Reservation Gaming: A Catalyst for Self-Governance for the Tribes of Arizona

T. Joy Clay, Ph.D. Candidate, Institute of Government, Tennessee State University
Rodney Stanley, Ph.D., Institute of Government, Tennessee State University

Abstract

The passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 has allowed Native American tribes a new form of revenue generation.  This new source of revenue facilitates entry into the U.S. political system and furthers the attainment of self-governance and economic development goals on reservations as demonstrated through educational achievement, low poverty and unemployment levels, and increases in wealth such as offering more family housing units for its tribal members.  While several works exist regarding benefits reaped by indigenous populations in the United States as a whole, the academic literature regarding the impact of reservation gaming on the areas of social achievement, tribal political behavior, and social policies is sorely lacking for the State of Arizona.  This study  evaluates the role of Indian gaming revenue as a catalyst for self-governance, political strength, and economic development by answering the question: has the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 made a difference in social program growth and tribal wealth for Native American tribes in the State of Arizona?  The outcomes of this study will prove beneficial to the literature on Native American studies as evidence of the impacts of reservation gaming and its consequent policy externalities will enhance policy makers’ ability to implement and maintain effective policy regarding Native American sovereignty, equitable gaming oversight, and revenue disbursement. 

Introduction

There exists little published literature on the effects of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA) on tribal self-governance for the State of Arizona.  The literature that does exist serves as explanatory or descriptive only, not venturing to evaluate the effectiveness of the IGRA in improving economic development or social welfare of American Indians in Arizona.  This research strives to fill the gap in the literature regarding the success of the IGRA in creating a new form of revenue generation and self-reliance for the tribes of Arizona by answering the following question: has the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 made a difference in social program growth and tribal wealth for Native American tribes in the State of Arizona?   Before reviewing the literature, however, a discussion is warranted concerning the reasons this study is valuable from both a national and state perspective.

American Indians are the only people in the continental United States who are not descended from immigrants.  American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) comprise 0.9% of the total U.S. population according to the 2000 Census; however, the population by tribe for 2000 shows that AI/ANs comprise almost 2% of the total U.S. population.  Approximately one million Native Americans live on reservations and are trapped in rural poverty.  The self-governing tribes or nations are located within the United States yet suffer a third-world standard of living.  More than 550 federally-recognized Indian Tribal and Alaska Native Entities exist whose languages, religions, and cultures are as diverse as those of Europeans or Africans (IHS website).  The American Indian Policy Review Commission reports that approximately 206 different languages and dialects are spoken by Native Americans.  The United States has broken many of the 600 treaties signed with Indian tribes between 1785 and 1871; treaties that usually committed the Indians to surrender their land in return for government promises to set up a reservation and to safeguard their lives and well-being. 

According to U.S. Government figures, the rates of poverty and unemployment among Native Americans are the highest of any ethnic group in the United States, whereas per capita income, education, home ownership, and similar indices are among the lowest.  Many tribes experience unemployment as high as 77% such as the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe in Fort Hall.  The estimated average unemployment rate for all Indian nations is 50%, more than eight times that of the United States civilian workforce as a whole.  Native Americans experience both hiring and wage discrimination resulting from cultural, political, and social differences from the majority’s Anglo-American values.  The U. S. Bureau of the Census reported that in 1990, 31% of Native peoples, including American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut populations, lived below the poverty level, compared with 13% nationally.  These disparities in employment and poverty levels foster great disparities in health status.  AI/ANs continue to suffer disproportionately from a variety of illnesses and diseases with higher mortality rates than for the overall U.S. population.  This poor health status continues to inhibit the economic, educational, and social development of this minority group, thus completing the vicious cycle of disparity.   

            Arizona contains the sixth largest Native American population of all states, totaling more than 256,000 according to the U.S. Census Bureau.  Arizona’s first Indian gaming compacts were formalized in 1992 as a result of the passage of the IGRA.  Out of 22 federally recognized tribes in Arizona, the National Indian Gaming Commission has granted gaming rights to fifteen tribes for the operation of 22 casinos in the state including the Ak-Chin Indian Community, Cocopah Indian Tribe, Colorado River Indian Tribes, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, Gila River Indian Community, Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona, Quechan Indian Tribe, Salt River-Pima Indian Community, San Carlos Apache Tribe, Tohono O'odham Nation, Tonto Apache Tribe, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, and Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe.  Surprisingly, the Navajo Nation has rejected Indian gambling in referenda for fear that gambling may undermine the cultural integrity of their community.  These tribes are experiencing increased self-governance and a decreasing reliance on social welfare programs administered solely by the state as tribal revenue, and control over this revenue, increases as a result of reservation gaming. 

This research strives to determine the effects of Indian gaming revenue on tribal self-governance, political behavior, and economic development in the State of Arizona by examining several important indicators – political campaign contributions, poverty levels, educational achievement, and number of housing units.  This manuscript begins with an overview of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act passed in 1988, followed by a review of existing literature discussing the impacts of reservation gaming.  While several works exist regarding benefits reaped by indigenous populations in the United States as a whole, the academic literature regarding the impact of reservation gaming on tribal self-enfranchisement and social policies is sorely lacking for the State of Arizona.

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Overview

            Large-scale Indian casino gaming originated in 1987 when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians which held that “the State of California had no authority to apply its regulatory statutes to gambling activities conducted on Indian reservations” (National Gambling Impact Study Commission, 1999, p. 1).  In response to the need to provide a regulatory framework for Indian gambling, Congress passed The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) in 1988 to establish the jurisdictional framework that currently governs Indian gaming.  The Act served three purposes: “(1) to promote tribal economic development; (2) provide for a regulatory base to protect Indian gaming from organized crime; and (3) to establish the National Indian Gaming Commission” (McCulloch, 1994, p. 103).  Embodied in IGRA was a compromise between state and tribal interests with varying regulatory schemas determined by three classes of gaming.  Class I gaming is defined as traditional Indian gaming and social gaming for minimal prizes.  Regulatory authority over Class I gaming is vested exclusively in tribal governments.  Class II gaming is defined as the game of chance commonly known as bingo and also includes card games not played against the house or a player acting as a bank.  Tribes retain their authority to conduct, license, and regulate Class II gaming so long as the State permits such gaming; however, tribes are responsible for regulating this class of gaming with Commission oversight.  Class III gaming includes all forms of gaming that are neither Class I nor Class II such as slot machines, black jack, craps, roulette, and wagering games.  A Tribe must meet several conditions before it may lawfully conduct Class III gaming: (1) the particular form of gaming must be permitted in the state; (2) the Tribe and state must have negotiated a compact that has been approved by the Secretary of the Interior; and (3) the tribe must have adopted a tribal gaming ordinance approved by the Commission Chairman (NIGC, 2004).  As evident by these conditions, Congress left a number of key functions in the hands of the state and federal governments.  Tribal gaming is therefore regulated on three levels – tribal, state, and federal. 

