A Lottery Education

Document Sample
A Lottery Education Powered By Docstoc
					A Lottery Education                                                                                            Dedicated to the
                                                                                                          Preservation of the Family.
Dispelling the Education Lottery Myth
By Stephen Daniels

                       hen selling the idea       erates it. The lottery also opens the door    to the money, or to lawmakers who have
                       of state-sponsored         for other forms of gambling as citizenʼs      to answer for the cuts that they make.
                       gambling to the            objections to gambling are reduced over       Georgiaʼs experience illustrates that even
                       people in a state, one     time.                                         the most “successful” education lottery
                       of the most often cited         This paper addresses the realities       in the county cannot escape the pitfalls
                       beneficiaries of lottery   behind the promises of an “education          that come when you link public education
                       dollars is education.      lottery” and explains why state-sponsored     funding to gambling.
                       For years, lawmakers       gambling will have the opposite effect            Georgiaʼs funding problem is indica-
in states across the country have yielded         on education in North Carolina than the       tive of a broader trend nationwide. Many
to the notion that a lottery would result         public is led to believe.                     states have faced fluctuating revenues
in big money and big benefits to schools                                                        and significant drops in income from
                                                  Funding Instability
and other public programs. In fact, 20                                                          their lotteries. In 2001 (months before the
                                                      States that commit themselves to fund-
states currently designate a portion or all                                                     events of September 11th), Business Week
                                                  ing a portion of their education programs
of the revenues collected from a lottery                                                        reported that 20 of the nationʼs lotteries
                                                  with gambling dollars run the risk of com-
to some form of public education.1 Some,                                                        saw profits drop.6 The state of Ohio faced
                                                  ing up short when the projected revenues
like South Carolina, have even gone so                                                          the biggest shortfall that year with lottery
                                                  donʼt materialize. Though the actual
far as to refer to their stateʼs games as an                                                    sales off by 11 percent, leaving the state
                                                  amount of money that lotteries contribute
“education lottery.”2                                                                           $52 million short of its projected income
                                                  to the stateʼs coffers is minor compared
     But behind the images of big money                                                         for education. The state had to make up
                                                  to the total state budget, these shortfalls
and perceived public good, the realities                                                        the difference from other funding sources.7
                                                  can create havoc for programs that are
of a lottery are very different from the                                                        In 2003, Ohio showed a loss of $45.3
                                                  dependent on the money. Even the most
images sold to the people. Far from the                                                         million and was behind in its payment to
                                                  successful lotteries have had trouble.
benign and seemingly innocent process                                                           education by $26 million.8 Meanwhile,
                                                      In many discussions about the benefits
of transferring funds from willing players                                                      Texas lottery sales in 2001 were a billion
                                                  of an education lottery, these days the
to needy schools, the lottery remains an                                                        dollars below1997ʼs record sales, nearly a
                                                  conversation often turns to Georgiaʼs
unstable source of income that negatively                                                       one-third drop in sales over five years.9
                                                  HOPE Scholarship Program, which gives
affects overall state education funding.                                                            These fluctuations in ticket sales are
                                                  academically successful students money
There are also hidden costs associated                                                          the hallmark of a revenue source that is at
                                                  for tuition, books and fees for in-state
with lottery gambling such as addicted                                                          the mercy of attitudes within the market-
                                                  colleges paid for with lottery revenues.3
gamblers and lost consumer and tax dol-                                                         place, and spells trouble for states that are
                                                  Since its inception in 1993, the Georgia
lars. Perhaps most troubling of all, the lot-                                                   dependent on lotteries for education each
                                                  lottery has been held up as a model for
tery has little to do with raising money for                                                    year. When lotteries are first introduced,
                                                  other lotteries and is frequently mentioned
education. Education, or some other good                                                        ticket sales are usually brisk as excited
                                                  by lottery proponents in North Carolina.
cause, is simply the means used to make                                                         players shell out money to play, many for
                                                  However, despite the accolades, Georgiaʼs
gambling more attractive and acceptable                                                         the first time. However, over time, what is
                                                  lottery-supported scholarship program is
to the people of the state. If education                                                        commonly referred to as “jackpot fatigue”
                                                  facing financial difficulties. 4 As lottery
were not such a politically popular issue,                                                      sets in and players that were once eager to
                                                  revenues have leveled off and the de-
the lottery would be tied to something                                                          spend money on the lottery lose interest.
