Survey Respondents Share Opinions of Riverboat in their Communities

Sue Burow Center for Urban Policy and the Environment, Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs at IUPUI

n 1993, a new era began in Indiana. With Figure 1 the passage of the Riverboat Casinos Whose Cities Were Surveyed I 1 Act, communities in both the northern and southern portions of the state had the opportunity to bring riverboat casinos to their Horseshoe communities. The riverboats came with the (Hammond) promise of jobs and local investment, but they also established legalized gambling within SSt.t. JoJosephs Lagrange La PPorteorte Elkhart Steuben the region. Since then, eleven licenses have been issued in the state, including the recent addition of the Majestic Star I and II Noble De Kalb French Lick Resort Casino. PoPorterrter (Gary) MMarshallars Lakeake In an effort to maximize the positive impacts of SStarStarkeke Kosciusko Indiana’s riverboat casinos, all are subject to certain Whitley rules and regulations, including a series of license Pulaski Fulton Jasper Allen renewals required to retain their operating licenses. To Huntington remain in compliance, the casinos must demonstrate Newton Wabash Miami Adams that they are well managed and able to provide White Cass Wells continuing economic benefits for the local community. The Indiana Gaming Commission asked the Center for Benton Carroll Grant Black- Howard Urban Policy and the Environment (CUPE) of Indiana ford Jay University’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs Warren Clinton Tipton to perform economic, fiscal, community, financial, Tippecanoe Delaware operational, and other analyses to aid in reviewing Madison Randolph Boone Hamilton the riverboat casino licenses. As the casinos reach Fountain these renewal periods, CUPE conducts the analyses to Montgomery Henry Wayne determine the riverboat’s impact. CUPE is currently 2 Hendricks working on a series of eleven-year evaluations. Parke Hancock

One component in determining the community Vermillion Marion Putnam Fayette Union impact is a random survey of local residents. Surveys Rush Vigo have been conducted to ascertain the residents’ Morgan Shelby Franklin opinions of Horseshoe Casino in Hammond, Majestic Clay Johnson Star I and II in Gary, Argosy Casino in Lawrenceburg, Decatur Owen Grand Victoria Casino in Rising Sun, and Casino Bartholomewrtholomewth DearDDearbornborn Monroe Brown Argosy Casino Aztar in Evansville (see Figure 1). In all instances, Sullivan (Lawrenceburg) Greene the surveys were conducted by the Survey Research JJenningsennings RiplRipleyey OhiOhioo Center at IUPUI. Data were collected by conducting Jacksono JJeffersonefferson random telephone interviews of approximately two- Lawrence SSwitzerlandwitzerland Grand Victoria hundred residents of each city with the average Daviess Martin Knox ScotScScottt Casino (Rising Sun) interview lasting approximately five minutes. Washington Respondents were informed at the outset that their Orange CClarklark participation was voluntary and their identity Pike DDuboisubois Floyd would remain anonymous. GGibsonibson CCrawfordraw For most Hoosiers, the perceived impact Aztar Indiana (Evansville) of the riverboat casinos is additional revenue Vander-nder-- Harrison burghurgh WarrWarrickick PPerryerry for the state. The arrival of the casinos Posey was viewed as a financial windfall for Spencer everyone—with local communities reaping Source: IBRC the greatest benefit. In the communities where the casinos have been established

Indiana Business Review, Fall 2007  1 for more than eleven years, it is Table 1 important to ask residents if they Percent Responding They Have Ever Participated in Gaming Activity believe casinos have provided the Argosy Aztar Grand Victoria Horseshoe Majestic improved employment opportunities Casino Indiana Casino Casino Star I and II and increased local revenue that Gambling Action (Lawrenceburg) (Evansville) (Rising Sun) (Hammond) (Gary) they promised and whether or not Purchased , gambling abuse has tempered the Scratch-Offs, or Pull- 79% 76% 78% 67% 69% casinos’ success. The survey was Tabs designed to aid in answering these Placed Bets at a 56% 48% 53% 37% 32% questions. Casino Played Cards for 49% 49% 47% 43% 26% Gaming Activities Money All respondents were asked Played for Cash 37% 39% 31% 40% 31% questions about their participation Prizes in various gaming activities and Bet on Horses 40% 56% 36% 24% 17% their frequency of play. As Table 1 indicates, a majority of respondents Bet on Games of Your Own Personal Skill 20% 20% 22% 19% 20% have participated in some form of (Pool, Golf, etc.) gambling. Lo ery tickets, scratch-off , Bet Money on Sports and pull-tabs are the most widely 24% 19% 23% 21% 24% Teams reported form of gaming activity. Those representing the riverboat Source: Laura Littlepage, Center for Urban Policy and the Environment, Indiana University communities in the southern part of the state generally report higher asked about regular participation, placed bets at a casino decreases levels of participation. This is the numbers fall. As Table 2 shows, when limiting participation to the last especially true when asked if they lo ery tickets, scratch-off s, and month. have ever placed a bet at a casino pull-tabs remain the most prevalent or on horse racing. Approximately activity. Casino visits are still cited by Opinions of Riverboat Casinos one-third of respondents have respondents but wagering on sports In addition to surveying levels of played bingo for cash prizes, while teams and personal skill appears to gaming activity, respondents were wagering on sports teams and their be more frequent among those who asked to provide their opinions of own personal skill is mentioned by have participated in gaming activity the local casino. Table 3 illustrates roughly one in Q ve respondents. within the last month. Excluding the results when respondents were While most respondents have Majestic Star I and II, the level of asked how they felt about having a tried various forms of gaming, when participation of those who have riverboat casino in their community.