            The IGRA specifies that tribal gaming revenue may be used only for five purposes:  to fund tribal government operations or programs, to provide for the general welfare of tribal members, to promote tribal economic development, to donate to charitable organizations, or to help fund operations of other local government agencies (National Indian Gaming Association website).  If tribes distribute per capita payments to tribal members, these recipients must pay federal income tax on these payments. 

            The intention of IGRA was for gambling revenues to provide tribal funding for improvements in the health, education, and welfare of Native Americans residing on reservations.  From 1988, when IGRA was enacted, to 1997, tribal gaming revenues increased 30-fold from $212 million to $6.7 billion (National Indian Gaming Commission website).  This rate of increase is more than 4 times that of commercial casino gambling.  According to the National Indian Gaming Association, 226 tribal governments are currently engaged in gaming for a total of more than 400 gaming operations and 249 Tribal-State gaming compacts in 28 states.  Tribal government gaming revenue totaled $16.8 billion in 2003 and provided more than 400,000 jobs.  The National Indian Gaming Commission predicts that Indian gaming will continue to experience steady growth in the near future. 

Literature Review

            The National Gambling Impact Study Commission states that “since the early 19^th century, the federal government has attempted under specific treaty obligations and overall trust duty to provide for the health, education, and welfare needs of tribes of Indians” (1999, p. 6).  These efforts have included promotion of mainstream economic development activities such as agriculture, natural resource development, and multiple forms of industry and commerce in Native American communities.  Unfortunately, there has been little success in targeted programs and federal funding for Native Americans is steadily declining.  The National Gambling Impact Study Commission (1999) discusses gaming as a tool allowing tribes to lift themselves out of depressed socioeconomic conditions, and as part of the broader policy of tribal self-determination.  Casino revenues have offered a new ray of hope for Indian reservations – gambling operations have facilitated tribal self-sufficiency in addressing economic and social problems.  Tribes utilize gaming revenues to support governmental services from law enforcement to building inspection services to natural resource management.  In addition, gambling revenues are utilized to improve social welfare programs in the areas of education, substance abuse, housing, burial expenses, youth recreation, child protection, and suicide prevention.  Cultural programs are a third recipient of gaming revenues.  Although gaming revenues have in no way provided solutions for all tribal issues, they definitely provide a means for tribes to begin addressing their problems. 

            A number of studies have been conducted on the economic development of Native American populations as a whole for the entire United States as a result of the authorization of reservation gaming.  Taylor et. al (2000) reported that Indian casinos were responsible for statistically significant socioeconomic benefits for surrounding communities using 30 indicators of economic and social health.  Taylor and Kalt (2005) examined socioeconomic changes between the 1990 and 2000 Censuses for both gaming and non-gaming reservations.  “Although substantial gaps remain between America’s Native population and the rest of the U.S., rapid economic development is taking place” (Taylor et. al, 2005, p. i).  These authors found that per capita income rose by 36%, family poverty rates dropped by almost 12%, unemployment rates dropped by almost 5%, public assistance decreased by almost 2%, and college graduates increased by almost 3% from 1990 to 2000 on gaming reservations.  The authors surmise that while the policy of Indian self-governance is driving the socioeconomic changes, gaming revenue is fueling this self-governance. 

            Cornell et. al (1998) discussed the socioeconomic effects of American Indian gaming policy in their report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission.  They focus on the “shift to a policy of tribal self-determination” (Cornell et. al, 1998, p. ii) initiated in the mid-1970’s as the federal government began to grant Indian Nations “enhanced decision-making power over reservation affairs, more complete control over their governments, and more secure property rights to reservation assets” (Cornell et. al, 1998, p. ii).  This policy of self-determination is responsible for an increase in sustained economic development success on reservations, with its most “controversial expression” found in the operation of tribal casinos built on tribal sovereignty.  Cornell et. al (1998) present statistics on pre-gaming economic conditions in Indian Country in comparison to post-gaming economic conditions.  Prior to the introduction to Class III gaming, Indian families lived below poverty at three times the national average, earned less than 2/3 the incomes of non-Indian families, and approximately 90,000 American Indians were homeless.  The authors claim that without the introduction of casinos, there would have been no significant economic development on reservations as demonstrated by history.  Following the introduction of casinos, gaming tribes demonstrated 13% lower unemployment than non-gaming tribes by 1995.  Another benefit of gaming involves the opportunity for tribes to gain managerial experience which can then be utilized by tribes to diversify into non-gaming enterprises.  Tribes invest gaming revenue in their social infrastructure by making up for federal funding shortfalls, investing in tribal culture, rebuilding tribal assets, and strengthening tribal government.  “Tribes with enterprise income are investing in constitutional reform, judicial institutions, administrative accountability, and government service excellence” (Cornell et. al, 1998, p. 61), all of which strengthens self-governance.  In addition, tribes contribute to local economies through taxes, revenue sharing, employment of non-Indians, and contributions to local charities.  These authors state that, “in sum, we find that Indian gaming, an expression of Indian self-determination, has produced remarkable movement on stubborn social and economic problems that have been resistant to federal and tribal efforts for decades…a significant number of tribes are making gains economically both through gaming itself and by leveraging gaming revenues into diversified economic activity” (Cornell et. al, 1998, p. iv).  They claim the alternative to gaming is the “status quo ante: poverty, powerlessness, and despair” (Cornell et. al, 1998, p. v). 

            In its 2004 annual report and impact facts report (Stein, 2002), the National Indian Gaming Commission reported that gaming revenues facilitated several positive economic upswings for Indian tribes.  First, 92% of gaming tribes have experienced major growth in new employment opportunities while 64% of tribes reported an overall positive educational impact from gaming revenues.  72% of tribes have invested gaming revenues in new tribal ventures in an effort to diversify.  Tribes with gaming revenues are improving important services for youth and the elderly by 48% to 72%.  In addition, 84% of gaming tribes would recommend to other tribes to seriously look at gaming ventures as revenue generating opportunities.  The statistic that speaks most favorably of Indian gaming is that 76% of tribes state that gaming has helped them gain more control of their own futures as a people.

            An in-depth review of the literature reveals a scarcity of information regarding the effects of casino gaming revenues on self-governance, political behavior, and economic development specifically for the tribes of the State of Arizona.  However, a few works were discovered concerning the impact on the State of Arizona in its entirety.  Cornell and Taylor (2001) examine the impact of spending by Arizona’s Indian casinos on the economy of the State.  They report that Arizona Indian casinos spent an estimated $254 million on goods and services in the year 2000, the majority of which was spent in the State of Arizona.  Indian gaming provided more than 9,300 jobs which in turn generated more than $28 million in federal and state payroll taxes.  In addition, Indian casinos produced another $40 million in state and local taxes originating from purchases, profits, and incomes.  Finally, these authors estimated multiplier effects for Arizona as follows: “in 2000, at least 14,784 in-state jobs were attributable to Indian casino operations, and those operations directly and indirectly generated at least $468 million in economic activity within the state” (Cornell et. al, 2001, p. 3).   A study by Taylor et. al (1999) measures the economic impact of Indian gaming through the study of allocations of gaming revenue to construction, vendor purchases, employee wages, taxes, and transfers to tribal governments in Arizona.          

            Congress established the National Indian Gambling Impact Study Commission in 1996 and the Subcommittee on Indian Gambling to study and report on the economic and social impacts of all forms of legalized Indian gambling.  This Subcommittee received testimony from approximately 100 tribal leaders.  Several transcripts are available that provide testimony of tribal leaders of gaming tribes in Arizona before the National Gambling Impact Study Commission.  These transcripts provide insight into the benefits of casino revenues for the gaming tribes of Arizona.

            Leona Kakar discussed the Ak-Chin Indian Community’s decision to establish a casino gaming enterprise in her statement before the National Gaming Impact Study Commission on November 9, 1998.  She relayed the benefits to the tribe and outside local communities, the state government, and the federal government including increased job opportunities and health care, a reduction in reliance on welfare, expansion of tribal government infrastructure, creation of new social programs, and the creation of new housing and centers for detention, inpatient treatment, tribal administration, and wastewater treatment.  In addition, she assured the Commission of the strict regulatory control of the tribe over gaming on the reservation to ensure complete compliance with all tribal, state, and federal policies. 

            In her statement before the National Gambling Impact Study Commission in Seattle in 1999, Letha M. Lamb-Gressley discussed the tremendous amount of growth, prosperity, and inspiration experienced by the Gila River Indian Community as a result of gaming.  “One hundred percent of all profit revenue goes into improving the quality of life for the people of our Community” (Lamb-Gressley, 1999, p. 1).  The Gila River Indian Community signed a compact with the State of Arizona in 1993 and now operates three casino properties.  The gaming facilities have helped the tribe slowly gain economic strength, providing nearly 2000 jobs, 60% of which are secured by community members.  She discussed several positive examples of economic growth including improved living conditions, a fully-staffed fire department which grew from a single volunteer unit in 1993 to an operation with nearly 80 firefighters and operators working three stations, a police force expanded to more than 100 sworn officers and civilian employees, qualified health care providers, scholarships for extended education totaling more than $6 million annually, youth recreational facilities such as two Boys & Girls clubs, the Huhugam Heritage Center, HuHuKam Memorial Hospital improvements, and increased job opportunities which lowered the unemployment rate from 40% to 11%.  She also discussed the benefits to the surrounding communities as more than $44 billion is spent annually in local businesses.  “We are still in our infancy stage of economic growth, but the improvements we have seen thus far give us hope for better things to come for our children” (Lamb-Gressley, 1999, p. 3).  

            Stan Rice, Jr., President of the Board of Directors of the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, spoke before the National Gaming Impact Study Commission on July 31, 1998.  He claimed the tribe has gained infrastructure to achieve self-sufficiency.  He stated they achieved economic success through their commitment to economic growth.  “From our investment in commercial development to the evolution of our gaming enterprises, we have become a successful, committed member of our community, taking responsibility for our future” (Rice, 1998, p. 1).  Gaming revenue has permitted the tribe to reduce its dependency on federal funding, to less than 2% of the Tribe’s budget.  The surrounding area of Prescott has also benefited greatly from gaming revenue through a 9% increase in sales tax revenue.  “The casinos have been an economic catalyst for the Tribe and the surrounding community…employing more than 200 people and offering a viable revenue generator in the form of jobs, property taxes and income taxes” (Rice, 1998, p. 2).  He listed several examples of positive impacts of gaming revenue.  First, gaming revenues have provided health, vision, dental, and life insurance for every single tribal member which in turn has raised the overall health status of the community.  Second, revenues have provided for critical inpatient, outpatient, and residential services.  Educational incentives can now be offered to tribal members which has increased the number of high school graduates and those pursuing higher education.  In addition, funds have provided for daycare programs, a youth program, programs to increase home ownership, a police force, and a cultural center.  When asked what gaming revenues have done for the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe, Rice responded, “The answer is … fulfill a dream” (Rice, 1998, p. 4). 

            In his statement before the National Gaming Impact Study Commission on July 30, 1998, Dale Phillips, Chairman of the Arizona Indian Gaming Association (AIGA), stated that “you won’t find any gaming operations in the United States that are more completely regulated than the Indian casinos in Arizona” (Phillips, 1998, p. 2).  He discussed the value of having a regulatory agency such as AIGA in monitoring each tribe’s gaming businesses in terms of the IGRA, tribal laws, Compacts, federal regulations, and internal controls adopted by each gaming business.  He presented several benefits of gaming to the tribes of Arizona including a reduction in the unemployment rate among Native American tribes, improved services, infrastructure, and promotion of self-governance and enhanced economic self-sufficiency.

            According to the Arizona Department of Commerce, “all profits from gaming are utilized by (a) community to expand the tribe’s economic development, to provide additional social services to community members, and for tribal operations” (www.commerce.state.az.us).  Several additional gaming tribes within the State of Arizona have reaped significant benefits from casino operations.  For example, the White Mountain Apache Tribe has been afforded a measure of financial flexibility it did not have before gaming.  “By collateralizing casino revenues, the tribe has been able to secure construction capital for a 25-bed alcohol/substance abuse treatment facility, a cultural learning center, a museum, a youth center, and an elderly day care center” (Cornell et. al, 1998, p. 55).  The Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation has utilized gaming revenues to fund new housing for tribal members, a day care center, and college scholarships.

            A literature review also reveals that few studies exist on the interest group strategies employed by tribal gaming interests to gain entrance into the U.S. political system.  W. Dale Mason’s Indian Gaming: Tribal Sovereignty and American Politics (2000) proves the most definitive work on Indian gaming and its effects on tribal political strategies through a largely qualitative approach.  He examines the states of New Mexico and Oklahoma to compare how tribal interests interact with state government.  McCulloch (1994) claims that states have lost power at the expense of tribes, and in response, the federal government has played the role of mediator to alleviate the resulting conflict.  Wilkins (1998) takes this train of thought a step further by arguing against devolution.  He argues that the federal government should reclaim its status of the “lone constitutional authority to deal with indigenous nations” (Wilkins, 1998, p. 55) to reverse the complications in tribal-state relations.

      Other works discuss Native American politics primarily in terms of sovereignty but fail to incorporate the effects of gaming revenues and interest group strategies such as Laurence Armand French’s (2003) Native American Justice and David Wilkin’s (2002) American Indian Politics and the American Political System.  Suffice it to say that interest group political behavior demonstrated by Native tribes is geared toward retaining and enhancing sovereign rights, regaining ancestral tribal lands, and maintaining economic gains and facilitating further economic development to improve members’ welfare.  As tribes continue to gain power in the political arena, they will behave as sophisticated interest groups to affect policy outcomes. 

            Conflict exists between states and tribal government over gaming revenue sharing; many states feel they do not receive a sufficient share of the benefits.  In addition, some tribes view the necessity of negotiating a compact with the state to be a violation of their sovereign rights since only the federal government should possess the right to negotiate with sovereign nations.  Wilkins (2002) states that inconsistencies in policy implementation and hostility from states still threaten Native American self-governance.  Therefore, tribes must develop innovative political strategies to protect their resources and sovereign rights.  According to Ortiz, tribal sovereignty “is a right of self-government that for the most part has never been extinguished by tribes” (2002, p. 460).

            Baumgartner and Jones (1993) posit that the legislation allowing gaming on reservations via the IGRA of 1988 created a situation of “punctuated equilibrium” whereby the lay of the political landscape was changed to empower tribal governments to pursue their goals.  Coupled with devolution of the regulation of Indian gaming, this situation facilitated the evolution of tribes into players in state politics.  These authors compare the behavior of tribes to venue surfing behavior of other typical interest groups.

            Interest groups in Washington, D.C. employ 27 influence techniques according to Schlozman and Tierney (1986) including campaign work, contacting elected officials, making campaign contributions, and writing legislation.  Walker (1991) describes political strategies as either inside or outside.  He defines an inside strategy as “based primarily upon close consultation with political and administrative leaders, relying upon their financial resources, substantive expertise, and concentration within certain congressional constituencies as a basis for influence” (Walker, 1991, p. 9).  Walker defines an outside strategy as “making an appeal to the public through the mass media and broad scale attempts at mobilizing citizens at the grass roots level” (1991, p. 9).  These political techniques are efforts to achieve self-governance and participate with other key decision makers in deciding policy pertinent to Indigenous nations.  Although this study does not examine Arizona tribes’ utilization of influence strategies, research is warranted concerning both inside and outside political strategies by Indian gaming interests to participate as players in Arizona state politics to achieve tribal governmental goals. 

Much of the literature suggests that the advent of Indian gaming has been instrumental in increasing tribal self-governance and economic development among Native American tribes.  Based on this suggestion of the benefits elicited by the passage of the IGRA and implementation of casino operations, the purpose of this study is to investigate the actual outcomes regarding tribal self-governance, increased self-reliance, and economic development in the State of Arizona demonstrated by the indicators of political campaign contributions, poverty levels, educational achievement, and number of housing units.  The following theory is examined in this study:  The passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 has been instrumental in facilitating self-governance, political strength, improved social welfare, and economic development for Native American tribes operating casinos in the State of Arizona as demonstrated by political campaign contributions, poverty levels, educational achievement, and number of housing units. 

                                             Unit of Analysis

            The unit of analysis in this study is Native American tribes located throughout Arizona.  The study compares the differences between casino and non-casino tribes in Arizona to see if casino tribes are fairing better in the areas of tribal wealth and funding for social programs than tribes choosing not to operate casinos.  The following hypotheses were tested in order to evaluate the impact of casino proceeds among Native American tribes in Arizona.

Hypotheses

H₁: Native American tribes in Arizona receiving casino revenue tend to spend similar amounts of money on political campaigns compared to Arizona Native American tribes without casinos.

H₂: Native American tribes in Arizona receiving casino revenue tend to have similar levels of poverty compared to Arizona Native American tribes without casinos.

H₃: Native American tribes in Arizona receiving casino revenue tend to have similar high school graduation rates compared to Arizona Native American tribes without casinos.

H₄: Native American tribes in Arizona receiving casino revenue tend to have the same amount of family housing units compared to Arizona Native American tribes without casinos.

            The following section outlines the process of data collection and classification utilized to test the previously stated hypotheses.

Data

Conceptual & Operational DEFINITIONS

Political Campaign Contributions – The amount of revenue spent by Arizona tribes on political campaigns from 1998 - 2005. Campaign contribution data was secured for 1998 and 2005 from American Indians on Reservations: A Databook of Socioeconomic Change Between the 1990 and 2000 Censuses, Jonathan B. Taylor and Joseph P. Kalt, The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, 2005.  All data was provided by the authors in a supplementary dataset. 

Level of High School Graduation – The number of high school graduates (or equivalency) out of the 25 years or older population by Native American tribe.  Educational attainment data was secured for 1990 and 2000 from American Indians on Reservations: A Databook of Socioeconomic Change Between the 1990 and 2000 Censuses, Jonathan B. Taylor and Joseph P. Kalt, The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, 2005.  All data was provided by the authors in a supplementary dataset. 

Income Level – The median income of a family of four on Native American Reservations.  Median household income data was secured for 1990 and 2000 from American Indians on Reservations: A Databook of Socioeconomic Change Between the 1990 and 2000 Censuses, Jonathan B. Taylor and Joseph P. Kalt, The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, 2005.  All data was provided by the authors in a supplementary dataset.

Poverty Level – The percentage of families at or below the poverty threshold on Native American Reservations.  Poverty data was secured for 1990 and 2000 from American Indians on Reservations: A Databook of Socioeconomic Change Between the 1990 and 2000 Censuses, Jonathan B. Taylor and Joseph P. Kalt, The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, 2005.  All data was provided by the authors in a supplementary dataset. 

Casino Presence – Dummy variable coded 0 = tribes operating casinos; 1 = non-casino tribes.   Casino presence data was secured from American Indians on Reservations: A Databook of Socioeconomic Change Between the 1990 and 2000 Censuses, Jonathan B. Taylor and Joseph P. Kalt, The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, 2005.  All data was provided by the authors in a supplementary dataset.

Unemployment Rates – The number of unemployed tribal members (age 16 years or older) as a percentage of the total tribal employable population.  Unemployment data was secured for 1990 and 2000 from American Indians on Reservations: A Databook of Socioeconomic Change Between the 1990 and 2000 Censuses, Jonathan B. Taylor and Joseph P. Kalt, The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, 2005.  All data was provided by the authors in a supplementary dataset.

Housing Units – The number of housing units per tribe.  Housing unit data was secured for 1990 and 2000 from American Indians on Reservations: A Databook of Socioeconomic Change Between the 1990 and 2000 Censuses, Jonathan B. Taylor and Joseph P. Kalt, The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, 2005.  All data was provided by the authors in a supplementary dataset. [1]

Statistical Methodology

The statistical methodology employed in this manuscript is Two–Stage Least Squares Regression (One Step Method with SPSS). [2]   However, Two–Stage Least Squares Regression (2SLS) is a method of extending regression to cover models which violate ordinary least squares (OLS) regression's assumption of recursivity, specifically models where the researcher must assume that the disturbance term of the dependent variable is correlated with the cause(s) of the independent variable(s).  This statistical method is appropriate for this project because two data points in time (1998 and 2000) were the only data available to the researchers in testing the previously stated hypotheses.  With only two distinct data points in time, violations of ordinary least squares are more likely.  Therefore, the model must be correctly specified, the relationships must be homoscedastic, and error terms must be normally distributed.  Failure to filter the data to assure assumptions are met may result in critical errors of interpretation.  Therefore, econometric models were employed to test for error specification, White’s test for heteroskedasticity was conducted, and error term normality was checked to ensure data dependability (Garson, 2006).  The Two-Stage Least Squares Regression equation and formal model tested in this research project are as follows:

TABLE 1

  Native American Tribes In Arizona

COMPARISON GROUPS OF NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES ARIZONA Casino Tribes

Ak Chin Indian Community

Cocopah Indian Tribe

Colorado River Indian Tribes

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation

Fort Mojave Indian Tribe

Gila River Indian Community

Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona

Quechan Indian Tribe

Salt River-Pima Indian Community

San Carlos Apache Tribe

Tohono O'odham Nation

Tonto Apache Tribe

White Mountain Apache Tribe

Yavapai-Apache Nation

Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe

ARIZONA Non-Casino Tribes

Havasupai Indian Tribe

Hopi Tribe

Hualapai Indian Tribe

Kaibab-Paiute Tribe

Navajo Nation

San Juan Southern Paiute

Zuni Tribe

Twenty-two Arizona Native American tribes were employed as the units of analysis in this project (fifteen casino tribes compared to seven non-casino tribes).  Before the researchers conducted the primary analysis concerning casino and non-casino Native American Tribes in Arizona, a t-test was conducted to measure differences between the two groups. The following table lists those results.

TABLE 2

Political Campaign Contributions for Native American Tribes in Arizona:

1998 – 2005

The table presented above displays the amount of revenue spent by casino Native American tribes in Arizona from 1998 – 2005.  The table indicates that four of the Native American tribes are contributing considerably more than the rest.  The Colorado River tribe in the past seven years has spent $11,376,215.  The Salt River Pima tribe ranks second in political campaign contributions with $6,460,796 and the Gila River tribe ranks third with total contributions of $5,665,174.  The Ft. McDowell Yavapai rank forth in campaign contributions because this tribe spent $3,211,790 on campaigns during this same time frame.  The following chart displays the amount of all tribes contributing to political campaigns over this same time period.

TABLE 3

Total Political Campaign Contributions by Native American Tribe in Arizona:  1998 - 2005 [3]

Ak-chin	188,133
Cocopah	433,561
Colorado River	11,376,215
Ft. McDowell Yavapai	3,211,790
Ft. Mojava	98,999
Gila River	5,665,174
Navajo	6,170
Pascua Yaqui	11,67314
Qechan	960,455
Salt River Pima	6,460,796
San Carlos Apache	52,146
Tohono O'odham	2,274,304
Totnto Apache	388,066
White Mountain Apache	330,405
Yavapai-Apache	1,093,797
Yavapai-Prescott	206,145
Total	33,913,470

The previously discussed charts simply use descriptive statistics to show the reader the amount of revenue being spent on political campaign contributions by casino Native American tribes in Arizona.  These tables present important information on the amount of influence that casino tribes are trying to have in political decision-making in Arizona.  These figures suggest that casino tribes understand the importance of influencing political decision-makers in their state, and all records indicate that these contributions will continue to increase as the tribes grow in wealth and population.

Although descriptive statistics are advantageous in establishing a foundation on which to build in the casino gaming literature, they are quite limited in establishing differences between casino and non-casino groups.  For example, what is the actual difference between casino and non-casino tribes’ political campaign contributions? is a question fundamental to this study.  Since only one non-casino tribe has contributed to political campaigns in this time frame, this question is simply answered by presenting the facts that casino tribes have spent $33,907,300 and non-casino tribes have spent $6,170.  These differences are substantial in the grand scheme of political influence between the two groups.  In other words, if the theory is true that more money spent on political campaigns results in greater political influence, then the spill-over effect between the two groups in the area of personal wealth and social programs should be overwhelming.  To measure this effect, this study employed two additional statistical analyses to paint a better picture of what these political campaign contributions really signify.

The following table presents the results of an independent samples t-test that was conducted on the data to demonstrate the differences between the two groups in personal wealth and the amount of services provided to each Native American tribe.  However, due to the lack of data available for data analysis over the same seven-year period, the researchers were only able to use two years within this time frame.  The years included in the following tables are 1998 & 2000.  Despite the reduced number of units as a result of limited data, the tests demonstrated considerable differences between the two groups. 

TABLE 4

Independent Sample T-tests

Casino Native American Tribes v. Non-Casino Native American Tribes in Arizona:

1998 – 2000

            The independent samples t-test shows that significant differences exist between casino and non-casino tribes in Arizona in all areas of spending on social programs and measures of wealth.  This data is especially important in showing the differences in the amount of political campaign contributions spent by each group.  Casino tribes are spending considerably more than non-casino tribes on political campaigns.  This data implies that casino tribes are demonstrating more concern for their tribal members since the differences indicated above show significant differences in social program commitment and wealth of the tribe.  Despite these differences between the two groups, it is unclear from this table as to the extent of the casinos’ impact on these differences.   For instance, are casinos the result of these major discrepancies between these two groups or is something else the cause of such disparities?  Can Native American tribes in Arizona continue to expect such differences between casino and non-casino tribes, or will the impact, if any, of the casinos level off in the amount of revenue generated, closing the gap between the two groups in the future?  Or, is it really the casino that is causing these differences or pre-existing conditions with the casino as a latent function that has had very little impact on Native American tribes?  Since independent sample t-tests are only good for establishing group differences and are limited when trying to determine relationships or causality, the researchers turned to a more sophisticated model to assist in answering these questions.  The following tables report the results of the Two-Stage Least Squares Regression model constructed on the data.

