BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 2197
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   May 5, 2010

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Felipe Fuentes, Chair

                 AB 2197 (Coto) - As Introduced:  February 18, 2010 

          Policy Committee:                              Governmental  
          Organization Vote:                            21 - 1 

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          No     Reimbursable:              

           SUMMARY  

          This bill requires the Office of Problem Gambling (OPG) to  
          develop education and awareness programs that specifically  
          target geographically diverse multi-cultural populations. In  
          addition, the bill authorizes the office to develop a grant  
          program for education and awareness which would give preference  
          to diverse populations and youth. 

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          1)Developing a new grant program to increase awareness and  
            education would likely cost in excess of $500,000 per year,  
            depending on the scope of the program and the size of the  
            individual grants. [Indian Gaming Special Distribution Funds]

          2)Developing an education and awareness program for diverse  
            multi-cultural populations would likely cost in excess of  
            $125,000. [Indian Gaming Special Distribution Funds]

           COMMENTS  

           1)Purpose  . According to the author, this bill is intended to  
            update and bring consistency to the state's problem and  
            pathological gambling laws.  The author notes that current law  
            requires OPG's problem gambling treatment efforts to include  
            services that are relevant to the needs of diverse  
            multicultural populations, but the law does not require OPG to  
            provide any gambling education or prevention services for such  
            populations.  Additionally, current law requires the  
            prevention program to target youth, but it does not require  
            its treatment program to provide problem gambling services to  








                                                                  AB 2197
                                                                  Page  2

            youth.  
           
          2)Office of Problem Gambling (OPG) Budget  . The Department of  
            Alcohol and Drug Programs (ADP) receives approximately $8.4  
            million for problem gambling prevention and treatment  
            activities derived from the Indian Gaming Special Distribution  
            Fund (SDF). Of the total $8.4 million for the fiscal year (FY)  
            2010-11 budget, $3.484 million funds the prevention,  
            education, and research activities as enacted by AB 673  
            (Horton; Chapter 210, Statutes of 2003); and $5 million funds  
            the treatment.  

             Of the $3.484 million that funds prevention, education and  
            research activities:

             a)   $430,000 funds the gambler hotline service, which is  
               contracted out.
             b)   $300,000 funds a youth prevention grant through the  
               Tulare Office of Education which in turn provides community  
               grants for programs such as Friday Night Live.
             c)   $750,000 funds technical assistance and training through  
               National Asian Pacific American Families Against Substance  
               Abuse (NAPAFASA) to educate the public and train a broad  
               range of service providers, government agency personnel,  
               and community leaders to help prevent and/or treat problem  
               gambling.
             d)   $1.2 million funds a media campaign.
             e)   The bulk of the remaining funds are spent on research.

            Of the $5 million that funds treatment, support, and services:

             a)   $4 million goes to a services contract with the UCLA  
               gambling program, which provides clinical guidance and  
               assists in oversight of the program.  This program  
               reimburses individual therapists, and some county programs  
               for problem gambling treatment services on a  
               fee-for-service basis.  Once the program infrastructure is  
               built and established, the program may go to funding county  
               programs more than individual therapists.
             b)   The remaining $1 million funds support services with  
               approximately $250,000 going to ADP for positions, and  
               $750,000 going to program support such as outreach and data  
               management.

           1)Special Distribution Fund . Along with covering "shortfalls" in  








                                                                  AB 2197
                                                                  Page  3

            the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund (RSTF), money paid by gaming  
            tribes into the SDF is required to be used for funding  
            programs designed to address problem gambling; support for any  
            local or state government agencies that are impacted by  
            gaming; compensation for any Department of Justice (DOJ)  
            regulatory costs; and for implementing any tribal labor  
            relations ordinances that are promulgated in accordance with  
            individual gaming compacts. 

            The 2010-11 proposed budget assumes that the SDF will receive  
            $45 million in revenue (down from the $217 million received in  
            07-08) from the tribes.  That $45 million will be added to a  
            beginning balance of $117 million, carried over from prior  
            years. Of that $162 million, $50 million would be transferred  
            to the RSTF to cover the shortfall in the funding for  
            non-gaming tribes, $14 million is provided to the DOJ, $8.5  
            million to the Gambling Control Commission, $8 million to the  
            Department of Alcohol and Drug for the Office of Problem  
            Gambling, and the remainder would be held in a reserve for  
            economic uncertainties (approximately $50 million less than  
            the reserve from two years earlier). Depending on whether or  
            not the state resumes its local mitigation grant funding, the  
            General Fund could be required to begin backfilling the SDF as  
            early as 2012-13. 

           2)Gambling in California  . In California, the State Constitution  
            has provisions covering most types of gambling. Specifically  
            it (a) authorizes the California State Lottery but prohibits  
            any other lottery; (b) allows wagering on horse races; (c)  
            allows bingo for charitable purposes; and (d) prohibits  
            Nevada- and New Jersey-style casinos. The Constitution does  
            not specifically mention card rooms. Existing statute,  
            however, permits the play of any card game not otherwise  
            prohibited. Basically, the law allows card games where the  
            card room operator has no stake in the outcome of the game.

            Gambling on Indian lands is regulated at the federal level  
            through the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) of 1988. The  
            IGRA separates gambling activities into three distinct classes  
            and applies different restrictions on each class. Essentially,  
            IGRA authorizes Indian tribes to operate any gambling that is  
            otherwise legal in the state, although the operation of some  
            forms of gambling is subject to a negotiated agreement  
            (compact) with the state. 









                                                                  AB 2197
                                                                  Page  4

             Analysis Prepared by  :    Julie Salley-Gray / APPR. / (916)  
            319-2081