                                                  mand for scholarships continues to grow,
else—as it has been in previous years in                                                        This is partly due to the disenchantment
                                                  state officials are now scrambling to find
North Carolina. Instead, the lottery is just                                                    that comes with repeated losses. Jackpot
                                                  ways to reduce the number of eligible
another way to expand state coffers with-                                                       fatigue is the reason that states often create
                                                  students or cut the amount of money
out having to raise other taxes. It is also                                                     new and presumably more exciting games
                                                  given to students before the program is
pushed hard by the gambling industry                                                            to invigorate interest in playing the lot-
                                                  unable to serve all eligible participants.5
because it will generate tens of millions                                                       tery. States must increase advertising and
                                                  None of these options are appealing to
of dollars a year for the company that op-                                                      add more novel and entertaining methods
                                                  a populous that has become accustomed
of selling tickets to lure their citizens to         considering that it presently costs the state        would erode county commissioner support
spend more money on the lottery.                     less than one cent to collect every dollar in        of extra money to the schools.”22
    Jackpot fatigue is also fueled by bore-          tax revenues.18                                          The lottery would also affect state and
dom from jackpots that seem less impres-                  Keeping in perspective the amount of            local tax revenues as lottery players spend
sive over time. A payout of $50 million,             money a lottery would generate diffuses              money on tickets instead of goods and ser-
once considered substantial, is no longer            the argument that a lottery is needed to             vices. Estimates vary, but a lottery could
sufficient to generate excitement.10 In or-          stem the tide of money going to other                cost between $31 million and $36 million
der to beef up jackpots, some states direct          states. Lottery proponents claim that hun-           in lost state and local taxes.23 There is also
a higher percentage of lottery revenues to           dreds of millions of dollars that could ben-         an adverse affect on consumer sales from
prizes by cutting the stateʼs profits, mean-         efit education are being lost to surrounding         households that shift their spending away
ing less money for education. New York               states. This assertion is not true, however,         from items such as food, clothing, and
increased the payout from 55 cents per               because those states only keep a third of            housing to play the lottery.24
dollar spent on a lottery ticket to 65 cents. every dollar spent on lottery tickets to                        One of the big costs associated with
Even though the state saw record sales,              fund their education programs. Lottery               the lottery that proponents do not talk
the lotteryʼs profits fell to seven percent          advocates are misleading the public when             about is the cost of the problem and
below what the lottery brought in                                                                                 pathological gamblers that would
four years earlier.11 States have                 General Fund Allocation for Education vs.                       be created once gambling is
also decreased playerʼs chances of                         Potential Lottery Revenues                             introduced statewide. Considering
winning by increasing the amount                      16
                                                                                                                  that approximately 400,000 North
of numbers they must choose.                          14
                                                                                                                  Carolinians will become addicted
This results in higher jackpots, but                  12
                                                                                                                  to gambling over time,25 the costs
fewer winners, which also fuels                       10
                                                                                                                  to the state from crime, lost jobs
jackpot fatigue.12                           Billions 8
                                                                                                                  and wages, bankruptcies and so
    Another reason that lottery                        6
                                                                                                                  forth would reach into the hundreds
sales decline is the proliferation of                  4
                                                                              $8.3                                of millions of dollars.26 This does
other forms of gambling that di-                                                         $366 (Million)           not include the unwritten costs of
vert money away from the lottery.                                                                                 divorce, child abuse and neglect,
Once a state becomes accustomed                             2003-04       2003-04      Potential                  domestic violence, suicide and even
                                                          General Fund General Fund     Lottery
to lottery gambling, there is less                            Total     Allocation to Revenue to                  murder that result when people get
resistance to future forms of gam-                                       Education     Education                  addicted to gambling.27
bling that compete for dollars.                                                                                        When compared to the social
                                                     they talk about the gross dollars spent              and economic costs associated with the
Costs Over Benefits                                  on tickets, not the net dollars kept by the          lottery, it becomes clear that commit-
    Proponents of the lottery have as their
                                                     states. This means that if North Carolin-            ting the state to gambling is not worth it.