TABLE 5

Two-Stage Least Squares Regression

1998 – 2000:  Campaign Contributions

                                                          b                               st.e                     beta                          t                           p.

Casino                                    -99.20                      55.94                       -.1496                      -3.773                      .001

Poverty                                  94.212                     34.67                       9.667                       2.717                       .007

Housing                                  -56.005                    23.50                       -15.20                      -2.383                      .018

HS Graduation -2.9031                    19.93                       -.3778                      -.146                        .884

Unemployment -82.08                      33.70                       -6.479                      -2.435                      .016

Income                                   1841.9                     909.7                       10.13                       2.025                       .044

_________________________

Goodness of Fit Model

F-value = 2.893

F sig. = .01

Adj. R2 = ..08

N = 85                                                                                                                                                                                  

            The first regression equation measures the presence of casinos and the impact on political campaign contributions as a result of these revenue generating devices.  As the dependent variable in the model, the amount of political campaign contributions tends to report statistically significant differences between casino and non-casino Native American tribes in Arizona.  In other words, for every unit increase in the casino presence variable, an increase of 99.20 will occur in the amount of money spent on political campaigns by casino tribes in Arizona.  The inverse relationship in this model was generated as a result of the coding scheme used to define the casino variable (0 = Casino tribe; 1 = Non-Casino tribe).  Therefore, this relationship is interpreted to mean that for every percentage increase in the number of Native American gaming devices, Arizona casino tribes will spend more on political campaign contributions than non-casino tribes in Arizona.  In addition to the relationship between casino tribes and political campaign contributions there were other statistically significant indicators in the model.  The poverty variable suggests that non-casino tribes have more members in poverty than casino tribes indicating that these tribes are less affluent which in turn fails to allow them to contribute to political campaigns.  Similar results are associated with housing, unemployment and income.  Non-casino tribes have fewer housing units, another indication of wealth or lack thereof, which may be why they are unable to contribute to political campaigns.  The income variable suggests that the personal wealth of casino tribes is considerably higher than the income of non-casino tribes which allows the casino tribes to spend more on political campaigns than non-casino tribes.  These statistics suggest that casino tribes contribute more to political campaigns and these contributions are related to the amount of wealth possessed by casino tribes and the employment status of its tribal members.  To further investigate the notion of political campaign contributions impacting the political influence of tribes, the researchers asked are casino tribes witnessing more revenue opportunities for social programs to help lower the number of families in poverty?  The following table assists in answering that question.

TABLE 6

Two-Stage Least Squares Regression

1998 – 2000:  Poverty

                                                       b                           st.e                     beta                          t                             p.

Campaign Contributions     -.0003                      11.006                     -.008                        -2.361                      .023

Casino                                    16.42                       23.723                     .002                         .692                         .492

Housing                                 .5700                       .0562                       1.507                       10.135                     .001

HS Graduates                        .3277                       .0692                       .4157                       4.734                       .001

Unemployed                         -.0437                      .1450                       -.0336                      -.302                        .764

Income                                   -25.23                      1.253                       -1.352                      -20.126                    .001

_________________________

Goodness of Fit Model

F-value = 11749.06

F sig. = .001

Adj. R2 = .99

N = 85                                  

The number of individual members of Native American tribes living at the poverty level is considerably high comparatively speaking to the general American population.  One of the ideas behind casino gaming and its impact on Native American tribes is that the number of jobs created by the industry will allow salaries to increase above the poverty level.  Is this the case among casino tribes in Arizona?  The above table measures the impact of the casino presence variable on the number of families living in poverty on tribal land in Arizona.   Although the casino variable fails to show any statistical significance, the model does report several findings that are worth noting.  The political campaign variable suggests that more money spent on political campaigns will result in a lowering of the poverty level on casino tribes in Arizona.  The variables of housing and education suggest that casino tribes tend to have more housing units as well as more high school graduates compared to non-casino tribes.  The income variable suggests that the income levels of casino tribes are distinctly higher than those of non-casino tribes.

TABLE 7

Two-Stage Least Squares Regression

1998 – 2000:  HS Graduates

                                                       b                        st.e                         beta                          t                             p.

Campaign Contributions     .00009                     .0006                       .00007                     .144                         .886

Casino                                    -24.723                    43.807                     -.0028                      -.564                        .575

Poverty                                  1.113                       .2351                       .8777                       4.734                       .001

Housing                                 -.3787                      .1880                       -.7900                      -2.014                      .051

Unemployed                         .5905                       .2503                       .3582                       2.359                       .023

Income                                   35.80                       5.281                       1.513                       6.780                       .001

_________________________

Goodness of Fit Model

F-value = 5562.00

F sig. = .001

Adj. R2 = .99

N = 85                  

High school graduation rate was a second social indicator tested measuring the casino industry’s impact on Native American tribes in Arizona.  The idea behind this measure is that tribes with high levels of high school graduates will have higher levels of wealth.  Can the casino industry be considered a contributor to increasing the number of high school graduates, therefore increasing the wealth of a tribe?  The table above suggests that there are no correlations in the relationship between the casino industry and high school graduation rates among Native American tribes in Arizona.  However, the data does suggest some other important findings.  The data tends to suggest that tribes in Arizona with higher poverty levels tend to have higher graduation rates.  The data also suggests that tribes with considerably more housing units tend to have lower levels of graduation.  However, this variable may be a spurious relationship.  Tribes with higher levels of unemployment tend to have higher levels of high school graduates.  And finally, tribes with higher income levels tend to have higher high school graduation rates.  A conclusion can be made from these findings that casino tribes value the concept of high school graduation, especially when a large portion of their population is poverty stricken and unemployed.

TABLE 8

Two-Stage Least Squares Regression

1998 – 2000:  Housing Units

                                                       B                      st.e          beta                          t                              p.

