This is episode 44 of the After Gambling Podcast.
In this episode, I’m joined by Keith Whyte, Executive Director of the National Council on Problem Gambling.
Hey there, and welcome to the After Gambling Podcast.
My name is Jamie.
I’m a compulsive gambler, and I’m also the host of this show.
The last time I gambled was July 15th of 2010.
Now, as you know, I’m a huge advocate for change when it comes to problem gambling and gambling harm. I think there’s so much more that we need to be doing going forward.
In today’s episode, I had the chance to chat with Keith Whyte, Executive Director of the National Council on Problem Gambling here in the United States.
We talked about gambling legislation, specifically around sports betting, and the suggestions that the National Council makes to our legislators and operators on what would be best practices to reduce gambling harm—the harm of problem gambling.
Before we get to the interview, I want to talk about some of the takeaways from today’s episode.
For the problem gambler, we’re going to highlight the suggestions the National Council makes.
So, as you’re talking to legislators or even just friends or family, these are great talking points. There are things that you can learn from what Keith shares with us about what’s existing, what’s going on right now, and what they see as a need or the way forward to make change.
I want to point out that if you like what you hear from Keith and appreciate the work he and his team are doing, there are different ways to support them.
First of all, one way that doesn’t cost any money is to reach out to your local legislators. Share your struggles, share the guidelines that are outlined here, and push to make those changes. Having your voice heard doesn’t cost anything and is something we can all do to help, probably making the most significant impact going forward.
One point Keith didn’t mention, but I want to bring up, is that if you really like what they are doing, another way to support the National Council is through joining or donating.
Also, check to see if your state has a joint membership. Here in Ohio, the Problem Gambling Network of Ohio, when you join the PGNO, you also get a dual membership with the National Council.
Those are some of the ways you can help. I’ll put links to the National Council, and like I said, reach out and see if your state has any help programs. Any donation will help support the cause. There’s no obligation to do this—it’s just something, if you want to get involved, that’s a way to help.
Especially because, as you’ll hear in the episode, there’s such a lack of funding. It shouldn’t have to come from our pockets to help problem gambling and prevent gambling harm going forward, but any contribution will definitely help.
It’s also a way to start getting involved and be part of something bigger for a larger cause. Even if you’re just joining as a member or signing up for their newsletter, just being aware of what they’re doing will help you support the efforts.
If they have a day in your state or nearby where you can go out and help be an advocate, that’d be awesome. If you want to join, that’d be awesome too. Whatever you decide, I hope this episode brings awareness to the National Council, because personally, I had no clue they existed a year ago.
Hopefully, this brings awareness not only to the work Keith and his team are doing but also to the National Council and the state councils.
To any legislators or operators who might be listening, I just encourage you to listen with an open mind. Hopefully, we can all agree that the proposal from the National Council is realistic. It’s not some pie-in-the-sky goal that will make it impossible to operate profitably or for your state to benefit from it. These guidelines are so common sense that you would think there would be universal support—but as we talk about in the episode, it just isn’t there yet.
So, without further ado, here is the chat I had with Keith Whyte, Executive Director of the National Council on Problem Gambling.
Jamie:
So today, I am excited to have a very honored guest, somebody I’ve been wanting to have on.
Today I have Keith Whyte, the Executive Director of the National Council on Problem Gambling.
Keith, glad to have you on the show.
Keith Whyte:
Hey, Jamie, thank you so much for having me. This is awesome.
Jamie:
Absolutely. So I guess we’ll start off, Keith, if you could just give people a quick overview of the NCPG, what you do, and also a little bit about your background because it’s something I know I didn’t know much about until recently, and so I’m hoping to bring more awareness to the group.
Keith Whyte:
Yeah, no thanks. So, you know, I’m proud to have been here for 20 years as Executive Director of the National Council, and I’ll go into my background a little bit more, but I think the more important part is that the National Council has a background in the field of crime and the background of our group is, I think, interesting and important.
We were founded back in 1972, and so long before this massive expansion of legalized gambling, there were advocates and recovering gamblers who got together.
At the time, back in the 70s, the only organization for people with gambling problems was Gamblers Anonymous, which is great and good, but as their name suggests, they don’t do public advocacy.
What our founders—recovering gamblers and clinicians mainly—realized is that to create social change, there needed to be a public voice for people with gambling problems, and thus the National Council was born back in 1972.
What’s relevant is that one of our founders was a psychiatrist from the VA who had seen gambling problems among veterans in treatment. Our other founder, Monsignor Dunn, was the spiritual advisor for the New York chapter of Gamblers Anonymous and had also seen a lot of gambling issues during his time in the military. He was a military chaplain before he became a chaplain at the New York Police Department.
A number of the founders were from the New York branch of Gamblers Anonymous at the time. The founding principle back in 1972, which we’ve carried through to this day, is that we will always be neutral on gambling.
A lot of people say, “Oh, you’re neutral because you get industry money,” or, “You’re neutral because of this or that.” But having met some of our founders, I can tell you that their sole motivation was to make sure gamblers had a place to go where they weren’t going to be judged, where there’s no shame and no stigma.
The neutrality on legalized gambling also helps us in our work with all the other groups and all the other issues. It’s a great position of strength, but our neutral stance comes from our grounding in recovery and our desire to be a safe place for gamblers.
Jamie:
Yeah, and I think the neutrality, I mean, it seems like your goal is just to help people, right? There isn’t a vested interest either way. I know I get upset when people talk about taking industry money because, personally, I’ll take anyone’s money if it helps the cause. So I don’t get that argument.
It’s kind of cool to have you on today, because it is Election Day here in the U.S. Obviously, as an advocacy group, that must be kind of cool.
Keith Whyte:
Yeah, and I think that’s one of the things that makes us unique. Our stance of neutrality allows us to work with all the groups involved in gambling—not just recovery, but counseling, the gambling industry, and state government.
Since 1972, the role of government in gaming has radically changed. There are now more than a dozen states that get at least 10% of their general fund revenue from gambling. It’s legal in 48 states, and 47 states actively run gambling operations through their state lottery. The role of government in gambling is really interesting.
Quite frankly, it creates a lot of conflicts. As advocates, sometimes we have to criticize state governments as well as the industry. It’s a position that’s different from our fellow advocates in other health-related fields, like tobacco cessation or AIDS. In those fields, the state health agency is clearly on the side of the people trying to reduce harm.
With gambling, it’s a bit different. States are desperate to turn to gambling, especially sports betting, as a painless source of new revenue. It’s seen as magic money with no costs. Some of the reason it doesn’t seem to have costs is because states are actively ignoring it. They’re not treating gambling problems or people with gambling problems the same way they treat tobacco issues or lung disease.
That’s one of the big areas where our advocacy is different from other public health organizations, simply because of the state’s enormous role in operating, regulating, and profiting from legalized gambling.
Jamie:
Yeah, and I guess that’s probably a great way to jump into kind of the advocacy. Here in the United States, obviously, the big talking point is sports betting. I know the National Council came out with the Responsible Gaming Principles for Sports Gambling Legislation. I guess I’ll read parts of it, and then we can talk about it and kind of bounce back and forth.
But I’ll start off with this part of the discussion, which says: “Everyone who profits from sports betting bears responsibility for gambling problems. The only ethical and economical way to maximize benefits from sports betting is to minimize problem gambling harm. Therefore, any governmental body and sports league that receives a direct percentage or a portion of sports betting revenue must also dedicate funds to prevent and treat gambling problems.”
Obviously, there’s a whole lot there to unpack.
Keith Whyte:
Yeah.
Jamie:
But that sums it up so well. It seems like the National Council’s point of advocacy is, look, if you’re going to collect money, obviously, you need to bear some of the responsibility. And we’ll go into the details of what you outlined, but I don’t know if you want to just do an intro on what the thought process is there.
Keith Whyte:
Yeah, well, you’d think that’s a pretty common-sense proposition. It tests very well in public polling. When you ask, “If a state or a company legalizes gambling, should they devote a percentage of profits to help people with problems?” About 75% of Americans say yes.
Now, as you know from your marketing background, that’s a pretty mom-and-apple-pie question—of course, people will say yes. They’re not thinking about how it’s going to cost them anything. If you ask the question in other ways, you get a more negative response. But yes, in general, we thought, “Good grief, especially if you’re legalizing a new form of revenue like sports betting, this should be easy.”
And in fact, it’s been incredibly hard. We knew—after almost five decades of seeing it—that it’s actually been the exception, rather than the rule, for a state that legalizes gambling to put back a percentage of profits to help people with gambling problems. But we thought, “Okay, things have changed.” Maybe back in the 70s, when you had horse racing, and in the 80s with the lottery, there wasn’t as much public consciousness around problem gambling. But now, in 2018, this has to be the lowest common denominator.
And of the seven states that passed sports betting legislation since May 2018, only two of them put additional public funds into problem gambling programs. The other five just didn’t, even though they saw the recommendations, heard us, and thought about where they are in 2018, they still said, “Nope, we’re not going to take a single cent of this new revenue and put it back into problem gambling programs.”
So it’s disappointing. When we testified before Congress on sports betting, we showed quotes from NFL Commissioner Goodell, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver, Senator Schumer, and industry executives—all saying, “Yes, consumer protection and responsible gambling are important.” But at the state level, legislators are unable or unwilling to embrace that. And the support we had from those high-profile figures hasn’t resulted in meaningful action.
Jamie:
No, please go on. I’m enjoying this rant.
Keith Whyte:
(Laughs) It’s incredible. We’re talking about something that gets 75% public support, but when it comes time to take action, it just doesn’t happen. So that’s where we come in as advocates. We need to push for more. We need to get louder.
People ask me, “Why isn’t this happening?” Part of it goes back to that relationship with state governments. The state of Mississippi, for example, doesn’t allocate any money for problem gambling programs now, even though it brings in over a billion dollars in casino revenue. Maybe they don’t want to see there’s a problem. When they legalize sports betting, maybe it’s not ignorance—it’s active indifference.
It’s different from tobacco or alcohol, where everyone agrees there are public health costs. Even though the state makes money from those, they still allocate funds to deal with the health consequences. That’s not happening with gambling, and it’s a problem.
Jamie:
Yeah, and it feels like it’s a very uphill battle. It seems like even though there are common-sense guidelines that everyone agrees on, nothing is being done.
Keith Whyte:
Absolutely. It’s been an uphill battle, for sure.
Jamie:
Yeah, it feels like such a huge challenge. You know, the guidelines that you outlined seem to make a lot of sense. So I guess now we’ll jump into some of those suggestions.
The first suggestion that the National Council outlines is “dedicating funds to prevent and treat gambling addiction.” I think you mentioned one percent earlier. Do you want to expand on that?
Keith Whyte:
Yeah, so I do think, at the end of the day, money is important. We know this issue is massively underfunded. There are still 20% of U.S. states with legalized gambling that don’t put a single penny from their profits into problem gambling programs.
Nationally, when you look at the $72 million spent on problem gambling in the public realm across the U.S. in 2016, it’s actually 283 times less well-funded per capita than substance abuse. And I don’t know of a single person working in substance abuse who thinks they have enough funding to deal with opioids or other drug-related issues. So to put this in perspective, problem gambling is 283 times less well-funded than substance abuse.
So funding is important. And it’s not just about money for treatment—there’s so much more that needs to be done. In some states, like D.C., there has been zero public funding for problem gambling programs. So when you legalize sports betting, you’re starting from scratch with no existing infrastructure. You can’t build a system to deal with problem gambling overnight.
A state like Ohio, on the other hand, already has some funding and a system in place because of their casinos, so they’re better prepared. But even then, there’s more that needs to be done with sports betting.
So when we say one percent, that’s a small number. It leaves 99% for other beneficiaries. It’s a reasonable figure.
But the truth is, even if you take one percent, there’s still a lot we don’t know. It’s not based on rigorous scientific research to prove that one percent is enough. But it’s a good starting point.
Jamie:
Right, and you’re saying that one percent still leaves a lot of room for the rest.
Keith Whyte:
Exactly. For example, if we look at the overall gambling revenue in the U.S. from 2016, it was $109 billion. One percent of that would be $1.1 billion. Right now, we’re only spending $72 million, so there’s a huge gap.
Even half a percent would be a significant improvement over what we’re spending today.
Jamie:
Yeah, and like you said earlier, it’s shocking that one percent gets pushback. I mean, it seems like we should be starting at 10 percent and working our way down, not starting at one percent and still getting resistance.
Keith Whyte:
(Laughs) Exactly. It’s crazy, but it’s where we are.
Jamie:
Alright, let’s move on to the next suggestion in the National Council’s guidelines, which is implementing responsible gambling programs. This is one that’s really important, and I know we’ve had conversations about the term “responsible gambling.” I know you have some thoughts on that too, so feel free to jump into those as well.
Keith Whyte:
Yeah, so this part of the guidelines suggests that as a condition of licensure, operators should be required to implement responsible gambling programs. This would include things like employee training, self-exclusion programs, and advertising guidelines.
But the key point is that there should be public reporting on these programs. It’s not enough for a company to say, “Trust us, we’re doing the right thing.” There needs to be transparency.
And that’s really the crux of it. We’ve gone beyond the days where we can just take a company’s word for it. There needs to be real accountability. This information should be reported to gaming regulators and made available to the public.
Jamie:
Yeah, because without that transparency, how can we really trust that these measures are being implemented correctly?
Keith Whyte:
Exactly. And I want to address the second part of your question about the term “responsible gambling.”
There’s been a shift in the field lately. “Gaming” is now being used more by the video gaming industry, and there’s a lot of confusion because gambling and gaming are seen as two different things, even though they share a lot of similarities in terms of addiction. But in the medical field, terms like “gaming disorder” are being used to talk about excessive video game playing, not gambling.
So we’re starting to move away from the term “responsible gaming” in favor of “responsible gambling.” It’s just a clearer term, and it keeps the focus on gambling-related harm.
Jamie:
Right, because responsible gambling is something that puts the onus on the individual, right?