main selling point the prospects of “big
                                                     ians spend approximately $250 million in             The state already has legitimate means
money.” And there is no question that
                                                     surrounding states, as has been reported,            of collecting revenues to fund education,
lotteries have provided a lot of money to
                                                     the estimated revenues taken in by those             and gambling should not be among them.
states. But the reality is that the lottery
                                                     states is around $82.5 million, which is             Still, some may continue to argue that the
brings in only a small fraction of the
                                                     less than one percent of North Carolinaʼs            lottery helps education. In response, it is
money necessary to fund education. So it13
                                                     education budget.19 Tar Heel players win             important to ask how lotteries have af-
is appropriate to ask whether it is worth-
                                                     back half the money they gamble in other             fected funding for education.
while for the state to enter the gambling
                                                     state lotteries, because fifty cents of every
business to bring in a relatively meager
                                                     dollar is returned in prizes.20
                                                                                                          Education Funding?
amount of additional revenue. Estimates                                                                        In state after state the people have
                                                          A lottery would also jeopardize the
vary on the exact amount of money that a                                                                  been sold the idea that a lottery is a way to
                                                     potential for the passage of local educa-
lottery would generate for North Caro-                                                                    create additional revenue without hav-
                                                     tion bonds because the general publicʼs
lina, but a reasonable estimate is around                                                                 ing to raise taxes. But the reality is that
                                                     perception that the lottery is a windfall of
$366 million a year. This would account
                                                                                                          states with lotteries do not spend more
                                                     cash would erode public support for these
for somewhere around 2.4 percent of the                                                                   on education than states without them. In
                                                     bonds. One education official in Florida,
$14.8 billion state budget 15 and approxi-                                                                fact, research shows that lottery states are
                                                     where the lottery is suspected to have
mately 4.4 percent of the $8.3 billion that                                                               likely to decrease the rate of growth in
                                                     caused the defeat of school bonds, said:
North Carolina appropriated to education                                                                  education spending, compared to non-lot-
                                                     “Voters thought the order of magnitude
this year, far less than the public generally                                                             tery states.28 In other words, states that
                                                     of money would be tremendous. They
thinks. (See chart)
                                                                                                          do not have a lottery actually increase
                                                     thought they would never have to pass
    Lotteries are not an efficient way to                                                                 education spending at a higher rate than
                                                     a tax or a bond issue because with the
raise revenue. For each dollar spent on                                                                   lottery states. As one study put it: “Lottery
                                                     lottery youʼd hit the jackpot.”21 Former
a lottery ticket, the state would keep ap-                                                                revenue is unlikely to materially increase
                                                     Chairman of the North Carolina State
proximately 34 cents for education, while                                                                 funding for education…Citizens should
                                                     Board of Education Phil Kirk expressed
50 cents is returned in prizes and 16 cents                                                               recognize that the claims that lotteries will
                                                     his concerns this way: “I am strongly
goes toward administering the lottery.17 In                                                               improve education funding are likely to be
                                                     opposed to the lottery, not only for the
other words, the state would keep only a                                                                  as misleading as the odds of their win-
