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.

No a grant making trust doesn’t approach a charity and offer them money. Interested organisations make a competitive application demonstrating how they would deliver the project. You really can’t possibly be a trustee

Nothing in the charity’s wording is exclusionary nor does it mention skin colour, where are you getting this from?

I note that despite your attention to detail on the EA you haven’t acknowledged that you wrongly thought the charity was Mind. So I wonder how much attention you’re really paying.

It’s really alarming that you claim to be a trustee and haven’t the foggiest how funding works. I’ve been on boards with people like you, so I can well believe you are, but what a nightmare it can be when people who know very little are in love with their own ideas.

There are no mystery benefactors - the funders of this project are named, as is usual. The charity is not Mind, it’s Leeds Mind. And the project is not denying service to anyone, it has a range of services for different people and some are currently full.

Eh? The benefactors are not anonymous, they have been named by the charity.

A quick Google would tell you that at least one of the benefactors have rules that money must be spent on marginalised groups and those on the fringes of society.m I.e. minority ethnic groups.

But the post is fake. The OP literally posted a link that confirms that Leeds Mind aren’t taking referrals from anyone and support loads of different people. https://www.leedsmind.org.uk/services/young-people/

I don't think it is racist. Just like a women's only refuge isn't sexist. Limiting a service to a demographic that has a higher need for the service is not racist.

@Mindcultural has the option to go private.

It’s not fake and their message clearly states they are taking referrals (literally asks me to reapply) if my child would meet the culturally diverse criteria. Interestingly have ignored my reply to ask exactly what that criteria is.

Bloody hell give them a chance, you posted yesterday so you’ve given them what, 24 hours to reply??

I think the website might have changed since yesterday, something looks different than I remember so possibly they’ve got wind of the thread and are now considering how to reply. It wouldn’t be difficult to identify you from your post so if you genuinely want help for your child you might want to delete.

Are we not allowed to question their discrimination then, because if we do they’ll withhold services against us? Do you think that would be an ethical stance for a charity to take?

Their website says they’re not taking referrals.

If it’s 1:1 therapy there’s no reason to discriminate. If it’s group therapy then then that’s a reasonable exception. A women’s only refuge is women’s only because men carry out 97% of attacks on women. It’s for women’s safety.

They are hiding behind the waffle that is ‘cultural diversity’. This is really handy as they can make that mean what they want to when it suits them.

You really have no clue what support they provide. How patronising that you think you know better than them.

Or they know better than you how to direct their staff and training and time according to the guidelines set by the sponsor.

Yet their direct message and this referral form says they are, only if you meet the criteria.

So asking for opinions on whether what they are offering is legally and ethically rights, should lead to withdrawal of support for a suffering child? Regardless, I assume they sent 100s of those messages yesterday not just to me.

Of course it shouldn’t, and nowhere have I said it should. You chose to post something that identified the organisation and that you knew would attract irate commentary. They may well be considering how best to respond. I’m absolutely sure that they would include your child if he fits the criteria, but they may be reluctant to share those criteria with you in an email as your motives might be uncertain at this stage. How do they know you’re genuine and not a journalist? I get your perspective, but I would understand if they were concerned too.

This is exactly why I think they’ve changed the website - yesterday I could see this info, today it’s not there.

Or just like the TQIA+ waffle they are making it clear that they welcome anyone and a young person's background or identity isn't a barrier to accessing the service.

The way some posters are going on you would think they had a poster up saying "No Whites".

Most charities have several funding streams. Most likely their generic open access stream ends this financial year and they can't take on new referrals as staff will be made redundant next month. They may still have funding for another year for staff who support young people with specific needs relating to the funding. It happens all the time, for all sorts of sections of society in charities and local authorities. It's not a conspiracy against white people.
If you think a service is not accessible to people because they are white you can work with a charity to apply for protected characteristic funding and put in the extra support that is needed.
So many white people also access services under these types of funding streams anyway.
You clearly don't understand the barriers to accessing services and seem to think it is just about putting a form in. Most prevention services are targetted. It stops clogging up the system with no shows and people presenting too late with high complex needs.
It is appalling that a young person cannot access a service they need but that is what happens when services are expected to be met by charities who do not have enough permanent funding.

Absolutely agree.

When did culturally diverse mean ‘not white’? Not all white people are ethnically British or Christian? Wouldn’t Ukrainian or Jewish kids be under the diverse umbrella?

This thread reads like a party political broadcast by the Restore Party.

The ‘not white’ is made up by posters on this thread, it’s nothing the charity have said.

Why didn’t they say they welcome everyone then if they do? Why was OP knocked back?

SOMETHING about OPs lack of apparent ‘cultural diversity’ resulted in that email after her application, and the charity are failing to say what. Do they actually have set criteria, or do they just want the ability to reject anyone they’re getting middle class vibes from? If they have set criteria why not publish them in plain English? Why so coy?

So who is ‘culturally non diverse’ then? Genuine question.