Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/1
P/2 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment Data Summary
April 2012
Mary F. Morten with Keisha Farmer-Smith, LSW, Ph.D. Christina Smith, LCSW, Alicia T. Vega, MJ, Jessica Kadish
Text Copyright © 2012 by The Chicago Community Trust; Mary Morten Materials Copyright © 2012 by Mary Morten.
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/1 funding support for the LGBT Community Needs Assessment data summary was made possible by
and the francis Beidler iii and prudence r. Beidler foundation
P/2 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment Table of Contents
I Acknowledgements 05 4 Needs of the Unemployed and 39 Underemployed II Executive Summary 06 5 Diversity and the LGBT 40 III Introduction 08 Community
IV Methodology 11 6 The Recession and the Impact on 41 the LGBT Community V Demographic Highlights 12 7 Existing Resources 42 1 Surveys 12 and Underserved Areas 2 Data Cards 16 VIII Conclusion 44 3 Focus Groups 18 IX Sources 47 4 Interviews 19 X Appendices 48 5 Key Highlights Across Data Tools 20 1 Detailed Methodology 48
2 Extended Survey Demographics 49 VI Key Identified Needs from the the LCNA Survey 28 3 Extended Data Card 52 Demographics 1 Affordable Health Services and Care 28
2 Sustainable Employment 30
3 Access to Government Benefits, Rights, and Services 31
4 Response to Community Discrimination 32
5 Community Safety 33
VII Key Identified Themes from Multiple Data Tools 34
1 Unique Needs of LGBT Seniors 34
2 Commonalities Between LGBT Seniors and Youth 36
3 Supports Needed by 38 LGBT Families
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/3 P/4 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment I. Acknowledgements
Ken O’Keefe, Judith C. Rice, and Patrick Sheahan – as well The Morten Group LGBT as The Chicago Community Trust, The Elizabeth Morse Genius Charitable Trust, and the Needs Assessment Team Francis Beidler III and Prudence R. Beidler Foundation for was very fortunate to have funding the needs assessment and for their commitment to a broad base of support providing philanthropic support to underrepresented and often marginalized populations. and participation in this Thank you to the reporters, data collection effort. public media professionals and bloggers who took the time to cover the Needs Assessment: Stephen Chaitman of The Windy City Times, Belhú Sanabria of La Raza, Emmanuel García of Homofrecuencia, Anna DeShawn of The Anna DeShawn Thank you to the more than Special thanks are also due Show, Rod McCullom of Rod 2.0 60 community and business to Dr. Bianca Wilson of the and the writing teams at In Our organizations that served as Williams Institute, Dr. Lourdes Words blog and XQSí Magazine. community partners and the Torres of DePaul University, more than 20 LGBT leaders Dr. James H. Lewis of The Special note of thanks for and allies in the Chicagoland Chicago Community Trust, and the exemplary leadership area who publicized, supported Jason Cox of the Andersonville and dedication provided by and participated in the data Chamber of Commerce, for Liz Thomson for serving as collection activities.* their invaluable input regarding our Asian Language Liaison, the development of the online Andrea Densham for her efforts We are deeply grateful to survey. surrounding the Evanston focus everyone who filled out a survey group, and Tracy Baim for or data card, participated in a Thanks are also given to graciously providing essential focus group, or completed a our eight facilitators and contact information and the telephone interview. interviewers for their hard work support of Windy City Times and dedication to the project: with numerous articles. We are also grateful to Loyola Tony Alvarado-Rivera, Simon University Chicago’s Center for Aronoff, Cece Lobin, Ryan Urban Research and Learning, Meher, Mairita Smiltars, particularly David Van Zytveld, Christina Smith, Alicia T. Koonal Patel, Will Bolton and Vega, and Marisol Ybarra. Gina Lopez, for their support during the early stages of the We thank the Steering development of the Needs Committee of The LGBT *A list of participating organizations, Assessment project as well as Community Fund - James L. businesses and LGBT leaders and their comparison data analysis Alexander (Co-Chair), Prudence allies can be found at http://www. efforts during the final stages of R. Beidler (Co-Chair), Ramesh lgbtfund.org and at http://mortengroup.com/ the process. Ariyanayakam, Denise C. Foy, lgbtneedsassessment.php.
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/5 II. ExEcutive Summary
In September 2011, The LGBT Community Fund Steering Committee retained Morten Group to conduct a needs assessment for the LGBT community1 in the Chicago metro area. The purpose of the needs assessment was twofold: 1) to gather data about the assets, needs and challenges of the LGBT community in the Chicagoland area to 2) inform future funding decisions of the Steering Committee.
Overview of Data Demographic Key Identified Needs Collection Methods Highlights from LGBT Community Data were collected over an 11- Needs Survey Data was collected from a week field period from October diverse respondent pool of over The report is divided into two to December of 2011, using a 2,000 Chicagoans representing main sections. The first section “snowball” sampling method a wide variety of sexual of the report focuses on five where four main data collection orientations, gender identities, key needs in the Chicago LGBT methods were utilized: ages, races, socioeconomic community as identified by backgrounds and residential survey takers, the survey being 1. online surveys areas. Demographics differed by far the largest data collection 2. Community drop boxes considerably between data vehicle. The five major needs with data collection cards collection vehicles; this report identified include: 3. focus groups presents major demographic highlights across the four 1. Affordable heath 4. individual interviews instruments of data collection, services and care and subsequently provides 2. employment The following report contains specific characteristics of the both qualitative and quantitative 3. Access to government respondents for each respective analyses of the data collected. benefits, rights data collection vehicle. and services 4. discrimination 5. Community safety
1Please note that the phrase “LGBT community” is used throughout this report as an umbrella term to refer to all individuals who identify as LGBTQ. However, the term is something of a misnomer as “the LGBT community” is not monolithic, which is a commonly held misconception. While this term is used for simplicity and brevity, it should be underscored that Chicago’s “LGBT community” in fact consists of many overlapping smaller communities and subcultures. Moreover, not all individuals who identify as LGBT take part in community life within the structured settings reflected in the institutions and organizing models represented within this report.
P/6 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment Key Identified Comparative Data Conclusion and Themes from An extensive amount of data Recommendations Multiple Data Tools was collected through this The concluding section of the The second section of the report process and where possible, report outlines concrete funding focuses on seven major themes a comparative analysis was recommendations based upon found across multiple data col- conducted with similar local the data collection. This report lection vehicles. These seven and national studies, and other is supplemented by a themes are: qualitative research. Most of companion process report the comparison data used, as that includes all documents 1. senior needs with most studies, was designed used in data collection, to highlight targeted findings as well as further funding 2. similarities between youth about specific populations recommendations from needs and senior needs and where possible, provide individual interviews with 3. family needs comparisons. community stakeholders. 4. Needs of the unemployed and underemployed The LGBT Community Needs Assessment, in contrast, was 5. diversity within the conducted to provide a broader community view of the many communities 6. The impact of the that comprise Chicago’s LGBT recession on the community community at large and utilize 7. The need to focus financial the existing data selected to resources on existing make comparisons to relevant services and under- categories throughout our data served areas analyses. Further, because of the diversity of respondents represented within the data collected by the LCNA, the capacity to make greater comparisons among sub- groups within Chicago’s LGBT community now exists.
Morten Group, led by President Mary F. Morten, was established in November 2001 to focus on clients in the nonprofit, for-profit, and foundation fields. Morten Group provides a customized approach to solve organizational and resource development challenges and to explore new opportunities. Morten Group offers expertise in building communities of inclusion and access, succession planning, trustee recruitment and retention, and film and video production.
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/7 III. Introduction
The LGBT Community Fund is one of the Purpose of Needs identity-based funds of The Chicago Community Assessment Trust. The Fund was established in 2010 with the 2010 Census data reflects an increase in the reported goal of distributing $1 million over the following members of the LGBT three years to community-based organizations community, whereas smaller studies of LGBT subgroups in Chicago and the surrounding counties. have provided greater The Fund began with a $500,000 matching qualitative information about grant from the Trust, which will go toward a particular needs of these groups. The LGBT Community permanent endowment benefitting the LGBT Needs Assessment was community. commissioned to provide a more comprehensive view of the entire community, one focused The purpose of the Needs Assessment was on demographics, strengths, to gather data about the assets, needs and and collective community member input related to areas challenges of the LGBT community in the of need. This was the primary Chicagoland area and to inform future funding focus of the data collection by decisions made by the Steering Committee. Morten Group. Further, the data is intended to provide information based on individuals’ accounts of LGBT communities and their life experiences as part of those communities. As such, Morten Group maintained a commitment to diversity and access to participation by reducing as many barriers to the process as possible. This was achieved by attending to such considerations as ethnicity, linguistic background, socioeconomic status and geography (North, South, West and East sides of the city, as well as the suburbs), among others.
P/8 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment Review of Existing Research/Data
The Chicago LGBT Community The studies selected for The studies selected for Needs Assessment (LCNA) comparison included: comparison were chosen conducted by Morten Group is because of the similarity in the first comprehensive needs 1. somjen Frazer’s 2009 LGBT populations surveyed as a assessment of the Chicago Health and Human Services primary population across area LGBT community to be Needs in New York State similar categories as the completed since approximately for the Empire State Pride LCNA, which were: 2003. Agenda Foundation: Albany, NY 1. Affordable heath A review of existing local and services and care national data was conducted 2. Gay, Lesbian and Straight to provide qualitative and Education Network (GLSEN) 2. employment quantitative comparisons to the and Harris Interactive’s 3. Access to government LCNA data. Nine comparable 2006 study From Teasing to benefits, rights, and services Torment: a Report on School data sets were identified. 4. discrimination This data review revealed Climate in Illinois that while some comparisons 3. howard Brown Health 5. Community safety could be made across similar Center’s Elder Services categories, the methodology, Community Initiative Study This report provides a first-level and populations sampled were (2009) analysis of the data collected and is largely descriptive in limiting factors in reducing 4. Lourdes Torres and the capacity to conduct a nature. The data collected Nicole Perez’s 2011 study by the LGBT Community comprehensive comparative Latina Portrait: Latina Queer analysis. Needs Assessment provides Women in Chicago a necessary background 5. illinois Department of against which The Chicago Human Services (IDHS) Community Trust should explore Bureau on Domestic and further comparative analyses. Sexual Violence Prevention’s Exploring the similarities and 2005 Safety and Sobriety contrasts across categories, Manual, particularly the characteristics, as well as section “Special Populations: variation in context is the next Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and level of research needed to Transgendered People" provide a more comprehensive 6. 2010 US Census analysis. It is also important Bureau Data. to note that the data from the assessment does not allow for evaluation of current programs and delivery of specific services; the assessment was not designed to gather this information.
