ADVERTISEMENT

From NewsOn6:Oklahoma's Education Lottery: Underperforming Or Undercut?

Bitter Creek

Heisman Candidate
Apr 24, 2008
8,234
4,915
113
ALEX CAMERON, News On 6
CRAIG DAY, News On 6

OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma - To most people, $625 million is a lot of money, but to critics of Oklahoma's education lottery, $625 million is nothing, nothing more than proof the lottery has not delivered what voters were promised.



Next month will mark ten years since voters approved the lottery and nine years since then Governor Brad Henry bought the first lottery tickets and officially started the flow of dollars into the state's education trust fund.

Since the first games debuted in October 2005, almost $1.8 billion has been spent on lottery tickets in Oklahoma. By law, 35 cents of each of those dollars has gone to education.


"I think we've done very well," said Rollo Redburn, Executive Director of the Oklahoma Lottery.

Redburn has been with the lottery office from the start and said they are proud of the contribution the lottery has made to education.

"More than $625 million that otherwise wouldn't have been there," Redburn remarked, "has been raised for education programs in Oklahoma."


Not everyone shares Redburn's rosy view of the lottery's impact on our schools.

"It is not a game-changer, it is not even really a drop in the bucket," stated Senator David Holt, R-Bethany.

Holt said he is not necessarily opposed to the lottery, but it does concern him that the social cost of state-endorsed gambling is not being outweighed by the lottery's benefit to our schools.

Holt said he can't quantify the social cost, but said quantifying the dividend to our schools is easy, just do the math.

The legislation that created the lottery stipulated that 45 percent of the funds generated for education go to common education.

$625M x .45 = $281M


Holt points out that must then be divided by the 520 school districts in the state.

$281M / 520 = $541K


Finally, that gets divided by the nine years that the lottery has been bringing in revenues.

$541K / 9 = $60K


Thus, on average, school districts have received $60,000 annually from the lottery.

"That's a teacher, maybe, probably not including benefits," said Holt. "You'd rather have it than not have it, but that's not anything like what was promised leading up to the vote in 2004."


In 2001, Henry, then a State Senator representing Shawnee, suggested a lottery in Oklahoma could gross $500 million a year.

In 2003, following his election as governor, Henry was campaigning for the lottery and claimed it might generate $300 million a year for education; and in 2005, after voters had approved the lottery and legislators had finalized the parameters for lottery games, the Henry administration was still saying it would bring in between $100 and $150 million annually.


It's those estimates that cause many to question how it could be that the most Oklahoma's lottery has ever generated for education in one year is $71 million - and why, last fiscal year, it hit a new low of $66 million.




"I'm glad you asked that," said Redburn.Redburn said neither he nor his predecessor, Michael Scroggins, ever made any estimates to revenues the lottery might produce.


"There's no one at this lottery that was involved in any of those calculations," stated Redburn.

The answer to any question about unfulfilled revenue estimates, Redburn said, would have to come from those who made them.

So, we went to former Governor Henry and asked him if he felt that he had misled voters as to how much money the lottery would raise for education.


"I don't feel that I misled voters," Henry replied. "Based on the information that I knew at the time, I think our estimates were pretty good." Henry said his administration's projections were sound and were based on real data from other lottery states. What's more, he said, the estimates might have been more accurate, if not for partisan lawmakers.


"They have consistently, over the years," said Henry, "done things to restrict the lottery."

The most significant restriction, according to Henry and lottery officials, is the requirement that 35 percent of gross revenues go to education.


They argue that lifting that restriction, as many states have done, would allow the lottery to put more money into prizes, which, in turn, would result in increased sales.


"Look at any state that's done it," Henry said, "you're actually going to create substantially more revenue for education."


Lottery officials have been lobbying lawmakers for years to ease the 35 percent requirement, and have introduced legislation annually at the Capitol to that effect.


The bills have never made it out of committee, and, in fact, only once have ever even been given a hearing.

"It's a political issue," said State Senator John Ford, R-Bartlesville.

Ford believes the state should not be in the business of running a lottery and introduced his own legislation a few years ago to privatize the lottery.


His bill was defeated, and he said lottery officials shouldn't expect anything but the same for their legislation to lift the 35 percent rule.

"Those that are opposed to lottery are opposed to it," said Ford, "and I don't think that [bill's] going to pass." Henry understands the politics, but said citizens need to understand that the consequence is that the lottery will continue to generate less money than it could, and thus will continue to send less money than it could to state classrooms. Still, he said, the money it is generating is better than nothing. "The fact of the matter is this is new revenue for education," said the former governor, "significant new revenue for education, without raising taxes, and I think people appreciate that."
 
Reducing the amount required to go to education would INCREASE the amount of dollars raised for education -- Brad Henry, Oklahoma's "Education Governor"
 
I don't understand the difference between margins and earnings -- Marshal Jim Duncan, 24/7 Politics's "Right Wing Blog Aggregator"
 
I fully understand the difference. I've only made a reasonably comfortable living out of understanding such things for the last 20+ years.

