Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2011 Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment Final Report
2011 Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment Final Report
April 2012
and
the francis Beidler iii
and prudence r.
Beidler foundation
P/2 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment
Table of Contents
1
Please note that the phrase “LGBT community” is used throughout this report as an
umbrella term to refer to all individuals who identify as LGBTQ. However, the term
is something of a misnomer as “the LGBT community” is not monolithic, which is a
commonly held misconception. While this term is used for simplicity and brevity, it
should be underscored that Chicago’s “LGBT community” in fact consists of many
overlapping smaller communities and subcultures. Moreover, not all individuals who
identify as LGBT take part in community life within the structured settings reflected
in the institutions and organizing models represented within this report.
Morten Group, led by President Mary F. Morten, was established in November 2001
to focus on clients in the nonprofit, for-profit, and foundation fields. Morten Group
provides a customized approach to solve organizational and resource development
challenges and to explore new opportunities. Morten Group offers expertise in building
communities of inclusion and access, succession planning, trustee recruitment and
retention, and film and video production.
Snowball sampling is a non- information about the LCNA. period, beginning on October 7,
probability sampling method Morten Group also designed 2011, and ending on December
used by researchers to identify a series of e-newsletters and 20, 2011.
a target population and engage an active Facebook page to
them in involving others within aid in participant recruitment. A core project team of three
their networks for the data Community partners and people was responsible for
collection process. All people leaders serving varied the survey development, focus
who identified themselves as geographic regions of the city groups, stakeholder interviews
part of the community were and suburbs were identified and the community drop box
invited to participate in at least in order to develop a strong, data collection. Eight trained
one of the data vehicles. Morten diverse sample. facilitators, interviewers
Group identified community and note-takers worked on
partners and leaders who Through cooperative the project with additional
shared news of the assessment relationships with more than administrative support from
survey with their contacts, 60 nonprofits and businesses the core team.
housed community drop and 20 individual leaders in
boxes with data cards, held the community, Morten Group
focus groups and provided collected and analyzed data
suggestions for leader from 1,562 survey completers, Please see Appendix A for
interviews. Their contacts, in 319 data card respondents, 125 a more detailed description
turn, continued to share this focus group participants and of the methodology used
information, which subsequently 52 interviewees. Data collection for each of the four data
caused more contacts to share was conducted for an 11-week gathering methods.
Only broad, general information on gender, orientation and age range was asked of interview and
focus group participants. Choosing to collect and report aggregate information for the focus groups
and interviews was purposeful and reflected Morten Group’s commitment to learn about the needs
and experiences of LGBT people in a safe and respectful way.
This section details demographic highlights from the surveys, data cards, focus groups and interviews,
followed by several comparison tables that provide a comprehensive view across all of the data
collection tools. All percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number, except for figures
related to unemployment.
14-17
21%
9% 18-24
3% 25-34
1%
35-44
45-54
16%
32% 55-64
65 or older
Outreach to people of color was The age of needs assessment between $25,000 and $49,999.
not the only diversity initiative survey takers was effectively The largest percentage (about
intentionally undertaken by distributed between several 37%), however, earn $50,000
Morten Group. Special efforts groups including 18- to 24-year- a year or more - and when
were made, whether through olds (16%), 25- to 34-year-olds reporting household income,
targeted focus groups, (32%), 35- to 44-year-olds (21%) four in ten people state that
strategically placed drop boxes, and adults ages 45- to 54-year- their household collectively
survey mailings or translated olds (18%), and adults 55 or earns $75,000 or more.
data cards, to reach out to older (12%). The median age
as many sectors of the LGBT of survey takers was between When looking at survey
community as possible: youth 34 and 35 years old—slightly respondents by community
(including homeless and/or older than the city of Chicago area, it is important to note that
perilously housed youth), older age demographics that put the there were no clear “majority
adults, incarcerated individuals, median age for the city at 31.5 communities” identified. About
transgender and genderqueer years. 69 of the 77 Census-defined
individuals, undocumented Chicago community areas
individuals, persons in recovery Like age, reported individual participated in the survey,
from substance abuse, and income was varied, with 35% of along with more than 40 other
individuals whose primary survey takers earning $24,999 suburbs, villages and cities in
language is Spanish, Chinese, a year or less and another 28% the Chicago metropolitan area.
Korean, Hindi or Vietnamese. reporting an individual income Top response counts came
37%
Less than $24,999
25,000-$49,999
35%
from neighborhoods including in the general demographics was listed as 9.8%, while the
Lakeview, Edgewater, Rogers section. It is important to national rate was 8.6%.
Park, Uptown, Lincoln Square, note that 13.3% of general
Logan Square and Hyde Park. survey takers report being Most survey takers are English
More than half (54%) of survey unemployed and 7% report that speakers, even if they speak
takers have resided in the they are employed but earning another language. Other
Chicago area for 16 years or a wage that is not livable. reported languages included
more. About 13% are new to When controlling for race Spanish (29%), French (8%),
the area, residing here for 0 to and ethnicity, however, these German (3%), Italian (1%)
3 years. More than 80% of the results shift. One of every five and Japanese (1%), as well
survey sample report living in Latino/a and African-American as Chinese, Hebrew, ASL
Chicago, while 8% reside in the survey takers report that they (American Sign Language),
North suburbs, 6% in the West are unemployed and about 10% Polish and Russian (all less
suburbs and 3% in the South report that they are employed than 1%).
suburbs. but earning a wage that is not
livable. According to Illinois
Survey employment fields Department of Labor Security
were extremely varied, further statistics cited by The Chicago
reflecting the diversity of the Sun-Times (December 22, 2011),
Chicago area LGBT community. for November 2011, the Chicago
Details are highlighted later metro area unemployment rate
3% Unemployed
Employed part-time
7%
8% Employed full-time,
wage below liveable
Employed full-time,
wage liveable
19%
Retired
28%
Other
1. Gender Identification
Interviews
Other 5% Focus Groups
3% Data Cards
(self-defined) 2% Survey
2%
Genderqueer 5%
7%
1%
MTF 3%
2%
1%
FTM 4%
3%
2%
6%
Trans 5%
3%
54%
Female 47%
44%
51%
44%
Male 46%
44%
42%
*Please note: for the focus groups, the “trans” category includes all terms
including the word “trans” (i.e. transwoman, transman, transgender).
19%
Lesbian 23%
35%
17%
Bisexual 13%
14%
11%
Queer 16%
23%
0%
Questioning 2% Focus Groups
2% Data Cards
Survey
22%
Other 19%
(self-defined) 5%
3. Race
0% Interviews
Other 4% Focus Groups
1% Data Cards
(self-defined) 3% Survey
0%
3%
Bi/Multiracial 6%
5%
0%
0%
Native American 3%
1%
17%
34%
Latino/a 16%
13%
62%
Caucasian 36%
38%
65%
4%
Asian or 1%
Pacific Islander 9%
4%
African 17%
22%
American/ 32%
Black 18%
32%
18-24 28%
16%
14%
25-34 32%
32%
7%
35-44 17%
21%
5%
45-54 15%
18%
9% Focus Groups
55-64 7% Data Cards
9% Survey
10%
65 and older 2%
3%
*Please note: community leader interview participants ranged in age from 30 to 80 years old.
$100,000 or more 4%
11%
$75,000- $99,999 5%
9%
$15,000- $24,999 8%
10%
2%
Other
4%
2% 61%
Widowed
1%
Single
40%
10%
Partnered (LS)
12%
8%
Married
9%
0%
Divorced 3%
5% 60% 70%
Civil Union
9%
Single was by far the most Given that U.S. Census data
common relationship status and many prominent studies
chosen by needs assessment only examine partnered couples
participants, with 4 in 10 survey and same-sex households, this
respondents and 6 in 10 data sets the LCNA apart in its
card respondents indicating representation of single LGBT
that they identified as single. community members.
Other Overall
data highlights
“Many people are still afraid on the South Side. $10,000. Overall, 19.5% said
that they did not have enough
Bottom line, people are there and they need services. income to meet their basic
Services closer to the people. I can’t think of a sadder needs, while 40% had just
enough and 40.5% had more
sight than an African-American gay youth. Many
than enough. In contrast, the
are uncomfortable coming up to the North Side median income reported in the
because it’s out of their comfort zone. I refer people 2010 Chicago Census data is
reported as being $39,000 and
to [addiction rehabilitation center on the North Side] $44,000 annually for women
all the time and they don’t go because they don’t feel and men respectively.
comfortable even though it’s right off the El.” Further, the Howard Brown
ESCI Elder Study indicated that
many older adults, including
“Health care is an issue. The We are much bigger than our LGBT older adults, rely on Social
assumption is that it does not sexuality and our sex lives— Security as a primary source of
affect most in the community. we care about things more retirement income. According
But because many people are than that.” to a National Center for Lesbian
still closeted, they do not seek Rights report cited in the
care. They are losing their jobs, Howard Brown study, 62% of
Issue 2: Sustainable
become lower income and they adults 65 and older use Social
do not want to out themselves Employment
Security for half or more of their
by seeking care. There are also annual income; 26% use it for up
lesbians raising families and Respondents of the LCNA
to 90% of their income and 15%
health care is out of reach. Also, also voiced serious concerns
use it as their only source
there are youth of color being, about employment. Among
of income.
particularly trans youth, kicked survey participants, 33% ranked
out of their homes and this is employment as their number
Many factors can contribute
rising.” one concern and 23% ranked
to the unemployment
it as number two. Among data
and underemployment
“When the Obama plan goes card respondents, only 50%
rates experienced among
into full implementation, any report having a livable wage and
respondents, including age,
undocumented person with being able to meet expenses,
gender, and access. While rates
AIDS will lose health care. with only 50.2% indicating that
of unemployment are higher
It’s all economics. It’s mostly they have strong employment
than those in similar categories
myths, not reality. In the networks. 2010 Census data
throughout the state of Illinois,
whole, we need to see the real throughout Illinois reflect a 7.3%
greater analysis is needed to
social/economic needs of our statewide unemployment rate.
assert a causal relationship.
community. I think folks will be Given the biases expressed in
surprised how many folks are The Latina Queer Women in
previous data, discrimination
uninsured in our community. Chicago study indicated that
experienced may not always
In the Latino community, we as many as 40.9% of women
be overt and can often be
haven’t done enough work to reported making less than
assigned to a class of people
educate health-care providers. $29,000 annually while the
without regard for individual
They need to look broadly—not New York Needs Assessment
competencies.
just at AIDS and STD, it’s much indicated that a total of 11.9%
broader, like mental health of the survey respondents were
issues and substance abuse and in poverty, having no income
tobacco use and cancer rates. or household income below
“Civil union is [a] nice first step, 19.3% claim to have experienced between race and gender
but same-sex marriage must discriminatory treatment by when exploring the impact of
become approved federally. a social service agency, 27.1% discrimination experienced,
Employment is tough for report instances of racism by similar to the data card
everyone now but gays are still governmental agencies, and respondents, who were
discriminated (sic) against in 17.8% identify experiencing overwhelmingly African
hiring. Affordable health care for unfair treatment by hospitals/ American and youth or young
those without insurance is vital. doctors or by any medical adults. Respondents from the
Too many hate crimes. Any is professional. Additionally, 68.7% data cards report experiencing
too many.” of women claimed that they had discrimination across multiple
offensive remarks aimed at them settings within the LGBT
One senior focus group directly, and 84.7% reported community at large as well when
participant indicated a particular being in the presence of interfacing in different social
lack of access of government offensive remarks. 53.8% stated contexts where their safety
services for seniors: that others have avoided being felt compromised because of
near them, 60.7% have had race, ascribed characteristics,
“A lot of seniors that I know— others make them feel that they sexual orientation or gender
and I know because I just spent did not fit in and 30% of women expression.
6 months looking for a place have received unfair treatment
for my sister to stay—a lot of by their partner’s family due Examples of top issues facing
seniors have to go back into to their sexual orientation.” the LGBT people as written by
the closet when they go into Furthermore, 40.9% of Latina data card respondents include:
the nursing facility. The Tuesday queer women have experienced “housing and employment
group at [name of organization discriminatory treatment by discrimination”; “homophobia
omitted] is the only outlet for service providers in public bullying discrimination”;
a lot of people. Many people restaurants and establishments “civil rights and marriage
really regret that. An LGBT place in Metropolitan Chicago, and discrimination”; “trans issues:
for assisted living really doesn’t 21.8% of women stated that housing and employment
exist—there isn’t any. Housing they often feel disrespected by discrimination”; and “religious
does not exist for us.” people who either know or think equity.”
they are LGBTQQ.
Many groups tied
Issue 4: Response to A common bias is also shared in socioeconomic inequality to
Community Discrimination the Howard Brown ESCI Elder unequal allocation of resources.
Study, where it was noted in a Also, many youth stated that
Discrimination, whether survey of 24 Area Agencies on class assumptions are made
based on class, age, or race, Aging in New York that 46% about them because they are
was ranked as a number of staff respondents said that perilously housed or of color.
one concern by 21 to 24% of openly gay men and lesbians
the survey respondents. As would not be welcome at One youth focus group
reflected in the quantitative senior centers in their areas participant had this to say about
and qualitative responses, (Behney, 1994). Highlighting age discrimination:
greater acknowledgment and the often unspoken prejudices
responsiveness to community experienced by LGBT individuals “In Chicago, it feels like there’s
prejudices and discrimination in daily social interactions an age restriction on being gay.
is needed. in what should be safe and [Lots of nods of agreement
welcoming social environments. from the group.] Boystown
This is significantly reflected means nothing if you’re under
in the Latina Queer Women in These data reflect some 21. You can look but you can’t
Chicago study as well, where influence in relationship touch. Essentially you can go
Issue 5: Community Safety with 26.6% reporting a “not One youth focus group
applicable” response. It is not participant related the following
Violence and safety within the surprising, then, that the GLSEN story of safety concerns:
LGBT community and within Report indicates that only
lived community spaces was a half (52%) of Illinois students “Word that I was gay spread
chief concern for almost half reported that they felt very to these homophobic boys—
of survey respondents. About safe in their schools, and over because we were friends they
25% ranked it as a number one a third (37%) of the students automatically broke their
concern and 23% ranked it as a reported that they felt unsafe in friendship with me—they
number two concern. school because of one or more decided to physically abuse me
personal characteristics, such as at school, they pushed me down
Data card respondents listed the physical appearance or sexual stairs. I didn’t really tell anybody
following among the top issues orientation. about it, they would push me up
facing the LGBT people: “safety against lockers and threaten me
in Boystown area”; “safety Additionally, 39.9% of women a lot—the boys got suspended
education”; “safety from/with in the Latina Queer Women in for a long time—still to this
police”; “violence prevention” Chicago study reported being day my car is getting egged,
and “safe spaces.” Of the data harassed (i.e. name calling, things that you wouldn’t expect
card respondents, 67.7% report jokes, fights, etc.) for being happen to someone...I do have a
feeling safe at school and work, LGBTQQ when they were restraining order now and I can’t
while only 56% indicated feeling growing up, and 6.2%disclosed hang out with them outside of
safe within the city at large. that they have never told school—they’re not allowed to
Only 22.3% reported feeling anyone that they are LGBTQQ come near me or touch me or
comfortable that the police for fear of negative impact this bump into me.”
would respond to their needs, could have on their lives.
15% rate
think their service population employment services/support as fair or poor while
and reach out to older adults 52% report that they are not sure how to rate these services.
who are leaving the work force
and unaccustomed to seeking
social service support. For
About 40% stated that they do not currently face
serious quality of life issues; however,
example:
almost 20% 20%, or 1 out of 5, do not feel comfort-
able accessing government resources,
“… [B]iggest safety issue is
seniors, primarily people over
the age of 75. There are a lot of
and 27% report that they do not have
strong employment networks.
Data card respondents were West sides”; “LGBT support in “education (for safe sex)”;
highly concerned about youth schools, support for homeless “youth housing”; “LGBTQ youth
issues (youth issues replaced youth, “access to services programs”; “more time in
health care in the top 5 issues outside of Boystown”; and youth centers and more youth
of concern for data card “youth (esp. youth of color) activities”; “more LGBT youth
respondents, as mentioned discrimination and over-policing services/centers, supportive,
earlier). Examples of top issues and incarceration.” respectful, accountable schools,
listed included: “support for anti-discrimination laws/
the youth, services (health), By that same token, examples of policies”; and “mentoring for
jobs (well paying)”; “homeless suggested services to address GLBT youth substance use and
youth”; “youth support, LGBT youth issues included: "safe mental health services.”
resources on the South & place (for homeless youth)”;
A majority of the community Survey completers with children used their surveys to call for more
leaders interviewed also support services including: family counseling, parenting support
expressed deep concern about groups and other emotional health services, child and respite care,
safety issues faced by youth, safe recreational space for their families and support around finding
especially youth of color and jobs.
young people that identify as
transgender. When asked how The LGBT Community Fund should best use funds
and resources, and what should be the funding priorities, youth
focus group participants recommend education for members of the
LGBT community and the heterosexual community, more support
groups, and experiential learning opportunities.
A. Detailed Methodology
1. Survey development: The survey, developed by Morten Group
contained 38 questions with 9 open-ended responses, 2 partly open
ended, and 29 closed-ended responses (multiple choice, ordinal,
numerical and Likert scale2). Questions were split into key areas
including demographic information, services, safety and governance.
Survey completion was voluntary and anonymous. Preliminary data
from the online survey, collected in October, was used to develop
questions for the focus groups and individual interviews. By the end
of the data collection process, 1,562 individuals had taken the survey
with a 76% completion rate. A total of 1539 surveys were completed
in in English, while 23 were completed in Spanish.
1. Gender
Identification* Response Count Percentage of Total
Trans 49 3.1
FTM 48 3.1
MTF 33 2.1
Questioning 38 2.4
Evanston 32 2.3
Oak Park 32 2.3
Albany Park 30 2.2
Humboldt Park 26 1.9
TOTAL RESPONDENTS 1358 (204 skipped)
8. Survey Response
by City versus
Suburban Area Response Count Percentage of Total
Chicago 1127 82.5
North Suburbs 116 8.4
West Suburbs 88 6.4
South Suburbs 44 3.2
Northwest Indiana 4 .3
TOTAL RESPONDENTS 1366 (196 skipped)
9. Relationship
Status* Response Count Percentage of Total
Civil Union 133 8.6
Divorced 43 2.7
Married 132 8.5
Partnered living together 429 27.7
Partnered living separately 188 12.2
Single 623 40.3
Widowed 14 0.9
Other 65 4.2
TOTAL RESPONDENTS 1545 (17 skipped)
1. Gender
Identification Response Count Percentage of Total
FTM 13 4.2%
MTF 8 2.6%
Genderqueer 16 5.1%
Lesbian 71 23.4%
Bisexual 38 12.5%
Queer 49 16.2%
Questioning 7 2.3%
Straight 8 2.6%
Ally 6 1.9%
Not-specified 41 13.5%
7. Data Card
Response by
City versus
Suburban Area Response Count Percentage of Total
Chicago Communities 233 85.3%
North/ Northwest Suburbs 18 6.5%
West Suburbs 15 5.4%
South Suburbs 7 2.5%
TOTAL RESPONDENTS 273 (46 skipped)
8. Relationship
Status* Response Count Percentage of Total
Civil Union 15 4.8%
Divorced 0 0.0%
Married 26 8.3%
Partnered living together 42 13.4%
Partnered living separately 31 9.9%
Single 193 61.3%
Polyamorist 5 1.6%
Widowed 5 1.6%
Not Specified 2 0.0%
TOTAL RESPONDENTS 313 (6 skipped)