It may include provisions concerning the standards for the operation and maintenance of the gaming facility, the application of the tribe’s and the state’s laws and regulations that are related to the gaming activity, and the state’s assessment of the amounts necessary to defray the costs of regulating or overseeing the gaming activity. National Indian Gaming Commission

		Organization, Staffing, and Funding

The National Indian Gaming Commission is headed by a Chairman and two associate commissioners. Reporting to the Chief of Staff are two primary oversight offices—the Office of Contracts and Audits with 3 staff and the Office of Enforcement with 16 staff, including 6 field investigators. The Commission’s revenue increased from $1.6 million in fiscal year 1991 to $3.8 million in fiscal year 1997. Expenditures have also increased in the last 7 years—from $1.2 million to $4.6 million. The Commission used prior years’ carryover balances to make up the difference. Later, the Commission focused on reviewing and/or approving various gaming reports and submissions for both bingo and casino gaming as well as on its monitoring activities. State Gaming Agencies

Much variety exists among the five state gaming agencies that we reviewed that regulate or oversee casino gaming; differences exist in their organization, staffing levels, and funding levels. They merely reflect differences in the scope and level of the state agencies’ responsibilities. Responsibilities

The level of staffing and funding that each state commits to gaming oversight or regulatory activities varied according to the responsibilities each state has for licensing, monitoring, and enforcement. This presence is possible, in part, because all of the state’s casinos are located in Atlantic City. Enforcement

The five states varied somewhat in their enforcement authority. Critical Regulatory Elements

In outlining their views on the elements critical to regulating gaming, the heads of the gaming agencies in all five states stressed the importance of ensuring the integrity of gaming. From their perspective, two critical elements emerge. All agree on the importance of accounting, administrative, and internal controls, such as audits of the financial statements, to assist the regulators and casinos in monitoring gaming operations. However, the major objectives of our review were to provide information on the Commission’s organization, staffing, funding, and responsibilities from 1991 to 1997 and similar information for five states’ gaming agencies. In addition, we obtained written comments on views of critical regulatory elements from the heads of the Arizona Department of Gaming, the Michigan Gaming Control Board, the Nevada Gaming Control Board, the New Jersey Casino Control Commission, the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, and the Washington State Gambling Commission. We visited Indian casinos in Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, and Washington and non-Indian casinos in Nevada and New Jersey. Funding

The Commission’s revenue comes primarily from fees assessed on Indian bingo gaming revenues, federal appropriations, and cost reimbursements. The Commission’s more recent efforts have focused on ongoing responsibilities, such as processing fingerprint cards, the review and approval of new ordinances, management contracts, and background investigation reports for Indian bingo gaming and Indian casino gaming, as well as oversight and monitoring of Indian bingo and casino gaming. The Director said that these investigations are extremely useful in identifying and deterring organized crime influences within the industry. For the other two compacts, the Board monitors the Indian gaming operations as it does non-Indian operations.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the roles of the National Indian Gaming Commission and states in casino gaming regulation, focusing on: (1) information on the Commission's organization, staffing, funding, and responsibilities from 1991 through 1997; (2) similar information on state gaming agencies in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, and Washington, as it relates to casino gaming; and (3) views of the heads of the gaming agencies from the five states on the elements critical to regulating gaming.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) in 1991, the Commission's organization consisted of three commissioners and six other staff; (2) by 1997, the Commission's staffing had increased to 37 and included two oversight offices--the Office of Contracts and Audits and the Office of Enforcement; (3) funding for the Commission, which comes from fees assessed on Indian bingo operations, appropriations, or cost reimbursements, increased from $1.6 million in 1991 to $4.6 million in 1997; (4) expenditures were greater than revenue during the last 4 fiscal years, but the use of carryover balances from prior years sustained the Commission; (5) during the early 1990s, the Commission promulgated regulations for the Indian gaming; (6) later, it focused on its responsibilities to: (a) monitor gaming operations; and (b) review or approve various gaming reports and submissions for both bingo and casino gaming; (7) the gaming agencies in the five states GAO reviewed vary considerably in their organization, staffing, and funding for casino gaming, a situation that reflects the differences in the scope and level of the responsibilities that state agencies have; (8) in fiscal year 1997, Nevada and New Jersey, the two states that almost exclusively regulate non-Indian casino gaming, had the largest organizations, in part, because they regulate all or almost all of the casino gaming in their states; (9) New Jersey had a staff of about 700 and a budget of about $54 million to license, monitor, and enforce the gaming requirements for 12 non-Indian casinos in Atlantic City; (10) Nevada had a staff of about 400 and a budget of $22 million to regulate over 2,400 gaming operations; (11) Arizona, Michigan, and Washington had smaller organizations and shared responsibilities with the tribes; (12) although these three states oversee about the same number of Indian gaming operations, staffing and funding levels varied; (13) licensing, monitoring, and enforcement activities also differed in these three states; (14) in all five states, gaming operations fund each state's regulatory or oversight program; (15) the heads of the gaming agencies in all five states GAO visited cited the importance of ensuring the integrity of gaming and identified what they viewed as critical regulatory elements; and (16) from their perspective, the critical elements are: (a) the use of accounting, administrative, and internal controls to assist the regulators and casinos in monitoring gaming operations; and (b) the licensing process, because it helps to identify and deter organized crime.