<mods xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" version="3.3" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-3.xsd" ID="P0b002ee1803a01b7">
<name type="corporate">
 <namePart>United States Government Publishing Office</namePart>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">publisher</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">pbl</roleTerm>
</role>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">distributor</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">dst</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="corporate">
 <namePart>United States</namePart>
 <namePart>Government Accountability Office</namePart>
 <namePart>Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division</namePart>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">aut</roleTerm>
</role>
 <description>Government Organization</description>
</name>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<genre authority="marcgt">government publication</genre>
<language>
 <languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
</language>
<extension>
 <collectionCode>GAOREPORTS</collectionCode>
 <category>Legislative Agency Publications</category>
 <waisDatabaseName>gao</waisDatabaseName>
 <branch>legislative</branch>
 <dateIngested>2010-08-12</dateIngested>
</extension>
<originInfo>
 <publisher>U.S. Government Printing Office</publisher>
 <dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1998-05-15</dateIssued>
 <issuance>monographic</issuance>
</originInfo>
<physicalDescription>
 <note type="source content type">deposited</note>
 <digitalOrigin>born digital</digitalOrigin>
 <extent>93 p.</extent>
</physicalDescription>
<classification authority="sudocs">GA 1.13:RCED-98-97</classification>
<identifier type="uri">https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-RCED-98-97</identifier>
<identifier type="local">P0b002ee1803a01b7</identifier>
<identifier type="former package identifier">f:rc98097</identifier>
<recordInfo>
 <recordContentSource authority="marcorg">DGPO</recordContentSource>
 <recordCreationDate encoding="w3cdtf">2010-08-12</recordCreationDate>
 <recordChangeDate encoding="w3cdtf">2011-03-23</recordChangeDate>
 <recordIdentifier source="DGPO">GAOREPORTS-RCED-98-97</recordIdentifier>
 <recordOrigin>machine generated</recordOrigin>
 <languageOfCataloging>
  <languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
</languageOfCataloging>
</recordInfo>
<accessCondition type="GPO scope determination">fdlp</accessCondition>
<extension>
 <docClass>REPORT</docClass>
 <accessId>GAOREPORTS-RCED-98-97</accessId>
 <reportNumber>RCED-98-97</reportNumber>
 <subject>Indian lands</subject>
 <subject>Native Americans</subject>
 <subject>Independent regulatory commissions</subject>
 <subject>Recreation</subject>
 <subject>Internal controls</subject>
 <subject>State governments</subject>
 <subject>Licenses</subject>
 <identifier>Arizona</identifier>
 <identifier>Washington</identifier>
 <identifier>New Jersey</identifier>
 <identifier>Nevada</identifier>
 <identifier>Michigan</identifier>
 <type>Letter Report</type>
 <seriesAbbrev>RCED</seriesAbbrev>
 <law congress="100" isPrivate="false" number="497"></law>
</extension>
<titleInfo>
 <title>Casino Gaming Regulation: Roles of Five States and the National Indian Gaming Commission</title>
</titleInfo>
<abstract>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&apos;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.&lt;p/&gt;GAO noted that: (1) in 1991, the Commission&apos;s organization consisted of
three commissioners and six other staff; (2) by 1997, the Commission&apos;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&apos;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.</abstract>
<location>
 <url displayLabel="HTML rendition" access="raw object">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-RCED-98-97/html/GAOREPORTS-RCED-98-97.htm</url>
 <url displayLabel="PDF rendition" access="raw object">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-RCED-98-97/pdf/GAOREPORTS-RCED-98-97.pdf</url>
</location>
<identifier type="preferred citation">GAO/RCED-98-97</identifier>
<location>
 <url displayLabel="Content Detail" access="object in context">https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-RCED-98-97</url>
</location>
<note>Letter Report</note>
<extension>
 <searchTitle>GAO/RCED-98-97; Casino Gaming Regulation: Roles of Five States and the National Indian Gaming Commission;
            </searchTitle>
</extension>
<subject>
 <topic>Indian lands</topic>
 <topic>Native Americans</topic>
 <topic>Independent regulatory commissions</topic>
 <topic>Recreation</topic>
 <topic>Internal controls</topic>
 <topic>State governments</topic>
 <topic>Licenses</topic>
 <topic>Arizona</topic>
 <topic>Washington</topic>
 <topic>New Jersey</topic>
 <topic>Nevada</topic>
 <topic>Michigan</topic>
</subject>
<relatedItem type="isReferencedBy">
 <titleInfo>
  <title>United States Public Law 497 (100th Congress)</title>
</titleInfo>
 <identifier type="public law citation">Public Law 100-497</identifier>
</relatedItem>
</mods>