                                                     philosophical reasons. We would never
third of every dollar spent on the lottery                                                                ning those lotteries are meager.”29 Another
                                                     pass another local school bond and it
for education. This is hardly efficient                                                                   study that set out to demonstrate that
lotteries play a significant role in generat-     the lottery as a benefit for something like       risk” including low level of parental edu-
ing money for education concluded: “This          education makes it much easier to garner          cation and poverty. This ruling prompted
relationship has not been supported by            popular support for an activity that has          lottery supporters to push for a lottery to
analysis of the data.”30 This may come as         traditionally been considered unseemly.           finance the judgeʼs order.40 Ironically, the
a surprise considering the number of states       Citizens would be much less likely to             lottery would hurt the very people that
that earmark lottery money for education.         support a lottery to increase funding for         the Leandro ruling seeks to help. Studies
However, designating money for educa-             the Department of Revenue or to raise leg-        have shown that people with low levels
tional purposes does not insure increased         islatorʼs salaries. Pennsylvania earmarks         of education and limited income are more
funding, despite what the general public is       its lottery money exclusively for senior          likely to spend an inordinate amount of
told.                                             citizen programs, including a prescription        their incomes on the lottery.41 An analysis
    Even though funds are promised to             drug benefit.36 In the nature-loving state of     by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution found
education, there is no way to insure that         Colorado, lottery money funds parks and           that lottery players in poor Georgia com-
they will stay there. Lawmakers have              recreation, wildlife protection and open          munities were largely financing HOPE
regularly shifted monies away from                space initiatives.37 Even in North Carolina,      scholarships for students in middle and
education to fund other priorities. In his        the lottery has not always been proposed          upper class families (students who would
analysis of how the New York state lottery        to help education. A survey of previous           likely attend college without a HOPE
was redirecting lottery money elsewhere,          bills introduced over the years shows that        scholarship).42 A study by the Maryland
state comptroller H. Carl McCall pointed          the lottery has been linked to many differ-       Department of Planning found that the Zip
out: “The truth is that the Legislature and       ent programs including the General Fund,          codes with the highest lottery sales were
Governor decide how much state aid will           Local Infrastructure Fund, Clean Water            home to the largest minority population,
go to local schools and the amount from           Management Trust Fund, Natural Gas Ex-            highest poverty rate, lowest educational
the lottery is just a small part of that total.   pansion Fund and many others.38 Whatʼs            attainment and lowest median household
Lottery money has never supplemented              important is that the general public is led       income.43
state aid; it doesnʼt today and it likely         to believe that the lottery is providing for a         Georgiaʼs lottery funded scholar-
never will.”31 Georgiaʼs acclaimed lottery        needed benefit so that the gambling indus-        ships may best illustrate how a lottery can
was diverting money to pay for all sorts of       try can profit from gambling.                     negatively impact academics. Concerns
projects not related to education including                                                         have been growing about the possibility of
museums, security fences and the renova-                                                            grade inflation as teachers feel pressure to
                                                      The lottery is state-sponsored gam-
tion of historic buildings.32 Even Ohio,                                                            give higher grades to students so they will
                                                  bling. And because it is gambling, it pres-
which has a constitutional amendment re-                                                            be eligible for a lottery-funded college
                                                  ents a number of contradictions. Because
quiring lottery funds to go education, took                                                         scholarship.44 As a result, many students
                                                  the state profits from lottery sales, it places
funds away from education to help balance                                                           who graduate from high school with high
                                                  itself in the precarious position of having
the budget.33 Duke professors Charles                                                               grade point averages are ill equipped for
                                                  to entice its citizens to keep gambling in
Clotfelter and Philip Cook commented on                                                             the rigors of college. In fact, 40 percent of
                                                  order to maintain profits. This often takes
the problem in their report to the National                                                         HOPE scholars who entered college in the
