Massachusetts Towns Use Casino Tax Revenue for Surveillance as Gambling Harm Funding Lags

BOSTON, Massachusetts – Nine Massachusetts communities used nearly $500,000 in casino-funded grants to purchase automated license plate readers over three fiscal years. The findings also revealed that only 5% of the $38.5 million distributed through the state’s casino mitigation program went toward gambling harm reduction.

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission administers the Community Mitigation Fund, which helps communities address the effects of nearby casinos. Although the program permits spending on public safety and traffic management, the surveillance purchases have raised concerns about privacy, public oversight and the allocation of gambling-related revenue.

Nine Massachusetts Communities Use Casino Grants for Surveillance

A WBUR investigation into casino mitigation grants found that nine municipalities purchased automated license plate readers, most manufactured by Flock Safety, using funding intended to address casino-related impacts.

The communities include Agawam, Chicopee, East Longmeadow, Ludlow and Wilbraham, near MGM Springfield. Plainville, North Attleborough and Wrentham received funding connected to Plainridge Park Casino, while Chelsea obtained cameras through grants associated with Encore Boston Harbor.

Police departments argued that the technology would help monitor traffic on routes serving casinos and support investigations into criminal activity.

However, automated license plate readers record vehicles passing their cameras regardless of whether drivers visit a casino. The information enters searchable databases that may be accessible to police departments in other communities and, depending on data-sharing arrangements, other states.

Privacy advocates argue that such systems can collect information about residents with no connection to gambling or criminal activity.

Gideon Epstein, policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, questioned whether communities had adequately considered public concerns before introducing surveillance equipment.

The investigation also highlighted differences in how municipalities approve the purchases. While some local governments require public authorization before police acquire surveillance technology, Massachusetts has no statewide requirement for a separate public vote on automated license plate readers.

Agawam’s $58,000 Camera Request Raises Questions

Agawam, which borders Springfield, provides one example of the controversy surrounding the grants.

The municipality initially applied for Community Mitigation Fund assistance in 2025 without including Flock cameras. Officials later submitted an amended application requesting $57,900 to lease six cameras over three years.

In its application, the police department cited increased casino-related traffic and claimed some parents dropped their children at Six Flags New England before visiting MGM Springfield.

However, when City Councilor Christine Rickmon questioned Police Chief Eric Gillis about the claim, he acknowledged that officers had not documented where those parents traveled after leaving the amusement park.

Rickmon also criticized the lack of public discussion surrounding the cameras. The City Council approved a broader $321,500 casino mitigation grant in September 2025, but the surveillance equipment was not specifically discussed during the recorded meeting.

A similar disagreement emerged in Ludlow, where the Gaming Commission voted 4-1 in June to allow the town to redirect $35,000 from a previous grant toward a Flock camera service contract. Commissioner Eileen O’Brien opposed the decision, citing concerns about the technology.

Ludlow Police Chief Michael Brennan defended the cameras as valuable investigative tools, while noting that their use had become a source of wider controversy.

Only 5% of Casino Grants Went to Gambling Harm Reduction

Beyond privacy concerns, the investigation examined how the Massachusetts Gaming Commission distributes funds intended to address the consequences of casino operations.

Of the $38.5 million awarded to communities over three years, approximately $1.9 million, or 5%, supported gambling harm prevention and treatment efforts.

The Commission introduced gambling harm reduction as a specific eligible grant category in 2023, allowing municipalities to seek funding for prevention programs and services for people experiencing gambling-related problems.

Among the nine communities that received funding for license plate readers, only Chelsea also requested money for gambling harm reduction during the period examined.

Most grants instead supported public safety, transportation and infrastructure projects. These activities are permitted under the Community Mitigation Fund guidelines, which cover costs related to casino construction and operations.

Timothy Fong, co-director of UCLA’s Gambling Studies Program, acknowledged that casino-related traffic and public safety concerns require attention but questioned whether surveillance investments offer the same long-term public health benefits as gambling treatment and prevention.

The investigation did not establish that the camera purchases violated grant rules. However, the findings have renewed questions about transparency, public participation and how communities prioritize the different impacts of casino gambling.

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission continues to distribute mitigation grants for eligible projects, leaving municipalities responsible for demonstrating how their funding requests relate to nearby gaming establishments.

RELATED TOPICS: Regulation