Campaign Contributions     -.0004                      .0005                       -.0017                      -.875                        .386

Casino Presence                   -12.37                      35.59                       -.0006                      -.348                        .729

Poverty                                  1.271                       .1254                       .4806                       10.13                       .001

HS Graduates                        -.2888                      .1235                       -.1192                      -2.014                      .050

Unemployed                         .3315                       .2102                       .0964                       1.577                       .122

Income                                   33.49                       3.338                       .6786                       10.03                       .001

_________________________

Goodness of Fit Model

F-value = 36868.34

F sig. = .001

Adj. R2 = .99

N = 85                  

In the final table of this study the number of housing units as a measure of tribal wealth was incorporated as the dependent variable.  Although the casino variable failed to show any significant impacts on increasing the number of housing units on tribal land, this model reports other findings that are worth mentioning.  The table indicates that the poverty variable significantly impacts the number of housing units on tribal land.  In other words, the larger number of families in poverty relates to more housing units.  Secondly, as the number of high school graduates increases among casino tribes, a decrease in the number of housing units will occur among non-casino tribes.  This may suggest that those Native Americans with high school diplomas are moving off the reservations to seek employment elsewhere because the non-casino tribal lands are so poor.  There is no statistically significant relationship between the number of housing units and the unemployment rate.  However, the income variable suggests that the number of housing units increases for every unit increase in tribal incomes, therefore indicating that casino tribes have higher income levels and more housing units for their members. 

What Have We Learned From this Study?

            Existing in the literature on all forms of legalized gambling is the argument that both lotteries and casino gaming increase education funding and education achievement when states choose to allow these revenue generating devices (see Stanley, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005).  This study is similar to many other studies on legalized gambling because it suggests that there is no difference regarding the number of individuals graduating from high school between casino and non-casino Native American tribes in the case of Arizona tribes as well as other Native American tribes throughout the United States.  In other words, if portions of casino gaming proceeds were used to enhance funding for education in an effort to increase the number of Native Americans graduating from high school in Arizona, this research fails to support such a notion.  However, this research does suggest that there are significant differences between casino and non-casino tribes in Arizona in the areas of unemployment and the number of housing units on a reservation. 

There is no doubt that over the past seven years that Native American tribes in Arizona have become politically active.  Evidence of this political activity lies in the millions of dollars spent by tribes on political campaign contributions to both democratic and republican candidates.  Some of the largest political contributions have come from four of the leading casino tribes in Arizona.  The question is not how much they are contributing (so what?), but rather, have these contributions allowed them to govern themselves more effectively?  If so, can the casino industry be given credit for generating increased revenues that allowed casino tribes to become more politically active than non-casino tribes? 

In a series of statistical tests there is inconclusive evidence that the casino industry can be given credit for increasing the wealth of the tribe that in turn allowed them to become more politically active.  However, the information presented in this study does suggest that Arizona Native American tribes operating casinos tend to offer more social programs and display higher levels of wealth than their counterparts that choose not to operate casinos.  For example, one could argue that the significant differences in political campaign contributions by casino tribes have allowed them to receive more federal funding for education, resulting in better educational opportunities for their tribal members.  Another argument would be that the casino industry has increased the level of incomes for casino tribal members as a result of the economic development that followed the construction of a number of casinos.  For instance, when people travel to the casinos to play they need additional services such as restaurants, hotels, and recreational facilities for their children.  Although the casino industry may or may not directly employ such ventures, other entrepreneurial ventures were developed in conjunction with the casinos to meet these demands.

Furthermore, many of the tribes disburse a portion of the profitable proceeds to its members, thereby increasing their personal incomes.  Although no data was obtained to measure this idea, one can only speculate that such activity has a positive impact on the personal wealth of tribal members residing on tribal lands operating casinos.  Future studies should attempt to identify the actual amount of revenues disbursed to individual tribal members in order to measure the impact of such proceeds on personal wealth.

In the area of social policy, one cannot help but be concerned with the amount of poverty that most Native American tribes witness, especially those without alternative sources of income such as casinos.  Each of the models demonstrated significant differences between the two groups in the area of poverty.  Associated with poverty are various other social problems such as poor education, poor health care, and unemployment.  Although many researchers criticize the negative impacts of casinos on local residents including increased crime, drug use, and gambling addictions, most  Native American Casino gaming tribes in Arizona have been able to convert the proceeds of the gaming industry into positive social results for its tribal members.  If non-casino tribes continue to provide services and income opportunities to keep up with the more progressive casino tribes, they require economic development ventures that will generate wealth for their members.  If not the casino industry, then what ventures will be pursued?

The researchers of this project recognize several limitations with this study.  First, the number of cases (22) in the model is quite low for a statistical analysis and its generalizability.  Future studies should try to increase the number of cases.  Second, the data is quite limited as a result of the low number of cases and the absence of quality data for the analysis.  Additional data gathering, especially identification of other variables such as per pupil spending by tribe and a standardized test score, would greatly enhance this study.  Third, with only two data points in time, the exclusion of confounding factors over time was unobtainable in this study.  For instance, with two points in time (1990 and 2000) the researchers were unable to capture any factors that may have contributed to higher income levels in 1995, 1996, etc.  Again, this problem exists because of the lack of data. 

            One suggested tactic for overcoming these data limitations is the employment of triangulation.  Triangulation is a methodology which “involve(s) the incorporation of multiple data sources, investigators, and theoretical perspectives in order to increase confidence in research findings” (Glesne & Peshkin, p. 24).  Multiple sources also can provide a “fuller picture” and can “help to verify other information” (O’Sullivan, Rassel, and Berner; p. 38).  Among the techniques which are most commonly used are interviewing of individuals who are involved in the event being studied, the observation of participants, and document collection.  This project relied solely on quantitative data from a single source and could benefit from the examination of additional indicators as well as the utilization of qualitative data.  This qualitative data would be captured through surveys and interviews administered to both officials of Arizona tribes and representatives of Indian gaming regulatory agencies.  The collection of qualitative data would facilitate increased understanding of the impact of casino revenue on self-governance, increased social welfare, and economic development among the tribes of Arizona beyond the indicators examined in this study.  In addition, an elaborative mixed method research design would enhance reliability in findings.  As Earl Babbie posits, “the elaboration model offers the clearest available picture of the logic of causal analysis in social research” (2004, p. 422).  Elaboration methodology will permit a better understanding of the relationship between quantitative and qualitative techniques.  

            Despite the number of limitations with this study, the researchers for this project see potential policy implications in the following manner.  Casinos are a source of economic development that have the potential of increasing the economic base for a community, but too many casinos saturate the market and the economic impact is not as glamorous as many people tend to think.  Furthermore, downturns in the economy cause fluctuations in the amount of play that a casino receives, so paying for such social programs as education with some – or in extreme cases all – gaming dollars is a recipe for disaster.  Casino tax revenues should be viewed as a supplemental form of income for tribes to use to assist in paying for such costs; however, total reliance on such venues is not recommended.  Casino gaming is a recreational form of entertainment that was never intended to be used as a primary source of revenue for any type of governmental entity – state, federal, or tribal government.  If it happens to produce excessive tax revenues for one or more tribes, these tribes should consider themselves LUCKY!

References

Arizona Commission of Indian Affairs.  Official Website (www.indianaffairs.state.az.us).

Arizona Department of Commerce.  Official Website (www.commerce.state.az.us).

Arizona Department of Gaming.  Official Website (www.gm.state.az.us).

Arizona Indian Gaming Association.  Official Website (www.azindiangaming.org).

Babbie, Earl (2004).  The Practice of Social Research, 10^th ed.  New York: Wadsworth Publishing.

Baumgartner, F. and Jones, B.D. (1993). Agendas and Instability in American Politics.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cornell, Stephen; Kalt, Joseph; Krepps, Matthew; and Taylor, Jonathan (1998).  American Indian Gaming Policy and Its Socio-Economic Effects: A Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission.  The Economics Resource Group, Inc.

Cornell, Stephen and Taylor, Jonathan B. (2001).  An Analysis of the Economic Impacts of Indian Gaming in the State of Arizona.  Prepared for the Arizona Indian Gaming Association.  Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona.

Davis, Sue (Ed) (1996).  American Political Thought:  Four Hundred Years of Ideas and Ideologies.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

French, L. A. (2003). Native American Justice. Chicago: Burnham, Inc.

Garson, David (2006). “Two-Stage Least Squares Regression Analysis.”

(http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/2sls.htm).

Glesne, Corrine and Peshkin, Alan (1992).  Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction.  White Plains, NY: Longman.

Indian Health Service.  Official Website (www.ihs.gov). 

Kakar, Leona (1998).  Statement before the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Tempe, Arizona. November 9, 1998. 

Lamb-Gressley, Letha M. (1999).  Statement before the National Gambling Impact Study Commission.  Seattle, Washington. January 7, 1999. 

Mason, W. D. (2000). Indian Gaming: Tribal Sovereignty and American Politics.  Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

McCulloch, A.M. (1994).  “The Politics of Indian Gaming: Tribe/State Relations and American Federalism.”  Publius, 24 (Summer), pp. 99-112.

National Gambling Impact Study Commission (1999).  The Final Report of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission – Chapter 6: Native American Tribal Gambling. 

National Indian Gaming Association.  Official Website (www.indiangaming.org).

National Indian Gaming Commission.  Annual Report 2004.

National Indian Gaming Commission.  Official Website (www.nigc.gov).

Ortiz, James (2002).  “Tribal Governance and Public Administration.” Administration & Society, 34(5), pp. 459-481.

O’Sullivan, Elizabeth Ann; Rassel, Gary; and Berner, Maureen (2003).  Research Methods for Public Administrators.  New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Phillips, Dale (1998).  Statement before the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Tempe, Arizona. July 30, 1998. 

Rice, Stan, Jr. (1998).  Statement before the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Tempe, Arizona. July 31, 1998. 

Schlozman, K. and Tierney, J.T. (1986).  Organized Interests and American Democracy.  New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.

Stanley, R.E. and French, Eddie (2005).  “Enrollment Levels in Institutions of Higher Education:  Are State Lotteries Making a Difference in Dixie.” Journal of College Admission, 188 (Summer 2005), pp. 21-27.

Stanley, R.E. and French, P. Edward (2005). “The Lottery, Southern States, and the Federal Government: A Formula for Perpetual Success or Inevitable Destruction  in Education Policy?”  Public Administration Quarterly, Spring 2005. 

Stanley, R.E.; Moon, Sangho; and Shin, Jaeun (2005). “Measuring the Impact of Lotteries on State Per Pupil Expenditures for Education: Assessing the National Evidence.”  Review of Policy Research, 22 (2).

Stanley, R.E. (2004).  “INTRODUCTION: State Supported Gaming in America.”  Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 16(4).

Stanley, R.E. and French, P. Edward (2004).  “Measuring the Impact of Casino Proceeds on Total Per Pupil Assessment Values in Mississippi.”  Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 16(4).

Stanley, R.E. and French, P. Edward (2004).  “The Lottery, Education, and the Southern States: A Measure of Utility in Per Pupil Expenditures Among Lottery States in the South.”  Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 16(4).

Stanley, R.E. and French, P. Edward (2004).  “The Recent Adoption of the Voluntary Tax in the  Volunteer State.”  Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 16(4).

Stanley, R.E.; French, P. Edward; and Moon, Sangho (2004).  “Lottery Adoption Among Counties in Tennessee: Findings From a Logistic Regression Model.”  International Journal of Public Administration, 27(5), pp. 353-367. 

Stanley, R.E. (2003).  “Measuring the Impact of Casino Proceeds on Local Per Pupil Expenditures in Mississippi.”  International Journal of Public Administration, 26(4), pp. 455-470. 

Stanley, R.E. and French, P. Edward (2002).  “An Empirical Assessment of Lottery Proceeds on Education in the American States.”  Chicago Policy Review, 6(1), pp. 45-60.

Stanley, R.E. (2001).  “Can Students Truly Benefit From State Lotteries:  A Look at Lottery Expenditures Toward Education in the American States.”  Social Science Journal, 40(2). 

Stanley, R.E. and French, P. Edward (2001).  “Assessing the Impact of State Lotteries on Education Policy Among the American States.”  Public Budgeting, Accounting, & Financial Management, 14(1), pp. 57-69. 

Stein, Wayne J. (2002).  Impact Facts on Indian Gaming.  The Center for Native American Studies: Bozeman, Montana.

Taylor, J.B.; Grant, K.; Jorgensen, M.; and Krepps, M. (1999).  Indian Gaming in Arizona: Social and Economic Impacts on the State of Arizona.  Prepared for the Gila River Indian Community.  The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development.

Taylor, J.B. and Kalt, J. (2005).  American Indians on Reservations: A Databook of Socioeconomic Change Between the 1990 and 2000 Censuses.  The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development.

Taylor, J.B.; Krepps, M.B.; and Wang, P. (2000).  The National Evidence on the Socioeconomic Impacts of American Indian Gaming on Non-Indian Communities.  The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development.

Terchek, Ronald and Conte, Thomas (Eds) (2001).  Theories of Democracy: A Reader.  New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

U.S. Bureau of the Census.  Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2004-2005.    (http://www.census.gov/).

Walker, J. L. (1991).  Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions and Social Movements.  Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Wilkins, D. E. (1998). “Tribal-State Affairs: American States as ‘Disclaiming’ Sovereigns.” Publius, 28(4), pp. 55-82.

Wilkins, D. E. (2002).  American Indian Politics and the American Political System.  Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.