PDF version of: This Article (70 KB) | This Issue (700 KB)

		[This article prints out to about 7 pages] Where are the "Community Benefit" funds from pokie machine trusts distributed?   Hope Simonsen, Social Services Waikato, Hamilton, Aotearoa-New Zealand Suzanne Grant, University of Waikato, Hamilton, Aotearoa-New Zealand Abstract The key purpose of this research was to investigate where the community benefit funds from the six national pokie (electronic gambling) machine trusts (i.e., New Zealand Community Trust, Pub Charity, Lion Foundation, Southern Trust, Scottwood Trust, and Community Grants Foundation) are distributed. These trusts account for approximately 60 percent of all expenditure on gambling and 50 percent of all non-casino pokie machine sites in Aotearoa-New Zealand. Introduction Tables 1a and 1b (below) summarise the distribution of funding by region and sector; it shows that between 48 percent and 62 percent of all funding available to each region went to the sport/ physical activities sector. This confirms anecdotal evidence of disproportionate funding received by sporting groups. While the majority of respondents to the survey conducted as part of the second half of this research reported a positive experience, there were a number of issues raised about the application process. Based on the analysis of this report, it is recommended that the following actions be adopted: 1) The standardisation of reporting procedures and formats by the six national trusts, including across regions and sectors, to facilitate comparison of information between trusts. The use of Territorial Local Authority boundaries is recommended. 2) Increase accountability for trusts to comply with funding criteria. For example, criteria such as "no more than 20 percent of an individual hotel site's total funding shall be made available to any one organisation", or "only one application per organisation per funding round", do not appear to be met. 3) Clarification of the funding available for greyhound and horse racing activities. 4) Greater public access to information and transparency of the processes of operation of the six national trusts. This applies to both personnel and procedures within the national trusts. For example, make public details of the experience and backgrounds of those who are involved with making funding decisions and provide public access to annual reports. 5) The 33 percent of funds allocated to administrative expenses for each trust should be investigated further. For example, this level of expenditure should be compared with the budgets of other philanthropic organisations. 6) A more balanced distribution of funding across all sectors. 7) Ongoing analysis of the distribution for a further four years to allow for greater comparison and a more in-depth analysis of distribution trends. Table 1a: Distribution of funds by region and by sector (continued in Table 1b, below) A larger version is available here. Region Sport/ physical activities Horse & greyhound racing Arts & culture Heritage/ Conservation/ Environment Education Youth Welfare & support Health Emergency services Auckland 196,102 1,019,416 206,784 6,448,628 1,359,417 1,160,856 2,569,874 1,639,003 51% 1% 3% 1% 17% 4% 3% 7% 4% Bay of Plenty 5,336,958 146,902 350,736 51,389 2,477,954 203,507 501,389 440,899 521,850 48% 1% 3% 0% 22% 2% 4% 4% 5% Canterbury 10,970,442 524,380 618,565 209,718 2,449,582 336,327 657360 651,034 910,244 55% 3% 3% 1% 12% 2% 3% 3% 5% Gisborne 1,157,202 7,777 34,988 14,789 473,520 25,904 65,458 49,339 159,196 53% 0% 2% 1% 22% 1% 3% 2% 7% Hawkes Bay 2,154,100 71,424 155,094 82,751 624,110 54,661 111,736 141,398 151,335 55% 2% 4% 2% 16% 1% 3% 4% 4% Manawatu Wanganui  3,703,216 129,819 108,766 123,128 1,044,410 102,772 123,673 142,219 162,295 58% 2% 2% 2% 16% 2% 2% 2% 3% Marlborough 464,286 4,500 10,942 0 68,198 8,212 24,560 15,330 14,029 62% 1% 1% 0% 9% 1% 3% 2% 2% Nelson / Tasman 2,651,917 11,380 182,179 13,884 388,770 22,921 88,287 229,655 194,287 61% 0% 4% 0% 9% 1% 2% 5% 4% Northland 2,973,123 110,728 131,638 54,010 1,267,933 177,849 156,133 214,070 289,319 48% 2% 2% 1% 20% 3% 2% 3% 5% Otago 3,393,793 110,119 163,366 78,199 608,780 93,088 103,597 109,444 258,791 61% 2% 3% 1% 11% 2% 2% 2% 5% Southland 1,434,274 16,000 68,379 28,120 344,361 78,430 79,889 162,707 109,430 53% 1% 3% 1% 13% 3% 3% 6% 4% Taranaki 2,081,887 60,117 89,979 24,632 476,774 27,454 87,672 45,137 99,209 61% 2% 3% 1% 14% 1% 3% 1% 3% Waikato 6,678,731 333,477 415,834 128,925 2,458,036 312,441 548,993 305,725 410,409 52% 3% 3% 1% 19% 2% 4% 2% 3% Wellington 13,005,106 270,257 2,163,782 129,465 2,130,943 287,560 672,004 891,049 1,362,226 55% 1% 9% 1% 9% 1% 3% 4% 6% West Coast 818,759 58,055 33,333 45,362 165,132 16,998 61,703 25,555 62,659 57% 4% 2% 3% 11% 1% 4% 2% 4% Unknown 3,121,801 1,591,846 214,597 38,723 913,631 195,755 214,680 245,991 85,130 21% 3% 1% 12% 3% 3% 3% 1% Table 1b: Distribution of funds by region and by sector (continued from Table 1a, above) A larger version