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.

So the only white children accessing MIND were middle class- prejudice much?

The presentation that ill white children are allowed to be restricts more and more.

I’m really shocked by this. I donate monthly to Mind as a friend’s son took his own life. He was a white male teenager. I’m questioning my future donations. Mental health support should be prioritised by need, nothing else.

Did I say that? The poster feels like her child is persecuted in society for being white and middle class. If that’s what she believes she’s free to start a charity if she thinks there such a great need.

Yes but in this specific context, people have to go through their GP to get referrals usually so there’s no barrier to that. People go to the GP, if the GP thinks there is a clinical need they will do the referral. That is different to cultural barriers to education for instance. This is a pure clinical need and I would expect everyone to be treated equally

now if there are cultural barriers to attending the doctor then that’s different and needs addressing but separate to this issue

Hopefully this will be publicised and charity givers will be doing so from a more informed place in the future. And hopefully MIND can make time to reflect on their actions.

Yes, that would indeed tackle this specific issue. But it wouldn't actually do anything to tackle the wider issue of white children being unable to access the support that they need.

Because turning down one funding stream doesn't magically produce a another better funding stream instead.

But I get it. You would rather that nobody had services and that the charity potentially close down, rather than having services that are targeted at a particular disadvantaged group because that's all they can get funding for, while perhaps continuing to fundraise to be able to open up services to a wider audience.

I don't really understand this position personally, because I don't see how denying BAME children support is actually going to help white children in any way. But I understand that the perception of unfairness for you is obviously more important than any of the children actually getting help.

This bears no relation to the language a charity might use in their governing documents, so I think you’re either getting confused or maybe not clear what governing document are

Your post contradicts itself. If this charity closes then you say the funds will probably reach the same target group via a different route. That’s not “no child being helped”.

But even if that weren’t the case you seem to see the “would you prefer the charity shuts” as a slam-dunk argument.

Unless you’d defend Tommy’s Help for Aryan Kiddies on the same grounds then the argument is weak.

What kind of discrimination we allow is settled in our legal framework. Once we accept that then we shouldn’t be selective about what types of unlawfulness we permit for the greater good.

I know, it’s shocking particularly so when you consider how close they work with the NHS and are funded to fill gaps in the NHS.

It’s hugely worrying.

"young people from culturally diverse communities".
This surely means anyone can apply? Diverse means different.
So should not exclude anyone.

I think there are lines to be read between.

“Again” this is my first comment. I’m not prioritising anything I’m telling you what the evidence- the extensive research shows. I’m sure your friend as a black women would be glad that systematic racism is being addressed. She may be able to advocate for herself, that does not mean everyone can. We need equality in care so everyone can be treated as individuals. How narrow minded of you.

This may well be entirely lawful, yes.

But “no evidence” depends what you mean by evidence.

The charity is discriminating on grounds of one or more protected characteristics. It doesn’t have targeted objects.

There is therefore a fairly high bar to meet to do that.

It’s a bar that can be met, certainly. This may well be lawful.

But the explanation the charity itself gave is that it doesn’t have money to fund other services. That’s not, legally, a good one.

But how do they know every white woman can advocate for themselves?

How about you listen to what each person is saying, rather than working of racial stereotypes instead? Would that not make more sense?

That's very badly worded. It reminds me of Scotland where the National Curriculum is supposed to produce "confident learners" so they expected the children to be able to say "I am a confident learner" and that was good enough.

Possibly discriminatory since "culturally diverse" is meaningless but it could be a proxy for race or religion which is not normally allowed under the Equality Act. Because yes, a service provider can discriminate for race or religion/belief but then they have to be clear that it's a "proportionate means to legitimate end", and "culturally diverse" is so vague that it would be hard to prove it meets that standard. MIND would have to explain what they meant by "culturally diverse" and either show that this does not relate to race or religion/belief at all, or else show that the specific races and religions/beliefs that they are targeting had greater need than others. Which they might, if those groups are under-served or don't take up mental health services.

A funder might give money to a charity to make it "cuturally diverse". It would still be on the charity to (a) explain to the funder how it was using the money to make itself more culturally diverse, for example by starting a project specifically to support members of some under-served local cultural community and (b) make sure it wasn't spending the money in a way that breaks the Equality Act.

I am not a lawyer but I suspect that just telling potential clients to identify themselves as "culturally diverse" (or not) doesn't work. Whether it would be worth taking them to court is a whole other question.

If the funding went elsewhere, it might go towards a different project supporting BAME communities. Not necessarily mental health support for children. So no, it isn't contradictory.

The EA allows for targeted support towards disadvantaged groups to help level the playing field. If Tommy could make a case that Aryan kiddies were being systematically disadvantaged, then there would be nothing to stop a charity from targeting support specifically at that group. Like any charity, of course, their decision-making would be open to scrutiny and legal challenge, and if a court deemed that Tommy's arguments didn't stack up, they would need change their approach.

If others want to take MIND to court over this, then they are free to do so. I wouldn't personally bet on their chances of success though.

That's really interesting and if that is the case then they should explain that clearly. What apalling communication skills!

Surely they can see that by leaving out that vital piece of information they are going to add fuel to a race war?

Sure, they would need to be able to justify it if the case was tested in court.

"Culturally diverse" is a vague term that lacks a legal definition. Does the charity ever spell out explicitly which groups are being targeted? Some people would argue that gay people are a cultural minority as gay people have their own customs, history, slang/language, bars/venues, music, festivals etc. Same with people who identify as Deaf (with a capital D) for example. Also, how do they assess somebody's culture or ethnicity? You can't necessarily tell that someone belongs to an ethnic minority or not from their appearance or name.

The saddest thing about this is I don’t think the conversation would’ve happened 7,8 years ago.
Back in those days people appeared more generous and caring, and it was that care and generosity that funded initiatives to lift black British boys from the bottom of all educational performance tables (and -as someone has to be bottom- the bottom became the next lowest performing group, white working class boys, who currently receive the same generosity and funding to achieve the same outcome.
Of course, in time they will be replaced by the “third” lowest performing and the cycle goes on, with the benefit to society overall)

Now nobody cares. The argument is worth more than society, and self protection is the go to response. I hate living in this world.

It is exactly the same. It is called equity. Most people on this thread are confused by their obsession with white people missing out. This kind of funding is used to give additional support to people who do not typically access services to stop their needs escalating and overwhelming services and people here want it banned without understanding what else they will be stopping it you follow their argument through.

It’s not even that difficult to bring a case if Peter is that interested.

No,people want care to be based on need not skin colour particularly when desperate parents are funnelled to this charity by the NHS!!

You realise this is a tiny part of their service, don’t you?

Im afraid the only distasteful thing here is the righteous enthusiasm of PPs like yourself to support refusing service to people on their skin colour as long as they are white.

No grant awarding body would approach a charity and offer them money but place ck diction that means they will breach their state charitable objects. It means they could lose their charitable status as the CC takes this quite seriously.

Thr charitable objects of this charity state that they will support ALL. That’s the basis on which legacies and fundraising is gained. If this ‘grant award’ specifically wanted only people with the right skin colour supported they would find or found a dedicated charity.

Imagine if it was your kid refused essential support in the colour of her skin?