Breaking the Cycle

Ending Homophobia,

Empowering People

www.lgf.org.uk

Registered Charity No.1070904

BREAKING THE CYCLE Supporting the Delivery of a Sustainable Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (LGB&T) Sector in the North West Region

A Five Year Strategy underpinning the development of the LGB&T Sector in the North West

2009 - 2014

Designed by LGF Design www.lgf.org.uk/design

Contents FOREWORDS

04

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

11

INTRODUCTION

21

CHAPTER 1 - STRATEGIC AIMS OF THE LGF

25

First Point of Intervention: Develop the evidence base Second Point of Intervention: Increasing the knowledge and engagement of decision makers Third Point of Intervention: Capacity of the voluntary and community sector LGB&T organisations

27 28 29

CHAPTER 2 - KEY BARRIERS TO GROWTH FOR THE LGB&T SECTOR

31

Key Barrier 1: Limited knowledge and understanding of the needs of LGB&T people Key Barrier 2: Invisibility and (mis)representation Key Barrier 3: LGB&T issues are given low priority Key Barrier 4: Focus is often restricted to the sexual health of men who have sex with men Kay Barrier 5: LGB&T equality is not yet established as a basic right

33 37 38 40 42

CHAPTER 3 - AREAS OF NEED

45

Area of Need 1: Hate crime Area of Need 2: Young people Area of Need 3: Housing and homelessness Area of Need 4: Workplace Area of Need 5: Healthcare provision Area of Need 6: Legislation

48 51 54 56 58 60

Measures of Success

62

Bibliography

63

Appendix I: Consultation Method

65

Appendix II: The Rainbow Partnership

66

Glossary of Terms

69

Forewords Paul Martin

Chief Executive The Lesbian and Gay Foundation ‘Breaking the Cycle’ represents a significant milestone in the development of the North West’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGB&T) sector. At the beginning of 2007, the Lesbian and Gay Foundation set up the Rainbow Partnership with the intent of increasing our community’s influence through developing a cohesive voice. I am pleased to report that over the last two years we have been joined by more than 270 charities, voluntary groups, public sector bodies, social enterprises and individuals, who share our vision of developing and supporting a sustainable LGB&T sector.

The production of this strategy follows a wide-ranging and comprehensive consultation process. For the first time, we have been able to begin to collectively define the needs of our communities, highlight the barriers to growth, and propose pragmatic and practical actions that we can each undertake to improve the lives of the LGB&T people within the North West region.

‘Breaking the Cycle’ is split into five main sections, including an executive summary which collates the recommendations that can be found throughout the report, and which is also available separately.

The intended outcomes of these recommendations include: Improving organisations in terms of their service delivery to LGB&T people.

Including LGB&T issues within planning cycles and policy development.

Increasing the involvement of the workforce and service users.

As with any strategy, its success will need to be measured in how people use it. We believe ‘Breaking the Cycle’ provides a roadmap to create an inclusive environment where all LGB&T people can reach their full potential. We very much hope we have produced an accessible and usable document, which will enable and empower both individuals and groups to lobby for better access to support, inclusion and resources (including funding).

Already, a lot of interest has been shown in the draft format of the strategy. Whilst based on the views of people in the North West,

04

the report has the potential for local, regional and indeed national significance. We now look forward to the messages of support this strategy has already generated translating into action across all sectors.

Whilst implementing the strategy has both moral and economic grounding, the introduction of the Single Equality Act and the Duty to Involve will also significantly add to the legal imperative. Doing nothing is no longer an option. The public sector will have a responsibility to gather further knowledge and intelligence about their residents who are LGB&T. Additionally, LGB&T people will have a responsibility to stand up and be counted when monitoring of public service delivery extends equally across the equality strands. We can no longer afford to remain invisible.

Currently there is very little information available on LGB&T communities in this country. One of the main purposes of this strategy is to provide strategic direction to the LGB&T sector in the North West region and promote the support that is required to sustain this.

The consultation process identified a cycle that restricts the establishment, growth and sustainability of LGB&T specific organisations, services and support. Proactive action is needed in all of the following three areas – no one part is seen as a stand-alone item that could break the cycle in isolation. Rather each should be tackled simultaneously: Develop an evidence base Increase knowledge and engagement of public sector partners Increase capacity of LGB&T VCS Most of the people interviewed and included in the development of this strategy stated that they found this cycle impossible to break out of. The issues are overwhelming for any one

organisation or individual, and there is a clear need for a combined partnership approach to be adopted. Change in all communities only comes about through concerted and continuous collective action, on commonly shared goals.

Finally, I would like to thank all of the people involved in this project so far, without whom this strategy would not have been possible. Jacqui Cross, the LGF’s former Deputy Chief Executive began working on this project with me back in 2004 when we sketched out what a regional, strategic, LGB&T capacity building project in the North West might look like; Christina Marriot, our independent consultant who undertook all of the fieldwork and analysed the findings from the consultations; Darren Knight and Siân Payne, who have steered the report to publication and who will be immediately responsible for its implementation across the region; the LGF Design Team, who have worked hard on making the strategy not only look good but have made it more accessible to many more audiences; Matt Harby and Rob Cookson, who have strategically managed this project and secured investment for the next 2 ½ years; and of course many thanks to Capacitybuilders for agreeing to fund this groundbreaking initiative; and last but certainly not least, thank you to the members of our Rainbow Partnership, who willingly and freely gave of their time and talent in making this strategy what it is, and who quietly but very deliberately act as LGB&T champions each and every day.

Now it’s over to you. By reading this strategy, you are already showing an interest in the needs of LGB&T people within your communities.

However ultimately, the difference we can individually and collectively make relies on the commitment we now make to implement the strategy’s recommendations. Please don’t hesitate to contact us if you have any questions, require any advice, would like to explore some ideas, or if you have any further suggestions.

Our door is always open!

05

Beverley Hughes MP

Regional Minister for the North West and Minister of State for Children, Young People and Families I welcome the wide-ranging consultation that the Lesbian and Gay Foundation have undertaken as the basis for this strategy.

Discrimination against people for any reason is completely unacceptable and this document is an important step in helping to promote awareness of the issues faced by the lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans communities and how to begin to address them. Not least, the document is a rich testimony of the opinions and experiences of LGB&T people themselves - young and older here in the North West and I hope everyone will consider seriously the implications for their own organisations and services.

Christine Burns, MBE Chair North West Equality and Diversity Group

A lack of data has been used ‘til now to justify paying scant attention to the needs of this significant proportion of the North West Region’s population. The Lesbian and Gay Foundation have broken significant new ground with this excellent strategic road map. They’ve justified six key areas of need affecting Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans people and they’ve documented the barriers to be overcome in order to address them. Everyone now has a clear set of goals to drive coherent action planning.

06

Jacquie O’Neill

Head of Diversity, Community Cohesion and the Third Sector Government Office North West This strategy is a much needed and welcome contribution to the development of the equalities and third sector agenda in the North West. It is an important step in raising the understanding and profile of the barriers faced by the LGB&T communities in the North West and of the opportunities for economic and social benefit from their inclusion in decision making. Government Office North West will be working with the Lesbian and Gay Foundation to improve our own understanding and to develop practical actions that we can take forward together to help deliver the ambitions and aspirations within the strategy.

Patrick White

Executive Director of Policy North West Development Agency NWDA are proud to support the launch of this new strategy.

We recognise that diversity in all its forms is a great social and economic asset to the North West, and pay tribute to the creativity and dynamism of the region’s LGB&T communities. Compared to other equalities strands we know relatively little either about the barriers to economic opportunity you face in the workplace or the true extent of your contribution to the regional economy but plan to put this right through research we are commissioning over the coming year, which can then be the basis for closer work together in the future.

07

Shahnaz Ali

Associate Director of Equality & Diversity NHS North West The NHS North West is keen to improve the health and well being of the North West population, particularly of minority groups such as lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people.

We welcome the ‘Breaking the Cycle’ strategy as it enables us to focus and target initiatives towards improving and developing services and better health outcomes for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans communities.

Tim Wainwright

Director of English Regions Equality and Human Rights Commission This ground-breaking piece of work is welcomed by the EHRC. ‘Breaking the Cycle’ makes an important contribution to improving the lives of the North West’s LGB&T population. The strategy presents a strong case in its identification of the key issues facing the region’s LGB&T communities and in its assessment of how to address inequalities and discrimination. In the light of the recent announcement in the Queen’s speech for the Equality Bill and the potential for harmonising up public sector duties across protected groups, this couldn’t be more timely. In recognising the internal diversity of LGB&T communities and the cross-cutting nature of their needs in relation to different areas like housing and health, the strategy makes significant steps toward building an inclusive and comprehensive approach to advancing equality and human rights for LGB&T groups in the region.

08

Phil Robinson Chief Executive 4NW

The first ever strategy developed to support the lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans communities of the North West region is a ground breaking piece of work that will provide a robust platform for public, private and third sector stakeholders and policy makers to ensure that the needs of LGB&T people are at the core of regional development. With an estimated 612,000 lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people within the region , it is essential that the contributions made by LGB&T people are acknowledged to ensure the sustainable economic development and regeneration of the region. With ever evolving economic priorities, growing issues around worklessness and the specific skills development needs within the region, it is imperative that the recommendations from this strategy are implemented by all stakeholders, are embedded within regional policies and work programmes, and adopted as the model of working with LGB&T communities throughout the whole North West.

