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 Control
OHID, 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.
Instead, the UK government appointed three new national commissioners when it announced the statutory levy in November 2024: NHS England for treatment, UK Research and Innovation for research, and OHID for prevention, with equivalent bodies in Scotland and Wales. Andy Boucher, the charity’s chair of trustees, said Gambleaware was proud of its contribution to the system it helped bring about, but acknowledged the organization’s time had passed, having been left without a role.
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.
Gamban, the UK’s leading gambling blocking software provider, was excluded entirely due to its business structure – a limited company rather than a VCSE (voluntary, community, or social enterprise) organization. It has since moved to a paid subscription model at £4.99 per month in England and Scotland, though it remains free in Wales.
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.
A last-minute Gambling Levy Transition Fund was announced on March 26 to provide three months of emergency funding for organizations left without support. Applications to the transition fund remain open until April 30, with no recipients announced at the time of writing.
Betblocker’s confirmation as a funded organization was welcomed by its founder, Duncan Garvie, who described the grant as both a significant accolade and a substantial bar against which the organization would be measured. However, Garvie noted that the process had been bittersweet, warning that many important organizations delivering high-quality services were unsuccessful in securing funding.
OHID has also faced questions about how it scored applications through the Government Grants Management System. A Labourlist analysis published this week alleged that some newer, independent, public health-focused charities were struck from the process on unspecified due diligence grounds, while established organizations with healthy reserves were approved.
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.
