I agree OP this is not OK.
And I don't understand why people who are pointing to the funding - accurately I am sure - seem to think that makes it ok.
Yes, a charitable donor can give money for what they like. That does not mean it is necessarily ok for a service provider to accept the money on those terms. I work for an organisation that applies for grants all the time - some aren't ok because they don't align with the principles our service provision are based on.
I think what has happened is that because of the way grants applications have become so fundamental, people who are in the business of trying to wrack their brains to figure out how to take advantage of available money lose sight of the fact that they are being asked to do something that is in many cases really problematic.
It's also a problem where people have learned, largely from American imported lobbing and theoretical bs, to think in a way that is riddled with errors around the interpretation of statistics and is directly opposed to equalities legislation.
Because here is the thing - you can find that a particular group, lets say people of Caribbean origin, are statistically, as a group, more likely to suffer from trauma or MH issues, or more likely for some reason to have a problem accessing services, than another group, lets say Asians, or white people, as a group.
And that can be useful if it helps you to find out why there is a gap. Maybe you try correlating for poverty and you find it's because they are more likely, as a group, to be poor. Maybe it is because they are less likely to have good transport. iOr dozens of other reasons, some might . And if some reasons are specific to that group - maybe there are cultural barriers around fear of doctors for women, say - you might want to address that issue which is very specific to that community in a direct way.
But here is the thing, if you have an well educated and very well off Caribbean woman (my SIL for example) she is not having a problem accessing services because she is "diverse", on the contrary, she is better off than many other people in the country. And a poor, white woman with no education, who can't drive, is far more likely to struggle to access services, and more likely to have MH issues too.
So are people seriously comfortable with offering her services rather than the other woman, because some abstract group called "diverse people" are more likely to be marginalised? Rights, including the right not to be discriminated against, adhere in individuals. Not in groups. And individuals are protected not only if they are in a minority or a marginalised group, all individuals are protected against access to public services on the basis of race. It is meant to be on the basis of need.
And here is the really brilliant thing. If services are offered on the basis of need, and we really try to make that happen, it means the people who may be most likely to have health issues, who are often poor or marginalised, but not always, will be the ones who are most often accessing those services.
Offering a rich Asian kid counselling services over a poor white kid is racism and it's fucking awful. You can't justify it on the basis of statistics about abstract entities. It's gross and it's infected the political left and made them, in many cases, as bad as any of the scientific racists of the late 19th century. And it's destroyed political life in the US and on the way to doing the same in other places.
The only way to stop it, imo, is to make sure organisations aren't allowed to discriminate by accessing funds in this way. It might suck short term but it would ultimately force a new approach.