The United Kingdom’s new statutory gambling levy has begun distributing its first prevention grants through the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities. This follows one of the most contentious transitions in UK gambling policy with the end of the preceding charity-led model helmed by Gambleaware.
Key Takeaways:
UK statutory gambling levy raised £120 million in year one, replacing Gambleaware. Betblocker was confirmed among the first OHID prevention grant recipients on April 8. Gamban excluded from funding, moves to a £4.99 monthly paid model in England. GambleAware’s Two-Decade Run Ends as Government Takes Direct ControlOHID, the government body now responsible for commissioning harm prevention services, has published its initial list of approved organizations under the Gambling Harms Prevention VCSE Fund. Among the confirmed recipients is Betblocker, a free blocking software provider that had publicly warned of a funding cliff edge as recently as December.
The statutory levy replaces what was previously a voluntary system in which licensed gambling operators donated to Gambleaware, the charity that served as Britain’s commissioner of gambling harm services, operating since 2002 and serving as its chief commissioning body from 2018. Gambleaware formally ceased operations on March 31, ending a 20-year run during which it helped build the National Gambling Support Network, which supported more than 110,000 individuals.
Gambleaware itself had long advocated for a statutory funding model, arguing that voluntary contributions from the industry whose products caused the harm created an inherent conflict. The charity’s reliance on operator donations drew sustained criticism from public health campaigners who questioned its independence, even as Gambleaware positioned itself to serve as the central commissioner under any new system.
The levy, which was first invoiced on September 1 last year, raises approximately £120 million annually from licensed operators. Thirty percent of that flows to OHID and the devolved governments for prevention work. The remainder is split between treatment and research. The funding distribution system went live on April 1.
The transition has not been smooth. Funding decisions were communicated to applicant organizations with as little as 13 days’ notice before the new system went live. Multiple established charities, including some with years of track records under the old system, were denied funding.
The exclusions triggered a wave of criticism. Jordan Lea, founder of gambling harm organization Dealmeout, warned that the process risked losing sight of the people who need help. The Gambling Lived Experience Network described the rollout as a glaring example of what happens when existing sector experts are excluded from planning.
The dispute underlines a broader tension at the heart of the transition: whether a government-run system designed to be independent of industry influence can deliver the same breadth of services as the hybrid model it replaced, particularly during a period when gambling tax revenue, which ultimately funds the levy, is under pressure from the Remote Gaming Duty increase from 21 to 40 percent.
Neither OHID nor the Department of Health and Social Care has published a complete list of funded organizations or their grant amounts at the time of writing.