                                                  the form of flashy advertising (not bound
Gambling Impact Study Commission say-                                                               fall of 2000 could not maintain the B aver-
                                                  by the Federal Trade Commissionsʼ truth-
ing: “When expenditures on the earmarked                                                            age necessary to keep their scholarship
                                                  in-advertising standards) that emphasizes
purpose far exceed the revenues available                                                           after just 30 credit hours (or the equivalent
                                                  luck and instant gratification over hard
from the lottery, as is the case with the                                                           of one year of college).45 Perhaps most
                                                  work and wise investing. New Yorkʼs
general education budget, there is no prac-                                                         shocking, though, is the fact that Georgia
                                                  “All you need is a dollar and a dream” ad
tical way of preventing a legislature from                                                          is ranked 50th in the state rankings on the
                                                  campaign is one example.39 These mes-
allocating general revenues away from                                                               SAT. 46
                                                  sages are in stark contrast to the messages
earmarked uses, thus blunting the purpose
                                                  of responsibility, good judgment and              Conclusion
of the earmarking.”34
                                                  self-discipline taught to students in public           The lottery has nothing to do with
     In addition to periodically dipping
                                                  schools through character education. Lot-         helping education. It has everything to do
into lottery money for other projects, there
                                                  tery advocates must reconcile their support       with providing more revenue for lawmak-
is also the possibility that the legisla-
                                                  for education while promoting a system            ers to spend. It is also a way for gambling
ture may someday decide to completely
                                                  that profits from sending a counterproduc-        companies to make millions of dollars,
redirect the money somewhere else. Just
                                                  tive message to students. All this is in          while reducing citizenʼs objections to
because lawmakers decide one year that
                                                  addition to the fact that all other gambling      future forms of gambling. Unfortunately,
education is the beneficiary, it does not
                                                  is still illegal.                                 the lottery is a false promise that does not
prevent future lawmakers from deciding
                                                      Another contradiction is that the lot-        deliver and is an unreliable way to raise
otherwise. This is exactly what happened
                                                  tery helps students. In a landmark series of      money that does not increase funding for
in Montana when, after nine years of ear-
                                                  court rulings in a case commonly referred         education. For these and other reasons,
marking lottery dollars to education, the
                                                  to as the “Leandro” case, Superior Court          many of North Carolinaʼs education lead-
legislature designated the money solely to
                                                  Judge Howard E. Manning Jr. determined            ers have spoken out against the lottery.47
the general fund.35
                                                  that North Carolinaʼs “at-risk” children          One of the most prominent, UNCʼs Presi-
Selling the Lottery                               were not being given an equal chance at           dent Emeritus Bill Friday, had this to say:
    The gambling industry has devised a           a sound, basic education and ordered the           “I do not want to see my state that has
clever strategy to lure states into sponsor-      state to find a way to address the problem.        done so much for so many—always
ing gambling by linking state profits to          The judge identified some of the causative         manifesting strong positive leader-
a worthy cause like education. Selling            factors that contribute to a child being “at-      ship—now to say to its young people:
     ʻYes, weʼre going to provide the best                      Study Commission. Duke University.                  States?” John C. Stennis Institute of
     educational opportunity possible, but                      April 23, 1999. Page 7.                             Government, Mississippi State University.
                                                          14.   “The Miseducation Lottery: Public Pre-              Page 21.
     we must resort to gambling to find the                     sented With Inflated Revenues, Benefits.”     31.   McCall, H. Carl. “The New York Lottery:
     dollars to do it.ʼ Throughout our long                     Spotlight. The John Locke Foundation.               Role in Financing Education.” Office of
     history, North Carolinians have always                     June 3, 2002.                                       the Comptroller, State of New York. April
     responded promptly to the established                15.   N.C. General Assembly. H397—2003                    1998.
