According to reports in yesterday's papers, the Sheffield branch of the Samaritans is facing threat of closure. It is doing so because the Big Lottery Fund recently rejected an application from it for a £300,000 grant with which to refurbish new premises it recently acquired because of the imminent expiry of its current lease.
The Sheffield Samaritans claim it was told by the Big Lottery Fund that the reason it rejected their application was that it judged they had not been doing enough to target minorities such as asylum seekers, ethnic minorities, the young, and the elderly.
The Big Lottery Fund deny this was their reason for rejecting the Samaritan's application. They claim they rejected the application simply because of the sheer competition from other worthy causes.
Clearly, if the Samaritans’ version is accepted of why their application was rejected, the group to whom the Big Lottery Fund has just awarded £360,000 to help prostitutes in their work was judged by it to be doing enough to target these minorities.
Even if the Lottery Fund’s own version of why it turned down the Samaritans' application is accepted, it still seems odd they should have judged that helping prostitutes in their work is worthier than helping those in a state of desperation and often on the brink of suicide.
Given their name, it would be irony, indeed, were, of all charities, the Samaritans to be guilty of discriminating against anyone in need of assistance on grounds of race, sex, or religion. Indeed, not even they are suggesting this is what the Lottery Fund had found them guilty of.
However, for a charitable body today to qualify for public funding, it seems it is not enough that it not actively discriminate against anyone on such grounds. It seems it also needs to show that it is benefiting, or else is actively striving to benefit, some disadvantaged minority or assortment of such minorities.
If the Sheffield Samaritans is made to close as a result of the Big Lottery Fund's refusal to award them a grant, then all who in Sheffield subsequently commit suicide, and who would otherwise not have done had they been able to contact the Samaritans, will have been made to suffer by the Lottery Fund's refusal, regardless of the race, religion, colour, and gender of these unfortunate people.
In that eventually, all who think the Sheffield Samaritans had not sufficiently targeted minorities to qualify for Lottery funding will be able to take comfort from the thought that all in Sheffield now enjoy exactly the same opportunity as each other to receive help from the Samaritans -- namely, none.
A great step forward will have been taken on behalf of race equality and social cohesion, I don’t think.
Comments (4)
Maybe the message the Lottery people are sending here is that depressed people can go out, find one of these prostitutes and avail themselves of their services, thus relieving their gloom and obviating their need to call the Samaritans.
Posted by Rob | February 16, 2005 3:06 PM
Posted on February 16, 2005 15:06
I gather that part of the problem is that the Samaritans don't ask people for their age, sex, sexuality, skin colour, religion and daily newspaper - as required to be able to demonstrate their diverse client base. Instead they waste valuable time asking people about their problems and trying to prevent their suicide. That's no way to get funding, is it ?
However I'd be very surprised if prostitutes keep such records, either. Surely some double standards here ?
Posted by Laban Tall | February 13, 2005 8:16 PM
Posted on February 13, 2005 20:16
What service do the samaritans provide these days. I always thought that it consisted of 2 or 3 telephone lines in a room manned by some volunteers. And they need £300,000 for this. What a joke.
Posted by John | February 13, 2005 2:42 PM
Posted on February 13, 2005 14:42
Surely the Sheffield Samaritans are actually threatened with closure because they acquired premises they couldn't afford to refurbish, then were banking on the Lottery to bail them out.
Now, I'd agree that the Samaritans are a more worthy organisation than a prostitute's training college, or whatever it was that got funded, but that's not exactly the point. At least, it's not my point. Spending money that you don't have, and then relying on the government to bail you out is a bad policy for anyone, whether they're a charity or not.
I would agree, though, that the requirement to target minorities in order to get any government funding is daft.
Posted by Dave | February 11, 2005 10:46 PM
Posted on February 11, 2005 22:46