First of all, it is very unlikely that said changes proposed by Mr. Henry would lead to any substantial uptick in revenues for the lottery for the simple reason that a huge amount of lottery funds spent by the public in OK go towards purchase of Powerball and Mega Millions lottery tickets. The state can only control the prize levels for the state lotto.

If he is proposing to do away with the requirement that 35% of gross revenues go towards education it stands to reason that he and those that supprt it would, in fact, lower the % given to education. They'd have to in order to increase the prize money in the way he purportedly wants to do. But the prize money could never be as attractive relative to the big money lottos in the public perception, thus the traction gained in any increased sales is unlikely to offset the elimination of the 35% of revenue requirement. Notice the guy who actually works for the lottery didn't meniton it, only the guy trying to make CYA excuses.

I promise, I've encountered and blown holes in, many pie-in-the-sky turnaround or revenue enhancement proposals put forth by business managers and/or their advocates over the years.
This post was edited on 10/23 3:09 PM by Marshal Jim Duncan
 
Originally posted by 07pilt:


Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:

Notice the guy who actually works for the lottery didn't meniton it, only the guy trying to make CYA excuses.
The lottery commission has been pushing for it since 2009.

A least squares analysis of the payout percentage vs per capita profit on a state by state basis yields a $3.42 per capita profit increase for every percent increase in in payout.
Gee, I wonder if any of the original projections were based on similar analyses?
 
Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:
Gee, I wonder if any of the original projections were based on similar analyses?
I would guess that the original projections where probably not based on actual numbers or evidence, kind of like this analysis: "But the prize money could never be as attractive relative to the big money lottos in the public perception, thus the traction gained in any increased sales is unlikely to offset the elimination of the 35% of revenue requirement." (Which just wishes away any elasticity in state lotto demand)
 
Couple things of note from this article. Why does Oklahoma have 520 separate and distinct school districts (that averages to over 7 districts per county)? If the lottery is funding one teacher per district per year, then its certainly having a positive benefit. Are the critics asking to get rid of the lottery because its not providing the funding they expected? (My interpretation based on the statement that the lottery proceeds are not exceeding some hypothetical social cost.) Finally, the article implied that the lottery was sold as a tool to provide an even greater amount of money to the lottery, however, it never actually states what the original projections were. Does anyone actually know what was projected?

Justin
 
Originally posted by aix_xpert:
Couple things of note from this article. Why does Oklahoma have 520 separate and distinct school districts (that averages to over 7 districts per county)? If the lottery is funding one teacher per district per year, then its certainly having a positive benefit. Are the critics asking to get rid of the lottery because its not providing the funding they expected? (My interpretation based on the statement that the lottery proceeds are not exceeding some hypothetical social cost.) Finally, the article implied that the lottery was sold as a tool to provide an even greater amount of money to the lottery, however, it never actually states what the original projections were. Does anyone actually know what was projected?

Justin
This is the only thing that I saw regarding a projection:

In 2001, Henry, then a State Senator representing Shawnee, suggested a lottery in Oklahoma could gross $500 million a year.


In 2003, following his election as governor, Henry was campaigning for the lottery and claimed it might generate $300 million a year for education; and in 2005, after voters had approved the lottery and legislators had finalized the parameters for lottery games, the Henry administration was still saying it would bring in between $100 and $150 million annually.





More than anything, the lottery is a self-imposed tax that is likely often paid by those receiving gov't benefits of one kind or another.
 
Originally posted by ThePokewithNoName:
I don't know of a single state that has had to lottery deliver the goods to education like it was promised.

Just a tax on the stupid.
It is a conflict of interest that math education is partially supported by those who are bad at math.
 
Originally posted by Bitter Creek:

Originally posted by aix_xpert:
Couple things of note from this article. Why does Oklahoma have 520 separate and distinct school districts (that averages to over 7 districts per county)? If the lottery is funding one teacher per district per year, then its certainly having a positive benefit. Are the critics asking to get rid of the lottery because its not providing the funding they expected? (My interpretation based on the statement that the lottery proceeds are not exceeding some hypothetical social cost.) Finally, the article implied that the lottery was sold as a tool to provide an even greater amount of money to the lottery, however, it never actually states what the original projections were. Does anyone actually know what was projected?

Justin
This is the only thing that I saw regarding a projection:

In 2001, Henry, then a State Senator representing Shawnee, suggested a lottery in Oklahoma could gross $500 million a year.



In 2003, following his election as governor, Henry was campaigning for the lottery and claimed it might generate $300 million a year for education; and in 2005, after voters had approved the lottery and legislators had finalized the parameters for lottery games, the Henry administration was still saying it would bring in between $100 and $150 million annually.





More than anything, the lottery is a self-imposed tax that is likely often paid by those receiving gov't benefits of one kind or another.
Thanks. Not sure how I read right over that. So when the parameters were finally set they projected $100-150m and we are really getting about $70m (625m/9yrs). Given that government always inflates revenue projections and understates costs, this seems like much ado about nothing.

Justin
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT