Limiting MH support to certain cultural areas?

[Mindcultural]

I have today received this message below from a mental health support service for young people.

AIBU to think it’s completely wrong to offer support based on cultural diversity and would like to know how they decide who fits this criteria?

Hi,

I’m getting touch as you have recently made a referral to our Youth In Mind services on behalf of a child or young person.

Unfortunately, we are having to reduce the size of the team for funding reasons, so we now only have funding to support young people from culturally diverse communities, if this is relevant for the individual you referred to us, please can I ask that you complete this form forms.office.com and we will be back in touch accordingly.

If we are now no longer able to offer support to the individual you have made a referral for, please accept our apologies for this. Please feel free to keep an eye on our website for updated information regarding available services as we are always looking for new funding opportunities to allow us to reach more children and young people.

Sure, but US company language is - by definition - US language. And I’d hazard a guess that most people using the term are t doing so because they work in the UK aren’t doing so because they work for a US corporation.

They are targeting people who cannot access the service easily.

Not all elderly people have a smartphone but virtually everyone else does and can access services.

That is not how you get people who are not approaching services they need to access them.

This is what you see so many organisations do - they think there is a need, so they say, this service is for x people only.

They don't bother to find out what the specific barrier even is. Or often, even do the statistical analysis to see if it is actually race (or whatever they are looking at), or if that is just a correlation. Because there are a ton of correlations that muddy the waters. And in health related subjects also biological factors at times.

If you have a group that, for example, distrusts health services and so does not get MH care, limiting the services by race does not change that. It might even up your statistical data, but only because it limits access to the comparator groups.

But it's an easy way for services to get some extra money, and then they hope they can can stream their other funds to compensate and offer the overall services equally. But it ends up creating all kinds of other basic problems.

I just clicked on "Talk" at the top of the page, and saw all the many and various section titles, and something occurred to me.

Why doesn't Mumsnet start a "Race-baiting" section? Then we could save ourselves the hassle of reading posts and indeed entire threads that turn out to be basically "OMG, if you read this headline and don't go into what's actually behind it, it looks like someone is trying to rEpLaCe WhItE pEoPlE !!!!!!!!1!".

If someone like that kicks off in another section, a quick report and MNHQ can swiftly file it in the appropriate place. No "censorship of my freedom of speech" needed, just quarantine. And even if it's trending, we'll be able to tell from the section name that it's just more whining from people who like to imagine that their lives are being made worse by the mere existence of others with a different skin colour.

Smartphone or not, you still have to know about a service and believe it is for people like you.

Technology is not the main barrier to access for most people.

Postcodes LS8-L11 (some of the most deprived) in Leeds are culturally diverse communities. The majority of which are white people. What makes you think these aren't the areas being prioritised for the service?

Do you think it’s ever likely that one charity could provide for the needs of the entire neighbourhood at the same time? I’m sure they’d love to, but it’s a big ask.

If you’re going to draw that conclusion you’d also have to believe that not enough girls need help as there’s space on that programme too.

No, I’d really like a world where statutory services could meet the needs of all children without having to be propped up by charities. I’d like if I’d fewer young people needed specialist help because of trauma or neurodiversity or lack of services to meet their basic needs. But this is the world we live in, where charities rely on philanthropic funding which is shaped by differing priorities and aims. Voting has nothing to do with this, because most of these services are not funded by government - that’s the whole issue.

For gods sake don’t start using facts and logic, it’ll confuse them completely.

If you have a group that, for example, distrusts health services and so does not get MH care, limiting the services by race does not change that. It might even up your statistical data, but only because it limits access to the comparator groups.

i think there’s some merit to this, although I think you’ve massively oversimplified what culturally specific services do.

How would you go about minimising inequalities in access and experience then?

Here is the thing - in some cases, there is a reason specific to the nature of the group that means their issue needs to be approached in a targeted way.

Women who have been abused require single sex provision. Children's services are separate for very good reasons including developmental differernces and safeguarding.

Often, you can target a group without that kind of limit. I run a program that was initiated after seeing that seniors had problems accessing technology. The program is open to anyone who is struggling, but about 80% are seniors. All the people who access it need the help, most who are not seniors are poor or have intellectual disabilities.

My DP has used a charity for people with sickle cell disease. The programs are not limited to black people, however, pretty much 100% of the people they serve are in fact black.

There needs to be a lot more thought and care around differentiated services like this. Something like therapy, or foot care services, is rarely going to need to be rationed or directed on the basis of something like race. And it creates all kinds of stupid shit, and as you say is more difficult to deliver. It's been normailised and it shouldn't be.

Nor should it be normalised to have groups dedicated to raising money for MH services, or foot care services, for white people. I am a little surprised you've suggested that.

I am suggesting that groups funded by the NHS to provide services like MH do so without discriminating based on things like race.

Why would you have several groups to provide services for different races? Or even funding streams?

All humans (including white) experiencing serious MH problems would find the process daunting and challenging. The problem facing the afflicted is their illness and whoever is most in need is who should be treated. This should be paramount in medical care.

Because the implication (and how most posters are responding) is that they don't mean geographically diverse, but rather ethnically diverse.

The webpage - posted upthread - makes it pretty clear they are talking about individuals, not post-codes. It's an improper and confusing, but very common, use of the term "diverse".

83% oh the uk population is white so their support is proportional

So why are you bringing smartphones into the discussion?

So no funding for hospital transport then, for example?
Some people with a need for a service equal to others will need extra support to access it. That is all it is.
You don't think deaf people should have hearing aids because white people also need to hear what people are saying? That is the argument you are making.

This thread has been very interesting. And very depressing.

A lot of posters are clearly ignorant of how charity funding works and of how the Equality Act does allow targeted initiatives to support disadvantaged groups where specific needs have been identified. Many people will also be oblivious to the fact that a number of the most significant grant-giving trusts in this country originally acquired a lot of their wealth off the back of the slave trade and/or colonialism, so some of them have sought to "right" these past wrongs by making specific funds available to support people from BAME communities. This is not taxpayer money.

Unfortunately, a lot of posters also seem unwilling or unable to engage with the explanations that other posters have offered with regard to what is very obviously a restricted funding stream with a specified purpose, and so they end up feeling outraged by the perception that the charity in question is unfairly discriminating against white children.

The charity can't provide services if the money isn't there to pay for those services. They could choose not to accept the restricted funding to support BAME children and just support no children instead. That would protect the charity from allegations of unfairness. But the BAME children would miss out on services, and the white children would be no better off. In other words, the alternative wouldn't be to provide services for everyone. It would be to provide services for no-one.

People are absolutely right to be outraged that their children cannot access the support that they need. Appropriate support should be available to all children, regardless of ethnicity. But they are directing their anger at the wrong people.

This is not the charity's fault. It will be doing whatever it possibly can to keep as many services running as it can, using whatever funding it is able to access. The climate for charities right now is incredibly difficult.

It isn't necessarily the funder's fault either. They will have their own reasons for the grantgiving policies that they have adopted.

The real issue is that charities have been forced into providing essential services that should actually be statutory, because the state support has all but evaporated over the last 10-15 years. It isn't grantgiving trusts with their own priorities and agendas who should be determining who is entitled to essential support because that support should be funded for all children by our taxes.

No, it ties in quite nicely. Zia Yusuf on Newsnight was talking about white working class boys being the group in society with the worst outcomes. That it's a disgrace that the equality act has nothing to say about this. Rees Mogg chipped in that it's unfair that government departments have loads of employment opportunities only open to (potentially wealthy) BAME candidates and his poor, white constituents are excluded. Shit poor ex mining areas.

Need (most likey related to class/wealth) not ethnicity. Pretty much the tone of this thread.

Erm nope they can't actually, charities and for profit businesses all need to abide by the same laws. How did you get to a position of thinking it's fair to discriminate against anh group.

Morally wrong and racist towards white British children, being prioritised due to race not need

Which is why there's a whole bunch of posts on MN saying 'But what about the white boys?'

It's just the latest slogan and marketing campaign to try and get white women to vote for them whilst being able to say 'Oh, I'm not being racist, but those poor, white boys/Nigel cares about my little Kian/Mason/Ronnie/Bartholomew'.

It's a weird phrasing. Doesn't everyone born in the UK come from a culturally diverse community?
Could you ask them to clarify what exactly they mean by diverse and what specific groups they are referring to? Your child may still be eligible if you have any ethnic or religious minority members within the family background. Ethnic minority in the context of England could include people of Irish background for example.

It's unlikely they "chose" to later limit their service like this later on - it will likely mean they've lost some large sources of funding, but not the one from the funders who specify the funds must be used on young people from a culturally diverse background.
They will have to report back to funders and can't use the money for something else.

This is different to originally setting up as a hamster charity. It sounds like they're just surviving.

It sucks, especially for you and your child OP, but I think the question to ask is why is noone funding them appropriately. And of course what are you going to do next.

Ethnic minority groups are at higher risk of poor health outcomes including poor mental health, are at higher risk of deprivation and poverty and historically have been neglected in healthcare settings. Institutionalised racism etc contributes to worse outcomes. For example black women are 5x more likely to die in childbirth. I would imagine that as charity they’ve made a funding bid that is based on extensive research to justify this. Frustrating for you I understand but let’s not dismiss the needs of others shall we?