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.

When the NHS is disbanded this thread will be irrelevant.

It will be replaced by an argument over health insurance costs as those predisposed to illness will have to pay higher premiums.

I find it equally unfathomable that you claim to be a trustee and yet have so little understanding of how a charities finances work. Perhaps you've been on the board of small charities who's income is raised directly from donations or rely on one generic funding pot?
Other charities income can be made up of a variety of funding. Some (if they are very fortunate) may be unrestricted which means that provided they use it to further their charitable aim, they can help who they please.
Other funds will be restricted which means the funding body has specific requirements as to how and upon who their money is to be spent by the charity. If this is to deliver the service to people of a specific ethnicity, then the charity must use THAT POT of money on that group. It doesn't mean they use ALL their money on that group, including that donated by people who want them to help others on that group.
If a charity had reached the point of only working for one group it is because no one else is funding them for a generic service.
There is no difference under law between my charity excluding men and another charity targeting only Jewish people, for example. Provided we are able to demonstrate its necessary and proportionate to achieve the aim of the service its perfectly legal on both counts.
There is training available for trustees in funding, financial management and equalities law. I'd highly recommend it. Because a trustee ignorant of these things, however well meaning risks steering their charity on a wrong course. If you're unable to understand the difference between what you think should be so and what actually is, you're in danger of being more hindrance than help.

Youth in Mind isn’t tiny, it offers a huge amount of services, now shut to white children.

Did you read what I said?

“this is a tiny part of their service”

Interesting. Easy you say? How do you see me establishing standing, for a start?

I’m not even claiming that this service is unlawful. I’m mainly pointing out some very bad rationales offered here, mainly “funders told me to do it”.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from being on MN the past decade, it’s that service providers and funders don’t reliable follow EA 2010 and that getting redress can be grindingly difficult. And that charities are often the worst offenders, especially when they think they are serving a higher purpose than the law.

That website says "We support young people from culturally diverse communities" and "We support young women, girls and non-binary young people." It does NOT say for example "we DON'T support white British boys".
The form also says that due to demand they're not accepting referrals from anyone..

I can understand you getting yourself in a tizz when your dc needs support and it's not readily available (been there), but you're laying blame at the wrong door here @Mindcultural

No they’re not.

I have no idea what sealioning is it is a name that makes no logical sense at all

Surely the most equitable thing in the world is clinical need over anything?

I would agree. But where's the money going to come from?

That will be an interesting discussion.

So another charity can say "no blacks or Irish"?

The LGBT thing may be overhyped, but don't let the forced-teaming of the PP distract from the appalling state of mental health for neurodiverse people.

They are often excluded from mainstream services (told they need a specialist service, which doesn't exist). And have very high suicide rates. Actually it's middle aged autistic women with the highest rates, and you don't hear a peep about this.

Yup, and that will happen when Reform get in, and the scenario that OP has outlined is just the sort of example that drives people to vote for them.

People should be assessed for medical services as people, not by their ‘identity’.

MIND is not the appropriate route for a child with psychosis. A child who's mental health has deteriorated because of lack of services will end up trying to use MIND though because of waiting lists elsewhere.
These funding initiatives exist to ensure people who tend not to access basic level services can do so which means the system then doesn't get so clogged up When they inevitably have to access at a higher level.
There needs to also be more funding across the board, but while there isn't this is one method of trying to stop bottlenecks.

As long as they don't take any funding from the UK government and providing there's no objection to another charity saying "Whites Only"

They are indeed sizeable. The PP didnt say the charity was tiny, she said the service to people who are not white is a tiny part of their work. According to their annual report they reached 4.8m children and young people. Of these 480k were not white, so its 10% of their work.
Given people who are not white make up up to 30% of young people, then they are actually over delivering to white young people.

This has nothing to do with the NHS.

Doesn’t matter - whatever money there is gets distributed according to need.

I would have no issue if the funding were to research WHY people from these backgrounds are less likely to put an application in than the sharp elbowed middle classes, or even funding for people to go out there and advertise specifically to these people that such services exist, but once applications are in, services ought to be allocated according to clinical need.

Surely we can all agree on that?

That's not my concern at all. "Cutural diversity" sounds good but doesn't mean anything. As @Zennia pointed out upthread, there are all sorts of groups who could be considered "cultural minorities" by well-meaning charity administrators, some of which could actually funnel the money away from the most needy groups and towards the white middle class. So I hope you're right that they are targetting funds in the most useful way but flabby language doesn't help people understand where the money is really going. And it doesn't make anyone feel better about being refused, it's just vague and muddy so people who've been refused start making assumptions about the reasons.

All we know is that MIND don't think that the OP's DC meets their criteria for "cultural diversity". The first step would be to find out what criteria MIND are applying.

What criteria will these charities implement when they are inundated due to no NHS?

The equity relates to how they access it. Not everyone can access open services- they need other support to be able to do so.Just saying everyone can access MIND is not enough. This funding might be used for youth workers to build relationships and support particular young people to attend who would not do so otherwise, for example.

Charities are not allowed to distribute restricted funds in whatever way they choose though.

So it does matter where the money is going to come from if you actually care about having services to support people.

They are

Autistic individuals face a significantly higher risk of suicide, suicide attempts, and suicidal ideation compared to the general population
. Research indicates that suicide is a leading cause of premature death for autistic people, with studies suggesting that rates of suicidal ideation (thinking about suicide) and attempts are higher in this group, particularly among those without intellectual disabilities.
Autistica +2
Key Statistics on Suicide in Autism

• Suicide Mortality: Autistic adults are approximately three to nine times more likely to die by suicide than non-autistic people.
• Suicide Attempts: Roughly one in four to one in three autistic people have attempted suicide, compared to about one in 37 non-autistic people.
• Suicidal Ideation: Studies show that up to 66% of autistic adults have considered or planned suicide.
• Youth Risk: Autistic children are 28 times more likely to think about or attempt suicide than non-autistic children, with some studies showing as many as 14% of autistic children, even as young as eight, experiencing suicidal thoughts.
• Gender Differences: While men generally have higher suicide rates in the general population, studies suggest that autistic females have a higher risk of suicide attempts and death than non-autistic females, and some evidence suggests similar high risk levels across genders.
• BBC +8

Contributing Factors The high rate of suicide in the autistic community is driven by a combination of factors, often described as a "hidden crisis": www.rcpsych.ac.uk

• Mental Health Conditions: Nearly 80% of autistic adults have a mental health condition, such as anxiety or depression, which are major risk factors.
• Autistic Burnout: Extreme fatigue and loss of skills, often stemming from long-term burnout, can lead to crises, including suicidal thoughts.
• Masking/Camouflaging: The intense effort of hiding autistic traits to fit into social situations can increase suicide risk.
• Social Isolation and Loneliness: Many autistic individuals feel a lack of belonging.
• Systemic Failures: Inadequate, inconsistent support, or negative experiences with health and social care systems (including being disbelieved or misunderstood) can contribute to hopelessness.
• Bullying: A history of bullying, particularly during school, is a significant risk factor.
• UK Parliament +6

Most months there are stories like this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66731265

I'm more fascinated by the mental gymnastics than the actual story.

I expect pubs and hotels will be putting up signs listing all the people they DO let in.