Matthew Leach Chief Executive Capacitybuilders

Capacitybuilders is very pleased to have supported the development of this strategy, which clearly sets out challenges for a range of partners to better meet the needs of LGB&T communities in the North West. Capacitybuilders recognise the valuable role that organisations rooted within communities can make towards meeting these needs. We are pleased to be sponsoring innovative work to support the sector in achieving these aims.

09

Executive Summary

Up until 1967, homosexuality was illegal in the UK. The World Health Organisation only removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1992. As a result, the LGB&T sector as a whole is still a relatively ‘young’ and emerging sector.

11

At present, there are around 70 registered LGB&T charities in England, with a combined annual income of less than ÂŁ10m. This is equivalent to just 0.0003% of all charitable income for LGB&T communities who represent between 6% and 9% of the general population.

Of the 68 charities, only five are based in the North West to represent the estimated 612,000 LGB&T people in the region.

The vast majority of the LGB&T voluntary and community sector (VCS) in the North West consists of small and unfunded community groups which, in nearly all cases, are run by dedicated volunteers. Historically, these groups have not attracted the investment and support that other equality-based groups

12

have. This has often been due to a lack of internal resources, capacity, understanding and evidence base, as well as the external barriers of biphobia, transphobia, homophobia and heterosexism.

Attitudes towards LGB&T communities have been slow to change, but the last two decades have seen the most rapid progress. One of the early milestones was the recognition in 1992 by the World Health Organisation that homosexuality was not a mental illness. There have been significant changes in legislation over the last decade to create equality for LGB&T people nationally, and this is starting to be recognised on a regional level in funding decisions.

Executive Summary

Attitudes towards LGB&T communities have been slow to change, but the last two decades have seen the most rapid progress. increased support and capacity to LGB&T community and voluntary groups and access to specialised and mainstream services for individuals.

The advances have contributed to the creation of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (in October 2007), who have been tasked with advancing the wider equalities agenda.

In addition to this, a piece of legislation, commonly referred to as the Single Equality Bill, is currently awaiting parliamentary assent.

This Bill aims to bring together the extensive rules, regulations, guidance and legislation that currently exists around discrimination.

The North West LGB&T strategy should be considered in the context of this piece of legislation once it has been passed.

The Lesbian and Gay Foundation (LGF), through funding from Capacitybuilders awarded in mid-2008, are able to provide

The LGF implemented a consultation process, consisting of an initial email consultation and then a series of events across the North West with members of the LGF’s Rainbow Partnership. This is a membership network of LGB&T voluntary and community groups as well as statutory and other organisations.

Through this, it became clear that there is a cycle that restricts establishment, growth and sustainability of LGB&T specific services.

Arising from the consultation, the strategy has three main components: 1 Strategic aims.

2 Key barriers that affect all service provision and funding for LGB&T equality and their implications for service providers, commissioners and funders.

3 Specific areas of need that statutory and other organisations should consider regarding LGB&T issues.

13

Executive Summary

Strategic Aims The strategic aims below are intended to guide and influence the work of organisations working within, for, on behalf of, and in partnership with the lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans communities of the North West region. They should inform the work of all those organisations over the next five years.

Develop the evidence base Strategic Aim

1

We will continue to lobby for funding to develop the evidence base. We will also provide the LGB&T VCS and public sector supporters access to the evidence available and guidance on how best to use it.

Increase the knowledge and engagement of policy and decision makers Strategic Aim

2

We will provide information about LGB&T people and their needs to policy and decision makers across the North West. In doing this, we will increase awareness and engagement with partners and ensure the needs of LGB&T people are accurately communicated.

Increase the capacity of LGB&T voluntary and community organisations Strategic Aim

3 14

We will provide support to increase capacity of the LGB&T VCS in the North West to ensure that the diverse needs of these communities are met. We will seek to equip the sector to make it well resourced and self sustainable.

Executive Summary

Key Recommendations These are the 32 recommendations of this strategy:

Key Barrier Limited knowledge and understanding of the needs of LGB&T people Develop an evidence base of LGB&T residents’ needs: 1 The ONS should not continue to exclude LGB&T questions from the national census. If this is the case, alternative research needs to be funded that provides robust baseline data.

2 Statutory service providers, commissioners, funders and others should seek knowledge and intelligence about their LGB&T populations and their needs. An important part of this is to introduce sexual orientation and trans status monitoring to all services, particularly those funded out of public monies.

3 Decision makers, including those within commissioning and service planning, must commit to funding and producing the evidence base so that priorities and policies can be made on the basis of knowledge.

4 Decision makers should engage with the LGB&T VCS to develop methodologies that provide evidence acceptable to commissioners. These must be achievable within small and often hidden populations and mostly with very limited VCS capacity.

Key Barrier Invisibility and (mis)representation 6 Wherever possible, pressure should be placed on media sources for fair and equal representation of LGB&T people, with lessons learnt from the approaches taken to the public representation of other marginalised groups.

7 Statutory services should ensure that their own materials are inclusive of LGB&T people, including positive and diverse imagery of the communities they serve.

Key Barrier LGB&T issues often given low priority Inclusion of LGB&T communities within policies and strategies: 8 Statutory service providers, commissioners, funders and other decision makers should urgently recognise LGB&T needs in all their strategies, policies and actions in equal measure to other equality strands.

9 Statutory service providers, commissioners, funders and other decision makers should actively adopt a quality assurance scheme which ensures that LGB&T equality is given the same recognition as other equality strands.

5 Consultation with LGB&T communities should be undertaken in a sustainable way for those involved, recognising there is a financial, as well as human, value to their knowledge and involvement.

15

Executive Summary

Key Barrier Focus is often restricted to the sexual health of men who have sex with men.

Recognising the diversity of LGB&T communities: 10 Service providers, commissioners and funders, both within and outside of the health sector, should continue to support the excellent work that is taking place around HIV and sexual health, but should not do this to the exclusion of other LGB&T needs. They should assess the full breadth of their activities and ensure they are relevant and accessible for all issues affecting LGB&T people.

11 Policies that are jointly aimed at the LGB&T communities should take into consideration the distinct needs of each community and ensure these are addressed equally. Policies aimed at addressing LGB&T issues should be split into component parts, and address each of these communities seperately, where appropriate.

16

Key Barrier LGB&T equality is not yet established as a basic right.

12 Service providers, statutory organisations and others should urgently ensure that equality of outcome for everyone is accepted as a right throughout their organisation and that, through all their activities, this right is extended to all LGB&T people. The proper use of Equality Impact Assessment should be considered here.

13 Service providers, statutory organisations and others should urgently recognise the need for LGB&T specific services to be provided to encourage individuals to seek assistance and access to services when they are needed.

Executive Summary

Area of Need Hate crime 14 A high profile zero tolerance campaign is required – all hate crime including against LGB&T people, needs to be seen as unacceptable.

15 To improve reporting by and support for victims, partnership working is needed between the police, public services and voluntary and community groups.

16 Biphobic and transphobic hate crime should be separately monitored to homophobic hate crime.

Area of Need Young people 17 Action against biphobic, transphobic and homophobic bullying within schools is urgently needed to ensure that young people are safe. This has to be delivered with knowledgeable teams and not solely depend on the teachers and staff, who may also be the perpetrators of the bullying.

18 Curriculums must be developed that represent all people – within a framework of equality.

Area of Need Housing and homelessness 20 Safe housing options are needed for all LGB&T people – including emergency accommodation.

21 Mainstream services need to ensure that their policies take due account of the violence and harassment that LGB&T people can encounter within the family and in their homes. This is of particular importance in policies that establish housing need.

22 Until mainstream provision is truly equitable, specialist services need statutory support and funding.

Area of Need Workplace 23 All employers must ensure that workplaces are safe and free from harassment for all employees. This should include a proactive approach to equality.

24 All employers should publicly display a statement within the workplace that discrimination on any grounds, including sexual orientation, is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in the workplace.

19 All organisations involved in delivering services to young people need to ensure that services are accessible and safe for all young people. This should be a co-ordinated approach which includes experts from education, Children and Young People’s Services, LGB&T experts and other key stakeholders.

17

Executive Summary

The right to equal outcome of services has to be made real within healthcare.

Area of Need Healthcare provision 25 The right to equal outcome of services has to be made real within healthcare.

26 Through training and enforcement, it must be made clear to all practitioners that the patient’s rights are paramount.

27 Trust building must be undertaken with LGB&T communities. This has to be built upon more accessible mainstream services and specific services that are responsive to need. The aim must be reducing health inequalities for all.

18

Area of Need Legislation 28 All organisations should fully implement the LGB&T legislation – indeed move beyond the legislation to equity with other equality strands (if relevant).

29 Implementation must be enforced – and be lobbied for.

30 Full legal equality must be achieved for all LGB&T people.

31 Organisations should train staff on the application of the legislation and its practical effect, combined with sexual orientation awareness training.

32 Organisations should review their policies on gender recognition to achieve equality of outcome and processes that respect the privacy and dignity of their service users/clients.

Executive Summary

19

Introduction

This strategy intends to support the delivery of a sustainable lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGB&T) sector in the North West.

21

Introduction

The strategy was developed in consultation with the LGF’s Rainbow Partnership members (see appendix II). The Rainbow Partnership initiative aims to support and build the capacity of the LGB&T voluntary and community sector (VCS) in the North West.

There are currently over 270 members of the network (as of January 2009), drawn from across the North West; at the start of the consultation process, there were around 60 members.

Although individual membership is possible, the majority of members represent an organisation. 57 members are voluntary and community LGB&T organisations in the North West. A significant proportion of the rest of the members are public sector bodies.

The Rainbow Partnership is thus a strong and growing conduit for connecting voluntary and public sector organisations, facilitating mutual learning and the identification of common goals. Whilst the membership includes representation from three of the largest

22

lesbian, gay and bisexual charities in the UK, it should be noted that the overwhelming majority of the voluntary and community sector organisations (and hence of the Rainbow Partnership network) survive on the knowledge, skills, dedication and enthusiasm of their members, with financial turnovers of less than ÂŁ1,000 per annum.

What is clear is that the LGB&T North West Voluntary Community Sector is currently very fragile and under resourced.

Context There is currently no census information on the size of the LGB&T population within the UK and no plans to introduce this into the 2011 Census. However, the lesbian and gay population has been estimated by the Government Actuaries Department as 6% of the UK population.

Introduction

What is clear is that the LGB&T North West Voluntary Community Sector is currently very fragile and underresourced.

Within the North West, this equates to 408,000 people. There are no official estimations of the bisexual population in the UK. However, the LGF estimate that an additional 3% of the population are bisexual, meaning there is a North West LGB population of 612,000.

The transsexual community is estimated by both the Equality and Human Rights Commission and Press for Change (a leading political lobbying and educational organisation for trans people), to be 5,000 people in the UK, increasing by approximately 300 people per year. However, at the consultation event in Blackpool, there were discussions that suggested the trans population is likely to be much higher, as the current estimated figure is calculated on transsexual prevalence alone and does not include those who are not seeking gender recognition. This strategy will use the wider term of trans to ensure that it is inclusive of transsexual, transgender, and other gender identities (see glossary for full definitions).

In October 2007, sexual orientation (LGB) was recognised by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) as an equality strand, whilst trans was included under the Gender equality strand. Historically, however, many people have linked sexual orientation and trans. There are commonalities between the issues and barriers facing the two strands, and the actions needed to support the infrastructure and sustainability of both the LGB and Trans VCS’ are similar. This strategy acknowledges these commonalities.

Recent legislation, including the Human Rights Act (1998), Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations (1999), Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (2003), Gender Recognition Act (2004), Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (2007) and The Sex Discrimination (Amendment of Legislation) Regulations (2008), have introduced legal rights, particularly against discrimination, for LGB&T people in England and Wales (and Scotland and Northern Ireland in some cases). Since October 2007, it has been the responsibility of the Equality and Human Rights Commission to enforce these rights.

Structure of the strategy Arising from the consultation, the strategy has three main components: 1 Strategic aims.

2 Key barriers that affect all service provision and funding for LGB&T equality and their implications for service providers, commissioners and funders.

3 Specific areas of need that statutory and other organisations should consider regarding LGB&T issues.

23

CHAPTER ONE

Strategic Aims

One of the main purposes of this strategy is to provide strategic direction to the LGB&T sector in the North West region.

25

Strategic Aims

POINT 1 Develop Evidence

Lack of robust evidence and needs analysis POINT 2 Increase Knowledge and Engagement

Lack of capacity within LGB&T VCS

Figure 1 Restricting cycle and points of intervention

Limited knowledge of LGB&T needs

POINT 3 Increase Capacity

LGB&T issues not made a priority and not funded The Lesbian & Gay Foundation were awarded grant funding from Capacitybuilders in 2008 in order to support and develop capacity within the lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans voluntary and community sector in the North West region.

This strategy is based on comprehensive consultation conducted with members of the Rainbow Partnership in late 2007. The process identified a cycle that restricts the establishment, growth and sustainability of LGB&T specific services. Action is needed to support the LGB&T VCS and increase accessibility to mainstream services. The action that is needed is identified as intervention points in the cycle (see Figure 1).

These interventions are intended to inform the strategic aims of organisations working with LGB&T communities in the North West. They represent the most effective way in which we can work together and support each other in order to break the cycle.

26

No one point of intervention is seen as a standalone item that could break the cycle. Rather, each should be tackled simultaneously, providing the best opportunities to break this persistent cycle.

Many of the voluntary and community organisations state that they find this cycle impossible to break out of. The issues are overwhelming for any one organisation and there is clear need for a co-ordinated approach.

A fundamental barrier to breaking the cycle is that individual organisations do not have the capacity to gather evidence or be influential without collaboration and support.

This can only change through concerted and continuous collective action. It is this coordinated approach that the Lesbian & Gay Foundation aims to stimulate through this strategy.

Strategic Aims

First point of intervention Develop the evidence base

“It all comes back to the evidence base, what’s the evidence base, what’s the need and what can be done about that need?”

limited capacity, searching for this evidence is an almost impossible drain on time and resources.

“There is a real big information deficit… to fill that void, that information deficit, you need to rely on LGB&T organisations… because that expertise is already out there… and that has to be resourced”

“A simple answer would be to have one person who does the research on it and put that together and make that available in the public domain”

As noted here, the lack of information is a significant issue and one that is unlikely to be resolved in the short term.

There has been historic under-funding in the LGB&T sector and it needs to be recognised by funders and statutory bodies that the evidence base and needs assessment for these communities are at a very early stage of development. Funding is urgently needed to establish the evidence base.

The importance of this evidence base lies in the need of the LGB&T communities to be able to highlight to funders, commissioners and service providers how their needs differ from the needs of heterosexual people. There may also be different needs within the LGB&T communities that have not been identified or that need to be explored further.

Strategic Aim

1

We will continue to lobby for funding to develop the evidence base. We will also provide the LGB&T VCS and public sector supporters access to the evidence available and guidance on how best to use it.

“At some level you have got to establish a need, haven’t you?”

“You monitor it” “But what would we target - that we think would give us useful data that establishes a specific need?”

It is not only the lack of information that is a problem. The evidence that does exist is often within the ‘grey’ literature - that is, literature which is unpublished and not easily accessed through conventional methods - and very difficult to access. For VCS organisations of

27

Strategic Aims

Second point of intervention Increase the knowledge and engagement of policy and decision makers

“There is a lack of ‘out’ LGB&T managers, decision makers, etcetera and a lack of sympathetic and knowledgeable non-LGB&T decision makers. We need to equip key people with the knowledge and skills with relation to the LGB&T issues and the relevant legislation”

“The reason why there isn’t any money for our sector is because the government doesn’t see that there are any problems or any issues. So we need to show them the issues, or show someone in power… highlight them and say ‘We do need money and this is what we need it for’”

The historic lack of visibility and information about LGB&T communities has left key decision makers in the North West with a lack of understanding about how to include LGB&T needs in their priorities and policies. LGB&T issues need to be recognised and incorporated at regional, sub-regional, and local level within relevant strategies, partnerships and frameworks.

Public sector staff members of the Rainbow Partnership feel this lack of knowledge and understanding affects their daily work. They feel that both their time and their innovation within LGB&T work are often restricted by a lack of understanding of the issues expressed by their managers. They compare this to the resources allocated to other equality strands where the understanding and evidence base are stronger.

Through the consultation, it is clear that there is a perception that LGB&T needs are not recognised and are often completely ignored when decisions are made. Where there is a lack of LGB&T representation in decision making processes, these issues are simply not heard. This was often expressed as ‘inequality of equalities’ with the feeling that LGB&T priorities were low on the list, even for equality and diversity workers.

28

This was identified as applying to service planners and developers in the public services, funders and service commissioners.

Commissioners will, in the next few years, have increasingly important roles in service provision and so this problem is set to have a greater impact unless challenged. The lack of fit between the needs presented by LGB&T communities and the priorities stated by funders is seen as a consequence of this lack of knowledge. VCS staff were frustrated that they constantly had to ‘massage’ the real needs of the community to match funding criteria that were inappropriate for - or inconsiderate of the needs of the LGB&T community.

“I want this strategy to influence my organisation so that I feel better about working there and so that it is fairer”

Strategic Aim

2

We will provide information about LGB&T people and their needs to policy and decision makers across the North West. In doing this, we will increase awareness and engagement with partners and ensure the needs of LGB&T people are accurately communicated.

Strategic Aims

Third point of intervention Increase the capacity of LGB&T voluntary and community organisations

“How do you capacity build the capacity builders? How do you get more people involved so that the responsibility does not fall on the few people… you can’t just do it on a kind of goodwill gesture… how do we get some resources to be able to say we need some workers to actually work up proposals and evidence it” The smaller voluntary and community LGB organisations were very clear in the consultation that they have a strong need for support in two areas: 1) funding applications and 2) business planning.

These are crucial in achieving sustainability, but often suffer because of limited internal capacity.

Rainbow Partnership members perceive that they are not receiving provision of this kind from mainstream support services – for example CVS – and largely felt that this help was not being offered to them.

This demonstrates that mainstream support is difficult to access for LGB&T people.

This leads to a capacity issue about being heard within the LGB&T community and wider equality policies and strategies.

These issues are also faced by bisexual organisations as priorities tend to focus on lesbian and gay people.

Strategic Aim

3

We will provide support to increase capacity of the LGB&T VCS in the North West to ensure that the diverse needs of these communities are met. We will seek to equip the sector to make it well resourced and self sustainable.

The trans organisations have a wider issue of capacity, with a very small number of individuals carrying wide remits in terms of representing an entire community.

29

CHAPTER TWO

Key barriers to growth of the LGB&T sector

The consultation events identified a common set of issues across the North West that affect all parts of the LGB&T community.

31

Key barriers to growth of the LGB&T sector

These issues are identified as having direct impacts on the development of services within the statutory sector, and on the work of individuals within these organisations. They are also seen as barriers to growth within, and bringing funding into, the LGB&T VCS. As a combination, these factors are often seen as being insurmountable and potentially leading to organisations no longer being viable.

The key barriers identified are: 1 There is a limited knowledge and understanding of the needs of LGB&T people amongst decision makers, due, in part, to a lack of training. In addition, no effective evidence base exists, largely due to a lack of investment to facilitate monitoring.

32

2 Invisibility and (mis)representation of LGB&T individuals and communities exists within each of these communities, in the media and throughout society generally in the UK. 3 LGB&T issues are often given low priority by decision makers when compared to other equality strands. This affects the levels of engagement with, and strategic importance of, these issues.

4 Focus is often restricted to the sexual health of men who have sex with men.

This results in a lack of provision to meet the many other needs of LGB&T people.

5 LGB&T equality is not yet established as a basic right, and applicable to all services. Changes that may lead to equality are still, at times, resisted.

Key barriers to growth of the LGB&T sector

Key Barrier 1

Limited knowledge and understanding of the needs of LGB&T people “Our first point is the lack of sympathetic and knowledgeable non-LGB&T decision makers.

We need to equip key people with the knowledge and skills with relation to the LGB&T issues and the relevant legislation” The lack of LGB&T knowledge and understanding of decision makers was mentioned at each consultation event. It was often mentioned that key people have knowledge and expertise in other equality strands and are assumed to be capable of understanding and promoting LGB&T issues.

The effect of this lack of knowledge is experienced by both statutory sector workers and voluntary and community organisations, and is viewed as a barrier to progress. It is often expressed as having to start ‘one step back’ in making the argument for services or funding.

There is often no concept of why provision is needed and this is also reflected in the strategic plans and priorities of organisations.

Discussions often focussed upon the training and information needs of the key decision makers, particularly around the recent legislative changes for LGB&T people.

The particular problems for LGB&T communities in establishing an evidence base that could increase the knowledge of decision makers was also highlighted: 1 There is no baseline data of the population size, as sexual orientation and trans status are not included in the national census (and the ONS has rejected inclusion of sexual orientation in 2011).

2 Most services do not include sexual orientation or trans status in their service’s monitoring.

3 The production of this evidence base has not been resourced in the past and is not being resourced now – and so the evidence base falls further behind other equality strands.

“Wherever you have got monitoring in relation to other areas, such as race, disability etc then we should be on par there” Service providers must counter their lack of knowledge about the service needs of LGB&T people.

“People are just making assertions and basing policy on assertions… Even if we have data, we don’t use it and if you don’t use it, then you can’t tell what you should be doing… People should start taking notice and doing more” There is very limited monitoring of LGB&T communities nationally, regionally and locally. It is likely that introducing monitoring of sexual orientation and trans status on a national level would encourage sub-regional and local bodies to collect similar data.

“In terms of regionally… [they] have to have baselines of the region’s residents. Councils have to start doing Equality Profiles of their residents including sexual orientation”

33

Key barriers to growth of the LGB&T sector

Recommendation

R1

The ONS should not continue to exclude LGB&T questions from the national census. If this is the case, alternative research needs to be funded that provides robust baseline data.

There is a lack of robust research within statutory and other organisations. The lack of this very basic data means that it is difficult to establish the needs of LGB&T individuals and provide a response; without acknowledging that there is a population that has specific needs, there is no broader context in which to place any evidence that is available.

“I get loads of anecdotal evidence from service managers [in mental health], and they say ‘nobody has ever asked’ – there is shed loads of information there, it’s not number crunching, but there is loads of anecdotal information about why we need to be addressing LGB&T mental health” In addition, the collection of sexual orientation monitoring data can help to identify where there are gaps in funding and service provision. This can help to indicate where there is failure to provide services and funding opportunities to LGB&T individuals and communities specifically.

34

Recommendation

R2

Statutory service providers, commissioners, funders and others should seek knowledge and intelligence about their LGB&T populations and their needs. An important part of this is to introduce sexual orientation and trans status monitoring to all services, particularly those funded out of public monies.

Recommendation

R3

Decision makers, including those within commissioning and service planning, must commit to funding and producing the evidence base so that policies can be made on the basis of knowledge.

There are situations in which funders and commissioners may require evidence from small voluntary and community groups.

Key barriers to growth of the LGB&T sector

However, it is important to recognise that complex statistical tests are not appropriate for these groups. It is unlikely that they will have the knowledge and many of the groups are too small for the methodology to be acceptable. It has to be recognised that the LGB&T VCS infrastructure is under-funded and does not have the capacity to fulfil onerous expectations.

“We are not even a charity – there are 4 people… we’ve all got areas of expertise, but we’ve all got day jobs”

Recommendation

R4

Decision makers should engage with the LGB&T VCS to develop methodologies that provide evidence acceptable to commissioners. These must be achievable within small and often hidden populations and mostly with very limited VCS capacity.

“I think there is a lot of willingness from a lot of agencies to engage with trans people and a lot of trans people who are willing to engage – but it has to be done in a very careful way… I think they have to be very, very careful… because that goodwill cannot be exploited”

Recommendation

R5

Consultation with LGB&T communities should be undertaken in a sustainable way for those involved, recognising there is a financial, as well as human value to their knowledge and involvement.

The expertise within the community is of value – and its commercial value needs to be respected.

35

36

Key barriers to growth of the LGB&T sector

Key Barrier 2

Invisibility and (mis)representation 1

LGB&T lives are mostly invisible and every consultation group cited the lack of accurate and positive media representation as damaging LGB&T equality. This is seen as reflecting, but also reinforcing the lack of priority given to LGB&T issues.

“The top of the headlines on the News at Ten [on] Thursday night was disability hate crime and that was big news, a whole bulletin on it … and I was watching it thinking ‘I wonder why they have done that when we have had a murder in London and [for] the first time it was recognised in statute that it was a homophobic murder’ – I couldn’t see that becoming the headline news on News At Ten” “Disability hate crime gets a prime slot on the news… homophobic crime wouldn’t – it just would not make the headlines” The dual issues of invisibility (“There’s nothing really”) combined with inaccuracy (“It gets sensationalised”) was cited in each group.

“It is not just about invisibility, it is also about trying to counteract the negative media and press. When does it get challenged? Who challenges it? There is nobody to challenge it” There is also an issue around statutory bodies.

Even where efforts are made to introduce equality, these are either misrepresented or ignored. This means that a lot of positive representation may be lost.

“The media has not helped the cause… because they have misrepresented the police”

1

See Tuned Out, Stonewall 2006 for evidence of this.

Some suggestions were made that there is not enough done by statutory organisations to promote positive images of individuals, groups and communities that they are, ultimately, funded to serve.

It is also perceived there is a hierarchy in media representation and of available role models.

This hierarchy is seen as being gay men first, then lesbians, then bisexual people and then trans people.

Recommendation

R6

Wherever possible, pressure should be placed on media sources for fair and equal representation of LGB&T people, with lessons learnt from the approaches taken to the public representation of other marginalised groups.

Recommendation

R7

Statutory services should ensure that their own materials are inclusive of LGB&T people, including positive and diverse imagery of the communities they serve.

37

Key barriers to growth of the LGB&T sector

Key Barrier 3

LGB&T issues are often given low priority

“It is a hierarchy of equalities and we are very much at the bottom” A recurrent theme of each consultation event was that the six equality strands do not receive equal standing, funding and are not even equally understood. It is widely seen that the LGB&T strands are at, or very close to, the bottom in terms of priority.

This was raised by those working in the statutory sector, where managers are seen as not giving LGB&T rights equal weighting within equality and human rights: for example, attending the consultation was seen by one person’s line manager as to do with her voluntary work and personal life – and not core to the development work within her role. She was clear that such a stance was not taken around other equality strands, citing in particular the support and time given to address race and disability issues within her role.

38

The effects of this hierarchy are apparent in funding for voluntary sector organisations, commissioning of services and the provision of paid workers. LGB&T people are seen as very low down the list and not getting a fair slice of the pie.

“When you are going in to meet a decision maker, or someone who has funding, you always have to try to make your work fit with their priorities and their strategies, etc., etc. – I wish I was able to walk into a room and have a conversation with someone who already knows that there is a North West LGB&T Strategy and they have already connected their work to it… [so that] when they redesign their criteria for funding that they actually take [us] into consideration…

So, for me, it is at service delivery level, but also at strategic level”

Key barriers to growth of the LGB&T sector

Respondents often compared the situation with the perceived status of Black and Minority Ethnic programs. It should be noted that, in 1991 (the year that the first ever question regarding the BME population was included), the Census found the Black and Minority Ethnic population in the UK to be 6% (in 2001 this had risen to just under 8%).

The Department for Trade and Industry (now the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform) estimated the lesbian and gay population at approximately 6% in 2005.

There is no current estimate for the bisexual population.

LGF research has identified 68 LGB charities (no trans specific charities were identified) across England. These receive a total of £10million per annum. This is equivalent to 0.0003% of charitable income to represent at least 6% of the population. Some equality strands, it would seem, are more acceptable than others to funders: “Their distaste is shown within their judgments” “As soon as you mention ‘gay, lesbian’ they don’t want to know. What they are scared of, I don’t know” And some are more acceptable to managers in the statutory sector:

Recommendation

R8

Statutory service providers, commissioners, funders and other decision makers should urgently recognise LGB&T needs in all their strategies, policies and actions in equal measure to other equality strands.

Recommendation

R9

Statutory service providers, commissioners, funders and other decision makers should actively adopt a quality assurance scheme which ensures that LGB&T equality is given the same recognition as other equality strands.

“At the moment we have to hide behind the others (other equality and diversity strands) to get a foot in the door”

39

Key barriers to growth of the LGB&T sector

Key Barrier 4

Focus is often restricted to the sexual health of men who have sex with men “There is a hierarchy about who is allowed a voice and who is most important”

“It’s always seen as just about sex and not about people’s lives”

The consultation revealed a strong hierarchy within the funding for LGB&T communities and in policies that address their needs. Perceived to be at the top of this hierarchy are gay and bisexual male issues, in particular HIV and sexual health. These are seen as the priority for funding and statutory sector support. This is often explicitly linked to the dominance of HIV issues in the last two decades. This dominance and focus is understandable due to the epidemiological nature of the infection and the disproportionate effect that HIV has on the gay and bisexual male community over others.

In particular, the trans group feel that their issues are a low priority within policies.

It was noted that sexual health for gay and bisexual men is an area where historically a stronger evidence base has been developed and this has drawn in funding.

“We have used HIV to evidence the work in the past… so we have to change how we present our evidence” There was no suggestion that HIV or sexual health are not of grave importance – but it is clear that these are not the only issues of concern and cannot define the needs of disparate communities. Reducing LGB&T people and cultures down to just (gay male) sex is offensively homophobic and absolutely ignores most trans people, lesbians and bisexual women – and the wider needs of gay and bisexual men.

40

“In my job…I get a lot of documents sent to me that say ‘LGB&T’ and it means LGB – you read through it and it says ‘homophobia’ – I feel like saying ’Either say LGB or say LGB&T but [then] include trans people’. Don’t just put it in the title and then ‘Oh we will forget about them now’ and just talk about, it’s usually gay men” The impact is that it prevents appropriate LGB&T specific services, responsive to real need, being developed.

Concentrating resources on one area of work, by definition, excludes others. A broader view would consider, for example, the exceptionally high rates of problematic substance use within the lesbian population – a population that is at the lowest risk of sexually transmitted HIV. “I think it is a fair point that [people] have got different issues that you need to discuss… it is not just a big pot that everybody is in – that there are different issues for different people within the [LGB&T community]” The sole emphasis upon sexual health also prevents an acceptance or understanding that LGB&T people have an equal right to all services – and this is not restricted to sexual health. Further, all service providers have a legal responsibility to ensure that this is achieved. “[Recent research shows that] LGB people had similar issues [to trans people] in terms of…not

Key barriers to growth of the LGB&T sector

going to get the [healthcare] treatment that they deserve and need because they anticipate being treated badly by healthcare professionals…So there are similarities and there are differences…

For example healthcare for trans people is framed within mental health and that affect[s] the way trans people are treated even when they were accessing non-trans related healthcare” Essentially there was a call for a more sophisticated approach that is responsive to the real needs of the communities.

“There is something really key around diversity within the LGB&T community because there are very distinct needs”

Recommendation

R10

Service providers, commissioners and funders, both within and outside of the health sector, should continue to support the excellent work that is taking place around HIV and sexual health, but should not do this to the exclusion of other LGB&T needs. They should assess the full breadth of their activities and ensure they are relevant and accessible for all issues affecting LGB&T people.

Recommendation

R11

Policies that are jointly aimed at the LGB&T communities should take into consideration the distinct needs of each community and ensure these are addressed equally.

Policies aimed at addressing LGB&T issues should be split into component parts, and address each of these communities seperately, where appropriate.

41

Key barriers to growth of the LGB&T sector

Key Barrier 5

LGB&T equality is not yet established as a basic right

The basic premise that gay men, lesbians, bisexual and trans people have the right to equal services and equality of outcome across the board has not been accepted, despite the legislative changes. This attitude needs to be challenged at every level. To date, work on making all services of truly equal outcome to all people, regardless of their sexual orientation or trans status, could be described as limited at best.

“I am sure that people would say that we have got [equality in law] now… but for me it is about how it is implemented… [for example] is the workplace environment welcoming? What language are you using? What messages are you giving out to the LGB&T community? It is those sorts of things really, that I actually think cuts across the board” “It is about asking them what are they doing within their organisations about prejudice and discrimination which may be going on.

Have they actually said… ‘Well, it is totally unacceptable within the organisation’” Reluctance to develop services aimed specifically at the LGB&T communities was linked to a fear of a ‘backlash’ in many cases.2 This is both in terms of individuals’ careers and in terms of accountability to the wider community. It is unacceptable that implementation of LGB&T rights are still restricted in this way.

As part of this move to a basic human rights approach to LGB&T equality, there is a demand that the statutory sector accept two fundamentals: 1 Achieving the legislative minimum is not acceptable – because this is not parity with the other equality strands.

2 This lack of parity betrays an approach that does not recognise the positive value in promoting LGB&T equality Until LGB&T needs are accepted as equal, people will feel excluded from mainstream services and this can result in them not seeking assistance and services when they are required. This increases the need for LGB&T specific services, which provide a safe and understanding delivery environment.

“The public sector needs to consider things not just to do with the victim narrative but recognising that there could be positive value to addressing LGB&T issues or involving the LGB&T community”

“We have got to use different language, we have got to take on the equality and diversity discourse and use, for example, Impact Assessments”

42

It should be noted that although this came out in consultation, the trans community did not make this explicit link – however, they did report an analogous effect of stigma: even the prestigious surgeons are reluctant to be seen as gender reassignment services (preferring to be seen as “urologists”).

2

Key barriers to growth of the LGB&T sector

Recommendation

R12

Service providers, statutory organisations and others should urgently ensure that equality of outcome for everyone is accepted as a right throughout their organisation and that, through all their activities, this right is extended to all LGB&T people. The proper use of Equality Impact Assessments should be considered here.

Recommendation

R13

Service providers, statutory organisations and others should urgently recognise the need for LGB&T specific services to be provided to encourage individuals to seek assistance and access to services when they are needed.

43

CHAPTER THREE

Areas of Need

The consultation process highlighted that participants are keen to see some of the high priority areas of need highlighted within the strategy. However, it should be made clear that the areas covered here are not exhaustive of LGB&T needs: they are more presented as case study areas. LGB&T needs clearly relate to all aspects of life and all areas of service provision.

45

Areas of Need

46

Areas of Need

A fundamental barrier to breaking the cycle is that individual organisations do not have the capacity to gather evidence or be influential without collaboration and support

This section of the strategy contains information on specific areas and is meant to provide those with an influence over any of these areas with practical recommendations for positive change. Legislation has been included in this section. However, it is accepted that this is cross-cutting and applies to all areas of need.

All of the areas of need should be considered collectively as well as individually.

Organisations should not focus entirely on the area(s) of need which apply specifically to their area of work. Instead they should consider how all areas of need could impact on their service delivery.

It is recognised that there are other areas of need within LGB&T communities across the North West region, for example disability and race.

These groups are often the most underrepresented and this was recognised through the strategy consultation.

This strategy is intended to be a starting point to help develop the capacity of these groups and end multi-level discrimination.

The areas focused on in this section are as follows: 1 Hate crime and harassment 2 Young people, including school bullying 3 Housing and homelessness 4 Workplace discrimination and bullying 5 Healthcare provision 6 Legislation

47

Areas of Need

Area of Need 1 Hate crime

“Personal safety has to be the absolute priority” “When I was at the Hate Crime Conference... one of your [police] colleagues… said ‘I know there is a lot of race hate, homophobic hate. Race hate is there, with the courts – homophobic hate crime is down here. People are not reporting it – why?’”

“I think this definitely needs to be a very top priority” Hate crime was considered a priority by participants throughout the consultation 3.

Specific aspects were raised: 1 Lack of trust in the police as a reason not to report 2 The impact of the fear of hate crime on LGB&T people 3 That reporting a crime as a “hate crime” often involves a voluntary “outing” of the LGB or T status of the person that they may not want 4 That low level hate crime was “coped with” – but had impact in changing LGB&T people’s self esteem and behaviour 5 There is a lack of media attention or campaigns challenging hate crime, demonstrating a lack of priority given to it 6 That transphobic and homophobic are the lowest priorities within hate crime

48

Recommendation

R14

A high profile zero tolerance campaign is required – all hate crime, including against LGB&T people, needs to be seen as unacceptable.

Recommendation

R15

To improve reporting by and support for victims, partnership working is needed between the police, public services and voluntary and community groups.

Recommendation

R16

Biphobic and transphobic hate crime should be separately monitored to homophobic hate crime.

Again, this was less the case in the trans consultation – but follow-up conversations and checking with Press for Change have confirmed its importance as an issue for the trans community.

3

Areas of Need

Key facts (from Homophobic Hate Crime, Stonewall 2008, N=1,721) 1 in 5 gay men and lesbians have experienced a homophobic hate crime or incident in the last 3 years 3 in 4 did not report it to the police 8% of all Black and minority ethnic lesbian and gay people have experienced a physical assault as a homophobic hate crime, compared with 4% of all lesbian and gay people 1 in 8 homophobic hate incidents included unwanted sexual contact Only 1% of crimes or incidents resulted in a conviction (from Engendered Penalties, Press for Change, 2007, N=872) 72% of trans people have experienced some kind of harassment in a public place 21% of trans people reported not going out because of previous harassment in public (from GALOP 2001, of 145 Black and minority ethnic LGB people) 68% had experienced homophobic abuse

(from National N=2,656)

Advisory

Group,

2001,

2 in 3 of LGB people had experienced at least one homophobic incident Only 18% had reported it to the police Over 70% had a fear of reporting a homophobic incident to the police (compared with 25% for other incidents) – biggest fears were around “a homophobic reaction from the police” and “the police not taking the incident seriously” (from Policing Manchester’s LGB Community, LGF) Just over 2 in 5 LGB individuals did not feel confident or were unsure if they felt confident in reporting hate crime/ incidents to the police More than 2 in 5 LGB individuals felt that levels of hate crime had remained the same between 2005 and 2008 “That is something that LGB&T people tend to live with – the fear of hate crimes – never mind the actual crime actually happening… and also in terms of kind of harassment and abuse, to a certain extent, if you do something that is an overt, out thing, you almost expect to get that kind of backlash… It is something that we almost expect and that is so wrong, but it kind of comes with the territory”

10% had experienced homophobic violence

49

50

Areas of Need

Area of Need 2 Young people

“A lot of kids are scared” “Not all the legislation is there, because in schools, there are only guidelines, there is no ‘you’ve got to teach about sexual orientation in the curriculum’… and bullying…any event of racial bullying has to be reported, but for homophobic bullying... that happens in school every day but no young person would go to the police to report a hate crime and they wouldn’t even go to their teachers and say ‘someone’s been bullying me’” “The bullying is from children, from teachers, from everybody” “It needs to be that each different area has the resources to develop their own model within their own schools”

Education and exclusion Concern about the physical and emotional safety of young LGB&T people was a major issue for all the consultation groups. All groups cited bullying in school as a very important issue for LGB&T people. This includes bullying by staff as well as by other students, and bullying of the children of LGB&T people and the schools reaction to the parents involved.

Key facts

99% of schools have an anti-bullying policy – just 6% have any anti-bullying that deal with LGB&T issues (Playing It Safe, THT and Stonewall, 1999) 82% of LGB people experience name calling at school (Rivers 2001) Over 70% of (female to male) trans men and 55% of (male to female) trans women report having been bullied by other children [whilst they were at school] (Engendered Penalties, 2007) 28% of (female to male) trans men and 21% of (male to female) trans women report being bullied by teachers (Engendered Penalties, 2007) (from Exceeding Expectations research, Lesbian and Gay Foundation, 2007) 2 in 3 young people thought that training for teachers around sexual orientation issues and homophobia would be a good idea The majority of young people thought that bullying would effect young LGB people in a number of ways, including confidence (74%); self-esteem (64%), loneliness (52%), depression (68%), struggling with studies (41%) and struggling to make friends (74%).

82% of teachers were aware of homophobic bullying happening (Warwick and Douglas, 2001, in Ireland) 59% of LGBQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual and questioning) youth have been physically assaulted (Warwick and Douglas, 2001)

51

Areas of Need

(from The School Report, Stonewall, 2007, N=1,145): 98% of gay pupils hear “you’re so gay” or “that’s so gay” used in a derogatory way in school 65% of gay pupils experience homophobic bullying in school – 75% in faith schools 30% report that adults have been perpetrators of homophobic incidents within school 62% of the time when homophobic incidents were reported to staff, nothing was done Further concerns were raised about the effect of heterosexism within the curriculum and wider school environment.

Key facts - Educational attainment and bullying LGB pupils are more likely to leave school at 16, despite achieving (on average) 6 GCSEs at Grade C (Rivers, 2000) Bullying affects LGB&T pupils’ plans for education (KIDSCAPE,1998) 72% of LGB adults reported regular absenteeism from school to escape harassment, 50% had contemplated suicide – 40% had made at least one suicide attempt (Rivers, 2000) Of those bullied at school due to their sexual orientation, 17% exhibited post traumatic stress disorder symptoms (Rivers, 2004)

52

Many voluntary and community groups had already put in place schemes to address these issues – although two problems repeatedly arose: 1 this work is underfunded or not funded 2 there is an inability to gain acceptance for work around biphobic, transphobic and/or homophobic bullying – many schemes have used the tactic of “piggybacking” this onto a wider bullying scheme to gain acceptance and access There was also a hope that adding equality and diversity to mainstream education curriculum could change the attitude and behaviour of future generations.

Wider young people issues Of course, young people are not only affected by school experiences, but wider social and personal issues. It is important to utilise existing government policy to support the need to ensure that every LGB&T child is supported and encouraged through equality of access and outcome across youth groups and services as well as within schools.

The Every Child Matters guidance supports positive outcomes for all children. Statutory and other organisations that work with children in all capacities need to take responsibility to ensure that all children are supported, especially in environments that are traditionally heteronormative.

Areas of Need

Recommendation

R17

Action against biphobic, transphobic and homophobic bullying within schools is urgently needed to ensure that young people are safe.

This has to be delivered with knowledgeable teams and not solely depend on the teachers and staff, who may also be the perpetrators of the bullying.

Recommendation

Recommendation

R19

All organisations involved in delivering services to young people need to ensure that services are accessible and safe for all young people.

This should be a coordinated approach which includes experts from education, Children and Young People’s Services, LGB&T experts and other key stakeholders.

R18

School curriculums must be developed that represent all people – within a framework of equality.

53

Areas of Need

Area of Need 3: Housing and homelessness 4

Housing was cited in the consultation as a major issue for young LGB&T people.

Homelessness, including living in insecure or unsafe housing, is a frequent consequence of rejection for these young people. It was clear that young LGB&T people do not receive adequate and safe housing from mainstream housing providers.

It was not, however, just young people that are seen as affected by this. There is a strong perception that LGB&T lives can be restricted so that they are clustered, living somewhere that is perceived as safe. Avoiding hassle and hate crime is seen as leading people to restrict their choices in housing – it was also cited by a housing worker as an effect of housing policies by providers.

“I do not fight to live in the lesbian community; I fight to live in the whole world”

54

“In service delivery [in housing] I want them to abide by the new regulations and promote them… in the provision of goods and services for anybody… It might be included, but is it happening?”

Biphobic, transphobic and homophobic harassment and hate crime, both around the home and within the family, strongly influence housing need and choices by individuals and policies by organisations.

Key Facts 22% of trans people live in private rented accommodation – compared with a national average of 13%. This is the least secure accommodation, offering the least protection against harassment (Engendered Penalties, 2007)

This was raised within the LGB consultation, but was not raised as an issue within the consultation with the trans group. However, it has been a campaigning and research theme for Press for Change and so is accepted here as a LGB&T issue.

4

Areas of Need

Homelessness agency workers in London estimated that 26% of young street homeless identified as LGB. (Dunne et al, 2002) US surveys of homeless youths find similar rates of those who identified as LGB: 22% of those aged 13-21 in Seattle (Cochran et al, 2002) and 26% of those aged 13-20 in Oregon (Noell and Ochs 2001) Smaller scale UK surveys of homeless youth find similar disproportionate rates – around 20% of the homeless population (eg: Cull et al, 2006) Evidence for trans people is more restricted, although some suggest that they may be at an even higher risk of homelessness (eg: Fenton et al, 2001 – Northern Ireland) Research commisioned by the Albert Kennedy Trust in 2008 (Cowan and Nastari) identified that, of 12 mainstream housing providers, the majority did refer to sexual orientation and gender identity within documents such as equal opportunities policy, harassment, bullying and discrimination policy, domestic violence policy and anti-social behaviour policy. LGB&T people are now legally protected from discrimination under legislation and more consistent approaches to policy and procedures will help to be compliant with the law. However, the research identified a missed opportunity by housing providers in consulting with LGB&T communities to identify specific needs. As a result of the lack of evidence of need, only two of the organisations delivered LGB&T specific services.

Recommendation

R20

Safe housing options are needed for all LGB&T people – including emergency accommodation.

Recommendation

R21

Mainstream services need to ensure that their policies take due account of the violence and harassment that LGB&T people can encounter within the family and in their homes.

This is of particular importance in policies that establish housing need.

Recommendation

R22

Until mainstream provision is truly equitable, specialist LGB&T services need statutory support and funding.

55

Areas of Need

Area of Need 4: Workplace

Protection from workplace bullying and harassment, and workplace discrimination, was of concern to all the groups. The trans consultation group reported some very strong feelings around specific issues.

Direct discrimination was reported in recruitment by the trans consultation group.

“All of my qualifications are in my previous name and so that’s when applications fall down. It’s a way of outing people. I get to the stage of showing them my qualifications and then it falls down and it is ‘We will be in touch’, ‘Thank you for your application’. You know when they say ‘We’ll be in touch’ and it happens time after time after time” Throughout the trans consultation, transitioning was considered to be a particular time of risk for employees.

“It’s just not handled properly by employers … they just freak out” “They were bullied and harassed, not supported by their employer [the NHS] and went to tribunal” ”Transitioning is the time that you need the support – not having your job taken away” This often resulted in a significant negative financial impact for individuals.

“Trans people having higher than average qualification… but yet the earnings just don’t match them at all – below the national average”

56

LGB people also identified some key issues around discrimination in the workplace: “And I think that is why you get so few people, so few key figures who actually come out as strong figureheads… in organisations etc. So that you can say ‘They’ve come out and actually I will, and I feel strong enough and I feel confident enough to, that I am not going to get harassed and I am not going to get abuse and I’m not going to get hate crime in the workplace’” “My flatmate is currently doing very well for himself at work – he’s got a fantastic wage and he’s been identified as future management potential. However, he often comes back feeling low. He’s not out, and believes that if he were to declare his sexuality, his promotion prospects would be instantly blighted. He basically spends half his waking day pretending to be someone he’s not, and he daren’t raise the issue of the homophobic culture with his manager for fear of reprisal. I can’t help but wonder how many other LGB people are succeeding in their jobs, but at the price of hiding their sexuality” The LGF commenced a campaign in late 2008 to identify homophobic incidents that people had experienced. In October 2008, of 123 people who reported being the victim of homophobia (no trans people were identified as taking part in this campaign), 34% stated that this had occurred in the workplace. However, 68% of all people who stated they had been a victim of homophobia in the workplace did not report it. This highlights that people are still not comfortable drawing attention to such activity at work. Those involved stated

Areas of Need

reasons for not reporting, including: ‘it would not be taken seriously’, they did not know ‘who to report it to’ and ‘fear of reprisal and potential negative impact on promotion’.

Key Facts 10% of trans people report being verbally abused and 6% physically assaulted in the workplace and 1 in 4 trans people feel obliged to change jobs (Engendered Penalties, 2007) Gay men earn 6% less and are 3% less likely to be employed than their heterosexual counterparts (Arabsheibani, Marin and Wadsworth, 2006) 1 in 3 lesbian and gay people have experienced discrimination in the workplace due to their sexual orientation (Millivres Prowler press release, 2007) 1 in 5 lesbian and gay people have experienced bullying from a colleague because of their sexual orientation (Stonewall, Serves you Right , 2007)

Recommendation

R23

All employers must ensure that workplaces are safe and free from harassment for all employees. This should include a proactive approach to equality for LGB&T people.

Recommendation

R24

All employers should publicly display a statement within the workplace that discrimination on any grounds, including sexual orientation, is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in the workplace.

57

Areas of Need

Area of Need 5: Healthcare provision

Both the trans and the LGB consultation groups highlighted the issue of equal access to healthcare. There are strong concerns that: 1 LGB&T people are not receiving adequate healthcare. Both inaccessible services and a lack of engagement by LGB&T people borne of an expectation of discrimination are cited as reasons 2 That specific healthcare needs are not being addressed – bar HIV in some locations

Key Facts Lesbian and bisexual women (Prescription for Change, Stonewall 2008) Half of lesbian and bisexual women have had a negative experience in the health sector in the last year Half are not out to their GP 1 in 10 say the healthcare worker ignored them when they come out and just 3 in 10 say that the healthcare workers did not make inappropriate comments Only 1 in 10 felt their partner was welcome during consultations 15% of those over 25 have never had a cervical smear – over twice the rate for women in general

58

Gay and bisexual men (Mental Health and Social Wellbeing of Gay Men, Lesbians and Bisexuals in England and Wales, 2003) 1 in 3 out gay men experience negative or mixed reactions from mental health professionals 1 in 4 out bisexual men experience negative or mixed reactions from mental health professionals Trans people (Transgender Legal Study: Legal Survey and Focus on the Transgender Experience of Healthcare, 2008) Around 20% of trans people in Europe feel that their trans status reduces their accessing of healthcare – because they expect prejudicial responses Between 18% and 31% of trans people feel that being trans adversely affects the way they are treated by healthcare professionals Nearly a third were refused treatment because a GP did not approve of gender reassignment There is an emerging body of evidence of specific healthcare needs, for example problematic substance and mental health needs within lesbian and gay communities.

There is also a lack of research that appropriately distinguishes between LG and B issues which can mask some specific needs.

There is emerging evidence that LGB&T people are not accessing primary services and have

Areas of Need

poor health outcomes. There is little evidence that this is being addressed by healthcare providers.

The trans consultation group highlighted several issues of concern which were transspecific. Firstly, there was a fundamental issue about whether trans-specific healthcare was available. Two major concerns were around the lack of provision in the North West and the lack of timely healthcare: “If we have to go through the mental health service to get treatment, I am sort of okay to do that, if it proceeds quite well – if we have to do that. But the speed of treatment is a real problem” “People are going expecting to get surgery at the end, but then it doesn’t happen” “There have been cases of people waiting two years for the real life test and then waiting five years for surgery” “I don’t know anyone who has had any surgery done locally” This lack of provision did not just affect gender reassignment surgery – there were frequent reports of a lack of service provision in aftercare: specifically the lack of monitoring liver tests were mentioned. It should be noted that the reports were of a denial of medical treatment.

Recommendation

R25

The right to equal outcome of services has to be made real within healthcare.

Recommendation

R26

Through training and enforcement, it must be made clear to all practitioners that the patient’s rights are paramount.

Recommendation

R27

Trust building must be undertaken with LGB&T communities. This has to be built upon more accessible mainstream services and specific services that are responsive to need. The aim must be reducing health inequalities for all.

59

Areas of Need

Area of Need 6: Legislation

“It is about meaningful implementation, full implementation of the existing laws” “I think robust policy to back up the existing laws” The perception for LGB&T people was that the law had moved quite rapidly in the past few years. However reservations remained: 1 That the historic tardiness of the legislation, in comparison with the other equality streams, meant that LGB legislation was “last on the list” 2 That there was not full equality under the law 3 That changes in legislation (especially in the areas of provision of goods and services and employment) were perceived as not equating to the positive duties in other areas (specifically gender, race and disability) within the public sector, reinforcing an inequity between the strands

60

4 Mostly it was felt that lack of knowledge about the laws and lack of willingness meant they were not being implemented – and not being enforced.

Recommendation

R28

All organisations should fully implement the LGB&T legislation – indeed move beyond the legislation to equity with other equality strands (if relevant).

Recommendation

R29

Implementation must be enforced – and be lobbied for.

Areas of Need

For the trans community, legislation was seen as a very double-edged sword: “There has been major, major confusion about that and it has made things 10 times worse” (with regard to the Gender Recognition Act) “It is totally wrong – there has been a system in place for years that has been scuppered by the Gender Recognition Act… People asking for proof, we have no obligation to show our GRC to anyone”

Recommendation

R30

Full legal equality must be achieved for all LGB&T people.

Recommendation

R31

Organisations should train staff on the application of the legislation and its practical effect, combined with sexual orientation awareness training.

Recommendation

R32

Organisations should review their policies on gender recognition to achieve equality of outcome and processes that respect the privacy and dignity of their service users/clients.

61

Measures of Success This strategy is a very forward thinking document that provides organisations with a framework for ensuring that LGB&T people can achieve their full potential by supporting the delivery of a sustainable LGB&T sector in the North West. It has provided three strategic aims that should be incorporated into organisations’ existing strategies to ensure that LGB&T people are empowered and enabled.

By developing an action plan to implement the recommendations to meet the aims of the strategy, organisations will be working towards breaking the cycle that restricts the growth of the LGB&T sector. Through this we

62

can develop a strong evidence base, increase the knowledge and engagement of policy and decision makers and increase the capacity of the LGB&T voluntary and community sector.

As this grows, individuals and groups will feel empowered to affect change.

We will know we are being successful when people do not feel discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation; when people feel comfortable being ‘out’ without fear of homophobic abuse; where people feel their workplaces are fully inclusive and welcoming, regardless of their sexual orientation. And we all feel equal.

Bibliography

Arabsheibani R, Marin A and Wadsworth J (2006), Gay pay in the UK. London, CentrePiece Cochran B, Stewart A and Ginzler J (2002), Challenges faced by homeless sexual minorities: Comparison of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender homeless adolescents with their heterosexual counterparts. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 773-793.

Cowan, Katherine and Valentine, G (2006) Tuned Out: The BBC’s portrayal of lesbian and gay people., London, Stonewall.

Cowan, K and Nastari, M (2008) Investigating mainstream housing and support providers’ approaches to meeting the needs of lesbian, gay and trans service users. Albert Kennedy Trust.

Cull M., Platzer H. & Balloch S (2006), Out on my own: understanding the experiences and needs of homeless lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth DTI (2005), Full regulatory impact assessment for sexual orientation, London, DTI.

Dunne G, Prendergast S and Telford D (2002), Young, Gay, Homeless and Invisible: a growing population? Culture, Health and Sexuality, 4(1): 103-115.

Fenton K, Johnson AM, McManus S and Erens B, (2001) Measuring sexual behaviour: methodological challenges in survey research.

Sex Transm Inf (2001); 77:84-92.

GALOP (2001,) The Low Down: Key findings – the complete results of GALOP’s Black Services Development Project’s needs assessment survey.

London, GALOP. Hunt R. & Fish J. (2008), Prescription for Change: Lesbian and bisexual women’s health check.

London, Stonewall KIDSCAPE Survey, (1998) King M., McKeown E. (2003), Mental health and social wellbeing of gay men, lesbians and bisexuals in England and Wales Millivres Prowler press release (in partnership with Out Now Consulting) (2007)

63

Bibliography

National Advisory Group (2001) Noell JW and Ochs LM (2001), Relationship of sexual orientation to substance use, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and other factors in a population ofhomeless adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health. 29(1):31-6, 2001 Out North West (Issue 83: August 2008), Policing Manchesters LGB Community, Lesbian and Gay Foundation Rivers I. (2000), Social exclusion, absenteeism and sexual minority youth Rivers I (2001), Retrospective reports of school bullying: recall stability and its implications for research. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 19 (1): 129-142.

Rivers I (2004), Recollections of homophobia at school and their long-term implications for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals. Crisis: Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention, 25 (4), 169-175.

64

Stonewall and Terence Higgins Trust (1997), Playing it Safe: Responses of Secondary School Teachers to Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Pupils, Bullying, HIV/AIDS Education and Section 28.

London, Stonewall.

Stonewall (2007), Serves You Right: Lesbian and gay people’s expectations of discrimination.

London, Stonewall Stonewall (2007), The School Report. London, Stonewall.

Stonewall (2008), Homophobic Hate Crime: The Gay British Crime Survey, London, Stonewall.

Warwick I and Douglas N (2001), Safe for all: A best practice guide to prevent homophobic bullying in secondary schools. London, Education Policy Research Unit Whittle S, Turner L and Al-Alami M (2007), Engendered Penalties: Transgender and Transsexual People’s Experiences of Inequality and Discrimination. London, Press for Change.

Appendix I Consultation Method

A comprehensive consultation process was conducted through the Rainbow Partnership membership between November 2007 and February 2008. Four face-to-face consultations were held, including one specifically for trans members. These events were based around focus group discussions of specific issues faced by LGB&T communities, barriers to progression for the communities and potential solutions to these barriers. Collaboration was requested, and achieved, but consensus was not required.

A draft of this strategy was circulated to the LGF and sent to the full membership in October 2008 for comments. All of the contents of this strategy were based upon the views expressed within the consultation by representatives of Rainbow Partnership members.

We would like to thank representatives from the following organisations for their involvement in the consultation: Albert Kennedy Trust Age Concern Stockport Armistead Centre The Angel Centre Blackpool Police Blackpool PCT Centre for Local Policy Studies Cheshire Women’s Services Citrus Communications Community Relations Co-ordinator Crown Prosecution Service Drugline Lancashire Greater Manchester Police Housing Connections Partnership Knowsley Housing Trust Lancashire Care Trust Lancashire College Lancashire County Council Lesbian and Gay Youth Manchester Lesbian Community Project Liverpool Community Network

LGBT Youth North West Manchester City Council Merseyside Police Merseyside Youth Association Mosscare Housing NHS Manchester Press for Change Pride Sports Prime Focus Queer Youth Network Salford City Council SHIVER Stockport College Stockport Council Stonham – Rossendale Project Tameside Third Sector Coalition Transinclusion Warrington CVS Wirral LGBT Forum Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council Wyre Borough Council

We would also like to thank all of the individuals and other participants who contributed to the production of this strategy.

65

Appendix II The Rainbow Partnership

Building a unified voice for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (LGB&T) Sector The LGF developed the Rainbow Partnership in early 2007 to provide co-ordinated infrastructure support to LGB&T voluntary and community groups in addition to the comprehensive range of frontline services already offered by the organisation. A review of the Rainbow Partnership commenced in October 2008 to ensure that it continues to accurately reflect the needs of its membership and that its structure is appropriate for delivery. It is likely that changes will result from this process.

Much of the LGB&T sector consists of small and unfunded community groups, which in many cases are run by dedicated volunteers.

Historically, these groups have not attracted the investment and support that has been made to other equality groups, often due to a lack of resources, capacity, understanding and evidence base.

To redress the lack of formal infrastructure within the LGB&T sector, the Rainbow Partnership aims to actively strengthen and empower LGB&T frontline organisations and the communities they support. This includes: Building a united LGB&T sector voice to access and influence decision makers and policy developers, giving them more opportunities to have their say; Helping the LGB&T voluntary and community sector to develop together, through working in partnership, sharing best practice and supporting each other; Ensuring LGB&T frontline organisations have access to and support from mainstream infrastructure organisations, through signposting and sharing information; and Preparing the LGB&T sector for public service delivery and competitive tendering.

66

To achieve its aims, the Rainbow Partnership is undertaking a wide range of activities, including: Comprehensive and regular mapping exercises of the LGB&T sector Delivering joint regional campaigns Producing newsletters and information fact-sheets Sending out a fortnightly email policywatch service Sharing information and research evidence through the Rainbow Partnership website Developing and implementing the region’s first five-year LGB&T strategy Organising funding forums to enable two-way communication and access between LGB&T groups and funders

Over the past year, the Partnership has grown quickly, with over 270 network members consisting of voluntary and community groups, charities, public sector bodies, social enterprises and interested individuals across the region. We want to ensure that the LGB&T sector is as accessible as possible and we welcome membership from all parties interested in the integration and fair representation of all LGB&T communities.

In order for the Rainbow Partnership to achieve its aims, we want you to join the Rainbow Partnership Network.

Membership is free and you can choose your level of involvement. To find out more about the Rainbow Partnership or to become a member, email: rainbow@lgf.org.uk or telephone 0161 235 8035.

Facilitating regional conferences and sub-regional events Developing partnerships and links with mainstream infrastructure organisations

67

Glossary of Terms Sexual Orientation Gay – This term is frequently used to describe men who are physically and/ or emotionally attracted to other men, however this term can be used for women also. For example; a gay man or a gay woman. In addition, homosexual is also a term used to describe men who are physically and/or emotionally attracted to other men.

Lesbian – women who are physically and/ or emotionally attracted to other women.

Bisexual – this can be a person of either gender who is physically and/or emotionally attracted to either gender.

Heterosexual – a person who is physically and/or emotionally attracted to people of the opposite sex.

Gender Identity Trans – This is a UK created term intended to be an umbrella inclusive of transgender, transsexual, drag kings, drag queens and all others whose gender identity and/or expression differ from the sex they were assigned at birth.

Transgender – This has been used in the UK in the same way as ‘trans’, but has a slightly different definition in the US referring to those who intend to live crossgender without sex-reassignment surgery.

The dual meaning means that the definition is contested and creates ambiguity.

Transsexual – This carries a medical definition and includes individuals who have the physical characteristics of one sex and the psychological characteristics of the other who are intending to, are currently or have undergone gender reassignment surgery.

Discrimination Homophobia – Hatred or fear of homosexuals.

Biphobia – Hatred or fear of bisexuals.

Transphobia – Hatred or fear of trans people.

Heterosexism – This term applies to attitudes, bias, and discrimination in favour of solely opposite-sex sexuality and relationships.

Heteronormativity – This is a term to describe the marginalization of nonheterosexual lifestyles and the view that heterosexuality is the normal sexual orientation.

Equality and Diversity Equality of outcome - regardless of any differences or regardless of where any inequalities exist; all will achieve the same result and be treated equally.

Equality impact assessment - an analysis of the impact of policies or procedures, strategies, functions, services or other changes made to service delivery which consider a variety of different factors which could be affected due to the change, normally focused around the existing six equality strands.

If you require any further information about terminology used in this document, please contact the Lesbian and Gay Foundation at info@lgf.org.uk

69

The Lesbian and Gay Foundation would like to thank the following photographers for the images used in this strategy:

Paul Jones Michael Robinson Diane Scott-Thomas Glen Monks Sarah Quinn Roars Lorraine Clark & Stuart Rainsbury

The North West Region

CUMBRIA

LANCASHIRE

GREATER MANCHESTER MERSEYSIDE

CHESHIRE

We believe in a fair and equal society where all lesbian, gay and bisexual people can achieve their full potential.

For a large print format of this strategy, please call 0161 235 8035 or email: info@lgf.org.uk Published in February 2009 by: The Lesbian and Gay Foundation Princess House, 105-107 Princess Street, Manchester. M1 6DD Tel: 0161 235 8035 Fax: 0161 235 8036 Email: info@lgf.org.uk Web: www.lgf.org.uk Registered Charity No. 1070904 Registered Company No. 3476576

Reg. Charity No. 1070904