We Care Community Trust are relatively new in the pokie game. They gave their very first grant in 2021 and last year gave away over $5m. They have a financial year end that corresponds with the calendar year end (31 Dec).
This growth has come from site acquisition. At the end of every year I download data ex DIA which shows which pokie has which venue. I then track the changes - including ownership of the specific venues. When writing this I also looked at We Care's website and see there are 15 venues! So that’s big growth in 2026: I’d expect to see over $7m granted in 2026. Also remember that site acquisition happens over the year. Note also that this growth comes at the expense of other pokies (Grassroots and Lion in particular): most councils have a sinking lid on pokies, which means there is very little opportunity for new venues in the system. Shout out if you want some guidance on this.
Year |
Number of Venues |
Location of Venues |
2021 |
1 venue |
Bay of Plenty (1) |
2022 |
5 venues |
Auckland (1), Taranaki (1), Waikato (incl Thames) (1), Bay of Plenty (2) |
2023 |
7 venues |
Auckland (1), Taranaki (1), Waikato (incl Thames) (2), Bay of Plenty (3) |
2024 |
9 venues |
Auckland (2), Taranaki (1), Waikato (incl Thames) (2), Bay of Plenty (4) |
2025 |
10 venues |
Auckland (2) Hawkes’ Bay (1), Taranaki (1), Waikato (incl Thames) (2), Bay of Plenty (4) |
2026 |
15 venues (source: current website) |
Auckland (4) Hawkes’ Bay (1), Taranaki (1), Waikato (incl Thames) (3), Bay of Plenty (5), Manawatu (1) |
Its interesting to compare where the money comes from and where it ends up. Of course not all venues are the same: some produce large amounts of potential grants while others are less utilised. If I look back to the 2025 system review I can see that We Care has a $32.8k productivity, which means that every machine in their network produces $32.8k of grants. This compares well to the average of $29.3k – although somewhat shy of the most productive grant generator, Trillian at $43.2k per machine.
They do state on their website that they want the grants to go back into the regions that generated them. Some councils, particularly the smaller ones, have identified that grant money can flow out of their region. Indeed I have written on this before.
The chart below compares the actual grants given to specific regions the grant seeking entities are located to the amount that theoretically generated by those machines in the region, scaled back for the grants made to National bodies. I have used the average We Care productivity to drive the theoretical number. The actual grants per venue are not published: that would be commercially sensitive information. What the chart shows is that Auckland does pretty well. BoP looks ok, but Taranaki and Waikato could do better. My hot take for grant seekers in Taranaki and Waikato is to apply for grants from this outfit. You need to be sure to get your fair share.
They do state on their website that they want the grants to go back into the regions that generated them. Some councils, particularly the smaller ones, have identified that grant money can flow out of their region. Indeed I have written on this before.
The chart below compares the actual grants given to specific regions the grant seeking entities are located to the amount that theoretically generated by those machines in the region, scaled back for the grants made to National bodies. I have used the average We Care productivity to drive the theoretical number. The actual grants per venue are not published: that would be commercially sensitive information. What the chart shows is that Auckland does pretty well. BoP looks ok, but Taranaki and Waikato could do better. My hot take for grant seekers in Taranaki and Waikato is to apply for grants from this outfit. You need to be sure to get your fair share.
On paper they have a fairly wide remit. From their website: We Care may make grants for:
- Amateur sport
- Youth development
- Health and Welfare
- Arts and Culture
- Community Support
- New Immigrants
If we really get into the weeds we can see some big licks of cash driving the above charts. Below is a table showing the top fifteen recipients over all years and the number of grants received.
Ambulance services are getting large amounts of grants from We Care getting 16% of total grants given since We Care started making grants. Unfortunately they don’t disclose why various entities are getting grants: I would suspect its capital for ambulances. I also find it pretty sad that Waipuna Hospice is so high on the list: I suspect this reflects the (somewhat broken) model of health funding.
The New Zealand Sikh Community Tauranga Trust received $750k in 9 grants last year. Latest accounts for this entity are not yet published, but this amount is higher than their annual income since inception, so I assume its capex.
Those who follow me know that there are a few flags I have around grant making. This isn’t to say that the existence of any of these factors is a red flag (well, with the exception of point f) but with a combination of a couple then I’d suggest those with the power to investigate do their job.
Do Good Charitable trust, a Rotorua based entity established November 2023 with one trustee. Received $255,916 so far in 7 grants.
New Zealand Education & Creation Centre, an Auckland based entity established in June 2024 with two trustees: received $209,800 so far in 10 grants. Most of this money I guess went to their rent: $154k in the first published year.
I have then asked AI who the Trustees are and if they are related to each other. Based on that answer it’s a family business. A while ago I did pose this question to DIA who came back and said they have no concerns about this. So its cool by the regulator, but what do you think? How should we judge stewardship over grant funding by pokies? I guess family foundations are all about the nepotism, but is that appropriate for pokies?
I write about this stuff as believe that as need to understand where funding comes from, where it goes, and how it gets there. These pokies have considerable stewardship over community funding. As a citizenry we allow both those supplying money and those asking for money to operate, and as a community we need to ensure we have oversight over the organisations they choose to fund: are they operating efficiently? Are they leveraging best practice? Love to talk with you if you think this is at all interesting, and if you want to dive into the data a bit more than happy to do so. Check out my website http://www.delfi.co.nz/
The New Zealand Sikh Community Tauranga Trust received $750k in 9 grants last year. Latest accounts for this entity are not yet published, but this amount is higher than their annual income since inception, so I assume its capex.
Those who follow me know that there are a few flags I have around grant making. This isn’t to say that the existence of any of these factors is a red flag (well, with the exception of point f) but with a combination of a couple then I’d suggest those with the power to investigate do their job.
- Charities with three or fewer trustees
- NGOs registered in the past 24 months
- NGOs with more than 2 grants from a single pokie in a year
- NGO with name changes
- NGO with registered address of private dwelling and rent as expense
- NGO with registered address of Class 4 venue and rent as expense
- NGO with principal associated with a venue or a pokie
- NGO has income from any one pokie at more than 50% of total income
Do Good Charitable trust, a Rotorua based entity established November 2023 with one trustee. Received $255,916 so far in 7 grants.
New Zealand Education & Creation Centre, an Auckland based entity established in June 2024 with two trustees: received $209,800 so far in 10 grants. Most of this money I guess went to their rent: $154k in the first published year.
I have then asked AI who the Trustees are and if they are related to each other. Based on that answer it’s a family business. A while ago I did pose this question to DIA who came back and said they have no concerns about this. So its cool by the regulator, but what do you think? How should we judge stewardship over grant funding by pokies? I guess family foundations are all about the nepotism, but is that appropriate for pokies?
I write about this stuff as believe that as need to understand where funding comes from, where it goes, and how it gets there. These pokies have considerable stewardship over community funding. As a citizenry we allow both those supplying money and those asking for money to operate, and as a community we need to ensure we have oversight over the organisations they choose to fund: are they operating efficiently? Are they leveraging best practice? Love to talk with you if you think this is at all interesting, and if you want to dive into the data a bit more than happy to do so. Check out my website http://www.delfi.co.nz/
RSS Feed