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.

Perhaps we should be asking why so many young people have mental health issues.
Even 10 years ago it wasnt this bad

Not hard

Research indicates a significantly disproportionate, high number of suicides and suicide attempts among autistic individuals and the LGBTQ+ community
, with the risk compounded for individuals at the intersection of both groups.
Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS FT +2
Autism and Suicide Risk

• High Incidence: Approximately one in four autistic people (around 25%) attempt suicide in their lifetime, compared to 1 in 37 in the general population.
• Key Factors: Loneliness, hopelessness, feelings of being a burden, and inability to access appropriate, tailored mental health support are major drivers.
• Gender and Support: Autistic women and gender minorities are disproportionately affected by poor access to support.
• Mortality: Autistic people are up to seven times more likely to die by suicide than the general population, with higher risks in those without intellectual disabilities.
• National Autistic Society +3

LGBTQ+ and Suicide Risk

• Youth Disparities: LGBTQ+ youth are over four times more likely to attempt suicide than their peers.
• Surveys and Data: A 2024 survey found 39% of LGBTQ+ young people (13–24) seriously considered suicide in the past year, with that number rising to roughly 50% for transgender and nonbinary youth.
• Minority Stress: Experiences of discrimination, prejudice, bullying, and lack of family acceptance significantly drive these high rates.
• Impact of Lockdown: Studies showed a significant rise in LGBTQ+ people seeking suicide-prevention support during COVID-19 lockdowns, with loneliness doubling.
• Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS FT +3

Intersection of Autism and LGBTQ+

• Elevated Risk: Individuals who are both autistic and LGBTQ+ (or gender non-conforming) face the highest risk.
• Higher Attempt Rates: LGBTQ+ youth diagnosed with autism have over 50% greater odds of attempting suicide compared to their allistic (non-autistic) LGBTQ+ peers.
• Overlap: There is a significant, well-documented overlap between autism and gender-diverse identities.

Causes and Prevention

• Environmental Factors: Bullying, social isolation, "masking" (concealing autistic traits), and "cracks in the system" (lack of appropriate care) are major contributors.
• Action Needed: Researchers and organizations emphasize the need for autism-affirming and LGBTQ+-affirming care to provide specialized, non-judgmental support.

Funding and donations really need to be diverted from this charity.

Yes There are, Google brings up several.

I’ve just found 3 for Autistic young people in Leeds and 3 for LGBT+ young people with a quick Google.

Yes how dare a charity serve the most under served minority.

It should be funded properly! No charity would suddenly change like this without duress, and that has been explained upthread. If their only funding is specifically for children from certain backgrounds, then that is what they are being paid for.

It is wrong that this is happening. But the wrong is in the way services are underfunded and the way contracts are awarded. Rather than folding, this charity found a way to secure funding to keep at least some of their services running. Better than that to closing and offering nothing to anyone. If you want to complain to someone, complain to your local MP and ask what their position is on funding childrens MH.

So you seem fine with funding being specifically directed at initiatives aimed at children with autism or children who are LGBT … but you draw the line at certain ethnic minority schemes?

But they won’t just be getting money from this one grant but from other areas including it sounds like the NHS. So other funds need to be pulled as they are breaking the equalities act and not basing provision on need. The money should go to other charities that focus on inclusion and need.

Exactly what I thought. I'd read "culturally diverse community" as meaning an area where people of many different cultures live. So if you live in an area of a city which has many different cultures living there, you're eligible, no matter what your culture is. But if you live in an area which is 99% the same culture, you're not eligible.

Shocking, isn’t it?

Correct. MIND has a range of funding sources. I think it’s almost certain they’ve had a specific pot of funding to support a particular cohort and they need to stick to that in order to fulfill the requirement of the grant. They probably had other funding which allowed them to support a wider group of people or they had funded that from their core unrestricted funding. They’re not in breach of anything it’s just rubbish for those people who don’t fall into the criteria outlined in the grant

No I’m fine with funding and initiatives being aimed at need.

But the funding from other areas will be with provision for all. It’s not a BAME charity so other funding needs to be pulled out and put into charities that don’t discriminate.

White seaside towns in rural areas are well known to be the areas most in need- not multi cultural wealthy cities.