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/9 P/10 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment IV. Methodology
The LGBT Community Needs Assessment (LCNA) used “snowball" sampling to learn about the experiences and needs of the Chicago metropolitan LGBT community.
Snowball sampling is a non- information about the LCNA. period, beginning on October 7, probability sampling method Morten Group also designed 2011, and ending on December used by researchers to identify a series of e-newsletters and 20, 2011. a target population and engage an active Facebook page to them in involving others within aid in participant recruitment. A core project team of three their networks for the data Community partners and people was responsible for collection process. All people leaders serving varied the survey development, focus who identified themselves as geographic regions of the city groups, stakeholder interviews part of the community were and suburbs were identified and the community drop box invited to participate in at least in order to develop a strong, data collection. Eight trained one of the data vehicles. Morten diverse sample. facilitators, interviewers Group identified community and note-takers worked on partners and leaders who Through cooperative the project with additional shared news of the assessment relationships with more than administrative support from survey with their contacts, 60 nonprofits and businesses the core team. housed community drop and 20 individual leaders in boxes with data cards, held the community, Morten Group focus groups and provided collected and analyzed data suggestions for leader from 1,562 survey completers, Please see Appendix A for interviews. Their contacts, in 319 data card respondents, 125 a more detailed description turn, continued to share this focus group participants and of the methodology used information, which subsequently 52 interviewees. Data collection for each of the four data caused more contacts to share was conducted for an 11-week gathering methods.
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/11 V. Demographic Highlights
A variety of factors resulted in different levels of demographic information collected across the four methods of data gathering. Because they supported relative anonymity, surveys collected the most detailed demographic data, followed by data cards.
Where appropriate, responses from the “other” category related to race/ethnicity, gender or identity were moved into designed categories. For example, racial/ethnic identity responses mentioning a country or countries in Latin America have been counted among the Hispanic/Latino category. Finally, when answering questions about race/ethnicity, gender and related facets of identity, survey takers were allowed to select all appropriate responses, rather than setting a constraint that might keep a participant from expressing their full demographic identity.
Only broad, general information on gender, orientation and age range was asked of interview and focus group participants. Choosing to collect and report aggregate information for the focus groups and interviews was purposeful and reflected Morten Group’s commitment to learn about the needs and experiences of LGBT people in a safe and respectful way.
This section details demographic highlights from the surveys, data cards, focus groups and interviews, followed by several comparison tables that provide a comprehensive view across all of the data collection tools. All percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number, except for figures related to unemployment.
1. Survey Gender Identification of Survey Participants Demographic Highlights Other 2%
Information collected from MTF 2% the needs assessment surveys reveal that respondents are FTM 3% quite diverse in multiple areas. Although the vast majority of Transgender 3% the participants identified as female (51%) or male (42%), Genderqueer 7% others identified as genderqueer Male (7%), transgender (3%), female 51% to male (3%) and male to Female 42% female (2%). Ten percent of participants selected more than one gender identity. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% “Other” self-defined responses for the survey included: gender nonconforming, gender fluid, nonbinary, A large percentage of the gender nonspecific, human, transmasculine, transmale, trans- sample identified as gay (43%) female assigned, bi-gender, butch, transwoman, transsexual, and lesbian (35%). There two-spirited, third gender, myself, Ze, dyke/Chicana and were other respondents who androgynous, queer, femme, kid/boy/guy. identified as bisexual (14%),
P/12 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment queer (23%) and questioning Sexual Orientation of Survey Participants (2%). Additionally, nearly 22% identified with more than one Other 5% category and 2% wrote in that they identified as either straight Questioning 2% or heterosexual. “Other” self- defined responses for the survey Queer 23% included: polyamourous, BDSM oriented, poly, kinky, pansexual, Bisexual 14% asexual, pan-romantic asexual, grey-asexual, aromantic asexual, Lesbian 35% same gender loving, open to Gay 43% love, open, transwoman, spouse is transgender, androphile, A, normal, ally, lesbian married to 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% a trans man, lover of women, straight gay, dyke, myself, homosexual and two-spirited.
Racially, survey takers were diverse, stating that they are Racial Identification of Survey Participants African-American (18%); Latino
(13%); bi/multiracial (5%); and Other 3% Asian, Pacific Islander or Native
American (less than 5% each). It Bi/Multiracial 5% is important to share, however, that a clear majority of the Pacific Islander 1% respondents stated that they are
Caucasian (65%). When early Native American 2% data revealed that survey takers were 76% Caucasian, Latino/a Morten Group developed paper 13% surveys and worked proactively Caucasian with community centers in 65% underrepresented areas to Asian recruit participants of color. 3% “Other” self-defined responses African for the survey included: Arab/ American/ 18% Middle Eastern, Jewish and Black “prefer not to say.” 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/13 V. Demographic Highlights
Age of Survey Participants 18%
14-17 21% 9% 18-24
3% 25-34 1% 35-44
45-54 16%
32% 55-64
65 or older
Outreach to people of color was The age of needs assessment between $25,000 and $49,999. not the only diversity initiative survey takers was effectively The largest percentage (about intentionally undertaken by distributed between several 37%), however, earn $50,000 Morten Group. Special efforts groups including 18- to 24-year- a year or more - and when were made, whether through olds (16%), 25- to 34-year-olds reporting household income, targeted focus groups, (32%), 35- to 44-year-olds (21%) four in ten people state that strategically placed drop boxes, and adults ages 45- to 54-year- their household collectively survey mailings or translated olds (18%), and adults 55 or earns $75,000 or more. data cards, to reach out to older (12%). The median age as many sectors of the LGBT of survey takers was between When looking at survey community as possible: youth 34 and 35 years old—slightly respondents by community (including homeless and/or older than the city of Chicago area, it is important to note that perilously housed youth), older age demographics that put the there were no clear “majority adults, incarcerated individuals, median age for the city at 31.5 communities” identified. About transgender and genderqueer years. 69 of the 77 Census-defined individuals, undocumented Chicago community areas individuals, persons in recovery Like age, reported individual participated in the survey, from substance abuse, and income was varied, with 35% of along with more than 40 other individuals whose primary survey takers earning $24,999 suburbs, villages and cities in language is Spanish, Chinese, a year or less and another 28% the Chicago metropolitan area. Korean, Hindi or Vietnamese. reporting an individual income Top response counts came
P/14 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment 28% Individual Yearly Income of Survey Participants 37% Less than $24,999
25,000-$49,999
More than $50,000
35%
from neighborhoods including in the general demographics was listed as 9.8%, while the Lakeview, Edgewater, Rogers section. It is important to national rate was 8.6%. Park, Uptown, Lincoln Square, note that 13.3% of general Logan Square and Hyde Park. survey takers report being Most survey takers are English More than half (54%) of survey unemployed and 7% report that speakers, even if they speak takers have resided in the they are employed but earning another language. Other Chicago area for 16 years or a wage that is not livable. reported languages included more. About 13% are new to When controlling for race Spanish (29%), French (8%), the area, residing here for 0 to and ethnicity, however, these German (3%), Italian (1%) 3 years. More than 80% of the results shift. One of every five and Japanese (1%), as well survey sample report living in Latino/a and African-American as Chinese, Hebrew, ASL Chicago, while 8% reside in the survey takers report that they (American Sign Language), North suburbs, 6% in the West are unemployed and about 10% Polish and Russian (all less suburbs and 3% in the South report that they are employed than 1%). suburbs. but earning a wage that is not livable. According to Illinois Survey employment fields Department of Labor Security were extremely varied, further statistics cited by The Chicago reflecting the diversity of the Sun-Times (December 22, 2011), Chicago area LGBT community. for November 2011, the Chicago Details are highlighted later metro area unemployment rate
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/15 V. Demographic Highlights
When sharing information on Relationship Status of Survey Participants their household characteristics, a majority (72%) of survey Other takers report that 1 to 2 people 4% live in their home, while another Widowed 20% report that 3 to 4 people 1% live in their home. Accordingly, Single a vast majority of households 40% are only home to adults over the Partnered 12% age of 18 (84%). Living Separately
A majority of survey takers Partnered 28% (about 45%) report that they are Living Together in committed relationships via civil union (9%), marriage (9%) Married 9% or partnered living together
(28%). Another large group Divorced 3% (40%) describe themselves as single. Unlike some needs Civil Union 9% assessments and other studies that have been completed for 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% LGBT populations, the Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment survey received responses from a large number of single-identified individuals, 2. dATA Card with more survey takers Demographic choosing “single” than any other individual category. Less than Highlights 4% report that they are divorced Equal percentages of male and About 32% of the data card or widowed. female-identified participants respondents were African- filled out data cards (44% American, which represents each). Approximately 17% a higher response rate than Please refer to Appendix B for of respondents (combined) in the survey, which was 18%. a more detailed breakdown of identified as transgender, FTM, Asian or Pacific Islander- survey demographics. MTF, or genderqueer, whereas identified participants, while 3% of participants self-identified only comprising 4% of survey in other ways, including asexual, respondents, represented a femme, intersex-transsexual and percentage over twice that gender nonconforming. size for the data cards, at 9%. Caucasian participants made About 35% of the respondents up less than 40% of data card identified as gay, 23% identified respondents, a significantly as lesbian and 16% as queer, lower proportion than on the while 13% identified as bisexual. survey. “Other” self-defined Self-defined responses included responses for the data cards straight, intersex transsexual, included Arab/Middle Eastern, and ally. Nearly one in five data human and North African. card participants self-defined The higher reporting numbers within the “other” category. among African-Americans and
P/16 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment Gender Identification of Data Card Participants Asian/Pacific Islanders may be attributed to the strategic Other 3% community locations for the drop boxes and targeted MTF 3% events identified to reach underrepresented members FTM 4% of the community. Transgender 5% A significant majority of the data card respondents are Genderqueer 5% English speakers reporting (96%). Other languages Male 44% include Spanish (2%) and Female 44% Hindi, Vietnamese, Chinese and Korean (all less than 1%). 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% The age range reflected most among data card responders is 25 to 34 (32%), followed closely by 18 to 24 (28%), with the median age being 25 years old. This represents a greater response rate within these younger age categories than that of the online survey. This Sexual Orientation of Data Card Participants increased reporting can be attributed to the community Other sites, locations and events 19% targeted for distribution. Questioning 2%
Individuals with lower incomes Queer 16% were more likely to complete the data cards than the online Bisexual 13% survey. Half of the data card responders made less than Lesbian 23% $25,000 in 2010. About 35% of all data card respondents report Gay 35% that they are employed and earning a livable wage, which 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% correlates with the high levels of education reported. 7.8% of respondents reported being employed full time but not earning a livable wage, while 19.4% of respondents report being unemployed.
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/17 V. Demographic Highlights
Please note this number is Racial Identification of Survey Participants double that of the City of
Chicago’s unemployment Other 1% rate (November 2011). This is alarming and particularly Bi/Multiracial 6% significant, given the high education levels reported, Native American 3% and may be the result of possible discrimination Latino/a 16% experienced within the
LGBT Community. Caucasian 38%
In general, data card responders Asian or 9% are well educated, with nearly Pacific Islander 50% of all participants reporting that that they have completed African 32% college. However, it is important American/ Black to note that 14% of the data card responders reported high 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% school as the highest level of education completed.
The community areas reflect some diversity in reporting. The community areas reflect The top response counts came some diversity in reporting. 3. focus Group from Lakeview, Edgewater, The top response counts came Rogers Park, Lower West Side, Demographic from Lakeview, Edgewater, Highlights Uptown, Hyde Park, Lincoln Rogers Park, Lower West Side, Park and Humboldt Park, which Uptown, Hyde Park, Lincoln For focus groups, participants collectively represent more than Park and Humboldt Park, which were given blank boxes 53% of the total communities collectively represent more than rather than options to choose reported. About 85% of the 53% of the total communities from, so all self-identified responders were from Chicago reported. About 85% of the gender, orientation and race/ communities and 7% from North responders were from Chicago ethnicity freely. Many of these and Northwest suburbs, with communities and 7% from North responses could be classified in 5% reporting from the West and Northwest suburbs, with accordance with the categories suburbs and 3% from the South 5% reporting from the West used for the survey and data suburbs. suburbs and 3% from the cards, though some responses South suburbs. remained free of categorization. In general, data card responders are well educated, with nearly Self-defined identity responses Please refer to Appendix B for 50% of all participants reporting for gender included: “Woman more detailed breakdown of that that they have completed for now,” “Male publicly, female data card demographics. college. However, it is important privately,” TGirl, cisgender to note that 14% of the data and post op TS. Self-defined card responders reported high responses for race/ethnicity school as the highest level of included Indo-Dutch and education completed. Jamaican, among others.
P/18 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment Employment Status of Data Card Participants 35%
3% Unemployed
Employed part-time 7% 8% Employed full-time, wage below liveable Employed full-time, wage liveable 19% Retired 28% Other
Self-defined responses for 4. interview Demographic Highlights sexual orientation included: Interview participants ranged in age from 30 to 80 years old. This Transgender, trans, “Queer till I group was also racially diverse with over half of interviewees being find a better concept,” “Hetero people of color (African American, Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander or as male / lesbian as female,” bi-/multiracial). Stud, and “No preference.” As with the survey, data cards and focus groups, a vast majority Focus groups represented of interviewees identified as female or male. Interview participants the most racially/ethnically were not asked to specify their orientation. diverse respondents of all data gathering methods. One A variety of community leaders, professionals, educators, policy in three participants identified experts, activists and heads of service providing organizations as Caucasian, one in three participated in the interviews. A list of people completing the as Latino/a, and one in five interview is not available in the public version of this report in as African American/Black. order to maintain interviewees’ privacy. Focus groups also had a high percentage (15%) of gender nonconforming participants (identifying as transgender, MTF, FTM, genderqueer, or self-defined). Focus group participants ranged in age from 14 to 78 years old.
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/19 V. Demographic Highlights
5. Key Highlights Across Data Tools The following charts present data from six major demographic categories in a comparative format: gender identification, sexual orientation, race, age, income and relationship status.
1. Gender Identification Interviews Other 5% Focus Groups 3% Data Cards (self-defined) 2% Survey
2% Genderqueer 5% 7%
1% MTF 3% 2%
1% FTM 4% 3%
2% 6% Trans 5% 3%
54% Female 47% 44% 51%
44% Male 46% 44% 42%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
*Please note: for the focus groups, the “trans” category includes all terms including the word “trans” (i.e. transwoman, transman, transgender).
Across data collection vehicles, data collection vehicle, with most participants identified the strongest representation as male and/or female, with (17%) seen in the data cards. relatively even distribution Female-identified individuals between these two categories. were most strongly represented Transgender, MTF, FTM and in the interviews and data genderqueer-identified cards, comprising over 50% of individuals (combined) participants for both of those comprised between 2% and data collection vehicles. 17% of participants for each
P/20 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment 2. Sexual Orientation
32% Gay 35% 43%
19% Lesbian 23% 35%
17% Bisexual 13% 14%
11% Queer 16% 23%
0% Questioning 2% Focus Groups 2% Data Cards Survey 22% Other 19% (self-defined) 5%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
The majority of participants in and 23% respectively. The all three data collection tools greatest percentage of bisexual- where this question was asked identified respondents was seen identified as gay, nearly 43% in the focus groups, at 17%. For in the case of the surveys. both the data cards and the The highest percentage of focus groups, approximately 1 in respondents identifying as 5 participants self-identified in a lesbian or queer was also way that differed from the major seen in the surveys, at 36% categories used.
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/21 V. Demographic Highlights
3. Race
0% Interviews Other 4% Focus Groups 1% Data Cards (self-defined) 3% Survey
0% 3% Bi/Multiracial 6% 5%
0% 0% Native American 3% 1%
17% 34% Latino/a 16% 13%
62% Caucasian 36% 38% 65%
4% Asian or 1% Pacific Islander 9% 4%
African 17% 22% American/ 32% Black 18%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
The majority of participants participants. The greatest in every data collection tool proportion of Asian or Pacific identified as Caucasian: Islander-identified respondents over 60% in the case of was also seen in the data cards, the interviews and surveys. at nearly 1 in 10 participants. The greatest percentage of Latino/a participants were most African American-identified strongly represented in the respondents was seen in the focus groups, comprising data cards, at nearly 1 in 3 one-third of all participants.
P/22 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment 4. Age
22% 14-17 0% 1%
32% 18-24 28% 16%
14% 25-34 32% 32%
7% 35-44 17% 21%
5% 45-54 15% 18%
9% Focus Groups 55-64 7% Data Cards 9% Survey
10% 65 and older 2% 3%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
*Please note: community leader interview participants ranged in age from 30 to 80 years old.
The distribution of participant in the focus groups, with over ages across data collection 50 percent of participants vehicles indicates the active between the ages of 14 and participation of individuals from 24. Focus groups also saw all stages of the life course. the strongest participation for No one age group represented seniors; approximately 1 in 10 more than 1 in 3 people for any focus group participants was given data tool. The strongest over age 65. youth participation was seen
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/23 V. Demographic Highlights
5. Individual Income (2010)
$100,000 or more 4% 11%
$75,000- $99,999 5% 9%
$50,000- $74,999 16% 18%
$35,000- $49,999 10% 17%
$25,000- $34,999 16% 10% Data Cards Survey $15,000- $24,999 8% 10%
Less than $15,000 42% 25%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Comparison of individual survey respondents earned income of data card and less than $15,000 in 2010, over survey respondents shows 4 in 10 data card respondents that individuals earning lower did. About 38% of survey incomes made up a greater respondents made $50,000 percentage of data card or more in 2010, compared with respondents. While 1 in 4 25% of data card respondents.
P/24 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment 6. Relationship Status
Other 2% 4%
61% Widowed 2% 1%
Single 40%
10% Partnered (LS) 12%
Data Cards Partnered (LT) 13% 28% Survey
8% Married 9%
0% Divorced 3%
Civil Union 5% 60% 70% 9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
*Please note: for the two “Partnered” categories, “LS” indicates “living separately” and “LT” indicates “living together.”
Single was by far the most Given that U.S. Census data common relationship status and many prominent studies chosen by needs assessment only examine partnered couples participants, with 4 in 10 survey and same-sex households, this respondents and 6 in 10 data sets the LCNA apart in its card respondents indicating representation of single LGBT that they identified as single. community members.
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/25 V. Demographic Highlights
Other Overall data highlights
Community Areas and Residences Needs assessment respondents reside in 71 of Chicago’s 77 officially defined community areas. It is important to note that there were no clear “majority communities” defined. No single community reported more than 15% of the participants for any data collection vehicle.
Additionally, not all needs assessment participants have homes:
• At least one survey respondent is currently incarcerated at the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). • Two people identified as homeless or without an address. • one focus group was held for perilously housed youth (12 participants), and although most of the participants from this group identified as living in Lakeview, 50% of them listed addresses of social service agencies or parking lots in Lakeview.
The vast majority of participants came from the city of Chicago—between 78% and 85%, depending on the data collection method. North suburban residents accounted for 7% to 12% of respondents, West suburbs residents 5% to 8% of respondents and South suburbs residents 1% to 3% of respondents (depending on the data collection vehicle). Northwest Indiana residents accounted for just 0.3% of survey respondents and were not represented in other data collection methods.
P/26 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment Survey Data Cards Not-for-profit 20% Student 14% Education 15% Education 7% Student 12% Teacher 7% Finance, insurance, real estate 7% Artist 3% Arts and Entertainment 6% Social worker 2% Medical field 6% Manager 2%
Employment Education U.S. Citizenship and Vocational fields reported In general, survey takers are Immigration Status via surveys and data cards highly educated, with more The vast majority of were extremely varied, further than 50% of all survey takers survey takers reported U.S. reflecting the diversity of the reporting that they completed citizenship (97%). Of those Chicago area LGBT community. college or graduate school. High who reported non-citizenship, The six most reported fields education is consistent when 77% are residents, 14% are from the surveys and data cards controlling for race (African- undocumented, 8% have are listed below. Employment American/Black and Latino/a). special visas and 1% have dual status or field was not collected citizenship with the U.S. and as demographic data in focus In general, data card responders another country. One of the 15 groups or interviews, although are also highly educated, with focus groups was designed for many shared their experiences nearly 50% of all data card undocumented participants. with employment, which are responders reporting that explored later in this report. that they completed college. Documentation status was not In comparison, the 2010 collected as demographic data Chicago Census data shows in focus groups, data cards or 32% of respondents reporting interviews. completing college or higher.
Educational level attained was not collected as demographic data in focus groups or interviews.
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/27 VI. Key Identified Needs from the LCNA Survey
In the governance section Discussion of Key of the survey and on the Community Issues data card, respondents were asked to ordinally Issue 1: Affordable Health in accessing care, while 7.9% rank 14 categories in Services and Care indicated that they had no the order of urgency insurance. with which they thought Respondents overwhelmingly Among LCNA data card expressed concern about the government should respondents (who were health care. Among survey address them. The most overall younger than survey respondents, 66% ranked health respondents), 68.1% report frequently selected are care as their highest concern having access to health care identified below. and 35% ranked it as their and resources and 63.5% report second highest concern. having access to both physical Among survey and mental health services. respondents, affordable While these numbers represent Latina Portrait: Latina Queer a positive trend, they also health-care services and Women in Chicago (2011) indicate that 32% to 37% of care or health insurance members of the Chicago LGBT ranked as the number one The Latina Portrait study (Torres community do not have access and Perez, 2011) reported that issue the respondents felt to these resources. the government should 27.9% of Latina LGBTQQ women in Chicago have not disclosed Howard Brown Health Center’s address (66%), followed their sexual orientation to Elder Services Community by access to government all of their doctors or other Initiative (ESCI) Study (2009) rights and services [i.e. health care providers, and of those who have disclosed, marriage equality] (43%), AARP survey respondents 13.9% report receiving negative employment (33%), were presented with a list of reactions. Additionally, 17.8% of sixteen needs and asked to community safety and Latina queer women discussed rank them from highest to violence (25%), and experiencing unfair treatment lowest unmet need. Affordable discrimination based on by hospitals/doctors or other medical and mental health care medical professionals, and class, race and age came in fourth on the list of 15.2% reported that their sexual (21-24%). unmet needs, with 28% of the identity contributed to the survey population reporting. negative interaction. Data card respondents Affordable prescriptions were reported slightly different the second highest unmet need cited by respondents, and 32% New York LGBT Health and “top five” areas of of the overall survey population Human Services Needs community need. The reported concern about them. Assessment (2009) number one reported The LCNA data cards’ specific responses about health care issue was services for Similarly, in the New York Needs needs included but were not youth (16%), followed Assessment Survey, 35.3% limited to: “universal health of participants identified a by access to affordable care”; “better medical and lack of mental health services health care (13%), LGBT physical health programs”; and 39.2% identified a lack “non-bar social environment for access and equity (12%), of support groups as being a professionals”; “mental health employment (9%), problem or a major problem and safety (8%). issues”; “free comprehensive
P/28 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment dental health insurance”; “better “I am very concerned about heath care. health resources and affordable foods”; “health prevention I worked for a company that went bankrupt clinics”; “mental health services” when I was in my mid-50s. I worked in the and “groups, case management, mental health psychosocial IT area and was unable to find work and groups or therapy.” began doing my own consulting, but at one
The following remarks from point was unable to afford individual health survey respondents further insurance and got sick. I'm still paying that highlight concern about this issue, particularly the hospital visit off as best as I can. I applied connections between access but was not granted any discount. I now have to healthcare and stable employment: minimal heath care coverage that I can afford but won't provide too much and waiting to “I will make it personal. I am unemployed. I can't get be eligible for Medicare in another year.” employment because I have visible dental issues so no one wants to hire me. I can't get The focus groups also discussed Interviews with community them fixed because I have no the complexity of health leaders supported findings in income to do so. There are NO care services and insurance, the surveys that health services aid services to assist people like including issues faced by and health care are complex and me. So, I remain unemployed. undocumented people and serious issues. Some leaders I am very much an activist for the un-/underemployed, and tie lack of health care to rising gay rights and gay marriage and the importance of mental and un-/under employment and safe and secure neighborhoods emotional health care services other economic issues, while for gays. But if I can't access that are all too often inadequate. others state that until the LGBT basic health, i.e. basic dental Two focus group participants community is treated equally care so I can then access shared: under the law (regarding employment none of it matters. marriage and the privileges All levels of government— “My partner of 35 years that come with it), health state, local, county and eventually within the next year care/services will continue federal—should get involved. or so will need more assistance to be a major need for LGBT A contributing factor to my than I can give him, and it would people. Several community dental issues is my HIV status. be essential for us to have a leaders representing the No one would blatantly admit gay-friendly at least, if not gay Latino/a community note they were fearful of working on or lesbian, person to come in that under health care reform, my teeth, but they found lots of and do the caring. My friend will undocumented members of the convenient excuses not to. Then, not go to a nursing home, he’ll LGBT community will lose some when I could no longer afford commit suicide.” basic health care services. insurance at all, my teeth rapidly deteriorated...”
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/29 VI. Key Identified Needs from the LCNA Survey
“Many people are still afraid on the South Side. $10,000. Overall, 19.5% said that they did not have enough Bottom line, people are there and they need services. income to meet their basic Services closer to the people. I can’t think of a sadder needs, while 40% had just sight than an African-American gay youth. Many enough and 40.5% had more than enough. In contrast, the are uncomfortable coming up to the North Side median income reported in the because it’s out of their comfort zone. I refer people 2010 Chicago Census data is reported as being $39,000 and to [addiction rehabilitation center on the North Side] $44,000 annually for women all the time and they don’t go because they don’t feel and men respectively. comfortable even though it’s right off the El.” Further, the Howard Brown ESCI Elder Study indicated that many older adults, including “Health care is an issue. The We are much bigger than our LGBT older adults, rely on Social assumption is that it does not sexuality and our sex lives— Security as a primary source of affect most in the community. we care about things more retirement income. According But because many people are than that.” to a National Center for Lesbian still closeted, they do not seek Rights report cited in the care. They are losing their jobs, Issue 2: Sustainable Howard Brown study, 62% of become lower income and they Employment adults 65 and older use Social do not want to out themselves Security for half or more of their by seeking care. There are also annual income; 26% use it for up Respondents of the LCNA lesbians raising families and to 90% of their income and 15% also voiced serious concerns health care is out of reach. Also, use it as their only source about employment. Among there are youth of color being, of income. particularly trans youth, kicked survey participants, 33% ranked employment as their number out of their homes and this is Many factors can contribute one concern and 23% ranked rising.” to the unemployment it as number two. Among data and underemployment card respondents, only 50% “When the Obama plan goes rates experienced among report having a livable wage and into full implementation, any respondents, including age, being able to meet expenses, undocumented person with gender, and access. While rates with only 50.2% indicating that AIDS will lose health care. of unemployment are higher they have strong employment It’s all economics. It’s mostly than those in similar categories networks. 2010 Census data myths, not reality. In the throughout the state of Illinois, throughout Illinois reflect a 7.3% whole, we need to see the real greater analysis is needed to statewide unemployment rate. social/economic needs of our assert a causal relationship. community. I think folks will be Given the biases expressed in The Latina Queer Women in surprised how many folks are previous data, discrimination Chicago study indicated that uninsured in our community. experienced may not always as many as 40.9% of women In the Latino community, we be overt and can often be reported making less than haven’t done enough work to assigned to a class of people $29,000 annually while the educate health-care providers. without regard for individual New York Needs Assessment They need to look broadly—not competencies. just at AIDS and STD, it’s much indicated that a total of 11.9% broader, like mental health of the survey respondents were issues and substance abuse and in poverty, having no income tobacco use and cancer rates. or household income below
P/30 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment Several focus group participants Issue 3: Access to because they are unable voiced the opinion that Government Benefits, to access benefits. Further employment concerns are Rights and Services analysis of this is needed especially pressing for trans- to determine context and identified individuals: contributing lifestyle factors Categories relating to access prior to accessing benefits. Even “I guess when it comes to to government benefits, rights without the benefit of historical employment—looking for a full- and services, such as marriage knowledge, the data across all time job over the summer— equality, were ranked by 43% studies used for comparison I have it so deep in my head: of participants as their greatest indicate a greater vulnerability ‘Why would somebody want concern. Additionally, 31% for seniors in general, and those to hire me when they could hire of respondents ranked such individuals without spousal or someone who isn’t trans?’ And categories as their second partner benefits, retirement then if I did get a job, I would greatest concern. While 44.3% benefits, and disabilities. have to get new clothes for it— of data card respondents stated Additional influencing factors, go out and spend $100 that they knew how to access such such as social, cultural or I don’t have.” services, this indicates that political circumstances may also almost 6 out of 10 do not have exist which can limit access to “Being able to prove that you’ve knowledge of how to access eligibility, increased benefits or not been given/lost a job governmental programs, entitlements. because you’re trans is difficult. including Social Security, When discussing overall Worked at temp agency—often unemployment and medical aid. inequality, access to government it would be determined on rights and services on an equal first day whether they were Reflected in the Howard Brown basis with other people—for a good fit, sometimes felt ESCI Elder Study, The National example, marriage equality— like they weren’t asked back Gay and Lesbian Task Force were not mentioned repeatedly, because they made someone estimates that LGBT elders are but certainly brought up and uncomfortable. Nothing you denied roughly $124 million discussed in the context of can do about that—very little a year from Social Security overall inequality. For example, protections, especially in a temp two survey takers shared: job. There was nothing explicit that they could bring up. Still ”The economic situation is the treading into realm that it was top priority for me. My partner an unfriendly environment.” lost his job because it was outsourced to India. He needs to find work and to receive unemployment benefits when he “There’s a report that says that a trans is not working (he is doing temp person is 11x more likely to not get or lose a work right now). Fortunately, because we have a civil union job than a gay/lesbian individual. And if you he is covered by my health add on top of that a person who is trans insurance. Marriage equality and a POC, then can’t even comprehend would provide additional economic benefits. Pensions what that challenge will be for a young need to be protected, except for African-American trans woman.” the few instances where people get ridiculously (sic) high pensions. Social Security needs to be protected.”
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/31 VI. Key Identified Needs from the LCNA Survey
“Civil union is [a] nice first step, 19.3% claim to have experienced between race and gender but same-sex marriage must discriminatory treatment by when exploring the impact of become approved federally. a social service agency, 27.1% discrimination experienced, Employment is tough for report instances of racism by similar to the data card everyone now but gays are still governmental agencies, and respondents, who were discriminated (sic) against in 17.8% identify experiencing overwhelmingly African hiring. Affordable health care for unfair treatment by hospitals/ American and youth or young those without insurance is vital. doctors or by any medical adults. Respondents from the Too many hate crimes. Any is professional. Additionally, 68.7% data cards report experiencing too many.” of women claimed that they had discrimination across multiple offensive remarks aimed at them settings within the LGBT One senior focus group directly, and 84.7% reported community at large as well when participant indicated a particular being in the presence of interfacing in different social lack of access of government offensive remarks. 53.8% stated contexts where their safety services for seniors: that others have avoided being felt compromised because of near them, 60.7% have had race, ascribed characteristics, “A lot of seniors that I know— others make them feel that they sexual orientation or gender and I know because I just spent did not fit in and 30% of women expression. 6 months looking for a place have received unfair treatment for my sister to stay—a lot of by their partner’s family due Examples of top issues facing seniors have to go back into to their sexual orientation.” the LGBT people as written by the closet when they go into Furthermore, 40.9% of Latina data card respondents include: the nursing facility. The Tuesday queer women have experienced “housing and employment group at [name of organization discriminatory treatment by discrimination”; “homophobia omitted] is the only outlet for service providers in public bullying discrimination”; a lot of people. Many people restaurants and establishments “civil rights and marriage really regret that. An LGBT place in Metropolitan Chicago, and discrimination”; “trans issues: for assisted living really doesn’t 21.8% of women stated that housing and employment exist—there isn’t any. Housing they often feel disrespected by discrimination”; and “religious does not exist for us.” people who either know or think equity.” they are LGBTQQ. Many groups tied Issue 4: Response to A common bias is also shared in socioeconomic inequality to Community Discrimination the Howard Brown ESCI Elder unequal allocation of resources. Study, where it was noted in a Also, many youth stated that Discrimination, whether survey of 24 Area Agencies on class assumptions are made based on class, age, or race, Aging in New York that 46% about them because they are was ranked as a number of staff respondents said that perilously housed or of color. one concern by 21 to 24% of openly gay men and lesbians the survey respondents. As would not be welcome at One youth focus group reflected in the quantitative senior centers in their areas participant had this to say about and qualitative responses, (Behney, 1994). Highlighting age discrimination: greater acknowledgment and the often unspoken prejudices responsiveness to community experienced by LGBT individuals “In Chicago, it feels like there’s prejudices and discrimination in daily social interactions an age restriction on being gay. is needed. in what should be safe and [Lots of nods of agreement welcoming social environments. from the group.] Boystown This is significantly reflected means nothing if you’re under in the Latina Queer Women in These data reflect some 21. You can look but you can’t Chicago study as well, where influence in relationship touch. Essentially you can go
P/32 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment to [name of local business omitted]… Anything social in Boystown is 21+. And you need to have money to do those things, regardless.”
While a community leader being interviewed shared:
“There are still issues at every level. This is still lots of homophobia/ transphobia, especially in the workplace, on the street, in the criminal legal system. It impacts the marginalized communities because people without resources can[not] affect their ability to protect themselves.”
Issue 5: Community Safety with 26.6% reporting a “not One youth focus group applicable” response. It is not participant related the following Violence and safety within the surprising, then, that the GLSEN story of safety concerns: LGBT community and within Report indicates that only lived community spaces was a half (52%) of Illinois students “Word that I was gay spread chief concern for almost half reported that they felt very to these homophobic boys— of survey respondents. About safe in their schools, and over because we were friends they 25% ranked it as a number one a third (37%) of the students automatically broke their concern and 23% ranked it as a reported that they felt unsafe in friendship with me—they number two concern. school because of one or more decided to physically abuse me personal characteristics, such as at school, they pushed me down Data card respondents listed the physical appearance or sexual stairs. I didn’t really tell anybody following among the top issues orientation. about it, they would push me up facing the LGBT people: “safety against lockers and threaten me in Boystown area”; “safety Additionally, 39.9% of women a lot—the boys got suspended education”; “safety from/with in the Latina Queer Women in for a long time—still to this police”; “violence prevention” Chicago study reported being day my car is getting egged, and “safe spaces.” Of the data harassed (i.e. name calling, things that you wouldn’t expect card respondents, 67.7% report jokes, fights, etc.) for being happen to someone...I do have a feeling safe at school and work, LGBTQQ when they were restraining order now and I can’t while only 56% indicated feeling growing up, and 6.2%disclosed hang out with them outside of safe within the city at large. that they have never told school—they’re not allowed to Only 22.3% reported feeling anyone that they are LGBTQQ come near me or touch me or comfortable that the police for fear of negative impact this bump into me.” would respond to their needs, could have on their lives.
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/33 VII. Themes Emerging from Multiple Data Tools
Emergent themes for this project 1. unique Needs of were developed in several steps. LGBT Seniors First, the data was transcribed and LGBT seniors face serious needs in the areas of affordable hand coded. When hand coding, housing, access to governmental key phrases and quotes used by the and nonprofit resources, feeling study participants were highlighted safe to access those resources, vocational services and health and reviewed for commonalities. care. Two older survey takers Reoccurring phrases and similar and several focus group participants have shared stories statements within and between the of losing their homes, jobs and/ four data vehicles were collected. or health insurance. Data cards Similar words, phrases and quotes did not demonstrate a trend of concern for seniors’ needs, were placed in “theme baskets” possibly due to the significantly and provided a visual display of younger age demographic of data card respondents. the emerging themes. Relationships among these data were connected with lines and explanations. These Survey and focus group participants older than preliminary themes, with supporting age 55 stated: data and quotes, were developed “If people have the basics and shared with Morten Group covered, such as health care, support staff for feedback. employment and housing, the other social issues can get some attention. Without the basics, In this section, themes developed people care a lot less about by common trends found in the marriage equality, etc.” surveys, data cards, focus groups “There needs to be a more and interviews are explored. These visible group of LGBT themes highlight the diversity and community elders for those who are more isolated—in nursing complexity of people who comprise homes. I think we need to be the LGBT community, the unique careful when we talk about the community—it extends beyond needs of different segments of the Lakeview and Sheridan. It’s community (especially youth, seniors important to have places like and families), and how the country’s the Mather cafeteria—satellite locations throughout the city economy has impacted LGBT people. so that elders can gather away from the usual places. One of the detriment—and it’s not a knock—is that the community has always been focused on Chicago’s lakefront.”
P/34 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment Interviews with community Survey data from respondents leaders indicated that as baby boomers become ages 55 and older shows That: seniors, community based service providers in the LGBT rate health insurance as fair or community must begin to re- 22% poor on a 5 point Likert scale. think their service population rate employment services/support as fair or poor while and reach out to older adults 15% 52% report that they are not sure how to rate these services. who are leaving the work force stated that they do not currently face and unaccustomed to seeking serious quality of life issues; however, social service support. For About 40% example: 20%, or 1 out of 5, do not feel comfort- almost 20% able accessing government resources, “… [B]iggest safety issue is report that they do not have seniors, primarily people over and 27% strong employment networks. the age of 75. There are a lot of safety concerns for this group such as income safety, physical security, health, living alone especially with many older LGBT people having a lack of family structure, not kids or especially those estranged from their families.”
“I am over 60, have been unemployed for almost two years, no health care or benefits. I have had to move into low- income housing, find a free clinic for health needs, track down free meds from pharmacies and find part-time work to make ends BARELY meet. My prospects are very poor and the outlook is rather bleak going into winter. You see my top 5 are all around these issues. I do not feel like I am being heard or even seen by government and media.”
