The Responsible Gambling Collaborative (RG Collaborative) released new effectiveness principles for fostering responsible gambling and preventing problem gambling at the National Council of Legislators from Gaming States (NCLGS) Winter Meeting held this past January in San Diego, Calif.

In addition to the principals, RG Collaborative also unveiled a state-by-state study on the allocation of responsible gambling funding, according to a press release. 

The Responsible Gambling Effectiveness Principles, which provide a framework and recommendations for preventing problem gambling (PG) and promoting responsible gambling (RG) solutions, represent a first-ever attempt within the U.S. to create a consensus statement endorsed by academics, researchers, advocacy groups and casino gaming industry organizations. 

 The Responsible Gambling Effectiveness Principles are:

  • Support funding for research and evaluation;
  • Support funding for problem gambling treatment;
  • Help patrons make informed choices about their gambling;
  • Ensure every company has a responsible gambling plan and industry employees understand their role and responsibility in fostering responsible gambling and preventing problem gambling behavior;
  • Confirm gambling-related business practices encourage responsible gambling; and
  • Equip consumers with the tools they need to gamble responsibly and prevent problem gambling behavior. 
  • Directly supportive of the first and second principles, the RG Collaborative conducted a study to better understand whether funding allocated for RG and PG from states’ gaming tax proceeds are appropriately spent as they are designated. The analysis showed states’ handling of RG/PG tax funding fell broadly into three categories in the most recently examined fiscal year(s):
  • Six states (Indiana, Maryland, New Jersey, Nevada, New York and Pennsylvania) likely spent the allocated tax money on RG/PG issues.
  • Four states (Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri and Oklahoma) likely did not spend the allocated tax money on RG/PG issues.
  • Four states (California, Iowa, Mississippi and Ohio) are unclear. In these cases, funds may be partially diverted to other issues, the state has recently rolled back the dedicated funding streams for RG/PG altogether, or never had a dedicated funding stream.

For more information on the RG Collaborative and its activities, visit