is available here. Region Service clubs Foundations & charitable trusts Religious organisations Marae & Māori organisations Student associa-tions Economic development Leisure/ interest/ hobby Row totals for Tables 1a and 1b Auckland 366,796 2,082,811 289,944 204,020 50,352 238,555 1,070,549 38,314,675 1% 5% 1% 1% 0% 1% 3% --- Bay of Plenty 47,778 125,297 222,222 364,789 0 74,084 316,805 11,182,558 0% 1% 2% 3% 0% 1% 3% --- Canterbury 179,028 856,810 346,085 32,715 28,220 84,173 1,048,770 19,903,451 1% 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% 5% --- Gisborne 15,957 32,586 7,477 87,673 0 10,000 42,997 2,178,863 1% 1% 0% 4% 0% 0% 2% --- Hawkes Bay 21,088 33,920 21,000 48,030 5,000 90,446 155,025 3,921,118 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 2% 4% --- Manawatu Wanganui  46,776 82,444 49,533 98,808 92,920 100,810 244,607 6,356,197 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 4% --- Marlborough 13,500 29,500 0 2,890 0 13,367 77,459 746,773 2% 4% 0% 0% 0% 2% 10% --- Nelson / Tasman 10,193 79,363 35,452 39,453 0 58,311 359,032 4,365,084 0% 2% 1% 1% 0% 1% 8% --- Northland 66,802 139,177 29,096 270,971 0 85,135 288,553 6,254,537 1% 2% 0% 4% 0% 1% 5% --- Otago 22,453 146,702 34,312 3,199 41,434 256,047 177,181 5,600,507 0% 3% 1% 0% 1% 5% 3% --- Southland 37,411 88,410 14,535 600 0 39,819 183,514 2,685,878 1% 3% 1% 0% 0% 1% 7% --- Taranaki 4,338 172,029 16,089 29,789 0 29,110 180,129 3,424,344 0% 5% 0% 1% 0% 1% 5% --- Waikato 74,351 232,860 44,534 373,528 5,000 63,712 551,313 12,937,869 1% 2% 0% 3% 0% 0% 4% --- Wellington 84,231 1,104,767 253,131 114,500 5,480 63,940 1,317,139 23,855,580 0% 5% 1% 0% 0% 0% 6% --- West Coast 8,999 21,648 20,998 11,803 0 11,769 81,526 1,444,300 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 6% --- Unknown 36,800 521,648 76,930 190,360 4,300 12,277 267,247 7,731,716 0% 7% 1% 2% 0% 0% 3% --- The distribution of funding In the year ended December 2002, the six national pokie machine trusts accounted for approximately 50 percent of all non-casino pokie machine sites and about 60 percent of all expenditure on non-casino pokie machines (DIA website: http://www.dia.govt.nz). Ownership of the remaining sites is spread between single- and multiple-site hotel trusts and clubs (e.g., chartered, sports, Returned Services Associations, i.e.,veterans groups) who may operate pokie machines for their own purposes. A condition of the licence granted to pokie machine operators is that they report annually on the minimum 33 percent of revenue required by government regulation to be distributed to community groups. These reports must be available to the public, and also lodged with the Department of Internal Affairs. Typically the report tends to be a newspaper-type publication. However, there appears to be little regulation in place to ensure standardisation of reporting. Frequently trusts operate on different financial years, and all vary in the manner in which details of the funding allocations are presented. There may also be variation within the same trust. For example, allocations for the first six months may be listed alphabetically while the second six months are presented by region. The introduction of standardised reporting formats and procedures would facilitate the ongoing analysis of information. Working from the publications each trust is required to produce, funding grants made by these six trusts were analysed to identify how the funding was distributed in terms of region and/or sectors of the community. In each case the most recent 12 months of data was used, with the exception of Southern Trust for whom information on only nine months of funding grants was available. Grants totalling $237,769,648 were made by the six Trusts during the periods analysed, with 30,574 separate funding grants being made. How has the information been analysed? Sports/physical activities: The Hillary Commission definition was used as a guide for allocations to this sector. This definition included those sports that have a physical activity component. Rugby, rugby league, touch rugby, soccer, and netball are the predominant entries. Separate sports clubs set up by schools, as was previously encouraged by the Hillary Commission, also feature in the category. Horse and greyhound racing: Although these categories could be classified as sport, this separate sector was added to identify the funds that appear to be being channelled back into gambling-oriented activities. Arts and culture: This sector includes events as well as organisations with an arts and/or cultural perspective: for example, choral groups, young designer awards, arts societies, dancing and music groups such as pipe bands, and Irish dancing. Heritage/conservation/environment: Historical and preservation societies were the main entry in this sector, but environmental research and recovery work is also featured. Education: As well as including schools, kura kaupapa [Māori immersion schools] and related school groups, this sector also covers pre-schools, kindergartens, childcare centres, kohanga reo (Māori language nests/total immersion), and OSCAR (out of school care) organisations. Youth: Guiding and scouting groups dominate the entries in this sector, although there are also instances of youth groups and youth-oriented projects: for example, youth suicide awareness trusts, and police-youth blue-light social events. Welfare and support: Organisations in this sector are quite diverse, but are typically community aid organisations: for example, Habitat for Humanity, community houses, Birthright, SPCA, social services, missions, and budgeting services. Health: This sector incorporates all organisations associated with disabilities and illness: for example, IHC, Arthritis Foundation, kidney transplant funds, and hospices. Although youth-specific, Canteen and Camp Quality have been included in this category given their health focus. Ronald McDonald House is also included as a health-based organisation. Emergency services: In addition to volunteer fire brigades, St. John Ambulance and rescue helicopters, this category also includes surf lifesaving and coast guard activities. Service clubs: This sector includes Masonic Lodges, Lions clubs, and Rotary clubs. Foundations and charitable trusts: This category was included to provide a separate category for formalised foundations/trusts that had a clear purpose, but do not necessarily fit distinctly into one of the other categories. Large well-known trusts such as Outward Bound and Spirit of Adventure feature regularly, as do less well-known and more localised trusts, such as Landmarks Trust and Woodlands Centre Trust. Religious organisations: This sector identifies funding for churches, such as the Salvation Army and Catholic orders, which were not obviously targeting welfare and support activities. Marae and other Māori organisations: Although kohanga reo and kura kaupapa were coded as education, all other Māori organisations were coded to this classification. With coding decisions being based purely on the name of an organisation or group, it is possible that organisations with a Māori name, but which do not have a specific Māori focus, may have inadvertently been included in this category. Student associations: Featuring predominately in Otago, these are associations of student groups such as medical students and dental students. Economic development: Groups such as retailers' associations and tourism groups promoting a region fall into this sector. Other leisure/interest/hobby groups: Car clubs and darts associations are groups in this category that could perhaps be considered sports-oriented, but which have been included here, given the informal "Hillary Commission" definition applied in the sports sector. It is possible that this sector also includes a number of sports teams, for if the name did not distinctly relate to a particular sport (e.g., "ultimate club") it was placed in this category. In addition, there are diverse groups such as sheep dog trials and battalion groups. See Figure 1 for a graphical breakdown of the funds across these 16 recipient types. A larger version is available here. Analysis Grants to individual organisations range from large (for example, $56,467.77 to the Hamilton Marist Rugby Football Club) to reasonably small (for example, $150 to the Porirua Canoe Kayak Club). Nationwide grants, such as the $175,000 donation to the NZ Olympic Committee by Scottwood Trust also feature. Large grants are also made by trusts to individual organisations/projects. For example, Community Grants Foundation made grants of $500,000 to Kelston Boys High School, $150,000 to Waitaki Developments Board, $200,000 to Harcourt Park Sound Stage Upper Hutt, and $100,000 to both Porirua City Council IT Education Trust and Porirua Park. This preliminary investigation has identified several issues that could be considered more thoroughly. For example, the amount of money being channelled back into greyhound and horse racing activities must be questioned. Likewise, records that indicate that organisations outside a trust's "local" area are receiving grants appear to contradict the local distribution of funds criteria set by most of the national trusts. The lack of any requirement for standardised reporting means a degree of caution should be included in any comparisons made between trusts. Frequently trusts operate on different financial years and all vary in the manner in which details of funding allocations are presented. Note: This material is an excerpt from the report of research conducted by Social Services Waikato for GamblingWatch in the first half of 2003. Copies of the full report are available on the GamblingWatch website (www.gamblingwatch.org.nz) and the report and full Access database are available on CD from GamblingWatch (order from gamblingwatch@xtra.co.nz). Competing interests: None declared. For correspondence: Dave MacPherson, e-mail: dave.macpherson@xtra.co.nz

		issue 12— december 2004