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/35 VII. Themes Emerging from Multiple Data Tools
2. Commonalities Survey Survey data reveals the following Between LGBT when comparing youth (24 and under) and Seniors and Youth seniors (55 and older): LGBT youth and seniors have a great deal in common when • When controlling for • 13% state that they cannot it comes to needs. However, in age (taken from sample safely access job related/ addition to needing housing, of 24 and younger and vocational services and resources, employment and 55 and older), individual another 31% state that health-care support, youth and household income they are not sure if they are also facing safety issues, drastically shifts to the left, can access these services. including feeling unsafe while with more than half of the navigating their community and sample (52%) earning less • Almost one third do feeling targeted by the police. than $15,000 individually not know how to access Furthermore, some younger per year. government support adults feel that they aren't programs including social taken seriously by, or receiving • 25% of the sample security, unemployment equal respect from, the LGBT categorizes themselves or medical aid. community. Interestingly, both as unemployed, 26% as older adults and youth report working part time and 8% as • 30% do not have strong experiencing age discrimination. working full time but earning employment networks. below a livable wage. • Over 20% state that they • Education rates remain high cannot safely access health with almost 50% earning a services and another 10% college degree or beyond. state that they are not sure if they can access these • 36% do not currently earn services. wages that allow them to meet expenses.
• 24% do not feel that Chicago police respond to their needs.
Data card respondents were West sides”; “LGBT support in “education (for safe sex)”; highly concerned about youth schools, support for homeless “youth housing”; “LGBTQ youth issues (youth issues replaced youth, “access to services programs”; “more time in health care in the top 5 issues outside of Boystown”; and youth centers and more youth of concern for data card “youth (esp. youth of color) activities”; “more LGBT youth respondents, as mentioned discrimination and over-policing services/centers, supportive, earlier). Examples of top issues and incarceration.” respectful, accountable schools, listed included: “support for anti-discrimination laws/ the youth, services (health), By that same token, examples of policies”; and “mentoring for jobs (well paying)”; “homeless suggested services to address GLBT youth substance use and youth”; “youth support, LGBT youth issues included: "safe mental health services.” resources on the South & place (for homeless youth)”;
P/36 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment One survey participant main issue I face is being taken have a class problem is pathetic. shared the following about seriously in my community as a Young people need support, their schooling experience younger person, and that people particularly around transitional as a youth: don't leverage their ‘experience’ housing and *affirming, or their age over me. I may not supportive* mentors.” “I walk fearless as a own a condo in Lakeview, but I transgendered I couldn't hide still live here and have a voice in While older survey my true feelings of appearance. my community.” participants wrote: A lot of jobs that provide health “Job discrimination that has insurance basically ripped up “…The North Side has it scarcely been touched by age- my application in my face. It’s so discrimination laws. Disrespect hard to pay for health insurance easy. I feel if my family by those who consider old ….I would of saved my family A had more money and persons to be out of ideas LOT of money if I just walked lived there, I wouldn't and out of energy, when we home. But it wasn't an option are in fact disproportionately even though I lived so close. have been on suicide conscientious in our I was lucky if I made it on the watch, I would have lived commitments, whether on the bus without getting bullied, or at home, I wouldn't have job or in volunteer service to the having a beer bottle thrown at community.” my head… School officials didn't been homeless for 2 do anything for GLBT. When whole years. Prostituting “The biggest issues I face are there was brutal fight between my body for meals and racism and homelessness. I a Gay and HOMOphobe. There am fortunate to have a good was never a letter or call sent clothes and somewhere job that pays me well, but home.” to stay. My life would homelessness is an issue that have been so much easier touches me because many of Young people younger my friends have no job/can't than age 24 shared: if they had more services find one/can't keep one so there for GLBT teens/youth.” is always someone looking for “… I never have access to a place to stay. They see I am health care that is reliable and “I think there is a significant stable, so they try to stay with consistent and respectful and amount of ageism in the me. Racism is an issue because knowledgeable about my needs gay community, particularly. Chicago is a very segregated as a trans person. I depend on There seems to be a general city, which is not inherently a [name of healthcare provider dismissal of non-‘business- bad thing, but it's a problem has been omitted], which is type’ young queer folks, and when you have to go to a part great, but I worry that they a general disrespect for the of town you don't necessarily will run out of funding or will work going on at this level. belong in.” have to terminate my service I think the LGBT community for some other reason. Without can be incredibly isolating and In youth focus groups, them, I don't know what I restrictive, particularly for young participants discussed issues would do. Regular doctors queers. The issue of class here faced as well as strategies used scare me because I have been is so intertwined, as a lot of the in schools by Gay-Straight traumatized.” isolation and discrimination Alliances and youth service against the young happens in agencies to help young people “I am a young, college-educated re: class issues, poverty, housing address these issues. The quotes professional. I don't have many instability, transition into the included below may be useful needs (other than hoping that workforce, low-wage jobs. The when thinking about ways to I can alleviate myself of debt at lengths to which the queer fund programs for youth. some point in time). I think the community will go to deny we
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/37 VII. Themes Emerging from Multiple Data Tools
“I feel that one of the problems 3. Supports Needed by LGBT Families is that the Lakeview community doesn’t accept the fact that LGBT families with children report needing child care assistance young people do exist. They and support around helping their child(ren) to deal with bullying don’t give a f*** about us. from other children. Some respondents also reported the need Money should be delegated to for support groups/opportunities for same-sex couple children to us so they can see we’re not the interact and develop friendships. stereotypes and statistics they think.” Survey data regarding “Yes, there also needs to be families shows the following: education for other people because even now people think of survey takers with children that AIDS is only for gay people. 74% identified as female It is okay to be gay and AIDS is more are between 35 and 54 years old NOT just a gay disease.” than 60%
more are married, partnered and living “All of the organizations… they than 65% together or in a civil union think they know everything about homeless youth, but Income, occupation and employment status and they really don’t. Don’t assume level of education are similar to the general sample his family kicked him out for being gay and ask if he needs resources. He wants to know: When asked about certain services in their How can he get a job? Get an apartment? There’s a need community some people with children were [for] a homeless shelter for concerned with several issues: LGBTQ youth—there are day programs, but they need a rated “affordable/healthy foods” and guaranteed place where they 20% “services for children and youth” as fair or can sleep. Register, stay for an poor services in their respective communities extended amount of time. A place that can help get a job or an apartment. More shelters and rated “health insurance” and “vocational/ support systems. Not just a day 24% employment related” services as fair or poor place that acts like they know services in their respective communities everything.”
A majority of the community Survey completers with children used their surveys to call for more leaders interviewed also support services including: family counseling, parenting support expressed deep concern about groups and other emotional health services, child and respite care, safety issues faced by youth, safe recreational space for their families and support around finding especially youth of color and jobs. young people that identify as transgender. When asked how The LGBT Community Fund should best use funds and resources, and what should be the funding priorities, youth focus group participants recommend education for members of the LGBT community and the heterosexual community, more support groups, and experiential learning opportunities.
P/38 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment 4. needs of the When asked about services in Focus group participants Unemployed and their community: shared the following Underemployed commentary about the Chicago • 32% rate access to Police Department and having Livable wages, accessing vocational/ job-related access to resources for basic government support programs, services as fair or poor practical needs: needing strong employment networks, and having the • 30% rate access to “Another issue I wanted to Chicago Police Department affordable/healthy foods bring up was that some of respond to one’s needs were and access to public health the resources inside some of listed as top needs across services as fair or poor the centers we attend…more groups. resources needed for bus fare • 28% rate law enforcement to get back and forth to job About 20% of all survey takers as fair or poor interviews, job training, food identified as unemployed or pantry…we used to have funds employed but not earning a • 20% feel unsafe or very for that but now if we don’t get livable wage. When controlling unsafe in their community a grant approved, then people the data to better understand have to walk or come up with the needs of these survey • 20% state that there bus fare however they can.” respondents: are NO neighborhoods or communities in the • The vast majority (68%) Chicagoland area that they “As a recovering lived within city of Chicago consider safe and supportive prostitute, [I] ran limits to LGBT people or families across all kinds of • Almost half are people of • And 25% state that there situations that by the color, identifying as African- are no programs, groups, American, Latino, Asian- religious institutions or grace of God—taken Pacific Islander, Native social service agencies in the American or bi/multiracial Chicagoland area that they out to the suburbs • 13% have children consider safe and supportive to LGBT people or families and raped… Been • 42.5% earn an income of robbed, jumped, had $10,000 a year or less and When asked about serious 70% earn $25,000 a year issues in their community, more a gun pulled. Most or less than half of the respondents reported gangs as the most challenging thing • 22% feel that they cannot significant issue. Other top though was the safely access hospitals or responses included: the cost other public health services of housing (50%); vocational police arrests. Police or vocational/job-related opportunities (about 40%); would come to house services gentrification (33%) and hate crime related to sexual and knock on door orientation (30%), which is markedly different from the and lock [me] up general survey population. Unfortunately, more than 33% for prostitution…” do not know how to access government support programs including social security, unemployment or medical aid.
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/39 VII. Themes Emerging from Multiple Data Tools
One community stakeholder 5. diversity and The made the following comment LGBT Community about resource deployment in an interview: Many participants urged the LGBT community as a whole to begin to recognize and celebrate its own diversity. The community has “There is a lack of diversity many strengths, including its diversity (economic, cultural, racial, regarding the decision making, occupational and wide ranging skills), creativity, determination to specifically in the way resources be treated equally and resilience. Several interviewees and are deployed. An example of focus group participants also indicated that although the LGBT this is reflected in the impact community is diverse, it does not necessarily work well together. of HIV in communities of color, in that I not sure that the The demographic data across data collection vehicles support this ‘dollars are following the need.’ theme by reflecting the extensive depth of diversity in the study Also the same for LGBT youth population for categories such as race, income and age. services, the community is diverse enough to have more One focus group participant shared the following opinion of being than one LGBT community unwelcome in the community: center. Smaller organizations around the city are doing “People act like the North Side is supposed to be like Ellis Island for outstanding work without the LGBT community, but that’s not true. You get harassed by the larger and governmental grants police, people look at you like you’re a criminal.” and funding, but I’m not sure that information related to One interview participant outlined in detail the need for the LGBT resource allocation is getting to community to work together across various boundaries: organizations in other parts of the city. I’m also not sure that “We need to transcend racial and geographic barriers. There is not awareness on the part of larger a lot of intersectional work being down with black, brown and Asian funding sources about smaller communities for the purpose of pushing forward realities that are organizations even exits to not used to the mainstream. Lots of issues between genders. We support their growth.” need lots more dialogue. …We really need to address these issues and have intentional conversations with stakeholders. …. The LGBT communities of color need to start demanding more transparency, demanding the breaking down of geographic barriers. The larger and smaller organizations need to do more marketing and let people know that gay Chicago is not just the north side. We need to step out and step back.”
P/40 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment 6. The Recession and the Impact on the “It goes back to employment. LGBT Community As seen in the earlier When jobs are more scarce, any demographics, unemployment type of difference, gender non- and underemployment are exacerbated by discrimination. conforming, race. It’s already Like many other communities, the recession has affected hard, so it becomes harder. It the LGBT community, but this impact is compounded by the is taking a hard toll especially additional discrimination that members face as a result of for non-white, gender non- sexual orientation or gender conforming. But certainly for identity. people who are seen as different.” For example, the unemployment rates shown in the data cards are slightly higher that the city’s and much higher than the national trends. Among people of color and youth, they are markedly higher at almost 40%. Survey respondents shared the following:
“Presently jobs are a priority for people to get back on their feet. Technical, training support for jobs that can be thought in a few months...trade jobs like carpentry, in short handy man jobs. At the local level so people get hired by people living in the community.”
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/41 VII. Themes Emerging from Multiple Data Tools
7. existing Resources and Underserved Areas In this economic climate, resource providers serving the LGBT community face serious funding challenges. Therefore, the focus should be on how to 1) best utilize existing resources/maximize results; and 2) support new innovative practices in underserved areas. There are no quantitative data to support this theme; rather, it emerged repeatedly in qualitative responses.
Data card respondents shared a plethora of service ideas regarding existing resources and underserved areas:
Education: Increased Community • "More educational forums for the community” Services and Programs: • “Educational tools” • “Community center on the South Side for • “Education regarding state laws” gay teens” • “More efforts to educate and more • "More community centers spread out and consequences for organizations that accessible to more people” discriminate” • “Help community centers that exist and add • “GLBT education for schools and more programs” communities” • “Job programs that lead to jobs with good • “Posters and resources in West wages” neighborhoods” • “More community outreach in the hood” • “Resources in Spanish, more education for the • “Mentorship cross-neighborhood networking” Latino community” • “Trauma awareness services and counseling” • “Education within police department and • “Homeless shelters for LGBTQ folks” criminal systems” • “LGBT Services on South and West sides of • “Improved education of health-care providers” Chicago” • “Greater awareness and policy change” • “Employment services; more bi-events at existing organizations” • “Health services integrated into recreational Increased Access to Funding: activities” • “Equitable distribution of funding and other • “Government, medical, housing, social services, efforts” mental illness” • “Greater research and understanding of mental • “Services distributed to more than white gay health advocacy” men” • “More funding for domestic violence/intimate • “More paid staff for LGBT offices, employment partner violence treatment programs and services” for prevention - it is not either/or, both are • “Legal services” needed” • “Create more programs that serve Trans- • “Funding for people of color social people's health and transition needs” organizations” • “Police training on anti-racism, genderqueer” • “Funding for civil unions/marriage and family programs” • “Funds for social services” • “Better and equal distribution of resources, not just on the North side” • “More money toward supportive housing in the community”
P/42 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment Survey respondents also shared supportive areas in the engaged with parents, queer specific details about the areas Chicagoland area. I have to and not. At the same time, I’m they feel to be supported and in admit that I feel Lakeview is really concerned about the need of support: changing, although it appears to youth because I can see where be the place that would be most this goes. For the Trust to “I believe the Chicago area is supportive.” figure out how to continue to lacking in this area, especially build infrastructure, it needs to on the Southside, the Southside Focus group participants were feel out where the community is in short supply of all services, also vocal about where they felt is. At this point I think there and yet people wonder why the resources should go: might be more bang for the HIV infection rate is still on the buck in supporting the small rise in this area.” “Unless the community works micro-community organizations hard to sustain itself, it won’t who are in the community in “I feel that Oak Park, Evanston, last. That’s something the their neighborhoods already Andersonville, Edgewater, fund needs to think about. [more] than the macro ones. Lakeview and Hyde Park As someone now who has a [2 community groups given as are areas that are safe and 13-year-old, I’m much more examples.]”
“I think if this fund is going to work, it needs to speak to this. As great as the fundraisers are, they should not be the only people doing advisory work to the fund. Also people living and working in the community. Current board: Make sure you diversify yourselves! If you want to impact and improve the community, you need to have folks who live and work in it.”
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/43 VIII. Conclusion
At this moment in American history, it is clear that significant The data collected through the numbers of individuals – both LGBT and otherwise – are Chicago LGBT Community Needs experiencing concerns about Assessment (LCNA) offers a many basic areas of daily life, including healthcare, uniquely comprehensive glimpse employment, education and access to government services. into the needs, assets and In fact, this was a sentiment that surfaced repeatedly challenges of Chicago’s diverse in participant comments throughout the data collection LGBT communities. In some ways process. LGBT people, like these challenges are similar to most individuals, are concerned about meeting their practical those of other communities, with needs and accessing resources when needed. However, this added complexities often related study and the comparison studies used demonstrate that to an LGBT identity. for individuals who identify as LGBT, sexual orientation and gender identity serve as compounding factors. Like their non-LGBT counterparts, LGBT community members seek to experience a quality of life; however, unlike their non-LGBT counterparts, LGBT individuals also seek to have the barriers connected to their identity eliminated where possible, and when found to be present, be able to access service delivery systems which are responsive to acknowledging and eliminating them.
P/44 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment Having access to healthcare, Howard Brown ESCI Elder Study populations as their primary sustainable employment, safe reported candid participant constituency. Many of these schools, affordable housing opinions of bias against resources, although targeted, and safe communities were LGBT older adults who might are limited in their outreach overwhelmingly among the participate at senior centers in for various reasons, often most significant areas of New York City. resource related. Additionally, need reported across all data many of these services are collection vehicles. Universal issues of well-being concentrated in geographic impact the LGBT community areas of the city that are Experiencing inequities because in ways that are similar to reported by respondents to be of discriminatory practices were and different from other less welcoming of the diversity reported as creating additional communities. Allocation of that is in fact characteristic of challenges and stressors, which future funding should be aimed Chicago’s LGBT community. This were highlighted throughout at strengthening existing underscores the critical need for community members’ services where possible and increased funding allocation to anecdotal experiences. This building capacity in under- occur throughout the city. was reflected in the Latina served areas. The LGBT Queer Women in Chicago Community Needs Assessment More than 2,000 LGBT study, which highlighted provides a broad view of Chicagoans and allies experiences of discrimination Chicago’s LGBT community and contributed their thoughts against Latina LGBT women in captures community feedback and experiences to increase healthcare situations and when in an organized way to support awareness and knowledge, and accessing government services. more informed approaches to to support the development Discrimination is further priority setting and decision of targeted responses to exacerbated with populations making regarding future unmet community needs. The where increased vulnerabilities funding. Further, the study opportunity to build greater exist, as with youth and seniors. acknowledges the varied assets capacity across multiple This is supported both by LCNA and strengths of organizing communities now exists, data and comparison study strategies utilized by the many which will help inform more data. Data card respondents, organizations, small and large, comprehensive approaches largely African American youth which support the diversity of to strengthening programs and young adults, reported individuals, neighborhoods, and and supporting new and non- feelings of decreased safety and organizing efforts that comprise traditional organizing models. experiences of discrimination Chicago’s LGBT Community. Such work has the potential to when attempting to access empower greater segments of services and resources within There are many existing services the Chicago LGBT community the larger LGBT community. The that specifically identify LGBT and Chicago at large.
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/45 P/46 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment IX. Sources
Chicago Sun-Times Illinois Department U.S. Census Bureau (2011, Dec. 22). Chicago of Human Services (2011, Feb. 15). U.S. Census unemployment rate rises to 9.8 (IDHS): Bureau of Bureau Delivers Illinois' 2010 percent. Retrieved January 25, Census Population Totals, 2012 from http://www.suntimes. Domestic and Sexual Including First Look at Race com/business/9600239-420/ Violence Prevention and Hispanic Origin Data chicago-unemployment-rate- (2005). Special Populations: for Legislative Redistricting. rises-to-98-percent.html Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Retrieved December 27, 2011 Transgendered People. In Safety from http://2010.census.gov/ Frazer, Somjen and Sobriety Manual (p. 75). news/releases/operations/cb11- (2009). LGBT Health and Retrieved July 23, 2011 from cn31.html Human Services Needs in New http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page. York State. Empire State Pride aspx?item=38468 U.S. Census Bureau Agenda Foundation: Albany, (2010, Oct. 5). Table of NY. Retrieved July 20, 2011 Mackun, P. and Metropolitan Statistical Areas. from http://www.prideagenda. Wilson, S (2011, March). Retrieved December 10, 2011 org/Portals/0/pdfs/LGBT%20 Population Distribution and from http://factfinder2.census. Health%20and%20Human%20 Change: 2000 to 2010 (p. 6). gov/faces/tableservices/ Services%20Needs%20in%20 U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved jsf/pages/ productview. New%20York%20State.pdf December 27, 2011 from http:// xhtml?pid=DEC_10_ www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/ NSRD_GCTPL2. Gay, Lesbian and briefs/c2010br-01.pdf US24PR&prodType=table Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and National Coalition Harris Interactive of Anti Violence (2006). From Teasing to Programs (NCAVP) Torment: a Report on School (2008). Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Climate in Illinois. Retrieved July Transgender and Queer 22, 2011 from http://www.glsen. Domestic Violence in the U.S. org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/ in 2008. Retrieved July 21, 2011 record/2001.html from http://www.ncavp.org/ publications/NationalPubs.aspx Barrett, H. A. & Sadtler, C. Torres, L. (2009). Assessing the and Perez, N. (2011). Healthcare and Social Service Mujeres Latinas en Acción Needs of LGBT Adults in and Amigas Latinas. Latina Chicago: Findings from the Portrait: Latina Queer Women Elder Survey. Elder Services in Chicago. Retrieved from Community Initiative (ESCI). http://www.mujereslatinas Howard Brown Health Center, enaccion.org/resources/ Chicago, IL. documents/LTQ.pdf
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/47 X. APPENDICES
A. detailed Methodology 1. Survey development: The survey, developed by Morten Group contained 38 questions with 9 open-ended responses, 2 partly open ended, and 29 closed-ended responses (multiple choice, ordinal, numerical and Likert scale2). Questions were split into key areas including demographic information, services, safety and governance. Survey completion was voluntary and anonymous. Preliminary data from the online survey, collected in October, was used to develop questions for the focus groups and individual interviews. By the end of the data collection process, 1,562 individuals had taken the survey with a 76% completion rate. A total of 1539 surveys were completed in in English, while 23 were completed in Spanish.
2. Community drop boxes: These boxes, accompanied by data cards, were housed by area community partners, including service organizations and social events, and offered a quicker method of collecting assessment data. The data cards contained a total of 13 questions, with 5 open-ended questions and 8 closed-ended. A total of 319 data cards were collected: 306 in English, 7 in Spanish, 3 in Vietnamese, 2 in Korean, 1 in Hindi. Cards were transcribed by staff and volunteers. Like surveys, data cards were anonymous.
3. Focus groups: 15 focus groups were held at various locations around the city of Chicago and surrounding suburbs. Groups lasted approximately 90 minutes each with most groups hosting 8 to 10 attendees in each group. A total of 125 participants shared their perspective on LGBT community needs and strengths during each focus group. In order to facilitate conversation in a safe space, some focus groups were marketed to key groups including:
• youth and young adults aged 24 and younger • older adults aged 60 and older • The Transgender community
Focus Groups were held throughout the metropolitan region, including the North, South and West sides of Chicago, the West and North suburbs. Group members were diverse in age, ethnicity, gender and affiliation to the LGBT community and parameters of confidentiality were maintained for groups held with community locations.
4. Stakeholder interviews: 52 LGBT community mentors, leaders 2On Likert scale questions, participants and allies were interviewed for approximately 45 to 60 minutes. ranked their feelings and opinions about Like focus group participants, these stakeholders were diverse in community services and issues on scales consisting of 4 to 5 items. For example: age, ethnicity, gender and role in the LGBT and allied communities. “Strongly disagree / disagree / not Interviews were conducted via telephone with a script of 10 open- applicable / agree / strongly agree” or ended guiding questions. “Yes / somewhat / no / does not apply.”
P/48 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment b. Survey Demographics
*Please note: for questions marked with an asterisk, survey respondents could select more than one answer.
1. Gender Identification* Response Count Percentage of Total
Male 648 41.7
Female 789 50.8 Trans 49 3.1
FTM 48 3.1
MTF 33 2.1 Genderqueer 106 6.9
Other (self defined) 37 2.3 TOTAL RESPONDENTS 1552 (10 skipped)
2. Sexual Orientation Response Count Percentage of Total
Gay 659 42.6
Lesbian 545 35.3 Bisexual 209 13.5
Queer 350 22.7
Questioning 38 2.4
Other (self defined) 83 5.3
TOTAL RESPONDENTS 1545 (17 skipped)
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/49 X. APPENDICES
3. Race* Response Count Percentage of Total African American/ Black 278 17.9 Asian or Pacific Islander 59 3.8 Caucasian 1010 65.2 Latino/a 204 13.2 Native American 23 1.4 Bi/ multiracial 84 5.4 Other 50 3.2 TOTAL RESPONDENTS 1550 (12 skipped)
4. age Response Count Percentage of Total 14-17 21 1.3 18-24 244 16.1 25-34 489 32.2 35-44 320 21.0 45-54 271 17.8 55-64 137 9.1 65 and old 38 2.5 TOTAL RESPONDENTS 1520 (42 skipped)
5. Individual Income Response Count Percentage of Total Less than $15,000 374 24.6 $15,000- $24,999 156 10.2 $25,000- $34,999 158 10.4 $35,000- $49,999 260 17.2 $50,000- $74,999 273 18.0 $75,000- $99,999 129 8.5 $100,000 or more 166 10.9 TOTAL RESPONDENTS 1516 (46 skipped)
6. Household Income Response Count Percentage of Total Less than $15,000 204 13.5 $15,000- $24,999 111 7.4 $25,000- $34,999 140 9.2 $35,000- $49,999 189 12.5 $50,000- $74,999 266 17.6 $75,000- $99,999 187 12.3 $100,000 or more 413 27.3 TOTAL RESPONDENTS 1510 (52 skipped)
P/50 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment 7. Community Areas Response Count Percentage of Total The top eleven reporting communities Lakeview 162 11.9 (city of Chicago communities and Edgewater 160 11.7 suburbs) are shown at left. It is Rogers Park 8.2 important to note that there were no 112 clear ‘majority communities’ identified. Uptown 91 6.7 69 of the census defined Chicago Lincoln Square 54 3.9 community areas participated in the survey along with more than 40 other Logan Square 47 3.4 suburbs, villages and cities in the Hyde Park 41 3.0 Chicago metropolitan area. Evanston 32 2.3 Oak Park 32 2.3 Albany Park 30 2.2 Humboldt Park 26 1.9 TOTAL RESPONDENTS 1358 (204 skipped)
8. Survey Response by City versus Suburban Area Response Count Percentage of Total Chicago 1127 82.5 North Suburbs 116 8.4 West Suburbs 88 6.4 South Suburbs 44 3.2 Northwest Indiana 4 .3 TOTAL RESPONDENTS 1366 (196 skipped)
9. Relationship Status* Response Count Percentage of Total Civil Union 133 8.6 Divorced 43 2.7 Married 132 8.5 Partnered living together 429 27.7 Partnered living separately 188 12.2 Single 623 40.3 Widowed 14 0.9 Other 65 4.2 TOTAL RESPONDENTS 1545 (17 skipped)
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/51 X. APPENDICES
c. dATA Card Demographics
*Please note: for questions marked with an asterisk, data card respondents could select more than one answer.
1. Gender Identification Response Count Percentage of Total
Male 137 43.8%
Female 138 44.1% Trans 17 5.4%
FTM 13 4.2%
MTF 8 2.6%
Genderqueer 16 5.1%
Other (self defined) 8 2.6% TOTAL RESPONDENTS 313 (6 skipped)
2. Sexual Orientation Response Count Percentage of Total
Gay 105 35.0%
Lesbian 71 23.4% Bisexual 38 12.5%
Queer 49 16.2%
Questioning 7 2.3%
Straight 8 2.6%
Ally 6 1.9%
Intersex – Transsexual 1 0.3%
Not-specified 41 13.5%
TOTAL RESPONDENTS 303 (16 skipped)
P/52 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment 3. Race* Response Count Percentage of Total African American/ Black 100 32.0% Asian or Pacific Islander 29 9.2% Caucasian 119 38.1% Latino/a 50 16.0% Native American 9 2.8% Bi/ multiracial 19 6.6% Human 2 0.6% North African 1 0.3% Not Specified 1 0.3% TOTAL RESPONDENTS 312 (7 skipped)
4. age Response Count Percentage of Total 14-17 0.0 0% 18-24 47 27.6% 25-34 55 32.4% 35-44 28 16.5% 45-54 25 14.7% 55-64 12 7.1% 65 and old 3 1.8% TOTAL RESPONDENTS 170 (149 skipped)
5. Individual Income Response Count Percentage of Total Less than $10,000 92 30.6% $10,000- $14,999 34 11.3% $15,000- $24,999 24 8.0% $25,000- $34,999 47 15.6% $35,000- $49,999 29 9.6% $50,000- $99,999 47 15.6% $100,000 or more 12 4.9% TOTAL RESPONDENTS 301 (18 skipped)
Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/53 X. APPENDICES
6. Community Areas Response Count Percentage of Total The top eleven reporting communities Lakeview 40 14.6% (City of Chicago communities and Edgewater 26 9.5% suburbs) are shown at left. As with the surveys, it is important to note that there Rogers Park 23 8.4% were no clear ‘majority communities’ Lower West Side 16 5.8% identified. Uptown 16 5.8% Hyde Park 9 3.2% Lincoln Park 9 3.2% Humboldt Park 8 2.9% Logan Square 8 2.9% Loop 7 2.5% West Town 7 2.5% TOTAL RESPONDENTS 273 (46 skipped)
7. Data Card Response by City versus
Suburban Area Response Count Percentage of Total Chicago Communities 233 85.3% North/ Northwest Suburbs 18 6.5% West Suburbs 15 5.4% South Suburbs 7 2.5% TOTAL RESPONDENTS 273 (46 skipped)
8. Relationship
Status* Response Count Percentage of Total Civil Union 15 4.8% Divorced 0 0.0% Married 26 8.3% Partnered living together 42 13.4% Partnered living separately 31 9.9% Single 193 61.3% Polyamorist 5 1.6% Widowed 5 1.6% Not Specified 2 0.0% TOTAL RESPONDENTS 313 (6 skipped)
P/54 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/55 P/56 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment