 10/19/2002 20% 10/12/2002 Casino Aztar 25% 1/11/2003 Trump Casino 25% 12/29/2002 30% 4/19/2003 30% 3/7/2003 35% 35% Source: Indiana Gaming Commission.
Identifying Costs and Benefits of Gambling
Crime
Opposition to casinos points to evidence that links gambling to increased crime.
Many studies have attempted to prove whether or not casino gambling leads to increased crime. Grinols and Mustard (2000) completed one of the most comprehensive studies on the casino-crime link by studying national data from 1977 to 1996. Figure 2.13 shows that while since the number of counties with casinos has risen dramatically since 1991,
32 overall national crime rates have actually slightly decreased. However, it is more appropriate to attribute this decrease in crime to a combination of multiple factors. It is therefore more appropriate to measure the differences between counties with casinos and counties without casinos.
Figure 2.13: Crime Rates Compared to the Number of U.S Counties with Casinos, 1977-1996
180
160 Counties with Casinos 140 Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 persons 12 and older) 120 Property Crime Rate (per 10,000 Households) 100
80
60
40
20
0
7 8 2 3 4 9 0 1 5 6 97 97 979 980 981 98 98 98 985 986 987 988 98 99 99 992 993 994 99 99 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004 & Grinols, 2000).
This study examined the theoretical links between casinos and crime. The research identified 2 reasons that legalized gambling may decrease in crime and 4 reasons that would cause an increase in crime. According to Grinols and Mustard (2000), casinos may reduce crime by creating legal earning opportunities for the following reasons.
33 1. Wage Effects: Casinos may create greater labor markets therefore
generating increased employment and higher wages, which may reduce
crime.
2. Economic Development: Casinos may revitalize previously deteriorated
areas thus creating safe areas by bringing people places that before could
potentially have harbored crime.
According to Grinols and Mustard (2000), casinos may increase criminal activity for the following reasons.
1. Economic Development: Casino gambling may have a harmful effect
upon economic development because it could detract from existing local
business and attracting illicit activity such as prostitution.
2. Increased Pay-off to Crime: Legalized gambling may increase criminal
activity by making crime more profitable and thus more attractive because
of “…a higher concentration of cash and potential victims” (Grinols 2000,
4).
3. Problem Gambling: Casino gambling may increase crime committed by
problem and pathological gamblers, those that would have an addictive or
compulsive disorder that would push them to gamble excessively, and
possibly commit harmful or illegal acts to support their gambling habit.
This theory will be discussed in depth in the following section.
34 4. Visitor Crime: There is a possibility that crime could increase because
casinos may attract visitors who may be “…both more prone to commit
crime and be victims of crime…” than would other tourism industries
(Grinols 2000, 4). A casino would theoretically attract visitors who have
gambling problems as discussed above.
Grinols and Mustard (2000) studied 3,165 counties where legalized gambling was introduced between the years 1977 to 1996, to measure the effect on crime rates. Data comparing counties with casinos to counties without casinos indicates that in 1996, the last year of the study, 8% to 10% of all criminal activity in a casino county could be attributed to gambling (Grinols 2000, 22-26). This study calculated the difference in crime rates for all seven FBI Part I Index crimes. Part I Index crimes include violent crimes: aggravated assault, murder, rape, and robbery; and property crimes: larceny, burglary and auto theft (see Appendix C for definitions of Part I index crimes). The study showed observed crime rates in casino counties before and after the introduction of casino gambling. Figure 2.14 shows crime rates for all casino counties 4 years before the year casino gambling first began in each county and 7 years after the year casinos first opened.
35 Figure 2.14: Crime Rates Before and After Gambling Began in all Casino Counties
250
200
150
100
50
0 Lead Lead Lead Lead Open Lag 1 Lag 2 Lag 3 Lag 4 Lag 5 Lag 6 Lag 7 4 3 2 1
Aggravated Assault 98 106 103 103 91 101 104 97 101 150 194 195 Rape 101 108 102 99 90 89 86 81 86 93 112 104 Robbery 99 106 106 106 83 107 107 112 128 171 219 217 Murder 100 104 100 104 91 95 95 78 75 83 108 111 Larceny 104 106 99 99 92 99 99 92 88 109 138 141 Burglary 109 110 102 98 81 91 91 83 84 111 129 125 Auto Theft 89 102 104 106 99 111 111 109 103 138 196 190
Source: Grinols, 2000.
According to this study, crime rates began to increase approximately 4 years after casino gambling began in these counties. The data indicates a possible connection between casino gambling and crime, especially between aggravated assault, auto theft and robbery, which rose dramatically in the years following the introduction of casinos.
By the sixth year after gambling began auto theft had increased by 98%, aggravated assault was up by 113%, and robbery was up 164%. Crimes of burglary, larceny, murder and rape also increased by six years after gambling was introduced, although increases in murder and rape were less pronounced, and the murder rate actually decreased in the third, fourth and fifth years after casinos opened, suggesting that these most severe
36 crimes are not as likely to be related to casino gambling. All incidences of these crimes appear to have leveled off by the seventh year.
While it is evident that crime rates rose in casino counties following the introduction of gambling, it is not certain that casino gambling was directly responsible for such criminal activity. It is possible that crime increased as a result of population growth and increased tourism, “…because larger populations experience more crime than do smaller populations” (Piscatelli 2000, 448). To determine whether or not casinos increase cause an increase in crime it is necessary to determine whether or not casinos attract criminals. A recent study by Piscatelli (2000) sought to answer this question by measuring activity at the U.S.-Canadian border before and after a casino opened in
Niagara Falls, Ontario in December 1996. The study was intended to determine whether or not the casino increased the number of criminally inadmissible persons who sought entry into Canada at four border crossings between the U.S. and Ontario. The study measured border crossings into Canada from December 1995 to December 1998 and identified four statistical trends:
1. The total number of persons seeking entry into Canada at the border
crossings in Ontario increased dramatically, rising by 10% in the first year
after the casino opened.
2. The rate of persons denied entry into Canada on the basis of criminal
inadmissibility increased by 60%, from 2 out of every 1,000 persons, to
about 5 per 1,000 in the first year after the casino opened.
37 3. The percentage of persons denied entry as a result of connections to
organized crime activity dropped by 60% in the two years after the casino
opened.
4. A “small but significant” number of who were investigated revealed their
destination was the casino.
This study indicates that a larger proportion of individuals with criminal backgrounds attempted to enter Canada after the casino opened. However, less had connections to organized crime activity including trafficking of stolen or illicit goods, racketeering and extortion. The study cannot determine whether or not those individuals intended to commit crimes. The authors theorize that persons who engage in criminal behavior also tend to be prone in other compulsive activity including gambling (Piscatelli
2000, 449-455). Some personalities may have a predisposition towards compulsive acts such as crime and gambling. Compulsive behavior may be the result of some greater behavioral disorder that can lead to excessive gambling. Several studies have identified
“a strong association between excessive gambling and other addictions, a phenomenon known as co-addiction, cross-addiction, multi-addiction, poly-addiction or co-morbidity
(Aasved 2003, 9).
Problem Gambling
Excessive or compulsive gambling is a problem known as pathological gambling.
Both the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization agree that pathological gambling is an impulse control disorder. A pathological gambler is compelled to excessive gambling by some physiological or psychological urge or need.
38 There are some specialists who believe it to be an addiction, however this theory is not universally accepted. Some professionals contend that an addiction can only be caused by a psychological dependence on a chemical substance such as a drug addiction. While others argue the more broad definition that an addiction can be a dependence on a persistent behavior, with no physical trigger, such as nail biting or overeating. While applying the term pathological gambler implies a dichotomy between normal and abnormal behavior. Instead, there are levels of pathological gambling. There is a point at which a gambler will experience negative consequences (Aasved 2003, 8-9).
In 1999 The National Gambling Impact Commission released its “Gambling
Impact and Behavior Study”, which estimated the national prevalence of pathological gamblers and the impact pathological gambling has on society. The study defined a pathological gambler using the American Psychological Association “Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” (DSM-IV) criteria to define pathological gambling. The DSM-IV criteria uses 10 established behavioral signs to measure an individual’s level of dependence upon gambling. The behaviors associated with problem gamblers range from the inability to stop gambling to committing illegal acts to finance gambling (see Table 2.14).
39 Table 2.14: American Psychiatric Association DSM–IV Criteria for Pathological Gambling Preoccupation Is preoccupied with gambling (e.g., preoccupied with reliving past gambling experiences, handicapping or planning the next venture, or thinking of ways to get money with which to gamble)
Tolerance Needs to gamble with increasing amounts of money in order to achieve the desired excitement Withdrawal Is restless or irritable when attempting to cut down or stop gambling Escape Gambles as a way of escaping from problems or relieving dysphoric mood (e.g., feelings of helplessness, guilt, anxiety, or depression) Chasing After losing money gambling, often returns another day in order to get even (“chasing one’s losses”) Lying Lies to family members, therapists, or others to conceal the extent of involvement with gambling Loss of control Has made repeated unsuccessful efforts to control, cut back, or stop gambling Illegal acts Has committed illegal acts (e.g., forgery, fraud, theft, or embezzlement) in order to finance gambling Risked significant Has jeopardized or lost a significant relationship, job, or relationship educational or career opportunity because of gambling Bailout Has relied on others to provide money to relieve a desperate financial situation caused by gambling
Source: National Gambling Impact Study Commission, 1999.
The study commissioned the National Opinion Research Council conducted surveys to estimate the percentage of people that would fit these criteria. The NORC survey included responses from 2,417 adults via telephone and interviews of 530 patrons at gambling establishments. Respondents were labeled as “pathological’ gamblers if they met 5 or more of the 10 DSM-IV criteria. Respondents who displayed 3-4 criteria were defined as problem gamblers. Respondents who met one or two criteria were considered
“at-risk” of becoming “problem” gamblers. Respondents were considered “low-risk”
40 gamblers if they never lost more than $100 in a single day or met no DSM-IV criteria or
lost more than $100 in a single day (see Table 2.15).
Table 2.15 Criteria for Designating Gambling Problems Number of DSM-IV Designation Criteria Met 5 or more Pathological Gambler 3 - 4 Problem Gambler 1 - 2 At-Risk Source: National Gambling Impact Study Commission, 1999. .
The NORC study estimated the rate of adults who are lifetime “pathological”
gamblers in the United States to be 1.2 % of the adult population, or approximately 2.5
million people and an additional 1.5%, approximately 3 million people, fit the criteria for
being lifetime “problem” gamblers (see Table 2.16). The study also found that 0.6% of respondents, or approximately 1.2 million people, met the criteria for being
“pathological’ gamblers within the last year and another 0.7% displayed characteristics of problem gamblers within the past year (National Gambling Impact Study Commission
1999, 25).
Table 2.16: National Rates of Pathological and Problem Gamblers among Adults Percentage Based upon Percentage Based upon Percentage Based upon NORC Patron Survey NORC Telephone NORC Telephone and Designation Only Survey Only Patron Survey Lifetime Past-Year Lifetime Past-Year Lifetime Past-Year Pathological Gambler 7.9% 5.3% 0.8% 0.1% 1.2% 0.6% Problem Gambler 5.3% 4.9% 1.3% 0.4% 1.5% 0.7% At-Risk 17.9% 14.3% 7.9% 2.3% 7.7% 2.9% Low-Risk 68.3% 72.6% 75.6% 60.4% 14.4% 36.7% Non-Gambler 0.6% 2.8% 14.4% 36.7% 11.9% 31.3% Source: National Gambling Impact Study Commission, 1999.
41 The study indicates that prevalence of pathological and problem gambling is
higher among regular gamblers than the general population. Of those patrons that were
surveyed at gambling establishments, 13% were considered lifetime problem or
pathological gamblers, while only 2.1% of those questioned through the random
telephone survey fell into that category (National Opinion Research Council 1999, 25).
Social Costs of Problem Gambling
The economic impact of casino gambling is visible in the number of jobs created and the tax revenue generated, however the social costs of gambling are less apparent.
Gambling carries a negative stereotype because it causes social and psychological problems in individuals who become compulsive gamblers. A gambling addiction can occur when a habitual gambler continuously neglects his or her obligations to family, employer and community. In this respect, casino gambling is similar to lotteries and stock and commodity trading. For those that are not prone to compulsive behavior, casino gambling is a leisure activity that may provide a challenge that permits one to escape a monotonous routine (Bloch 1951, 217-219).
Actions of compulsive gamblers can inflict social costs upon a community.
Several previous studies have developed methods to quantify social costs related to gambling. As Walker and Barnett point out, many studies on the effects of gambling incorrectly define social costs. Specifically, some studies equate social costs to externalities, yet the concepts are different. According to the theory of welfare economics, a social cost of an action is the “…amount by which that action reduces the aggregate societal real wealth” (Walker 1999, 185). Social costs are those costs borne by
42 a society as a result of a specific action or decision. For example a social cost of gambling would include the increased costs related adjudicating and incarcerating
“problem” gamblers. This cost is paid through government funds and thus diminishes the total amount societal wealth.
Social externalities are similar to social costs yet do not necessarily reduce overall societal wealth. A social externality occurs when an “…action of one individual impacts the welfare of another individual who has no direct control over the actor” (Walker 1999,
189). Externalities can be divided into technological externalities and pecuniary externalities. A technological externality can cause a social cost because it impacts the utility (cost required to produce) of a product or service. For example, if a factory pollutes a stream, requiring that water be purified before it can be used, the cost of purifying the water reduces a society’s overall wealth, thus it represents a social cost because it causes inefficiency. A pecuniary externality may affect the utility of a product or service, but does not affect the amount of real resources required for its procurement.
Pecuniary externalities do not reduce overall societal wealth, instead that wealth is redistributed within the society. For example, if a gambler loses money that would otherwise be used to purchase food for himself and his family, his family is worse of as a result of his decision to gamble. In this case the gambler has imposed a negative externality upon his family, although the wealth was redistributed in the form of revenue gained by the casino (Walker 1999, 189-190).
While pecuniary externalities brought on by compulsive gambling are harmful, the harm is a result of the tendency toward compulsive behavior, not necessarily the presence of a casino. Consequences can arise from gambling losses as a result of
43 compulsive behavior, yet the consequences of compulsive behavior could be “…manifest in some form whether or not gambling is legal” (Walker 1999, 181).
Social costs that are caused by problem gambling are directly imposed upon society. These costs include legal costs, social service costs and the cost of lost productivity that is incurred by employers. Negative externalities, which are incurred by individuals and their families, include harm to family relationships and abuse of money.
Legal Costs
Legal costs are represented by the cost of crime prevention. It is measured by the real resources required for apprehension, prosecution or adjudication, incarceration and rehabilitation of offenders. However it does not include the cost to those victimized by crime.
Social Service Costs
Social service costs include money spent on public welfare programs such as unemployment, welfare and food stamps, and mental health counseling and therapy.
Employment Costs
Employment costs represent the burden placed upon employers through lost productivity and time off the job.
44 Individual and Family Costs
Individual and family costs are social externalities that are borne by the individuals and
families that are affected by compulsive gambling. These costs include bankruptcy,
foregone income, theft and bad debt. These costs include money that is abused by
compulsive gamblers to support their need to gamble. This money is often acquired from
friends and family under false pretenses.
Previous Social Cost Studies
Several independent studies have attempted to quantify the social costs of gambling by determining the monetary amount that society would spend in order to correct these social problems. These studies have attempted to calculate the average annual cost a pathological gambler would impose on society through legal costs, welfare costs, ect. Estimates from past studies range from $2,900 to $53,000 (see Table 2.17).
One of the earliest studies was conducted in Maryland by researchers at the Johns
Hopkins Center for Pathological Gambling. The Center was the first pathological gambling treatment program in the United States that was open to the general public. It opened in 1979, treating 45 patients in its first sixty days of operation, including two residential patients. The Center provided treatment to compulsive gamblers who lives were disrupted by excessive gambling on the Maryland state lottery. The center also admitted pathological gamblers from neighboring states at the request of defense attorneys, employers and law enforcement agencies seeking to treat or incarcerate these individuals. Researchers at the center estimated social costs of pathological gambling to be $30,000 (in 1988 dollars) based upon the average cost of lost productivity and
45 resources gambled in one year by an individual pathological gambler. This study did not include costs such as suicide attempts, family neglect, incarceration or health problems that could result from pathological gambling (Task Force on Gambling Addiction in
Maryland 59, 1990). The study observed extreme cases of individuals who sought or were ordered to undergo treatment; therefore the sample may represent a smaller percentage than the estimated national prevalence rate of pathological gambling.
In 1994, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst initiated the United States
Gambling Study, under the direction of Robert Goodman. The study estimated the social cost per problem gambler to be $13,200. The costs involve defaulted loans, lost work time, insurance and check fraud, and law enforcement. The study based its cost estimates primarily on interviews with public officials (Goodman 1995, 55-56).
The highest social cost estimates come from an article by John Warren Kindt, who argues that widespread legalized casino gambling presents a “threat to the strategic
U.S. economic base”. Kindt estimates that the “social, business, economic and governmental costs of this phenomenon are potentially catastrophic”, costing society an average of $53,000 per compulsive gambler (Kindt 1995, 582). Kindt lists no exact methods for this calculation.
In 1995 the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute commissioned a study to determine the impact of gambling at 11 casinos on Native American reservations in
Wisconsin. The study provides one of the most comprehensive analyses of social costs related to gambling. The researchers calculated annual average costs for the occurrences of problems related to gambling. The study estimated that the average social cost per gambler to be $10,113.
46 Later studies followed a similar methodology as was designed for the Wisconsin study. A study completed in 1999 of the impacts of pathological gambling upon
Louisiana arrived at a cost estimate of $10,959 per year. A similar study in South
Carolina, which while it does not permit casino gambling, allows video lottery terminals in commercial establishments, estimated the annual cost of pathological gambler to be
$7,346.
Walker and Barnett (1999) examine the costs of gambling purely from the point of view of economists. They consider social costs to be only costs directly incurred by government. Their study omits from consideration, costs that are borne solely by individuals, that the Wisconsin study and later studies included. According to this method, they estimate the social cost to society (meaning government) of pathological gamblers to be $2,974 per year.
Table 2.17: Summary of Social Cost Estimates Lorenz & Politzer, Maryland (1990) $30,000 Goodman (1995) $13,200 Kindt (1995) $53,000 Grinols & Omorov (1996) $15,000 - $33,000 Thompson, Wisconsin (1996) $10,113 Walker & Barnett (1999) $2,974 Ryan, et. al., Louisiana (1999) $10,959 Thompson & Quinn, South Carolina (1999) $7,346
47 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
General Statement of Purpose
The Argosy Casino has been operating in Lawrenceburg since 1996, allowing ample time to measure its effects upon the community. This study is designed to quantify the social cost of legalized gambling as well as the economic benefits upon the City of
Lawrenceburg and Dearborn County. This study is intended to determine if the direct economic benefits are greater than both the direct social costs and the indirect impacts of legalized gambling. It will also measure the indirect economic impact upon the socio- economic status of the community. It will be designed to answer three questions.
1. What are the social costs of legalized gambling?
2. Have gaming tax revenues exceeded the social costs?
3. Has presence of the casino indirectly affected the socio-economic status of
residents of the city and county?
Estimating Social Costs
The social cost of gambling will be measured by determining the estimated percentage of pathological gamblers that reside in Dearborn County multiplied by the average cost that they would impose upon the community. The number of pathological gamblers in Dearborn County will be estimated using the percentage of national prevalence determined by the National Opinion Research Council (NORC). As stated earlier, the NORC estimates that 0.6% of persons meet the criteria for being a pathological gambler within the past year. This percentage will be multiplied by the total
48 number of Dearborn County residents over 21 years old to determine the estimated number of pathological gamblers in Dearborn County.
The social cost that pathological and problem gamblers would impose on the community will be calculated through average yearly costs of detrimental behavior that such an individual cause society to incur, such as legal costs, mental health care costs and lost productivity. This will be determined by using the cost estimate model designed by the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute for their 1996 study of the social costs of gambling in Wisconsin. As stated earlier, the Wisconsin study estimated that a pathological gambler would cost society an average of $10,598 per year. This amount will be multiplied by the estimated number of pathological gamblers in Dearborn County to determine the total monetary amount in gambling related social costs that Dearborn
County will incur per year. This amount will be compared to the total direct economic benefits produced by the casino.
Measuring Direct Economic Benefits
Increased tax revenue from the operation of the casino would be a direct benefit of legalized gambling. This will be measured by reviewing tax revenue and expenditures to ascertain the direct financial benefits to from legalized gambling. To accomplish this, economic information will be gathered from financial reports and operating budgets of
Dearborn County and the City of Lawrenceburg and the Indiana Gaming Commission for the years before and after the casino opened to determine how much tax revenue has been gained from casino and how that money has been spent. A benefit-cost analysis will be performed to determine the ratio of social costs to economic benefits.
49 Measuring Indirect Socio-Economic Benefits and Costs
The second part of the study will measure indirect impacts upon the community.
First, has presence of the casino improved the socio-economic status of residents of the city and county? Second, have negative social externalities such as crime, bankruptcy and suicide increased in the city or county since legalized gambling began in
Lawrenceburg in 1996? For this part of the study, Dearborn County will be compared side-by-side to nine other counties that have similar demographics, yet do not allow casino gambling. The counties to which Dearborn County will be compared are Adams,
Bartholomew, DeKalb, Huntington, Marshall, Morgan, Shelby and Warrick Counties in
Indiana and Clermont County in Ohio. These nine counties will be referred to as the control counties. The counties were chosen because they provide a similar comparison to
Dearborn County. They are similar in spatial structure, population demographics and socio-economic conditions. The process by which these counties were selected will be detailed in the following section.
Selecting Comparative Counties
The goal of this comparative case study is to determine if the presence of the casino in Lawrenceburg has had any significant effect upon the economy, crime or social behavior that could lead to bankruptcy or suicide. Therefore side-by side comparisons to counties that are similar yet do not have casino gambling are adequate to determine if changes which may occur in Dearborn are related to the presence of the casino. For the purpose of this study, if the selected variables shows statistically significant change in
Dearborn County over the study period, compared to the change in the same variables
50 during the same timeframe in the control counties, then it can be assumed that such
changes would be directly related to the gambling industry, and not simply phenomena
that have occurred region wide.
For such a comparison to be valid, control counties must be chosen that provide a
similar comparison to the study county. Counties will be selected based upon their
degree of similarity for selected characteristics. Counties will be compared using data
from the 1990 U.S. Census of Population and Housing. Data from 1990 will be used to
select counties because it will show comparisons before the casino opened in
Lawrenceburg. Counties will be selected according to the following characteristics:
1. Geography
2. Spatial structure
3. Racial distribution
4. Socio-economic status
5. Housing vacancy
This selection process was completed through several steps. First the search was limited to counties within geographic proximity to Dearborn County. For this step, all 91 other Indiana Counties as well as 7 other counties within the Cincinnati Metropolitan
Statistical Area (Boone, Butler, Campbell, Clermont, Hamilton, Kenton and Warren) will be considered. This will account for geography specific factors that may affect either the study area or the control counties, or both, and eliminate counties that may be affected by factors not experienced within the study area.
51 The second criteria for selection will be spatial structure. Twin counties will be chosen based upon size, population, population density and percentage of urban / rural development. The justification for this selection criterion considers that counties, which a significantly lower or higher population density, will have different patterns of social interaction, thus not provide a valid comparison. The overall population density of
Dearborn County according to the 1990 Census was 127 persons per square mile. For this study any county with a population density lower than 75 persons per square mile or higher than 335 persons per square mile will be eliminated from consideration. This limits the possibly study counties from 99 to 44 (see Table 1A in Appendix A)
The third criteria sought to select counties with similar population demographics.
Counties with dissimilar racial patterns will be eliminated from the study. The population of Dearborn County in 1990 was 98.7% white. The average percentage of white residents for all counties in the geographic study area was 96.5% with a standard deviation of 5.1%. Counties with a percentage of white residents lower than one standard deviation from the percentage of white residents in Dearborn County (98.7% - 5.1% =
93.7%) will not be considered for the study. This further limits the list of possible counties from 44 to 33. Table 2A shows which of remaining counties that were not eliminated from consideration due to dissimilar population density.
The fourth selection criteria will eliminate counties with dissimilar socio- economic status. The study will not include counties in which the unemployment rate, median household income level, per capita income level or the poverty rate from the
1990 Census was more than one standard deviation from Dearborn County. The mean unemployment rate for all counties within the geographic study area in 1990 was 5.7%
52 with a standard deviation of 1.6%. Counties that had an unemployment rate in 1990 that
was 1.6% higher or lower than the unemployment rate in Dearborn County (5.7% - 1.6%
= 4.1%; 5.7% + 1.6% = 7.3%) in 1990 will not be selected for the study. This eliminates
12 more counties, leaving 21 in consideration (see Table 3A).
The mean median household income level of all counties within the study area in
1989 was $27,877 with a standard deviation of $4,305. Counties in which the median
household income was greater or less than one standard deviation of the level of
Dearborn County ($31,398 - $4,305 = $27,093; $31,398 + $4,305 = $35,703) will not be
selected for the study.
The mean per capita income level of all counties within the study area in 1989
was $12,212 with a standard deviation of $1,707. Counties in which the per capita
income was one standard deviation greater than or less than that of Dearborn County
($12,542 - $1,707 = $10,835; $12,542 + $1,707 = $14,249) will not be selected for the
study.
The mean poverty rate for the study was 9.97% of all persons living below the
poverty level in 1990 with a standard deviation of 3.09%. Counties in which poverty rate
was one standard deviation greater than or less than that of Dearborn County in 1990
(8.35% - 3.09% = 5.27 %; $8.35% + 3.09% = 11.44%) will not be considered in the
study.
The mean vacancy rate for the study was 8.92% of all housing units vacant in
1990 with a standard deviation of 5.49%. Counties in which poverty rate was one standard deviation greater than or less than that of Dearborn County in 1990 (8.35% -
5.49% = 0.63 % or $8.35% + 5.49% = 11.61%) will not be considered in the study.
53 The selection process narrows the list of counties that will be included in the comparative analysis to 10 out of a possible 99 counties within the study area. The following counties are to be included in the comparative analysis study.
• Adams County, Indiana • Bartholomew County, Indiana • Dearborn County, Indiana • DeKalb County, Indiana • Huntington County, Indiana • Marshall County, Indiana • Morgan County, Indiana • Shelby County Indiana • Warrick County, Indiana • Clermont County, Ohio
Table 3.1: Population of Study Area Counties, 1990 & 2000 Total Population County 1990 2000 Adams County, Indiana 31,095 33,625 Bartholomew County, Indiana 63,657 71,435 Clermont County, Ohio 150,187 177,977 Dearborn County, Indiana 38,835 46,109 DeKalb County, Indiana 35,324 40,285 Huntington County, Indiana 35,427 38,075 Marshall County, Indiana 42,182 45,128 Morgan County, Indiana 55,920 66,689 Shelby County, Indiana 40,307 43,445 Warrick County, Indiana 44,920 52,383 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 & 2000.
54 Figure 3.1: Location of Study Area Counties
55 Comparative Analysis
This comparative case study will compare changes in demographic data from
1990 to 2000 to determine if Dearborn County has seen significantly different changes than the nine control counties. Such changes would presumably be due in part to the presence of the casino. The study will compare four types of data, economic indicators, crime statistics, bankruptcy rates, vital statistics showing rates of suicide and questionable deaths.
Measure of Economic Benefits
Since the primary justification for allowing casino gambling is because it would serve as a tool for economic development, the economic benefits will be measured.
Economic benefits can be measured through several indicators. The first indicator will be the number of jobs created. The assumption is that the casino and related businesses have created jobs for local residents. Has the presence of the casino created more jobs for local residents? Employment data for Dearborn County and the control counties from the
1990 and 2000 Censuses will be collected to find whether or not the unemployment rate decreased since the opening of the casino. Second, has the financial status of the community residents risen? The financial status of the county residents will be measured through median family income, per capita income and median housing values to determine whether or not the economic growth has raised the wages in the community.
Third, has the tax revenue increased the local governments’ ability to provide services while decreasing the tax burden on residents? County and city tax rates and budget
56 expenditures will be reviewed to determine how much casino tax revenue is flowing into the government and how that revenue is being spent.
Uniform crime statistics will be studied to determine if criminal activity has increased in Dearborn County disproportionately compared to the nine control counties.
Yearly rates of serious crime, including murder, rape, robbery, assault, theft, and larceny will be measured from 1990 and 2000 for Dearborn County and the nine control counties to determine whether or not crime in Dearborn County has risen disproportionately since casino gambling activity began. If this proves to be the case, it can be assumed that crime has risen in Dearborn County as a result of the casino operation.
Cases of personal bankruptcy will be reviewed to determine if a significant number of Dearborn County residents have filed for such status since the opening of the casino. By using quarterly data from FY 1990 through FY 2000, the relationship between legalized gambling and personal bankruptcy can be examined. The number of
Dearborn County residents who filed for bankruptcy during that time period will be compared to the number of individual who filed for bankruptcy in the control counties.
This study will examine the relationship of personal bankruptcy to legalized gambling, first by ascertaining whether or not bankruptcy cases have increased significantly in
Dearborn County since the opening of the casino in 1996, and if so whether or not that increase is out of proportion compared to the control counties. If this proves to be the case, it can be assumed that legalized gambling has become a compulsive habit for some
Dearborn County residents, causing them lose their savings to gambling.
Compulsive gambling may also elevate the risk of suicide in individuals who lose large amounts of money to the habit. To determine if suicides could be linked to
57 gambling, yearly rates of suicide and deaths under suspicious circumstances will be measured for Dearborn County and the control counties from 1990 to 2000. If such rates are high in Dearborn County compared to the control counties it can be inferred that the presence of the casino may be the cause.
58 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS
Fiscal Impacts upon Dearborn County
Comparing Social Costs
The estimated number is of pathological gamblers in Dearborn County is 190.
This number is calculated by multiplying the total number of Dearborn County residents over 21 (31,628), by the estimated percentage of pathological gamblers (0.6%). The total monetary cost of gambling for Dearborn County is estimated to be $2,011,161 per year.
This includes estimated social costs, (legal costs, employment costs and welfare costs) and estimated externality costs (costs to individuals). This number is calculated by multiplying the estimated number of pathological gamblers within the county (190) by the total average social costs they would impose ($10,598). Table 4.1 displays the total social cost and externality cost estimates for Dearborn County.
59 Table 4.1: Estimated Social Costs of Gambling in Dearborn County in 2000
Average Cost Total Estimated per Cost for Dearborn Pathological County2 Gambler1
Legal Costs $2,037 $386,512
Apprehension $44 $8,426
Adjudication $1,042 $197,826
Probation $192 $36,428
Incarceration $758 $143,833
Social Service Costs $923 $175,137
Mental Health Treatment $437 $82,942
Welfare / Unemployment $486 $92,195
Employment Costs $1,505 $285,650
Lost Productivity $1,385 $262,753
Unemployment Compensation $121 $22,897
Total Social Costs $4,465 $847,299
Individual / Family Costs $5,648 $1,071,770
Bankruptcy $515 $97,683
Abused Dollars $3,802 $721,498
Foregone Income $1,331 $252,589
Total Externality Costs $5,648 $1,071,770
Total $10,113 $1,919,069 1. Source: Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, 1996. 2. Estimates based on total population of adults aged 21 or over of 31,628 according to the 2000 U.S. Census; multiplied by the estimated 0.6% of pathological gamblers within the population according to the National Opinion Research Council
60 Comparing Direct Economic Benefits
The presence of the casino has provided a major source of revenue for the City of
Lawrenceburg and Dearborn County and the public school districts. As per the initial development agreement, the Argosy Gaming Company has provided incentive payments to finance public infrastructure improvements. The City and County collect gaming tax revenue and property tax revenue from the casino. In addition the casino increases employment opportunities within the county and reduces the overall tax burden on all county residents.
As of 2001, Argosy has provided over $114 million in incentive payments that were agreed to as part of the development agreement with the City of Lawrenceburg.
These payments are in addition to gaming and admission taxes that are collected. Much of this amount has been used to finance capital improvements to infrastructure. Table
4.2 details the payments as well as the promised amount. This includes yearly contingent incentives that are calculated as a percentage of gaming revenue. Argosy has met nearly all of its obligations, with the exception of the $7,024,000 that was earmarked for improvements to Interstate 275 and U.S. Route 50. Instead Argosy provided $3,899,000 to the City of Greendale and the Indiana Department of Transportation for improvements to U.S 50. Improvements to I-275 would presumably have been financed by federal funding.
61 Table 4.2: Incentive Payments per Argosy Development Agreement Amount Paid Promised Incentive Recipient Through Status Amount 7/31/01 Utilities-Riverboat Casino Site Completed Water System $25,000 City of Lawrenceburg $25,000 Year 1 Completed Wastewater System $200,000 City of Lawrenceburg $200,000 Year 1 Completed Electrical $1,000,000 City of Lawrenceburg $1,000,000 Year 1 City Utilities System Completed Water System $1,475,000 City of Lawrenceburg $1,475,000 Year 1 Completed Wastewater System $10,309,000 City of Lawrenceburg $10,309,000 Year 1 Completed Electrical $750,000 City of Lawrenceburg $750,000 Year 1 Completed Fire and Emergency Vehicles $1,150,000 City of Lawrenceburg $1,150,000 Year 1 Completed Improvements to U.S. 50 / I-275 $7,024,000 City of Lawrenceburg $500,000 Year 1 Completed Environmental Studies $50,000 City of Lawrenceburg $500,000 Year 1 Completed Infrastructure Improvements $5,000,000 City of Lawrenceburg $5,000,000 Year 2 Completed Infrastructure Improvements $2,000,000 City of Lawrenceburg $1,950,000 Year 2 Completed Unrestricted Grants $12,000,000 City of Lawrenceburg $11,600,000 Year 1 Indiana Department of Not in Transportation & Completed U.S. 50 Improvements Certificate Greendale Utilities $3,899,000 Year 1 Total Investment $38,358,000 Source: Indiana Gaming Commission.
The presence of the casino has provided a major source of revenue for the City of
Lawrenceburg and Dearborn County. The City and County collect gaming tax revenue and property tax revenue from the casino. In addition the casino increases employment opportunities within the county and reduces the overall tax burden on all county residents. Tables 4.3 & 4.4 show the total direct economic benefits the casino provides
62 to the City of Lawrenceburg and Dearborn County from property and income tax revenue, individual tax savings and individual employee earnings.
The casino is charged a $3 admission tax for each patron; one-third of this revenue is allocated to the county. In 2000 the County collected $7,546,866 in gaming taxes from the Argosy Casino. In addition the casino pays a substantial proportion of property taxes. The casino and hotel have an assessed property value of $17.5 million.
In 2000 the County collected $40,917 in property tax revenue from the casino in 2000. It is estimated that the casino has increased taxable income in the county by $17.3 million; from this the county received $62,966 in income tax revenue in 2000.
The casino employed 2,259 people in 2000; who earned an average of $34,071
($76,966,904 total) in wages, tips and benefits. According to voluntary surveys of casino employees, 28% were unemployed prior to gaining employment at the casino. The average wage of those who were employed full-time prior to being hired by Argosy was
$23,250. Those employees who responded to the survey indicated that they gained an average increase in annual wages of $284 during for their first full year of employment with Argosy. The primary reasons that respondents gave for coming to work for the casino were for higher wages, more hours, better benefits, more chance for advancement and working closer to home. The Argosy indicated that 37% of its employees lived in
Dearborn County. It can be estimated that 37% (835) of the total employees who live in
Dearborn County earned a total of $237,140 (835 x $284) more per year by working for
Argosy.
63 The presence of the casino has decreased the tax burden on Dearborn County residents. The casino lowers the overall levy rate paid by each property owner and decreases the overall percentage of welfare tax paid by each person employed within the county. The amount of tax that the casino pays lowers the overall debt service rate on property taxes levied by $37,430. The amount paid into the county welfare fund by casino employees decreases the total rate paid by all county residents by $54,008. These tax savings do not increase revenue to the county however they do decrease the overall amount that Dearborn County residents are required to pay.
Table 4.3: Estimated Fiscal Impacts upon Dearborn County in 2000 Direct Revenue Property Tax $ 40,916 Local Income Tax $ 62,966 Gaming Tax Revenue $ 7,546,866 County Visitors' Bureau $ 754,687 Total Revenue $ 8,405,435 Individual Tax Savings Operating $ 172,502 Welfare $ 54,008 Debt Service $ 37,430 Total Tax Savings $ 263,940 Employee Earnings Increased Wages $ 237,140 Total Benefits $ 8,906,515
64 Table 4.4: Estimated Fiscal Impacts upon Lawrenceburg City in 2000 Direct Revenue Property Tax $ 161,479 Local Income Tax $ 29,269 Gaming Tax Revenue $ 24,771,063 Total Revenue $ 24,961,811 Individual Tax Savings Operating $ 485,824 Total Tax Savings $ 485,824 Total Benefits $ 25,447,635
The Lawrenceburg School Corporation receives additional funding through a property tax levy. Table 4.5 shows that the Lawrenceburg school district received
$750,499 in tax revenue and enjoyed a tax savings of $188,326. However, due to the increased funding from local taxes, state aid was decreased. Yet the school district still had a positive net gain of $411,366. The increased funding has not been used for daily operating expenses and is not necessarily calculated by a traditional per student spending level. Instead, the increased revenue has been used to create an education endowment fund, which provides special benefits to Lawrenceburg students, including the scholarship endowment and purchases of educational materials used by students free of charge (Argosy Casino, 2004).
65 Table 4.5: Estimated Fiscal Impacts upon Lawrenceburg School Corporation in 2000 Direct Revenue Property Tax $ 750,499 Tax Savings Debt Service $ 188,326 State Aid Decreased Aid $ (527,459) Total Benefits $ 411,366
Table 4.6 shows the fiscal benefit-cost analysis, comparing monetary social costs to economic benefits. According to this analysis, the county receives over $30.9 million in economic benefits from casino gambling.
Table 4.6: Estimated Combined Total Net Benefits for Lawrenceburg and Dearborn County in 2000 Total Social Costs $ 2,011,161 Total County Benefits $ 8,906,515 Total City Benefits $ 25,447,635 Total School Corp. Benefits $ 411,366 Total Net Benefits $ 32,754,354
Dearborn County has a disproportionately high residential tax burden. Indiana tax information showing assessed property values by county show that Dearborn County depended upon residential taxes for 46.8 percent of its property taxes in fiscal year 1999, more than 5 percent higher than the state average (see Figure 4.1). While commercial and industrial taxes only account for 25.9 percent of property tax revenue compared to the state average of 43.2 percent. Utilities providers are also taxed highly (11.1%) compared to the state average (5.6%), meaning that residents probably pay more for utilities in Dearborn County than other counties.
66 Figure 4.1: Tax Base Comparisons for 1999 Assessed Property Value
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00% Commercial & Residential Agricultural Utilities Industrial
Adams 38.10% 34.40% 24.50% 3.00% Bartholomew 50.00% 39.30% 7.70% 3.00% Dearborn 25.90% 46.80% 16.20% 11.10% DeKalb 53.50% 29.10% 13.20% 4.30% Huntington 42.60% 33.50% 19.10% 4.80% Marshall 38.40% 36.00% 20.00% 5.60% Morgan 20.80% 58.60% 13.50% 7.10% Shelby 40.10% 36.10% 19.10% 4.60% Warrick 31.00% 50.20% 12.10% 6.80% Indiana 43.20% 41.50% 9.60% 5.60%
Source: The State Board of Tax Commissioners.
67 Despite the added revenue from the casino, which lowers the average levy rate,
property taxes in Dearborn County are higher than the other control counties.
Table 4.7: 2002 Mean Property Tax Rates by County Adams 2.542 Bartholomew 2.439 Dearborn 2.688 DeKalb 2.364 Huntington 2.705 Marshall 2.537 Morgan 2.196 Shelby 2.341 Warrick 2.172 Source: Stats Indiana, Property Tax Rates by County, 2004
Figure 4.2: 2002 Mean Net Property Tax Rates by County
3.25
3.00
2.75
2.50
2.25
2.00
1.75
1.50
s l n b on by ck am al hal gan l i d bor K ngt s or A omew ar e i ar She arr e D nt M W thol D u M H Bar
Source: Stats Indiana, Property Tax Rates by County, 2004
68 Comparing Indirect Socio-Economic Benefits and Costs
Income
From 1989 to 1999, Dearborn County residents experienced an overall increase in income levels. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, median household income in
Dearborn County increased from $31,398 in 1989, to $48,899 in 1999 (see Table 4.8 &
Figure 4.3). This was an increase of 55.7%, compared to a 44.3% increase for the entire state of Indiana. Median household income increased by a greater percentage than the other 9 control counties. In 1999 Dearborn County had the third highest median family income among the counties in the study.
69 Table 4.8: Median Household Income, for Study Area Counties, 1989 & 1999 Percentage Geography 1989 1999 Total Increase Increase Adams $ 28,792 $ 40,625 $ 11,833 41.1% Bartholomew $ 30,971 $ 44,184 $ 13,213 42.7% Dearborn $ 31,398 $ 48,899 $ 17,501 55.7% DeKalb $ 30,970 $ 44,909 $ 13,939 45.0% Huntington $ 29,681 $ 41,620 $ 11,939 40.2% Marshall $ 28,311 $ 42,581 $ 14,270 50.4% Morgan $ 32,762 $ 47,739 $ 14,977 45.7% Shelby $ 30,366 $ 43,649 $ 13,283 43.7% Warrick $ 34,069 $ 48,814 $ 14,745 43.3% Clermont $ 32,465 $ 49,386 $ 16,921 52.1% Cincinnati Metro Area $ 30,977 $ 44,914 $ 13,937 45.0% Indiana $ 28,797 $ 41,567 $ 12,770 44.3% United States $ 30,056 $ 41,994 $ 11,938 39.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Figure 4.3: Median Household Income, for Study Area Counties, 1989 & 1999
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
1999 $30,000 1989
$20,000
$10,000
$0
l t s n b n y ck n m r al lb i mew sh rgan e da o gto r A DeKal tin Mo Sh Warr lermo Dearbo n Ma C arthol Hu B
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
70 Per capita income increased in Dearborn County from $12,542 in 1989 to $20,431 in 1999, an increase of nearly 63% (see Table 4.9 & Figure 4.4). Of the other 9 control counties only Clermont County, Ohio experienced a greater increase (67.7%).
Table 4.9: Per Capita Income, for Study Area Counties, 1989 & 1999 Percentage Geography 1989 1999 Total Increase Increase Adams $ 11,655 $ 16,704 $ 5,049 43.3% Bartholomew $ 14,216 $ 21,536 $ 7,320 51.5% Dearborn $ 12,542 $ 20,431 $ 7,889 62.9% DeKalb $ 12,665 $ 19,448 $ 6,783 53.6% Huntington $ 12,509 $ 19,480 $ 6,971 55.7% Marshall $ 12,428 $ 18,427 $ 5,999 48.3% Morgan $ 13,068 $ 20,657 $ 7,589 58.1% Shelby $ 12,935 $ 20,324 $ 7,389 57.1% Warrick $ 14,037 $ 21,893 $ 7,856 56.0% Clermont $ 13,338 $ 22,370 $ 9,032 67.7% Cincinnati Metro Area $ 14,499 $ 22,947 $ 8,448 58.3% Indiana $ 13,149 $ 20,397 $ 7,248 55.1% United States $ 14,420 $ 21,587 $ 7,167 49.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Figure 4.4: Per Capita Income for Study Area Counties, 1989 & 1999
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000 1999 1989 $10,000
$5,000
$0
s n y k m rn alb o an ic nt a o gt g elb r mew K rshall r lo tin Sh ermo Ad o earb De n Mo War th D Ma Cl Hu Bar
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
71 Housing Values
Median housing values for specified owner-occupied housing more than doubled in Dearborn County from 1990 to 2000, whereas nationally, housing values increased at an average rate of 52% (see Table 4.10 & Figure 4.5).
72 Table 4.10: Median Value of Specified Owner-Occupied Housing for Study Area Counties, 1990 & 2000 Median Value Geography Total Percent 1990 2000 Increase Increase Adams $ 50,800 $ 85,400 $ 34,600 68% Bartholomew $ 57,200 $ 105,300 $ 48,100 84% Dearborn $ 59,800 $ 120,600 $ 60,800 102% DeKalb $ 50,100 $ 88,000 $ 37,900 76% Huntington $ 44,200 $ 81,600 $ 37,400 85% Marshall $ 49,500 $ 88,100 $ 38,600 78% Montgomery $ 47,800 $ 88,800 $ 41,000 86% Shelby $ 51,400 $ 98,600 $ 47,200 92% Warrick $ 64,400 $ 104,400 $ 40,000 62% Clermont $ 71,300 $ 122,900 $ 51,600 72% Cincinnati Metro Area $ 70,800 $ 116,500 $ 45,700 65% Indiana $ 53,500 $ 94,300 $ 40,800 76% United States $ 78,500 $ 119,600 $ 41,100 52% Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Figure 4.5: Median Value of Specified Owner-Occupied Housing for Study Area Counties, 1990 & 2000
$125,000 2000 1990 $100,000
$75,000
$50,000
$25,000
$-
b n k w rn all ry by c nt ams e o al to l ri o d K g sh me r m om arb e r o he a r A l e D tin a S le ho n M ntg W t D u o C ar H B M
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
73 Unemployment
The unemployment rate decreased in Dearborn County from 5.7% in 1990 to
3.3% in 2000 (see Table 4.11 & Figure 4.6). Of the counties in the study, Dearborn
County had the highest rate of unemployment in 1990, however by 2000, that rate was the third lowest.
Table 4.11: Unemployment Rates for Study Area Counties, 1990 & 2000 Unemployment Rate Geography 1990 2000 Adams 4.9% 2.9% Bartholomew 5.2% 3.7% Dearborn 5.7% 3.3% De Kalb 4.3% 4.2% Huntington 4.4% 3.8% Marshall 4.2% 4.2% Morgan 4.3% 2.9% Shelby 5.0% 3.7% Warrick 4.7% 3.8% Clermont 4.8% 3.5% Cincinnati Metro Area 5.2% 4.2% Indiana 5.7% 5.7% United States 5.2% 4.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau
74 Figure 4.6: Unemployment Rates for Study Area Counties, 1990 & 2000
5.8% Dearborn
5.3% Bartholomew Shelby Adams Clermont 4.8% Warrick
Huntington 4.3% Morgan De Kalb De Kalb Marshall Marshall
Huntington 3.8% Warrick Bartholomew Shelby Clermont 3.3% Dearborn
Morgan Adams 2.8% 1990 2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Crime
Figure 4.7 shows violent crime rates for total Index I violent crimes (aggravated assault, murder, rape and robbery) for the study area counties from 1994 to 2000. Data is based upon self-reporting by each local police department of criminal activity to the
Uniform Crime Reporting Program of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Division within the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Because crime events are reported by different entities, this leaves the possibility that each individual department may have
75 different standards of recording and reporting criminal activity although the BJS provides
standards for reporting. (see Appendix C for standard definitions of Index I Crimes).
The violent crime rate rose sharply from 1994 to 1995 rose slightly higher in 1996 to almost 500 incidents per 100,000 residents. Incidents of violent crime appear to have dropped significantly in Dearborn County since 1996, the year the Argosy Casino opened in Lawrenceburg. By 1997 the violent crime rate had fallen to just over 100 incidents per
100,000 persons, even lower than the rate experienced in 1994.
Figure 4.7: Violent Crime Rates per 100,000 for Study Area Counties, 1994-2000
700.0
600.0 Dearborn Adams 500.0 Bartholomew DeKalb 400.0 Huntington Marshall 300.0 Morgan Shelby 200.0 Warrick Clermont 100.0
0.0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
1. Includes Total Reported Index I Violent Crimes Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data
76 Property crime rates for the crimes of burglary, larceny and auto theft have
remained more steady than the rate of violent crime in Dearborn County. Property crime
rates increased slightly between 1996 and 1998 but appear to have since leveled. In 2000
the property crime rate in Dearborn County fell within the middle of the extreme range of
rates experienced by the study area.
Figure 4.8: Property Crime Rates per 100,000 for Study Area Counties, 1994-2000
4000.0
3500.0 Dearborn 3000.0 Adams Bartholomew 2500.0 DeKalb Huntington 2000.0 Marshall
1500.0 Morgan Shelby 1000.0 Warrick Clermont 500.0
0.0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
1. Includes Total Reported Index I Property Crimes Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data
Overall, crime rates in Dearborn County in 2000 were lower than the average for
all counties within the study area (see Tables 4.12 & 4.13). However, rates of the individual crimes of murder, rape and burglary are slightly higher than the average.
77 Table 4.12: Violent Crime Rates per 100,000 by County in 2000 Aggravated Forcible All violent County Murder Robbery assault rape crimes
Dearborn 69.4 2.2 19.5 8.7 99.8 Adams 41.6 0.0 8.9 0.0 50.6 Bartholomew 93.8 0.0 14.0 21.0 128.8 DeKalb 27.3 0.0 0.0 5.0 32.3 Huntington 47.3 5.3 18.4 21.0 91.9 Marshall 55.4 0.0 13.3 13.3 82.0 Morgan 84.0 1.5 6.0 4.5 96.0 Shelby 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 Warrick 340.7 0.0 6.9 9.2 356.8 Clermont 73.6 2.2 30.3 34.3 140.5 Average 83.8 1.1 11.7 11.7 108.3 Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data.
Table 4.13: Property Crime Rates per 100,000 by County in 2000 Larceny- Motor All property County Burglary theft vehicle theft crimes
Dearborn 360.0 867.5 62.9 1290.4 Adams 65.4 612.6 59.5 737.5 Bartholomew 455.0 3151.1 168.0 3774.1 DeKalb 27.3 34.8 7.4 69.5 Huntington 267.9 1239.7 44.6 1552.2 Marshall 170.6 1063.6 82.0 1316.3 Morgan 149.9 1459.0 88.5 1697.4 Shelby 4.6 2.3 11.5 18.4 Warrick 181.8 1249.9 66.8 1498.4 Clermont 431.5 1823.8 102.3 2357.6 Average 211.4 1150.4 69.3 1431.2 Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data.
78 CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS
The legalization of casino gambling in Dearborn County appears to have provided an overwhelming boost to local tax revenue. In 2000 the Casino paid over $24.9 million to the City of Lawrenceburg and over $7.9 million to Dearborn County in gaming taxes alone. Total benefits to local governments, the public school district and individual residents exceeded $33.7 million that year, while the estimated social costs amounted to
$2,011,161.
Of that estimated cost, $422,803 would be needed to cover legal costs arising from the investigation, apprehension and incarceration of offenders. There has been a decrease in the FBI Index I crime rate from 1995, the year before the casino opened, to
2000. In 1995 for every 100,000 residents there were 1,341 property crimes reported and
205 violent crimes reported. According to FBI uniform crime reports, by 2000 the property crime rate dropped to 1,319 incidents per 100,000 and the violent crime rate fell to 46 per 100,000.
The overall crime rate in Dearborn County in 2000 was below the average rates for all counties within the study. Rates of the individual crimes of murder, rape and burglary are slightly higher than the average. Yet, actual incidents of rape and murder were low, therefore an increase in total incidents will may be coincidental in terms of shear numbers, yet would appear to be a significant increase compared to the total average rate. It is also unlikely that crimes of murder and rape are linked to the presence of casino gambling. As discussed earlier, a previous study (Grinols, 2000) shows that there is little relation between casinos and these crimes. Of the crimes that do appear to be more closely related to gambling (aggravated assault, auto theft and robbery), only
79 robberies occurred at a higher rate in Dearborn County than the study area wide average.
Rates of aggravated assault and automobile theft in Dearborn County were lower than the observed norm.
If there is a link between casinos and crime, crime does not appear to have risen as a result of legalized gambling in Dearborn County. According to the 2001 results of the survey of casino patrons compiled for the Indiana Gaming Commission, only about
3% of casino patrons are from Dearborn County. Even regular visitors who go to the casino at least once a week live an average of 46 miles away. Therefore pathological gamblers who are attracted to the casino would conceivably take any home any problems they might cause, thus spreading out any ill effects the casino may have.
The casino does seem to have increased the prosperity of the county. The socio- economic status of the County residents has increased since the casino opened. Between
1990 and 2000, median family income rose by 55.7%, per capita income increased by
62.9% and average home values more than doubled. These growth rates were more than national and statewide averages and higher than most other comparable study area counties.
The casino has covered most of its imposed costs through the taxes it pays and the agreed development incentives with the city. However, while overall total casino tax revenue has increased, the share of revenue that Dearborn County receives has decreased since the change in the way admission is totaled. Annual county tax receipts went from a high of $7.5 million in 2001 to $3.9 million in 2003 (see Table 5.1). From 1999 to 2001, the County relied on casino tax revenue to provide over 50% of the entire county budget.
By 2003, gambling revenue only accounted for 20% of all county expenditures.
80 Table 5.1: Annual County Share of Admission Tax Compared to County Budget
Casino Tax Revenue Casino Tax Total County Year as a Percentage of Revenue Budget Total County Budget
1996 $ 106,401 $ 8,880,674 1.2% 1997 $ 3,282,229 $ 11,423,847 28.7% 1998 $ 6,663,041 $ 13,950,537 47.8% 1999 $ 7,309,966 $ 12,741,710 57.4% 2000 $ 7,546,866 $ 14,409,208 52.4% 2001 $ 7,424,904 $ 14,265,783 52.0% 2002 $ 5,943,724 $ 15,891,085 37.4% 2003 $ 3,935,342 $ 19,389,839 20.3% Source: Indiana Gaming Commission & Indiana Department of Local Government Finance.
The county receives a smaller share of the casino tax revenue, yet incurs much of the costs related to legalized gambling. The county is responsible for funding the district court and operation of the county detention center, the two most imposing legal system costs. The county budget also funds the county welfare program, which would presumably incur costs from persons with gambling problems.
Recommendations
• To ensure adequate provision of public services, changes to the Indiana
Legislative Code to allow redistribution of tax revenue would provide a more
balanced appropriation of funds in relation to government expenditures.
• The tourism generated by the casino provides an excellent opportunity for
ancillary development that would provide additional tax benefits, yet in eight
years following the opening of the casino, little spin-off development has
81 occurred. The cities of Lawrenceburg and Greendale could encourage more
commercial development that would cater to casino visitors (but not compete with
the casino) in order to capitalize on the increased activity. There is a considerable
amount of land along U.S. Route 50 approaching the casino that could be
redeveloped to accommodate complimentary service and entertainment
establishments that would serve both tourists and local residents.
• Economic Development projects should be planned so as to provide sustained
employment opportunities with the understanding that the casino may at some
time in the future cease operation. There has been debate in both Kentucky and
Ohio advocating the legalization of casino gambling. If this occurs, casinos in
these states would presumably capture some of Argosy’s market share.
• It is important to utilize tax revenue for as a long-term investment to enable
sustained prosperity if and when the casino closes in Lawrenceburg. Gaming tax
revenue should continue to be reinvested to improve the overall quality of life
within the community through such avenues as economic development, education
opportunities and improvements to government services and amenities that would
transform Dearborn County’s communities from “the place where the casino is”
to “the place where people want to live and work.”
82 REFERENCES
Aasved, Mikal. The Sociology of Gambling. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, Ltd., 2003. Adam Rose & Associates. “The Regional Economic Impacts of Casino Gambling: An Assessment of the Literature and the Establishment of a Research Agenda”. November 5, 1998. Argosy Casino. “Report to the Community”. Spring 2004. American Gaming Association. “State of the States, The AGA Survey of Casino Entertainment, 2003”. Argosy Gaming Company. Available online at:
83 Lahr, Michael L. and Ronald E. Miller, eds. Regional Science Perspectives in Economic Analysis. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2001. Moffett, Tommy and Donald L. Peck. “When Casino Gambling Comes to Your Hometown, The Biloxi Experience”. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, January 2001. Munting, Roger. An Economic and Social History of Gambling in the Britain and the USA. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996. Piscatelli, Franco and Jay S. Albanese. “Do Casinos Attract Criminals?”. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. Vol. 16, No. 4, Nov. 2000. pp. 445-456. Task Force on Gambling Addiction in Maryland. “Final Report of the Task Force on Gambling Addiction in Maryland”. December 31, 1990. Thompson, William N. Legalized Gambling, 2nd Ed. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 1997. Thompson, William N., Ricardo Gazel & Dan Rickman. “The Social Costs of Gambling in Wisconsin”. Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, 1996. Walker, Douglas M. and A. H. Barnett. “The Social Costs of Gambling: An Economic Perspective”. Journal of Gambling Studies. Fall 1999, Vol 15, Issue 3, pp. 181- 212.
84
APPENDIX A
SELECTION OF CONTROL COUNTIES
85 Table 1A: Selection of Counties by Population Density (selected counties in bold) Density in Density in Area in Area in County persons per County persons per square miles square miles square mile square mile Warren County, Indiana 364.9 22.41 Blackford County, Indiana 165.1 85.20 Benton County, Indiana 406.3 23.24 Steuben County, Indiana 308.7 88.91 Pulaski County, Indiana 433.7 29.15 Boone County, Indiana 422.9 90.20 Martin County, Indiana 336.1 30.85 Adams County, Indiana 339.4 91.62 Crawford County, Indiana 305.7 32.43 Noble County, Indiana 411.1 92.14 Newton County, Indiana 401.8 33.73 Huntington County, Indiana 382.6 92.60 Parke County, Indiana 444.8 34.64 Cass County, Indiana 412.9 93.03 Switzerland County, Indiana 221.2 34.98 Marshall County, Indiana 444.3 94.94 Pike County, Indiana 336.2 37.21 Lawrence County, Indiana 448.8 95.45 Sullivan County, Indiana 447.2 42.47 De Kalb County, Indiana 362.9 97.34 Union County, Indiana 161.5 43.20 Shelby County, Indiana 412.6 97.69 Rush County, Indiana 408.3 44.40 Miami County, Indiana 375.6 98.23 Jasper County, Indiana 559.9 44.58 Scott County, Indiana 190.4 110.25 Owen County, Indiana 385.2 44.86 Warrick County, Indiana 384.1 116.95 Fountain County, Indiana 395.7 45.00 Fayette County, Indiana 215.0 121.00 Brown County, Indiana 312.3 45.08 Kosciusko County, Indiana 537.5 121.48 White County, Indiana 505.2 46.05 Henry County, Indiana 392.9 122.52 Orange County, Indiana 399.5 46.08 Dearborn County, Indiana 305.2 127.24 Washington County, Indiana 514.4 46.11 Morgan County, Indiana 406.5 137.56 Spencer County, Indiana 398.7 48.88 Hancock County, Indiana 306.1 148.73 Perry County, Indiana 381.4 50.10 Bartholomew County, Indiana 406.8 156.48 Carroll County, Indiana 372.3 50.52 Wayne County, Indiana 403.6 178.27 Franklin County, Indiana 386.0 50.73 La Porte County, Indiana 598.2 178.98 Fulton County, Indiana 368.5 51.13 Grant County, Indiana 414.0 179.15 Ripley County, Indiana 446.4 55.14 Hendricks County, Indiana 408.4 185.40 Jay County, Indiana 383.6 56.08 Clark County, Indiana 375.0 234.07 Greene County, Indiana 541.7 56.14 Boone County, Kentucky 246 234.10 Randolph County, Indiana 452.8 59.96 Tippecanoe County, Indiana 499.8 261.30 Ohio County, Indiana 87.6 60.67 Vigo County, Indiana 403.3 263.10 Harrison County, Indiana 485.2 61.60 Hamilton County, Indiana 397.9 273.78 Tipton County, Indiana 260.4 61.90 Johnson County, Indiana 320.2 275.17 Jennings County, Indiana 377.2 62.73 Howard County, Indiana 293.1 275.77 Putnam County, Indiana 480.3 63.12 Monroe County, Indiana 394.3 276.38 Decatur County, Indiana 372.6 63.46 Warren County, Ohio 400 284.77 Posey County, Indiana 408.5 63.57 Madison County, Indiana 452.1 289.03 Daviess County, Indiana 430.7 63.93 Delaware County, Indiana 393.3 304.24 Gibson County, Indiana 488.8 65.29 Porter County, Indiana 418.1 308.38 Vermillion County, Indiana 256.9 65.29 Clermont County, Ohio 452 332.27 Montgomery County, Indiana 504.5 68.26 Elkhart County, Indiana 463.8 336.78 Clay County, Indiana 357.6 69.09 Floyd County, Indiana 148.0 435.16 Wells County, Indiana 370.0 70.13 Allen County, Indiana 657.2 457.75 Starke County, Indiana 309.3 73.54 St. Joseph County, Indiana 457.3 540.24 Jackson County, Indiana 509.3 74.08 Campbell County, Kentucky 152 551.75
86 Clinton County, Indiana 405.1 76.46 Butler County, Ohio 467 624.15 Knox County, Indiana 515.8 77.32 Vanderburgh County, Indiana 234.6 703.57 Lagrange County, Indiana 379.6 77.65 Kenton County, Kentucky 162 876.73 Whitley County, Indiana 335.5 82.42 Lake County, Indiana 497.0 956.93 Jefferson County, Indiana 361.4 82.45 Marion County, Indiana 396.2 2012.01 Wabash County, Indiana 413.2 84.87 Hamilton County, Ohio 407 2128.32 Dubois County, Indiana 430.1 85.13 Source: US Census Bureau
Table 2A: Selection of Counties by Racial Distribution (selected counties in bold) 1990 White Percentage County Population Population White La Porte County, Indiana 107,066 95,229 88.9% Grant County, Indiana 74,169 66,980 90.3% Madison County, Indiana 130,669 119,207 91.2% Vigo County, Indiana 106,107 97,818 92.2% Howard County, Indiana 80,827 74,706 92.4% Tippecanoe County, Indiana 130,598 120,724 92.4% Delaware County, Indiana 119,659 110,733 92.5% Clark County, Indiana 87,777 81,952 93.4% Miami County, Indiana 36,897 34,467 93.4% Monroe County, Indiana 108,978 101,814 93.4% Wayne County, Indiana 71,951 67,335 93.6% Porter County, Indiana 128,932 123,444 95.7% Knox County, Indiana 39,884 38,950 97.7% Bartholomew County, Indiana 63,657 61,479 96.6% Warren County, Ohio 113,909 110,124 96.7% Kosciusko County, Indiana 65,294 63,295 96.9% Adams County, Indiana 31,095 30,152 97.0% Marshall County, Indiana 42,182 41,050 97.3% Hamilton County, Indiana 108,936 106,193 97.5% Johnson County, Indiana 88,109 85,966 97.6% Fayette County, Indiana 26,015 25,392 97.6% Jefferson County, Indiana 29,797 29,107 97.7% Wabash County, Indiana 35,069 34,261 97.7% Noble County, Indiana 37,877 37,010 97.7% Cass County, Indiana 38,413 37,608 97.9% Boone County, Kentucky 57,589 56,465 98.0% Hendricks County, Indiana 75,717 74,256 98.1% Clinton County, Indiana 30,974 30,378 98.1% Lagrange County, Indiana 29,477 28,931 98.1% Clermont County, Ohio 150,187 147,494 98.2% Henry County, Indiana 48,139 47,291 98.2% Huntington County, Indiana 35,427 34,817 98.3%
87 Warrick County, Indiana 44,920 44,154 98.3% Shelby County, Indiana 40,307 39,655 98.4% Steuben County, Indiana 27,446 27,010 98.4% De Kalb County, Indiana 35,324 34,792 98.5% Boone County, Indiana 38,147 37,628 98.6% Hancock County, Indiana 45,527 44,933 98.7% Dearborn County, Indiana 38,835 38,339 98.7% Scott County, Indiana 20,991 20,752 98.9% Blackford County, Indiana 14,067 13,911 98.9% Dubois County, Indiana 36,616 36,258 99.0% Lawrence County, Indiana 42,836 42,418 99.0% Whitley County, Indiana 27,651 27,383 99.0% Morgan County, Indiana 55,920 55,452 99.2% Source: US Census Bureau
Table 3A: Selection of Counties by Unemployment Rate (selected counties in bold)
Persons 16 years Persons 16 years County and over in labor and over: Unemployment Rate force Unemployed
Hamilton County, Indiana 59,719 1,546 2.6% Boone County, Indiana 20,138 563 2.8% Hendricks County, Indiana 39,910 1,143 2.9% Dubois County, Indiana 19,941 640 3.2% Kosciusko County, Indiana 34,014 1,207 3.5% Boone County, Kentucky 30,167 1,094 3.6% Hancock County, Indiana 24,027 879 3.7% Johnson County, Indiana 47,445 1,743 3.7% Marshall County, Indiana 21,748 910 4.2% De Kalb County, Indiana 18,577 792 4.3% Morgan County, Indiana 28,747 1,232 4.3% Warren County, Ohio 57,608 2,472 4.3% Huntington County, Indiana 18,465 811 4.4% Wabash County, Indiana 17,701 800 4.5% Lagrange County, Indiana 13,850 637 4.6% Warrick County, Indiana 23,105 1,081 4.7% Clermont County, Ohio 76,802 3,691 4.8% Porter County, Indiana 65,099 3,132 4.8% Noble County, Indiana 19,471 939 4.8% Steuben County, Indiana 14,369 693 4.8% Adams County, Indiana 14,857 727 4.9% Whitley County, Indiana 14,438 718 5.0%
88 Shelby County, Indiana 20,895 1,041 5.0% Bartholomew County, Indiana 33,260 1,742 5.2% Dearborn County, Indiana 18,736 1,063 5.7% Clinton County, Indiana 14,807 889 6.0% Jefferson County, Indiana 14,681 935 6.4% Knox County, Indiana 18,478 1,234 6.7% Cass County, Indiana 18,780 1,361 7.2% Lawrence County, Indiana 20,748 1,521 7.3% Henry County, Indiana 23,231 1,961 8.4% Blackford County, Indiana 7,059 613 8.7% Fayette County, Indiana 12,467 1,152 9.2% Scott County, Indiana 9,679 1,018 10.5% Source: US Census Bureau
Table 4A: Selection of Counties by Median Household Income (selected counties in bold)
Median County household income in 1989
Knox County, Indiana $ 21,550 Jefferson County, Indiana $ 24,820 Lawrence County, Indiana $ 25,764 Cass County, Indiana $ 25,963 Clinton County, Indiana $ 26,148 Wabash County, Indiana $ 26,724 Lagrange County, Indiana $ 27,296 Marshall County, Indiana $ 28,311 Adams County, Indiana $ 28,792 Steuben County, Indiana $ 29,203 Huntington County, Indiana $ 29,681 Shelby County, Indiana $ 30,366 De Kalb County, Indiana $ 30,970 Bartholomew County, Indiana $ 30,971 Whitley County, Indiana $ 31,128 Dearborn County, Indiana $ 31,398 Clermont County, Ohio $ 32,465 Morgan County, Indiana $ 32,762 Warrick County, Indiana $ 34,069 Johnson County, Indiana $ 35,035 Warren County, Ohio $ 36,728 Porter County, Indiana $ 37,142 Source: US Census Bureau
89 Table 5A: Selection of Counties by Per Capita Income (selected counties in bold)
Persons: Per Geography capita income in 1989
Lagrange County, Indiana $ 10,011 Adams County, Indiana $ 11,655 Steuben County, Indiana $ 12,399 Marshall County, Indiana $ 12,428 Huntington County, Indiana $ 12,509 Dearborn County, Indiana $ 12,542 Whitley County, Indiana $ 12,605 De Kalb County, Indiana $ 12,665 Shelby County, Indiana $ 12,935 Morgan County, Indiana $ 13,068 Clermont County, Ohio $ 13,338 Warrick County, Indiana $ 14,037 Bartholomew County, Indiana $ 14,216 Johnson County, Indiana $ 14,992 Source: US Census Bureau
Table 6A: Selection of Counties by Poverty Rate (selected counties in bold)
Persons Total Below living Poverty Rate Geography Population in below in 1990 1990 poverty level
Whitley County, Indiana 27,651 1,424 5.1% Steuben County, Indiana 27,446 1,495 5.4% De Kalb County, Indiana 35,324 2,249 6.4% Huntington County, Indiana 35,427 2,258 6.4% Warrick County, Indiana 44,920 2,906 6.5% Morgan County, Indiana 55,920 3,690 6.6% Shelby County, Indiana 40,307 2,874 7.1% Marshall County, Indiana 42,182 3,131 7.4% Dearborn County, Indiana 38,835 3,244 8.4% Bartholomew County, Indiana 63,657 5,365 8.4% Clermont County, Ohio 150,187 12,903 8.6% Adams County, Indiana 31,095 3,548 11.4% Source: US Census Bureau
90 Table 7A: Selection of Counties by Vacancy Rate (selected counties in bold)
Total Housing Occupied Vacant Vacancy County Units Housing Units Housing Units Rate
Adams County, Indiana 10,931 10,470 461 4.22% Morgan County, Indiana 20,500 19,600 900 4.39% Clermont County, Ohio 55,315 52,726 2,589 4.68% Bartholomew County, Indiana 25,432 24,192 1,240 4.88% Shelby County, Indiana 15,654 14,761 893 5.70% Huntington County, Indiana 13,629 12,830 799 5.86% Dearborn County, Indiana 14,532 13,642 890 6.12% De Kalb County, Indiana 13,601 12,725 876 6.44% Warrick County, Indiana 16,926 15,817 1,109 6.55% Marshall County, Indiana 16,820 15,146 1,674 9.95% Steuben County, Indiana 15,768 10,194 5,574 35.35% Source: US Census Bureau
91
APPENDIX B
SELECTED CRIME STATISTICS FOR STUDY AREA COUNTIES FROM 1994-2000
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data
92 Table 1B: Selected Crime Statistics for Dearborn County, Indiana
Violent Crime Totals Aggravated Forcible All violent Year Murder Robbery assault rape crimes
1994 43 0 3 7 53 1995 192 0 6 7 205 1996 213 0 1 0 214 1997 42 0 0 7 49 1998 45 0 3 1 49 1999 80 0 2 0 82 2000 32 1 9 4 46
Violent Crime Rates per 100,000 Residents Aggravated Forcible All violent Murder Robbery assault rape crimes Year 1994 101.9 0.0 7.1 16.6 125.6 1995 446.1 0.0 13.9 16.3 476.3 1996 487.7 0.0 2.3 0.0 489.9 1997 94.4 0.0 0.0 15.7 110.1 1998 99.9 0.0 6.7 2.2 108.7 1999 175.1 0.0 4.4 0.0 179.5 2000 69.4 2.2 19.5 8.7 99.8
Property Crime Totals Motor All Larceny- Year Burglary vehicle property theft theft crimes 1994 102 287 23 412 1995 143 394 38 575 1996 143 248 30 421 1997 133 429 26 588 1998 147 449 35 631 1999 157 376 18 551 2000 166 400 29 595
Property Crime Rates per 100,000 Residents Motor All Larceny- Burglary vehicle property theft Year theft crimes 1994 241.7 680.2 54.5 976.4 1995 332.2 915.4 88.3 1335.9 1996 327.4 567.8 68.7 963.9 1997 298.8 963.9 58.4 1321.2 1998 326.2 996.5 77.7 1400.4 1999 343.7 823.2 39.4 1206.3 2000 360.0 867.5 62.9 1290.4
93 Table 2B: Selected Crime Statistics for Adams County, Indiana
Violent Crime Totals Aggravated Forcible All violent Murder Robbery assault rape crimes Year 1994 42 0 0 2 44 1995 26 0 0 2 28 1996 36 0 4 2 42 1997 24 0 0 6 30 1998 10 1 0 1 12 1999 11 1 0 3 15 2000 14 0 3 0 17
Violent Crime Rates per 100,000 Residents Aggravated Forcible All violent Murder Robbery assault rape crimes Year 1994 130.4 0.0 0.0 6.2 136.6 1995 79.8 0.0 0.0 6.1 86.0 1996 109.5 0.0 12.2 6.1 127.8 1997 72.8 0.0 0.0 18.2 91.0 1998 30.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 36.0 1999 32.8 3.0 0.0 8.9 44.7 2000 41.6 0.0 8.9 0.0 50.6
Property Crime Totals Motor All Larceny- Burglary vehicle property theft Year theft crimes 1994 39 288 17 344 1995 43 306 30 379 1996 27 259 20 306 1997 23 304 23 350 1998 11 318 23 352 1999 16 165 17 198 2000 22 206 20 248
Property Crime Rates per 100,000 Residents Motor All Larceny- Burglary vehicle property theft Year theft crimes 1994 121.1 894.3 52.8 1068.2 1995 132.0 939.7 92.1 1163.8 1996 82.2 788.0 60.9 931.1 1997 69.8 922.0 69.8 1061.5 1998 33.0 953.6 69.0 1055.6 1999 47.7 491.9 50.7 590.3 2000 65.4 612.6 59.5 737.5
94 Table 3B: Selected Crime Statistics for Bartholomew County, Indiana
Violent Crime Totals Aggravated Forcible All Violent Murder Robbery assault rape crimes Year 1994 118 2 34 27 181 1995 4 0 1 5 10 1996 10 2 7 2 21 1997 3 0 1 4 8 1998 18 5 3 5 31 1999 55 0 6 13 74 2000 67 0 10 15 92
Violent Crime Rates per 100,000 Residents Aggravated Forcible All violent Murder Robbery assault rape crimes Year 1994 175.4 3.0 50.5 40.1 269.1 1995 5.8 0.0 1.5 7.3 14.6 1996 14.5 2.9 10.1 2.9 30.4 1997 4.3 0.0 1.4 5.7 11.5 1998 25.6 7.1 4.3 7.1 44.1 1999 77.9 0.0 8.5 18.4 104.8 2000 93.8 0.0 14.0 21.0 128.8
Property Crime Totals Motor All Larceny- Burglary vehicle property theft Year theft crimes 1994 439 1621 74 2134 1995 59 206 21 286 1996 65 192 13 270 1997 59 177 16 252 1998 37 214 25 276 1999 325 1685 82 2092 2000 325 2251 120 2696
Property Crime Rates per 100,000 Residents Motor All Larceny- Burglary vehicle property theft Year theft crimes 1994 652.6 2409.6 110.0 3172.1 1995 86.2 301.1 30.7 418.1 1996 94.2 278.1 18.8 391.1 1997 84.8 254.4 23.0 362.2 1998 52.7 304.5 35.6 392.7 1999 460.1 2385.4 116.1 2961.5 2000 455.0 3151.1 168.0 3774.1
95 Table 4B: Selected Crime Statistics for DeKalb County, Indiana
Violent Crime Totals Aggravated Forcible All violent Murder Robbery assault rape crimes Year 1994 7 5 2 1 15 1995 6 0 0 1 7 1996 7 0 2 0 9 1997 27 0 1 2 30 1998 21 1 2 2 26 1999 13 1 1 4 19 2000 11 0 0 2 13