                                                                Budget Act.                                   32.   Salzer, James. “Special projects shrink
     needs of their children...So this is why             16.   North Carolina General Fund Operating               lottery proceeds.” Atlanta Journal-Consti-
     I do not believe it to be sound public                     Appropriations. Provided by the Fiscal              tution. November 11, 2003.
     policy to risk the quality and indeed                      Research Division. North Carolina Gen-        33.   Craig, Jon. “New lottery profits wonʼt
                                                                eral Assembly.                                      go to schools.” The Columbus Dispatch.
     the future of our educational system on              17.   N.C. General Assembly. H1—Lottery for               December 6, 2001.
     an unstable gambling enterprise that                       Education/Infrastructure. 2001 Session.       34.   Ibid. #13. Page 6.
     uses our most vulnerable citizens as a               18.   Ibid. # 14.                                   35.   Evans, William N. and Ping Zhang. “The
     primary revenue source.”48                           19.   Figure of $250 million estimated from               Impact of Earmarking Lottery Revenue on
                                                                press reports and increased to account for          State Educational Expenditures.” Univer-
                                                                Tennesseeʼs new lottery. See: Kane, Dan.            sity of Maryland, Department of Econom-
                                                                “Lotteries to encircle state soon.” Raleigh         ics. November 2003. Page 28.
Stephen Daniels is the director of research for                 News and Observer. January 19, 2004.          36.   Pennsylvania Lottery: Where the
the North Carolina Family Policy Council.                 20.   Gerlach, Dan. “Analysis of Governorʼs               Money Goes. Available online
                                                                Lottery Fact Sheet.” North Carolina Bud-  
    Copyright  2004. North Carolina                            get and Tax Center. October 3, 2001.          37.   Colorado Lottery: Where the
                                                          21.   Perlman, Ellen. “Lottery Revenue:                   Money Goes. Available online at
Family Policy Council. All Rights Re-                           Mystery Bucks.” Governing Magazine.       
served.                                                         January 1998.                                 38.   See H178, 1993 Session; S867, 1997 Ses-
                                                          22.   Collins, Melissa. “Kirk says lottery would          sion; and H297, 1997 Session.
Endnotes                                                        hurt education budgets, projects.” The        39.   National Gambling Impact Study Com-
1.       “Lotteries in the United States.” National             Laurinburg Exchange. November 2, 2002.              mission. Final Report. June 1999. Page
         Conference of State Legislatures. Janu-          23.   Pulliam, Cheryl. “North Carolina Lottery            3-15 and 3-16.
         ary 13, 2004. Available online at http:                for Education: What Are the Odds Our          40.   Gardner, Amy and Todd Silberman. “Ea-
         //                Schools Would Win?” Charlotte Advo-                 sley demands quick action on the lottery,
2.       South Carolina Education Lottery website.              cates for Education. May 2003. Pages                Governor says revenue is needed im-                            13-14.                                              mediately to pay for education initiatives,
3.       Georgia Lottery Corporation Website. See         24.   Kearney, Melissa Schettini. “State Lotter-          but lawmakers are balking.” Raleigh News                ies and Consumer Behavior.” September               and Observer. July 23, 2002.
         hopeScholarship.jsp?focus=education.                   2003.                                         41.   Ibid. #13. Page 13.
4.       Jafari, Samira. “Ga. officials: HOPE funds       25.   Five percent estimate from: Schaf-            42.   Jones, Andrea and Matt Kempner. “Pock-
         could run out early as 2007.” Marietta                 fer, Howard J., Matthew Hall and Joni               ets of the poor finance college dreams.”
         Daily Journal. August 22, 2003.                        Vander Bilt. “Estimating the Prevalence             Atlanta Journal-Constitution. November
5.       Jacobson, Linda. “Georgia Eyes HOPE                    of Disordered Gambling Behavior in the              9, 2003.
         Scholarship Changes.” Education Week.                  United States and Canada: A Meta-analy-       43.   “Bitter Portrait: The Faces of Lottery
         October 15, 2003. See also: Salzer,                    sis.” Harvard Medical School, Division              Gamblers in Maryland.” A report by
         James. “HOPE book, fee payments likely                 on Addictions. December 15, 1997. Page              the Legislative Office of Delegate Luiz
         saved—for now.” Atlanta Journal-Consti-                51. Calculated by taking five percent of            R.S. Simmons (D) Montgomery County.
         tution. March 4, 2004.                                 the 8 million North Carolina citizens as            Analysis by the Maryland Department of
6.       Berner, Robert. “State Lotteries Are Com-              reported by the U.S. Census Bureau.                 Planning. October 2003.
         ing Up Snake Eyes: Revenues are down             26.   Calculated by multiplying the estimated       44.   Ghezzi, Patti. “Alleged grade inflation
         just when theyʼre most needed.” Business               number of problem and pathological                  worries teachers, Critics say parents, prin-
         Week. May 7, 2001.                                     gamblers in North Carolina by the lifetime          cipals apply pressure, cheapen learning.”
7.       Hoffman, Lisa. “Lotteries not living up                costs of problem and pathological gam-              Atlanta Journal-Constitution. November
         to promise.” Lawrence Journal-World.                   blers as estimated by the National Opinion          10, 2003.
         August 26, 2001.                                       Research Center. “Gambling Impact and         45.   Schouten, Fredreka. “Grade inflation takes
8.       Oplinger, Doug and Dennis J. Willard.                  Behavior Study, report to the National              toll on students.” USA Today. October 20,
         “Ohio Lottery headed for big loss.” Akron              Gambling Impact Study Commission.”                  2003.
         Beacon Journal. April 10, 2003.                        April 1, 1999. Pages 52-53.                   46.   Ibid. # 5. Education Week.
9.       “Texas lottery celebrates 10 years this          27.   Daniels, Stephen. “Gambling Addiction:        47.   “N.C. Education Leaders Speak Out
         week.” Amarillo Globe-News. May 27,                    High Stakes, High Costs and Real Vic-               Against a North Carolina ʻEducationʼ
         2002.                                                  tims.” Findings. North Carolina Family              Lottery.” Quotes compiled by Citizens
10.      Ibid. # 7.                                             Policy Council. January 2001.                       United Against a Lottery. See also: Col-
11.      Ibid. # 6.                                       28.   Miller, Donald E. and Patrick A. Pierce.            lins, Melissa. “Kirk says lottery would
12.      Gillman, Todd J. “Sate lottery concept                 “Lotteries for Education: Windfall or               hurt education budgets, projects.” The
         spinning its wheels: Casino competition,               Hoax? State and Local Government Re-                Laurinburg Exchange. November 2, 2002;
         boredom with prizes drive revenues down                view. Vol. 29. Pages 34-42.                         and Johnson, Mark. “State superintendent
         nationwide.” Dallas Morning News. June           29.   Ibid.                                               opposes lottery.” Charlotte Observer.
         26, 2001.                                        30.   French, P. Edward and Rodney E. Stanley.            November 1, 2001.
13.      Clotfelter, Charles T., Philip J. Cook, et al.         “Can Students Truly Benefit From State        48.   Alysse, ElHage. “Saying No to Gam-
         State Lotteries at the Turn of the Century.            Lotteries: A Look At Lottery Expendi-               bling.” Findings. North Carolina Family
         Report to the National Gambling Impact                 tures Toward Education In The American              Policy Council. October 2001.

 Organized in 1992, the North Carolina Family Policy Council is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, research and education organization. Our goal is to serve as a
 voice for families and traditional family values in the public policy arena. We are supported solely by private contributions which are tax deductible as
 provided by law. Our mailing address is P.O. Box 20607, Raleigh, NC 27619. Phone: (919) 807-0800. Fax: (919) 807-0900. Web:
 Findings is a publication of the North Carolina Family Policy Council which is intended to communicate research findings and perspectives on public
 policy issues that affect the family. Nothing written here should be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the North Carolina Family Policy
 Council or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress or the North Carolina General Assembly. Printed April 2004.


Shared By: