What kind of disadvantage is acceptable?

“We will fund projects for people who are disadvantaged through no fault of their own”.

I must read this a couple of times a month on funder websites.

The immediate implication is clear: there are others whose disadvantage was their own fault.

Really? There are some people who deserve the terrible hand they’ve been dealt? That they’ve made their bed and must now lie in it? Who makes this call? Me? The charity? The beneficiary? The funder? By what measure are we establishing the standard of ‘fault’?

The concept of the deserving poor is alive and well in 2026

The level of judgement permitted by those six words is something I thought we might have left behind in a previous era (probably one that involved pinnies and pin-curls). It brings to mind images of the “deserving poor” and the “undeserving poor” of Victorian philanthropy. It certainly gives a paternalistic vibe: Daddy might give you some money but only if you’ve been good.

I’d argue that most people, given a choice, probably wouldn’t choose poverty, neglect, abuse, instability, or any of the other social issues that charities are plugging the gaps for, catching people who fall through the safety net. But somehow some funders feel that they can make some kind of moral distinction of different types of disadvantages, or experiences of it, or routes into it.

What privilege.

When we talk about ‘fault’ we assume that everyone has an equal choice of alternatives. An equitable starting point. The same skills, knowledge, resources or support that others enjoy.

What about the people who were born somewhere they had to leave? Those who did not enjoy a steady and stable home that allowed them to concentrate on their education? Or those for whom addiction, or gang membership was a way to escape? What about those who have lost everything unexpectedly, or been slowly shafted by political and economic policies that didn’t prioritise them? How do we feel about those who simply loved the wrong person? How far are any of us, really, from disadvantage?

In 2026 I really thought we might be looking at attitudes like “through no fault of their own” as a phase we grew out of. I wonder now whether, like overt racism, it never went away, just ducked under the surface and learned a new language for a while, but now it’s being re-emboldened as society becomes more polarised, more judgemental, harsher…

The message is clear. They’ll support you, but weirdly only if they think that you’re tragic enough. But you can’t at any point have chosen differently, because then you might be responsible for your own misfortune. Basically, be the ‘right’ kind of poor, would you?

In a way, these funders do me a favour - they’re broadcasting the limits of their understanding, so I can avoid wasting time for my clients dealing with more complex social justice problems. I keep in mind my grandparents’ preferred privilege check: “But for the grace of god, there go I”, and move on to funders that are more likely to live in the real world.