Violent Crime Rates per 100,000 Residents Aggravated Forcible All violent Murder Robbery assault rape crimes Year 1994 18.6 13.3 5.3 2.7 39.9 1995 15.8 0.0 0.0 2.6 18.4 1996 18.2 0.0 5.2 0.0 23.4 1997 69.0 0.0 2.6 5.1 76.7 1998 53.1 2.5 5.1 5.1 65.8 1999 32.6 2.5 2.5 10.0 47.6 2000 27.3 0.0 0.0 5.0 32.3
Property Crime Totals Motor All Larceny- Burglary vehicle Property theft Year theft crimes 1994 35 78 10 123 1995 31 67 6 104 1996 10 70 7 87 1997 33 103 20 156 1998 42 148 17 207 1999 43 196 20 259 2000 11 14 3 28
Property Crime Rates per 100,000 Residents Motor All Larceny- Burglary vehicle property theft Year theft crimes 1994 93.0 207.3 26.6 326.9 1995 81.6 176.3 15.8 273.7 1996 26.0 182.3 18.2 226.5 1997 84.3 263.2 51.1 398.6 1998 106.2 374.4 43.0 523.6 1999 107.7 491.0 50.1 648.9 2000 27.3 34.8 7.4 69.5
96 Table 5B: Selected Crime Statistics for Huntington County, Indiana
Violent Crime Totals Aggravated Forcible Violent Murder Robbery assault rape crime total Year 1994 235 2 9 3 249 1995 220 2 1 5 228 1996 214 0 7 6 227 1997 142 1 5 4 152 1998 144 2 3 5 154 1999 93 1 8 3 105 2000 18 2 7 8 35
Violent Crime Rates per 100,000 Residents Aggravated Forcible All violent Murder Robbery assault rape crimes Year 1994 641.3 5.5 24.6 8.2 679.5 1995 593.0 5.4 2.7 13.5 614.6 1996 572.9 0.0 18.7 16.1 607.7 1997 377.2 2.7 13.3 10.6 403.7 1998 380.5 5.3 7.9 13.2 406.9 1999 244.6 2.6 21.0 7.9 276.1 2000 47.3 5.3 18.4 21.0 91.9
Property Crime Totals Motor Larceny- Property Burglary vehicle theft crime total Year theft 1994 106 525 19 650 1995 110 462 25 597 1996 175 569 23 767 1997 109 561 34 704 1998 112 461 25 598 1999 89 427 27 543 2000 102 472 17 591
Property Crime Rates per 100,000 Residents Motor All Larceny- Burglary vehicle property theft Year theft crimes 1994 289.3 1432.7 51.9 1773.9 1995 296.5 1245.3 67.4 1609.2 1996 468.5 1523.4 61.6 2053.5 1997 289.5 1490.1 90.3 1870.0 1998 295.9 1218.1 66.1 1580.0 1999 234.1 1123.0 71.0 1428.0 2000 267.9 1239.7 44.6 1552.2
97 Table 6B: Selected Crime Statistics for Marshall County, Indiana
Violent Crime Totals Aggravated Forcible Violent Murder Robbery assault rape crime total Year 1994 24 0 1 0 25 1995 38 0 0 3 41 1996 17 0 2 1 20 1997 18 1 5 3 27 1998 64 2 8 17 91 1999 13 0 3 0 16 2000 25 0 6 6 37
Violent Crime Rates per 100,000 Residents Aggravated Forcible All violent Murder Robbery assault rape crimes Year 1994 55.1 0.0 2.3 0.0 57.4 1995 86.4 0.0 0.0 6.8 93.2 1996 38.3 0.0 4.5 2.3 45.1 1997 40.5 2.3 11.3 6.8 60.8 1998 143.8 4.5 18.0 38.2 204.5 1999 28.9 0.0 6.7 0.0 35.6 2000 55.4 0.0 13.3 13.3 82.0
Property Crime Totals Motor All Larceny- Burglary vehicle property theft Year theft crimes 1994 32 137 16 185 1995 15 174 18 207 1996 65 436 40 541 1997 86 394 31 511 1998 205 564 87 856 1999 76 350 35 461 2000 77 480 37 594
Property Crime Rates per 100,000 Residents Motor All Larceny- Burglary vehicle property theft Year theft crimes 1994 73.4 314.4 36.7 424.6 1995 34.1 395.5 40.9 470.5 1996 146.6 983.2 90.2 1219.9 1997 193.6 887.0 69.8 1150.4 1998 460.6 1267.3 195.5 1923.4 1999 169.2 779.1 77.9 1026.2 2000 170.6 1063.6 82.0 1316.3
98 Table 7B: Selected Crime Statistics for Morgan County, Indiana
Violent Crime Totals Aggravated Forcible Violent Murder Robbery assault rape crime total Year 1994 45 0 3 7 55 1995 50 1 2 2 55 1996 121 3 12 32 168 1997 39 1 1 2 43 1998 42 7 8 1 58 1999 37 0 7 2 46 2000 56 1 4 3 64
Violent Crime Rates per 100,000 Residents Aggravated Forcible All violent Murder Robbery assault rape crimes Year 1994 74.4 0.0 5.0 11.6 90.9 1995 81.3 1.6 3.3 3.3 89.4 1996 193.0 4.8 19.1 51.0 267.9 1997 60.8 1.6 1.6 3.1 67.1 1998 64.7 10.8 12.3 1.5 89.4 1999 56.0 0.0 10.6 3.0 69.6 2000 84.0 1.5 6.0 4.5 96.0
Property Crime Totals Motor Larceny- Property Burglary vehicle theft crime total Year theft 1994 82 626 52 760 1995 127 604 66 797 1996 370 1538 178 2086 1997 173 792 56 1021 1998 134 951 64 1149 1999 112 924 70 1106 2000 100 973 59 1132
Property Crime Rates per 100,000 Residents Motor All Larceny- Burglary vehicle property theft Year theft crimes 1994 135.6 1034.9 86.0 1256.4 1995 206.5 982.3 107.3 1296.2 1996 590.0 2452.6 283.9 3326.5 1997 269.8 1235.0 87.3 1592.1 1998 206.6 1466.0 98.7 1771.2 1999 169.4 1397.9 105.9 1673.3 2000 149.9 1459.0 88.5 1697.4
99 Table 8B: Selected Crime Statistics for Shelby County, Indiana
Violent Crime Totals Aggravated Forcible Violent Murder Robbery assault rape crime total Year 1994 12 0 1 0 13 1995 20 0 0 0 20 1996 33 0 2 3 38 1997 11 0 1 0 12 1998 15 0 2 0 17 1999 9 0 0 0 9 2000 2 0 0 0 2
Violent Crime Rates per 100,000 Residents Aggravated Forcible All violent Murder Robbery assault rape crimes Year 1994 28.6 0.0 2.4 0.0 31.0 1995 47.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.1 1996 77.5 0.0 4.7 7.0 89.2 1997 25.7 0.0 2.3 0.0 28.0 1998 34.9 0.0 4.7 0.0 39.6 1999 20.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.9 2000 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6
Property Crime Totals Motor Larceny- Property Burglary vehicle theft crime total Year theft 1994 21 19 9 49 1995 15 19 9 43 1996 15 31 6 52 1997 16 42 7 65 1998 20 40 4 64 1999 7 12 0 19 2000 2 1 5 8
Property Crime Rates per 100,000 Residents Motor All Larceny- Burglary vehicle property theft Year theft crimes 1994 50.0 45.2 21.4 116.7 1995 35.3 44.7 21.2 101.2 1996 35.2 72.8 14.1 122.1 1997 37.3 98.0 16.3 151.6 1998 46.6 93.1 9.3 149.0 1999 16.2 27.8 0.0 44.0 2000 4.6 2.3 11.5 18.4
100 Table 9B: Selected Crime Statistics for Warrick County, Indiana
Violent Crime Totals Aggravated Forcible Violent Murder Robbery assault rape crime total Year 1994 13 0 5 2 20 1995 35 0 4 1 40 1996 12 6 5 5 28 1997 20 0 2 2 24 1998 14 0 4 1 19 1999 6 1 5 0 12 2000 148 0 3 4 155
Violent Crime Rates per 100,000 Residents Aggravated Forcible All violent Murder Robbery assault rape crimes Year 1994 31.0 0.0 11.9 4.8 47.6 1995 82.4 0.0 9.4 2.4 94.1 1996 28.2 14.1 11.7 11.7 65.7 1997 46.7 0.0 4.7 4.7 56.0 1998 32.6 0.0 9.3 2.3 44.2 1999 13.9 2.3 11.6 0.0 27.8 2000 340.7 0.0 6.9 9.2 356.8
Property Crime Totals Motor Larceny- Property Burglary vehicle theft crime total Year theft 1994 169 656 20 845 1995 139 567 14 720 1996 82 574 25 681 1997 121 672 27 820 1998 110 677 35 822 1999 101 714 27 842 2000 79 543 29 651
Property Crime Rates per 100,000 Residents Motor All Larceny- Burglary vehicle property theft Year theft crimes 1994 402.4 1561.9 47.6 2011.9 1995 327.2 1334.5 33.0 1694.6 1996 192.5 1347.8 58.7 1599.0 1997 282.3 1567.7 63.0 1912.9 1998 256.1 1576.0 81.5 1913.5 1999 234.0 1654.3 62.6 1950.9 2000 181.8 1249.9 66.8 1498.4
101 Table 10B: Selected Crime Statistics for Clermont County, Ohio
Violent Crime Totals Aggravated Forcible Violent Murder Robbery assault rape crime total Year 1994 78 0 44 34 156 1995 124 0 68 35 227 1996 125 3 92 65 285 1997 97 1 60 40 198 1998 93 2 59 17 171 1999 102 1 51 10 164 2000 131 4 54 61 250
Violent Crime Rates per 100,000 Residents Aggravated Forcible All violent Murder Robbery assault rape crimes Year 1994 47.9 0.0 27.0 20.9 95.9 1995 75.0 0.0 41.1 21.2 137.3 1996 74.4 1.8 54.8 38.7 169.7 1997 56.7 0.6 35.1 23.4 115.8 1998 53.6 1.2 34.0 9.8 98.5 1999 57.8 0.6 28.9 5.7 93.0 2000 73.6 2.2 30.3 34.3 140.5
Property Crime Totals Motor Larceny- Property Burglary vehicle theft crime total Year theft 1994 782 4008 197 4987 1995 777 3732 237 4746 1996 891 3845 261 4997 1997 712 3360 211 4283 1998 654 2121 161 2936 1999 506 2055 137 2698 2000 768 3246 182 4196
Property Crime Rates per 100,000 Residents Motor All Larceny- Burglary vehicle property theft Year theft crimes 1994 480.6 2463.0 121.1 3064.7 1995 469.9 2257.0 143.3 2870.3 1996 530.6 2289.5 155.4 2975.5 1997 416.5 1965.5 123.4 2505.4 1998 376.7 1221.5 92.7 1690.9 1999 286.9 1165.0 77.7 1529.6 2000 431.5 1823.8 102.3 2357.6
102
APPENDIX C
DEFINITIONS OF FBI INDEX I CRIMES
103 Aggravated Assault
An unlawful attack by one person upon another wherein the offender uses a weapon or displays it in a threatening manner, or the victim suffers obvious severe or aggravated bodily injury involving apparent broken bones, loss of teeth, possible internal injury, severe laceration, or loss of consciousness.
Burglary
The unlawful entry into a building or other structure with the intent to commit a felony or a theft.
Murder (and Nonnegligent Manslaughter)
The willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.
Larceny/Theft
The unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property from the possession or constructive possession of another person.
Auto Theft
The theft of a motor vehicle.
Robbery
The taking or attempting to take anything of value under confrontational circumstances from the control, custody, or care of another person by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear of immediate harm.
Forcible Rape
The carnal knowledge of a person, forcibly and/or against that person’s will or not forcibly or against the person’s will in instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity.
104