Table 2 Percent Responding They Have Played within the Last Month

Argosy Casino Aztar Indiana Grand Victoria Casino Horseshoe Casino Majestic Star I and II Gambling Action (Lawrenceburg) (Evansville) (Rising Sun) (Hammond) (Gary)

Purchased Lottery, Scratch-Offs, or 36% 43% 43% 45% 46% Pull-Tabs

Bet on Games of Your Own Personal 17% 21% 26% 22% 44% Skill (Pool, Golf, etc.)

Bet Money on Sports Teams 24% 15% 3% 17% 35%

Placed Bets at a Casino 24% 16% 21% 23% 32%

Played Cards for Money 12% 18% 14% 6% 10%

Bet on Horses 6% 2% 5% 2% 10%

Played Bingo for Cash Prizes 1% 5% 2% 6% 7%

Bet on Horses 6% 2% 5% 2% 10% Source: Laura Littlepage, Center for Urban Policy and the Environment, Indiana University

2 Indiana University Kelley School of Business, Indiana Business Research Center In all areas, more respondents clearly Table 3 favor the casinos than oppose them. Overall Opinion of Casino Those opposed to the riverboats cite Argosy Aztar Grand Victoria Horseshoe Majestic religious reasons and concerns about Casino Indiana Casino Casino Star I and II gambling problems. All Respondents (Lawrenceburg) (Evansville) (Rising Sun) (Hammond) (Gary) Those in favor value the additional Favor 54% 47% 64% 48% 43% revenue for local governments and Opposed 12% 18% 12% 12% 16% community foundations, the jobs, and the entertainment value the riverboat Mixed Feeling 27% 21% 22% 24% 22% casinos provide. No Opinion/Don't Know 7% 16% 2% 17% 19% Table 3 also shows that a Source: Laura Littlepage, Center for Urban Policy and the Environment, Indiana University sizeable number of respondents neither favor nor oppose but have mixed feelings about the casinos. who works for the local casino, and Those who know a casino worker Because of the range of feelings those who know someone with a either equal or exceed the favorability about the casino, CUPE a empted gambling problem. Table 4 shows the ratings when compared to all to determine if various experiences results of these select groups when respondents. Finally, those who know could impact whether someone asked how they feel about having a someone with a gambling problem may be more or less favorable to casino in their community. appear to be just as likely to have having a casino in their community. Not surprising, those who are not mixed feelings about the casinos as The survey data was segmented to gamblers have the least favorable they are to be in favor or opposed to highlight respondents who have not ratings of all respondents and a them. participated in any form of gaming majority either are opposed to or activity, those who know someone have mixed feelings about the casino. Riverboat Casinos as Part of Our Communities Since 1995, Indiana communities Table 4 have seen both the beneQ ts and Opinion of Casinos from Non-Gamblers, Know Someone who Works at the Casino, potential problems associated with or Know Someone with a Gambling Problem the riverboat casinos in Indiana. The Argosy Aztar Grand Victoria Horseshoe Majestic results of these surveys indicate that Casino Indiana Casino Casino Star I and II respondents believe the beneQ ts (Lawrenceburg) (Evansville) (Rising Sun) (Hammond) (Gary) outweigh the potential problems. Not a Gambler While a number of respondents Favor 5% 26% 29% 20% 15% have mixed feelings about the casinos, an overwhelming majority Opposed 38% 49% 41% 32% 27% have participated in some form of Mixed feeling 52% 15% 27% 20% 27% gambling activity, including placing a bet at a riverboat casino. Based upon No opinion/Don't Know 5% 9% 3% 28% 31% the responses of those who know Know Someone Who Works at the Casino someone who works at the casino, respondents also appear to recognize Favor 56% 48% 64% 56% 60% that the casinos provide signiQ cant Opposed 11% 18% 13% 11% 17% employment opportunities and the Mixed feeling 29% 23% 21% 26% 10% respondents who do not gamble appear to realize that riverboats No opinion/Don't Know 4% 11% 3% 6% 13% make a sizeable investment in their Know Someone with a Gambling Problem communities.

Favor 24% 30% 41% 35% 35% Notes Opposed 35% 36% 23% 22% 28% 1. Indiana Code 4-33: Riverboat Gambling 2. For additional information on the Commission or to Mixed feeling 35% 28% 32% 35% 17% view these reports in their entirety please visit the Commission’s website at No opinion/Don't Know 6% 6% 4% 8% 20% www.in.gov/gaming/publications/casino_eval/ Source: Laura Littlepage, Center for Urban Policy and the Environment, Indiana University

Indiana Business Review, Fall 2007  3