When D.C. lawmakers legalized sports betting in late 2018, they believed plenty of revenue for city coffers would follow. But some also worried that gambling problems wouldn’t be far behind. So a deal was struck: the first $200,000 of yearly revenue from sports betting would be set aside “to prevent, treat, and research gambling addiction.”

In the years since, $800,000 has been earmarked for that purpose — but none of it has been spent. And now Mayor Muriel Bowser is proposing doing away with the requirement that any of the revenue from sports betting be dedicated to addressing gambling addiction.

Her decision — which comes during National Problem Gambling Awareness Month — has shocked experts who say that it’s every government’s duty to address what could be an explosion of gambling-related problems from the rapid expansion of sports betting — much of which requires little more than a phone, an app, and a bank account.

“We believe any time government legalizes gambling they have an ethical and economic obligation to put some of their profits back into mitigating the harm that’s created by legalized gambling,” says Keith Whyte, the executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling. “It’s standard practice not just across the country but the world. Gambling  generates often windfall revenue for government, so it’s therefore just and appropriate that some of that money goes back into helping those who are hurt, and more importantly, preventing problems from starting in the first place.”

The $200,000 a year was earmarked for the D.C. Department of Behavioral Health, and represents a small portion of the agency’s $377 million budget and a tiny fraction of the city’s overall $10.6 billion local budget. But the city budget Bowser proposed for 2024 is leaner than almost any time in her two terms in office, and her administration wants to pull funds from every possible corner to close an expected $1.7 billion deficit that’s expected over the next four years.

Phyllis Jones, DBH’s chief of staff, tells DCist/WAMU that the agency is able to offer gambling addiction treatment through its existing programs and services, and thus the $200,000 a year in from sports betting revenue isn’t needed.

“DBH offers support for gambling disorders through our existing mental health services and resources. DBH has certified about 50 community-based providers located across D.C. to deliver mental health services. Several types of therapy used to treat gambling disorders, including cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), group therapy, and family therapy, are available through our provider network,” she writes in an email.

Still, at one point DBH did try to put the money it received to use.

Last summer, the agency posted a request for a contractor to “develop and implement a comprehensive prevention, treatment, and recovery program for problem gambling.” That request, which was posted publicly for two weeks and later closed out, explained the scope of the possible problem that legalized sports betting could bring.

“Problem gambling is an urge to gamble continuously despite adverse consequences or a desire to stop. Approximately 1% of the U.S. population experience problem gambling. In 2019, the U.S. Census Bureau reports 692,683 District residents. In alignment with the national data trends, we estimate that approximately 7,000 District residents may be experiencing problem gambling or sub-clinical concerns that would benefit from problem gambling treatment,” said the agency’s request.

DBH even conceded that “the District may be significantly underserving this population” as it is, a point the National Council on Problem Gambling generally agrees with. It estimates 15,000 people with a gambling addiction may live in D.C., and told the D.C. Council earlier this year that in 2022 it received 4,892 calls from D.C. residents to its helpline, a 35% increase over 2021 — which itself saw a 109% increase from the year before.

According to the Survey of Publicly Funded Problem Gambling Services, in 2021 D.C. ranked 21st in the country in terms of its proposed investment in services for gambling addiction at 30 cents per capita, below the national average of 40 cents. And not every state that has legalized sports betting specifically dedicates revenue to gambling treatments; nine don’t, Maryland included, though the state’s casinos do pay for the services. Virginia, on the other hand, sets aside 2.5% of annual sports betting revenue for gambling addiction.

Whyte believes not only should D.C. maintain the dedicated $200,000 for treatment and prevention, but should actually increase it to $1 million a year. But now his organization is pushing merely to keep the $200,000 Bowser wants to scrap. A representative told the council on Thursday the programs could “serve as lifelines for individuals with gambling addiction.” Whyte also says that he doesn’t believe that DBH can handle problem gambling treatment and services in-house, especially when the agency hasn’t spent the money it had already received.

“We strongly believe treatment for gambling addiction requires specific training and certification. We are not aware of any personnel within DBH or their vendors who have any such training or certification. The city therefore cannot be providing ethical or effective problem gambling treatment,” he says. “By failing to spend the money that was set aside since the beginning of sports betting we’ve lost so much ground in preventing gambling problems among youth and some of the most vulnerable citizens of D.C.”

In a budget document submitted to the council earlier this year, though, DBH said it was working with outside groups to develop a treatment program and would hire a “Problem Gambling Specialist” to oversee it.

Dedicated funding for gambling treatment programs isn’t the only thing Bowser wants to axe, though.

She is also proposing doing away with the separate requirement that tax revenue from sports betting be split between early education programs and violence interruption efforts. And it’s not the first time, either — the requirement that revenue be dedicated to those causes, which secured the votes of a number of councilmembers when they legalized sports betting, has faced repeal before.

“I voted against sports betting for just this reason. Politicians are lured by being able to dedicate the revenue to specific projects. That doesn’t address the negative impact of legalized gambling. And now w/this proposal we also lose any benefits of the directed revenue,” tweeted Councilmember Brianne Nadeau (D-Ward 1) earlier this month.

Sports betting in D.C. — which is now available at stadiums and arenas in the city, at several retail locations, and through the city’s official betting app — has suffered a rocky rollout since it was legalized, largely because of the problematic performance of GambetDC, the D.C. Lottery app. Lottery officials told the council last year that they were significantly scaling back the expected revenue that the city would be seeing from sports betting, but have more recently said they believe the city’s app will produce modest returns as it becomes more reliable and recognizable.

Still, other efforts to protect consumers from the downsides of legalized sports betting have struggled to get off the ground. When sports betting became available in D.C. in May 2020, the D.C. Lottery launched a self-exclusion list, which allows people with gambling problems to put their names on a list that makes it impossible for them to cast any bets. But for the list’s first two years, a person had to go to the D.C. Lottery’s office to put their name on it. Only two people ever did. It was only in Jan. 2022 that an online registration option was added; as of earlier this year the list had 14 names on it.