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

Summary

The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) has reversed a controversial tie-breaking approach for its new gambling harms prevention funding. OHID had indicated that past industry funding could count against charities applying under the new funding model, a move that sparked immediate backlash from major UK gambling charities days before the application deadline.

After strong pushback and pressure from sector stakeholders, OHID replaced the wording: identical-scored applications will now prioritise novel or first-of-their-kind proposals addressing unmet need, underserved groups or underrepresented areas, rather than penalising organisations for prior industry-funded activity. The episode also involved last-minute admin errors — notably a short-lived 2,000-word limit on summaries — which forced charities to redo applications under severe time pressure. There have been no reported deadline extensions or formal apologies.

Key Points

OHID initially suggested prior industry funding could be used as a tie-breaker between equal-scoring bids, prompting widespread concern among gambling charities.
Following industry and charity pushback, OHID changed the tie-break policy: preference will now go to innovative, first-of-their-kind proposals that address unmet needs or underserved groups.
Charities reported chaotic communications and last-minute changes, including an ‘admin error’ that briefly imposed a 2,000-word limit on application summaries.
The confusion forced many organisations to rewrite submissions multiple times shortly before the 6 February deadline, with no extension or formal concession from OHID.
Sources expressed concern about OHID ‘going rogue’ and potential tensions between public health influence and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) guidance; a DCMS roundtable with major charities is scheduled the following week.

Context and relevance

This decision sits at the intersection of public-health policy, regulatory oversight and charity funding stability. The new gambling harms funding system is crucial for organisations that deliver prevention and support services; any perception of bias against organisations previously funded under the old industry-backed model risked undermining trust and threatening the financial lifelines of specialist charities.

Transparency and predictability in awarding public funds are especially important in sectors where funding transitions are happening quickly. The U-turn highlights ongoing tensions about how to treat historical industry links, and signals that stakeholder pressure can still influence government guidance — but it also raises questions about governance and administrative competence in the rollout of the new funding regime.

Why should I read this?

If you work in gambling harms, charity management, public health or regulation — or you care about how government hands out prevention cash — this is one to skim. It’s a neat snapshot of a policy wobble that nearly penalised charities for past funding, the frantic scramble that followed, and the quick fix that (for now) avoids penalising organisations. Short version: chaos, pushback, U-turn. Good to know whether you’re applying for funds or just keeping tabs on sector fairness.