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.

Re LGBT

LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly youth, face significantly higher rates of suicidal ideation and attempts compared to their heterosexual/cisgender peers, with data indicating they are over twice as likely to experience these issues
. Research shows roughly 40-50% of LGBTQ+ youth report seriously considering suicide.
Key statistics and factors include:

• High Risk Factors: In England and Wales (2021–2023), the risk of suicide was 2.2 times higher for LGBTQ+ individuals (LGB+) than heterosexuals
• .
• Youth Disparity: Nearly half (48%) of bisexual youth and 37% of gay/lesbian youth seriously considered suicide in 2019, according to The Trevor Project data.
• Transgender Focus: Transgender and nonbinary youth face even higher risks, with 46% reporting having seriously considered attempting suicide in 2024, notes The Trevor Project survey.
• Contributing Factors: Higher rates are largely driven by social factors like bullying, discrimination, family rejection, and lack of access to mental healthcare.

Plus no one (medically) needs to be sectioned. Sectioning is simply a way to force treatment on someone and detain them for their length of the treatment when they arent able to consent to it.
you wouldn’t section someone with psychosis who simply attends a&e to tell them they’re in psychosis. There would be no need.

Its discriminatory.

They should be if they are a danger to themselves and others.

You have a very narrow focus though, LGBTQ children are a very small percentage and shouldn’t be the only focus for mental health.
Your posts make it seem like it’s the only relevant issue for children.

Indeed, it’s just another identity. And your identity shouldn’t dictate whether you get funding, your clinical need should.

Not at all , I’ve consistently said provision should be based on need.

LGBT kids one of a few high need groups, ND being another. None should be excluded from provision because of skin colour.

Yes. That is the criteria of sectioning, obviously.

it does not fit all people with psychosis.

you said:

“Other posters have mentioned psychosis. Whoever is experiencing this needs to be sectioned. Pretty straightforward”

it’s not pretty straight forward- the majority of people experiencing psychosis do not require sectioning. So your assumption is incorrect.

I don’t think that’s what’s happening here. Firstly, the funders are not the NHS, and secondly the programme is aimed at a wide range of people but supports some within particular strands. I don’t think it’s any more problematic to offer strands based on sex (no-one has complained that there’s a girls group) than on race (a group for black children who have experienced domestic abuse in the home, for example). So long as there is sufficient provision for all, I think it can be important to offer specific too. Not everyone from a racial minority needs or wants that, but some do.

But it’s ok to offer services that exclude children on sexuality or sex or gender identity?

Such as ?

I agreed with your comment then saw some of your other posts on this thread - can you clarify if you mean my mental gymnastics or op's?

Making it easier for underrepresented groups to access support is never a bad thing surely?

We’re not ‘making it easier for them to access services’ we are prioritising them for clinical services over others in need, based purely on their background.

make it easier for them to access services by directing advertising of these services at them. Don’t prioritise the provision of services to them over others.

This charity is excluding white children from a range of provision that would suit their needs.Their whole status is MH for all not just the BAME community hence the NHS signposting all parents there.

A charity offering specific homophobic bullying support for gay bullied children isn’t excluding anyone. Straight children who have not experienced homophobic bullying wouldn’t gain anything from it or want their services.

32 pages in and people are still arguing about something that isn’t even real. This is madness.

If the OP’s child is a girl who has experienced trauma then she will be eligible for the girls stream, which is accepting referrals. It’s odd that no-one is upset by that ‘discrimination’.

I think you've missed the point:

we now only have funding to support young people from culturally diverse communities

This means the organisation will be tied into providing the services that they've received funding for. They won't be able to provide services they've not received funding for because this would breach the conditions of their funding.

The real question is why these services aren't being funded for all from the NHS budget and, as we all know, this has been the case for several years, so it's a problem created by successive governments.

equally upset by that discrimination. It only hasn’t been discussed as this wasn’t the grounds for discrimination raised by op

Did you read my previous post? No one can currently be added to the wait list as they are not accepting any referrals.

The gymnastics from you is unbelievable.

Targeted charity work for the LGBT community is fine, targeted charity work for children of culturally diverse backgrounds is not though.

White children won’t have experienced the racism a young Asian Muslim child will, so they don’t need the support by your own logic?

Why are you ignoring the posts about neurodiversity?

There is huge unmet need in this area. NHS services generally don't exist. Charities that offer actual help/counselling don't really exist either.

Edited to add - autistic people are far more likely to have mental health issues. Yet also much more likely to be unable to access services. It's a huge issue, not a fringe one.

Ah - you got that from the Trevor project. They are not a neutral organisation, they are a pressure group who like to "big up" the need for their services. And just so you know - their statistics about suicide are based on some very dodgy surveys (non-representative samples, no comparator groups etc) and not on properly conducted research. These very high percentages have been endlessly debunked.

I’m not, I’ve discussed neurodiversity at length if you read my posts.
There are already charities whose sole aim is to support adults or young people from various specific and non specific neurodiverse backgrounds.
If you think that is fine you really can’t argue with something targeting another marginalised group.

As has been pointed out to you, there are not charities offering actual practical help or counselling, mental health type stuff (like MIND do). Just "advice" provided online. There is huge unmet need for mental health services and treatments/therapies for this group.

So, those who feel strongly that charities should not have targeted services, particularly those of you who claim to be trustees, perhaps you could offer your opinion on this.
If I want to continue to provide my service to vulnerable women I need to source funding. I come across a funding pot. It's a grant making trust set up in memory of a Bangladeshi woman to support Bangladeshi women. If I apply to this trust I know that they will expect my charity to use their money to deliver its service to Bangladeshi women.
It will not expect me to use its money to deliver our services to white women.
The money would be very helpful. Because not only does it enable us to provide a service to vulnerable women, the grant makes a contribution through FCR to core costs, our building, security, IT provision etc, which are also used to provide the generic services to all women. Every funding stream a charity can access gives it a more robust and stronger foundation on which to grow. The more it grows the more women it can help.
Would the 'trustees' amongst you who feel services should not be targeted on the grounds of ethnicity instruct me not to apply for this money? Would you rather see my charity dwindle and potentially close to all women than than allow us to access a funding stream to deliver a service to women of a certain ethnicity?