What is the face of the UK gambling charity sector post-GambleAware?

The announcement of the managed closure of GambleAware jarred a sector that seems to have expected the outcome but didn’t enjoy the sensation of its cold finality. In a statement on behalf of the organisation, Andy Boucher, Chair of Trustees, said: “We have advocated for the introduction of a statutory system for many years and are proud of our contribution to its implementation.”  

There is a wider sense, in the full GambleAware statement and across the sector, that despite many calling for change, this feels for the moment like a pyrrhic victory. 

Why is that? And is it that remarkable? When an organisation comes to the end of a lifecycle, there are bound to be tears, whether it’s accomplished what it set out to do or not. As Boucher says, this outcome was one of the key objectives of the entire organisation, so maybe this unease is only a temporary thing. 

Looking beyond the immediate stunning effect that significant change is bound to have on the sector’s many stakeholders, how can the new RET landscape be made to work for the better? Industry, charities and government all have worst-case scenarios in mind, and the interregnum between the old and new is bound to amplify those fears.  

But within those fears is the outline of how the new system could work for the better. 

What happened 

For years GambleAware has received voluntary industry donations from UK operators, with which it commissioned and funded many other third-party enterprises working to tackle gambling harms. New Government policy has introduced a statutory levy, which means that to maintain a UK gambling license, an operator must pay a certain percentage of earnings into a Government pot. That money will then be distributed by centralised commissioners to RET projects. The change means that responsibility for a lot of what GambleAware has done over the years has passed into Government hands, and as a result the organisation recently announced it would be moving towards a managed closure in March next year. 

Accountability 

The money raised by the new statutory RET levy is now going to be part of the public purse. This ought to mean increased accountability and interrogation of decisions. The funds have long been earmarked for certain jobs – 50% on treatment, 30% on prevention and 20% for research initiatives. 

But while the UK Government is stepping into the breach as commissioner, in charge of distributing contributions in GambleAware’s stead, that money cannot stay in public hands, so it will be going in many cases to select third parties who are deemed up to the task of using it well.  

Fingers have been pointed in the past at GambleAware. The Good Law project notably lodged a complaint with the Charity Commission and felt that the body was in some way compromised as a result of being too dependent on voluntary industry contributions. 

If the new system is going to be an improvement in that regard, it will partly come down to how well the Government is able to stay across what is happening within the third sector. Do they understand it enough to truly realise that transparency? And will they inspire trust?

We hope that Government ensures everyone is given a fair chance of being awarded funding – it cannot just go to a chosen few on ideological grounds – Flutter spokesperson

The answers to many of these questions do not yet exist, because the issues are in the offing – many of the decisions that will define the competency of this project are yet to be made.  

Speaking to Gambling Insider, Pedro Romero of BetBlocker identified the biggest risk in closing GambleAware as being the prospect of “losing the knowledge and experience built over many years.” He hopes “the staff at GambleAware are offered new roles within OHID or the NHS so they can continue their good work.”  

GambleAware was set up in 2002 – that’s a huge amount of experience and knowledge spanning the period including the transition into the world of online gambling. Jordan Lea of DealMeOut told Gambling Insider it was his hope that the new commissioners have worked and will continue to work with GambleAware, bringing that expertise with them into this new era. 

If this can be done – and surely it can be done – it would be far easier for the governmental departments monitoring the success of levy funds to understand whether it is in fact being put to worthwhile use. 

What should drive decision making on fund allocation? 

More big choices yet to be made, or at least shared with the class, include which existing charitable enterprises are going to receive money from the commissioners. The fear shared by industry and the wider third sector seems to be whether organisations seen as part of the old guard are going to be left in the cold. So, what can be parsed from these fears about how the decision-making process could be executed fairly and for the good of the cause, if not for the individual stakeholders? 

Well from industry side, the ‘cause’ is where clarity is being called for. A spokesperson from the Betting and Gaming Council said that despite themselves being campaigners for a mandatory levy, “This must not mean handing control to a narrow group of anti-gambling campaigners or creating a publicly funded cottage industry driven by ideology rather than evidence. What matters is that funding remains independent, ringfenced and focused on delivering real outcomes for those at risk of harm.” 

The status of GambleAware as the de facto UK Commissioner for RET raised concerns for some that the independence and objectivity was not absolute, as long as funding was reliant on voluntary contributions from industry operators. The gambling harms ‘scene’ is fairly well established, with many social enterprises operating with GambleAware funding for years. 

There may well be worthwhile churn here, with new motivation, new eyes and ears and new governance. But if current industry and charities feel that decisions are being driven by thinly veiled dogma, the opposition will be vocal. 

A spokesperson from Flutter told Gambling Insider they are: “Increasingly concerned about the lack of transparency around how money will be redistributed under the Statutory Levy and we hope that Government ensures everyone is given a fair chance of being awarded funding – it cannot just go to a chosen few on ideological grounds.” 

It is likely that if the funded organisations appear to be too anti-gambling as a whole, it will foster growing resentment across an industry that has in the past voluntarily funded the third sector with little complaint. 

A Novomatic spokesperson reaffirmed the company’s commitment to continue in this manner when speaking to Gambling Insider: “We will fulfil our obligations under the new levy system, as we have consistently met our voluntary contributions previously. It’s too early to assess whether the new arrangements will prove more effective than the existing framework, but we remain committed to working constructively with all stakeholders to minimise gambling harm.” 

It’s important that we remain calm and provide the incoming funding commissioners the time to find their footing and take steps to address the needs of the sector – Duncan Garvie, BetBlocker

Once more, we see a prevailing sentiment of restraint – tension too – but a willingness to hold fire and give the new landscape a chance. 

Remaining calm 

Duncan Garvie from BetBlocker also stressed the importance of withholding judgement during a sensitive time. He reflects the widely agreed opinion that GambleAware’s shoes are big ones to fill and that expedience will be a determining factor in how well the commissioners do from this point on. But he doesn’t feel it would be productive for the time being for stakeholders from every side to pile in with criticism. 

A regular Gambling Insider contributor, Garvie told us: “It’s important that we remain calm and provide the incoming funding commissioners the time to find their footing and take steps to address the needs of the sector. 

“It’s also important to keep in mind that no matter the approach that is taken to reducing gambling harm, this issue is far, far bigger than any individual stakeholder. If we hope to be successful, there is going to have to be goodwill and cooperation on the part of scores of organisations.” 

Garvie is clear what the big questions for the commissioners are: “What elements of the RET sector do they want to retain and build on? What needs that the RET sector addressed do they feel could be more effectively met in other ways. And what projects they do not feel were delivering value.” 

But in what direction those who dictate the allocation of funds – the NHS, OHID and the UK Research Institute – will go, we can only speculate. 

Certainly, there is a feeling based on preliminary work being done by those bodies that it might be to some extent out with the old, in with the new, though there should be more clarity when the DCMS itself makes a statement. In recent days, GamCare, DealMeOut and doubtless others have reached out to the Government department for answers, and some communication on that front is expected in the near future. 

The sector holds its breath.