Exclusive: UK government U-turns on harms charities legacy funding policy

Summary

The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) has reversed a contentious tie-break scoring policy that risked penalising charities for having previously accepted industry funding when competing for new gambling-harms grants. The original guidance — revealed in a scoring document circulated to stakeholders on 30 January — prompted urgent lobbying from major gambling charities and widespread concern ahead of the 6 February application deadline.

OHID has since replaced references to prior industry funding in tie-break guidance with a new criterion prioritising “novel, innovative, or first-of-their-kind approaches”, especially those targeting unmet needs, underserved groups or underrepresented areas. The department also backtracked on a last-minute 2,000-word summary limit, attributing that instruction to an “admin error”; charities say the application process was chaotic and disruptive, with some having to rewrite bids multiple times and no deadline extension granted.

Key Points

OHID rescinded a policy that could have used past industry funding as a tie-breaker when awarding gambling-harms grants.
New tie-break guidance prioritises novel, innovative proposals addressing unmet needs, underserved populations or underrepresented regions.
Last-minute instructions imposing a 2,000-word limit on summaries were labelled an “admin error” and withdrawn, but caused significant extra work for applicants.
Charities describe the application round as chaotic and say the sudden changes forced many to edit or rewrite lengthy submissions at short notice.
No deadline extension or formal concessions were reported; a DCMS-led roundtable with charities (hosted by Lisa Nandy) is expected to provide a forum for feedback.

Context and relevance

This matters because it affects which organisations get funding to prevent gambling harms and speaks to how government departments balance public health aims against past industry relationships. The episode highlights tensions between OHID and DCMS, thin communication around a high-stakes funding round, and the fragility of charities that depend on multi-year grants. It also feeds into wider debates about governance of the harms levy and transparency in funding allocation.

Why should I read this

Short version: if you run or fund a gambling-harms charity, work in public health, or keep an eye on regulation, this U-turn could decide who gets money and who doesn’t. It was messy, last-minute and could have knocked some organisations out of the running — worth five minutes of your time to know whether you need to act or complain.

Author’s take

Punchy and plain: this was a near-miss for fairness in grant awarding — the reversal is a win for charities, but the process leaves serious questions about OHID’s handling and sector communication.