Keith Whyte:
Exactly. It puts the entire responsibility on the gambler, which isn’t fair. Just like with drunk driving, yes, the individual has responsibility, but so do the bar that over-serves them, and the car manufacturer, and even the government for allowing that product to be available.
In gambling, we don’t have that same social consensus. The individual is seen as solely responsible, and we need to change that. The gambling industry and the government both have a role to play in preventing harm.
Jamie:
Yeah, and I think that’s where a lot of the frustration comes in. People feel like responsible gambling programs are about telling gamblers how to be responsible, but for many, once you’re addicted, it’s not really a choice anymore.
Keith Whyte:
Exactly. Addiction is about the loss of control. If you could always control it, there wouldn’t be a problem.
Jamie:
Right, exactly. So the next part of the guidelines is assigning a regulatory agency to oversee sports betting. This is another one that seems like common sense. Can you talk about why that’s important?
Keith Whyte:
Yeah, so this is one of those things that you would think is obvious, right? Like, of course, sports betting should be regulated by a proper agency. But it’s not always that simple. We saw this with daily fantasy sports. In many states, it was barely regulated or it was regulated by the charitable gaming agency. That’s not the right place for it.
What we’re pushing for is to make sure that sports betting is regulated by a proper gambling regulatory body, one that has the expertise and authority to enforce rules and protect consumers. Some states, like Ohio, have a casino control commission, which makes sense to handle this. But other states don’t have that same infrastructure, and that’s where it becomes a problem.
Jamie:
Yeah, I imagine you don’t want sports betting to be lumped in with other things like charitable gaming where the oversight isn’t as strict.
Keith Whyte:
Exactly. The stakes are much higher with sports betting, so it needs a proper regulatory body.
Jamie:
And the last two suggestions are pretty straightforward. One is to establish a consistent minimum age for sports betting, which is obvious. And the other is conducting research to measure the impact of sports betting on gambling problems. Can you expand on that last point a bit?
Keith Whyte:
Yeah, this is really important because we need to know the true impact of sports betting on gambling problems. Right now, a lot of states are legalizing sports betting without doing any baseline studies to measure gambling addiction.
Our suggestion is that states should conduct baseline studies before sports betting goes live, and then continue to do research after it’s implemented to see if problem gambling rates increase. This kind of research is critical because if we’re wrong and sports betting doesn’t increase gambling harm, that’s great. But if we’re right and it does, we need to know that so we can address it.
Jamie:
Yeah, and you also mentioned earlier that the data collected by operators could be really useful. Can you talk a bit more about that?
Keith Whyte:
Yes, absolutely. Operators collect an enormous amount of data on their customers—everything from how much they’re betting to what teams they’re betting on. That data could be incredibly useful in identifying problem gamblers or people who are at risk of developing a gambling problem.
But right now, that data isn’t shared with researchers or public health agencies in a meaningful way. If we had access to that data, we could target our responsible gambling messages much more effectively.
Right now, we have to take a broad approach, assuming that everyone is at risk, which isn’t the most efficient way to do things. If operators were willing to share that data, we could focus on the 5% of customers who are truly at risk.
Jamie:
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I mean, with the level of data collection that’s happening today, there’s really no reason why we couldn’t use it to better understand gambling behavior and help people before they get too deep into it.
Keith Whyte:
Exactly. And it’s not just about preventing gambling problems. If operators really care about keeping their customers safe and keeping gambling sustainable, they should want to use that data to identify risks early and address them.
Jamie:
Absolutely. Well, we’ve covered a lot today. I know you have to get to a meeting, and I need to get out and vote. Before we wrap up, is there anything else you’d like to add?
Keith Whyte:
I’ll just say that the National Council has launched a new initiative called the Safer Sports Betting Initiative (SSBI), which includes a lot of what we talked about today. We’ve also partnered with a UK-based company to fund a nationwide survey called Engage, which will measure gambling attitudes and behaviors across the U.S.
This survey is going to be a huge step in understanding gambling behaviors, especially with sports betting. We’re going to have state-specific data, and it will set a baseline so that we can track changes over time. That way, we’ll know if sports betting is contributing to an increase in gambling problems, and we can use that data to advocate for better regulations.
Jamie:
That sounds like a great initiative, Keith. Thank you so much for sharing all of this information today. I think it’s been incredibly enlightening, and I know listeners will get a lot out of it.
Keith Whyte:
Thanks so much for having me, Jamie. I really enjoyed this, and I hope we can continue to work together on these important issues.
Jamie:
Absolutely. Thanks again, Keith. I’ll be sure to include links to the National Council and the research you mentioned in the show notes.
And to everyone listening, I hope you found this episode helpful. Remember, if you want to get involved in advocacy or just learn more about what the National Council is doing, you can check out the links in the show notes. And as always, I’m not a doctor, a lawyer, or a therapist—I’m just sharing my experience.
Thanks for listening, and I’ll see you in the next episode.