I personally never donate to a charity where the CEO earns more than me. I used to volunteer for a large national charity but it was riddled with lobbyists and unfairness. Now only volunteer and donate to small local charities.

Key Salary Information (National Mind - UK):

• Current Executive (approx): £180,000 - £200,000 (following Paul Farmer).
• Previous Executive (2021): £170,000 - £180,000.
• Role Scope: The CEO leads a large organization, with 2023-24 total income of £62.7 million.

Local Mind Affiliates:

• Leeds Mind: Approx. £63,268 per year.
• Rochdale and District Mind: Approx. £59,448 per year.
• Bradford District and Craven Mind:£43,200 - £72,000 per year.
• Mind in Harrogate District (2017):£40,000 - £42,000.

Note: Salary figures for local branches are often based on independent postings on job sites like Indeed and may vary based on specific local funding.

It’s a Leeds based charity, Leeds is a diverse community, therefore if it meant this I would assume anyone living in Leeds still qualifies?

On the website, it says … We support young people from culturally diverse communities – anyone from a racially, culturally or ethnically diverse background.

Except it’s highly unlikely it is NHS funded - if it is an NHS contract, it will be from a designated pot of money to support this specific group, with a full Equality Impact Assessment demonstrating why this group needs the funding more than others, and ensuring other pots had been allocated elsewhere to cover any gaps. It may well be that there’s a charity elsewhere in Leeds which is better able to support young people from white backgrounds - it’s not unusual for NHS contracts/funding pots to be split across multiple organisations.

Admittedly, these gaps are getting bigger, but this is the fault of government cuts to mental health funding - not charities, who are trying to fill the gap.

If it’s from a funding pot by a trust/foundation, they’re perfectly entitled to spend their money as they see fit - see previous poster’s excellent comments re Italians called Arnold and hedgehogs at Dog’s Trust.

But never mind, ignore those of us who work in the sector and know what we’re talking about. Just carry on spreading biased misinformation and don’t let us get in your way.

But they are basing it on need. They will have provided evidence that as a cohort x community is less likely to access services and therefore if they focus on delivering support to that cohort they can support a community who don’t engage.

If only they could move money to support everyone that would be great but the money isn’t there. They likely have other projects funded so would focus, say, on support for homeless women under 25 with mental health challenges.

This would potentially be indirect discrimination - as it's a policy that means that the way they provide services is likely to disadvantage white people compared to other ethnic groups.

Agree you should write to the charity and ask how this aligns with their charitable objectives and the Equality Act.

I apologise I have skim read, so may be repeating what others have said.

This is likely driven by your local health needs data. It is generally publicly accessible. It is not about being discriminatory, it’s about targeting specific health problems in local areas - in yours it may be mental health in young people from ethnic minorities, in mine it is KS2 child obesity in one patch, alcohol dependency amongst white males 40+ in another and high early child mortality rates and poor pre and post natal health in another.

Focussed interventions are designed to target early intervention and reduce NHS costs long term.

That’s not to say people outside any of these groups don’t need support though.

This tells me more about the fact that you don't understand how charity funding works, rather than anything about the charity itself.

Charities have to spend restricted funds in line with the criteria specified by their funders. It is highly likely that the charity is seeking alternative funding to fill the gap, but money doesn't grow on trees. And if they haven't got funding for something, then they won't be able to fund it.

It isn't fair, of course, but that isn't really the charity's fault.

If Mind Leeds had been specifically set up to support one or more ethnic minorities, it probably wouldn't bother most of the posters who are bothered by this.

But they have had support from a lot of people on the basis that they served everyone. So to then restrict support (even if it's using a funding stream thay couldn't otherwise access) is likely to upset those who thought the charity did not discriminate.

It is aimed at need. This article sets out that research indicates that white people in the UK often have higher rates of access to mental health treatment and better outcomes compared to people from ethnic minority backgroun…

Why are you and others objecting to a charity that is trying to serve BAME people?

https://www.rethink.org/advice-and-information/living-with-mental-illness/ethnic-minorities-immigration-and-mental-health/ethnic-minorities-and-mental-health/#:~:text=But%20more%20white%20British%20people,also%20find%20more%20information%20about:i

When you’ve had your children try to take their own lives several times with horrific trauma and difficulties and had to battle for years for sfa from the nhs with the result being charities are a life line check back in.

It’s not ok.