Major Study Finds Economic Benefits, Social Harm from Massachusetts Casinos

Inside the Encore Boston Harbor, one of three casinos looked at closely to better understand gaming behaviors in Massachusetts. (Image: Michael Dwyer / Alamy) 

Researchers from the University of Massachusetts Amherst released a nearly 200-page report last week detailing the economic and social impacts that the opening of three casinos in the state have had on Massachusetts over the past decade.

The Social and Economic Impacts of Gaming in Massachusetts report (SEIGMA) compiled information from 55 different reports and academic publications over 10 years to give a full overview of the gaming industry and its impacts since the first casino opened in the state in 2015.

Lead SEIGMA researcher Dr. Rachel Volberg in an email exchange with Casinos.com explained some of the findings of her team's latest study, which was presented on Thursday to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. 

Findings: Problem Gamblers Drive Casino Revenue in Massachusetts

The study looked at all three Massachusetts casinos -- Plainridge Park, MGM Springfield and Encore Boston Harbor -- and found that they have a net-positive economic impact, but that those gains have come with significant social costs. 

Benefits started during construction of the casinos, when more than 8,000 full-time workers were employed as $2.8 billion was spent on building the facilities. The state of Massachusetts took in $330 million in gaming taxes in the 2023 budget year, and the casinos currently employ around 5,000 people.

At the same time, however, researchers identified several negative social and health impacts from the expansion of legalized gaming. There have been small increases in some crimes near casinos, as well as increases in vehicular accidents and impaired driving near the gaming facilities. 

And while the prevalence of problem gambling hasn’t increased significantly in Massachusetts since the casinos opened, the amount of casino revenues derived from problem- and at-risk gamblers rose from 74 percent in 2013-2014 to 90 percent in 2021-22.

“We were concerned to see that the proportion of revenues derived from people at risk of or experiencing gambling problems in Massachusetts was high in 2013 and even higher in 2021,” lead researcher Dr. Rachel Volberg told Casinos.com.

Researchers: State Should Pause Future Gambling Expansion

Dr. Volberg says that the SEIGMA researchers would recommend that Massachusetts hold off on any further expansion of legalized gambling in the state, at least until the impacts of sports betting have subsided.

“As we emphasized in the report and in our presentation to the Gaming Commission, the impacts of sports betting in Massachusetts are likely to be quite different than the impacts of casinos and should be monitored,” Volberg said.

The researchers made several other recommendations for regulators, including better pre-commitment programs, changes to loyalty programs that would reward responsible gambling, and automated alerts that would tell people when their gambling behavior was escalating. 

The SEIGMA study is believed to be one of the most comprehensive looks at the impacts of casino gambling in the United States. As such, it might be tempting to look at the study as a useful guide for regulators in other states as well, though there are also reasons not to assume the results would be the same in every market.

“There are some unique factors at play in Massachusetts,” Volberg explained, “including the already long-term exposure to casino gambling in Massachusetts due to the presence of casinos in nearby Connecticut, Rhode Island and New York.” 

She also noted that all three Massachusetts casinos operate in different environments and have unique characteristics that make the findings not automatically transferrable to other casinos. 

“The results of this study are probably broadly applicable to other US jurisdictions that have legalized resort-style commercial casinos,” Volberg said, “though the Massachusetts casino legislation included numerous provisions intended to minimize and mitigate gambling harms that other jurisdictions have not adopted.”