The introduction of the UK’s levy to fund gambling harm services is already raising concerns across the sector, despite GambleAware not even shutting its doors yet.

The Gambling Lived Experience Network (GLEN) has highlighted growing uncertainty among voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) organisations following the first round of funding outcomes for prevention services in England.

Funding decisions, administered by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID), were communicated to applicants just 13 days before the new funding period is due to begin.

For many organisations, the announcement brings clarity, but for others, it marks the start of difficult decisions about whether they can continue operating or must wind down services.

The concerns are not only about which organisations were successful, but the timing and structure of the process. Limited notice leaves little room for transition planning, particularly for services supporting vulnerable individuals.

Transition or disruption?

A central question raised by stakeholders is whether the new levy system is delivering a genuine transition or creating disruption.

It aims to raise £90m-£100m in funding per year, which will be collected and distributed by the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) under the strategic direction of the UK government. 

The levy has been designed with the aim of providing stable, long-term funding for gambling harm prevention, treatment and research across the UK. Despite this, GLEN argues that without maintaining existing service capacity, there is a risk of gaps emerging in support provision.

In particular, there are concerns that funding decisions may not fully reflect current demand or the specific needs that existing organisations address.

GLEN also pointed to structural challenges within government bodies tasked with delivering the new system.

The OHID, part of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), has taken on responsibility for prevention funding despite limited prior involvement in gambling harms. At the same time, wider public sector restructuring has placed additional pressure on resources and expertise.

Meanwhile, responsibility for treatment services sits with NHS England, which is going through significant organisational change. Stakeholders have noted a lack of communication around how treatment funding decisions are being made.

In its final Legacy Report last month, GambleAware, which will be handing over responsibility to these government-backed organisations, stressed the importance of communication, coordination and stability in the transition period. It added that it was working with stakeholders in an attempt to smooth out the process, but there are clearly still wider concerns.

Writing on LinkedIn, Mark Conway, a GLEN Network Developer and advocate for lived experience-based treatment, said: “Calculators will have been working overtime, and possibly bouncing off walls a few times.

“Those letters already written and addressed to staff who are now unaffordable will very reluctantly be getting made ready to send out.

“A levy which was supposed to double or triple funding available to prevention and treatment will now be questioned as to why, if that were to be the case, the existing funding agreements in the system couldn’t simply have been guaranteed and honoured over a period of two-three years while a full needs and impact assessment was conducted.”

GLEN response highlights concerns

In a further update on LinkedIn over the weekend, GLEN acknowledged improved communication from the OHID, pointing out that outreach has not gone unnoticed and has helped address one of the sector’s key concerns around lack of engagement.

It also praised the OHID’s initiative, saying that “OHID, while not perfect, have been miles above NHS England and DHSC”. 

The update, issued a day after prevention funding outcomes were announced, reportedly confirmed that £25m had been allocated, while recognising that some organisations would be disappointed with the results. 

The OHID is also said to have outlined plans to adopt a “test and learn” approach, aimed at building evidence, embedding lived experience and strengthening evaluation over time.

While welcoming this approach, GLEN questioned why existing organisations had to compete for funding, calling it “needlessly reckless”. The charity argued it could have been more beneficial to maintain current funding levels to protect established services during the transition.

The organisation warned that commissioning decisions made without a clear understanding of current needs and provision risk removing services that could later be deemed essential. This concern is particularly acute in the gambling harms sector, where many VCSE organisations are small, specialist charities led by individuals with direct lived experience.

According to GLEN, these organisations often rely entirely on gambling harm-related funding, meaning any reduction poses an existential risk. Once lost, such services may not be easily replaced.

The group also raised concerns about funding structures that prioritise single providers at a regional level, potentially disadvantageising smaller, specialist organisations.

“Any drop in funding for gambling harm prevention work will likely pose an existential threat to their continued existence,” the response continued.

“Once lost to the system they will likely stay lost.

“Most also suffer unfairly when asked to compete under the Government portal where scoring prioritises awarding single “winners” at discrete regional level.

“And these are the very people and organisations who the system cannot afford to lose.”

Despite commitments to embed lived experience within the new system, GLEN has called for greater clarity on how this was reflected in the latest funding decisions. 

It again questioned what role lived experience played in the bid assessment process, with the statement concluding: “Please do not simply say #LivedExperienceMatters… PROVE IT!”

All hope is not lost

Away from England, but in other areas of the UK, approaches to gambling harm prevention funding differ, with Scotland and Wales moving funding and consultation processes forward. 

While not without challenges, these systems have provided more visibility on decision-making timelines, according to sector feedback.

The rollout has prompted several broader questions for the government, including whether the new system represents a clear improvement on previous funding models; how unmet need is being assessed if existing services are reduced or removed; and the extent to which lived experience organisations are being meaningfully included in decision-making.

A key theme emerging from the sector is the abovementioned perceived lack of integration of lived experience in the new framework.

Organisations representing individuals directly affected by gambling harms argue they are being underutilised, despite being positioned as central to the future system.

With further funding decisions still to come, GLEN has made it clear that there is still time to refine the approach.

It could be argued that gambling awareness charities are not being left behind, however. The organisations may instead simply be pushed to find alternative sources of funds, like local governments – many of which are keen to address gambling harm in their communities.

One example of this is the £250,000 funding injection secured by the London Borough of Islington just last week to support a two-year programme aimed at reducing gambling-related harms across North Central London. 

This investment was awarded by Greo Evidence Insights via the Network to Reduce Gambling Harms Community Investment Programme.

As GambleAware stated, ensuring continuity of services, improving transparency and strengthening engagement with sector experts will be critical to building a system that meets its intended goals in such a time of change. 

The switch comes at a time when, according to GamCare, more people than ever are suffering financially with gambling addictions, amping up the pressure on these government-backed bodies to make the change effective.