
The Full Report of Lambeth LGBT Matters The needs and experiences of Lesbians, Gay men, Bisexual and Trans men and women in Lambeth Peter Keogh David Reid Ford Hickson Peter Weatherburn Acknowledgements Our greatest debt is owed to the all those who responded to our survey and took part in focus groups and interviews (including those staff at Lambeth Council). Without their participation and support, this research would not have been possible. Thanks also to the following people and organisations. The Equalities and Diversity Unit at Lambeth Council for inviting and commissioning us to undertake such an ambitious project especially Carole Litchmore, Head of Equalities and Diversity for her support and Paula Williams, Special Projects Officer who liaised, coordinated and kept everyone informed and on track. Thanks also to the Project Steering Group for their insightful and positive contributions. Members included: Graham Alldus, Lambert Allman, Tim Chambers, Amy Donovan, Chris D’Souza, Kenny Gibson, Rachael Hopkins, Chris Lee, Carole Litchmore, Alec Parsons, Mark Picksley, Khi Rafe, Julia Shelley, Gary Whiting, Evereth Willis and Paula Williams. Thanks to the LADS outreach team at the Terrence Higgins Trust and the venues/organisations in South London who allowed them to distribute promotional materials at scene and other venues in South London. Also Kathie Jessup and Laurie Henderson at Sigma Research, Graham Alldus, LGBT Liaison Officer, Lambeth Police and Amy Donovan, Lambeth LGBT Anti-Hate Crime Coordinator who all carried out additional promotion and distribution of materials. Thanks also to Julia Shelley of Age Concern Lambeth and Gareth Davies of NRG Group for young Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual people for helping us with recruitment Thanks to members of the Lambeth LGBT Forum for advice assistance and support. Finally, thanks to the following venues, organisations and groups who promoted the research either on their websites, through their membership/mailing lists or by allowing us to distribute additional promotional material at their events or meetings: Black Lesbian UK (BLUK); Candybar; Clubwotever; Curves; Extratimebar; Evolution 02 Bar; First Out; Fried Green Tomatoes; G.A.Y; Gingerbeer; Girls go down; Glass Bar; GMFA; Kairos in Soho; London Friend; Lyrical Lounge; Pony Club; Posh-UK; Rude girls; Rumours; Scene-OUT; Southopia; SW5: Too2much: Transmission Club; Trannyshack; UK Blackout; Vespa Lounge; Wayout Club; and Wow bar. Peter Keogh Senior Research Fellow October, 2006 [Sigma Research LOGO] [Lambeth Logo] www.sigmaresearch.org.uk www.lambeth.gov.uk This report is available to download at: www.sigmaresearch.org.uk/downloads/LambethLGBT-long.pdf Published by Sigma Research © October 2006 ISBN:1 872956 86 6 Contents Acknowledgements ii 1. Introduction 1 1.1 The fall and rise of LGBT equality in local government 1 1.2 The legislative climate 2 1.3 Current local authority responses 4 1.4 Promoting lgbt equality at the London borough of Lambeth 6 1.5 Methodology and structure 8 2. Selective LGBT literature review: Aging, ethnicity and social class 9 2.1 LGBT population size 9 2.2 LGBT needs 9 2.3 Youth 11 2.4 Aging 11 2.5 Ethnicity: the case of black Carribean LGBT people 12 2.6 Social class 14 2.7 Trans populations and needs 16 2.8 The effects of inequality 19 3. Lambeth LGBT matters survey 20 3.1 Methods, recruitment & exclusions 20 3.2 Sample description 21 3.3 Problems experienced - Potential need for council services 28 3.4 Experience of discrimination 33 3.5 Physical assault and verbal abuse 36 3.6 Community safety, violence and crime 40 3.7 Community involvement 43 3.8 Opinions of Lambeth Council 44 3.9 Use of services in Lambeth 45 3.10 Lambeth Council asking about sexual and Trans identity 50 3.11 Concluding comments 50 4. Living with Lambeth Council 52 4.1 Introduction & methods 52 4.2 Living in Lambeth 53 4.3 General perceptions of Lambeth Council 53 4.4 Lambeth Council’s record on LGBT populations 55 4.5 Monitoring and consultation 57 4.6 Defining LGBT need 59 4.7 Defining community 60 4.8 Homophobic abuse and violence 64 4.9 Education 68 4.10 Faith 69 4.11 Other concerns: LGBT elders, youth and Trans people 70 4.12 Concluding comments 73 5. Working for Lambeth Council 74 5.1 Negative/ homophobic attitudes of colleagues, managers or others 74 5.2. LGBT invisibility 77 5.3 being essentialised 78 5.4 naivety regarding LGBT issues 80 5.5 Faith 81 5.6 Human resources 83 5.7 Equalities 85 5.8 Concluding comments 87 6. Lambeth council’s LGBT equality capacity 89 6.1 Introduction 89 6.2 Corporate equality and diversity 89 6.3 Monitoring 93 6.4 Consultation 97 6.5 Procurement 100 6.6 Human resources 103 6.7 Concluding comments 105 7. Recommendations 107 7.1 Improving Lambeth’s response 107 7.2 Improving Lambeth’s capacity 110 References 113 1. Introduction This report presents the findings of a study of the experiences of Lesbians, Gay men, Bisexual and Trans men and women who live, work and socialise in Lambeth. The study was commissioned by The London Borough of Lambeth (LBL) and aims to provide the Council with the information it needs to improve its services and develop a coherent response to the needs of this population. This longer report contains the full findings of the research. That is, in addition to findings about LGBT people in Lambeth, we include detailed analyses of LBL’s internal policies and procedures as well as an investigation of the experiences of Lambeth’s LBGT employees. A shorter report with findings of interest to the wider public is available at our website. In this chapter, we introduce the study and give an overview of the policy and legislative environment within which Local Authority LGBT equality work takes place. We also comment on the activities of London’s Local Authorities in respect of LGBT equality. 1.1 THE FALL AND RISE OF LGBT EQUALITY IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT The extent and effectiveness of Local Authority response to social exclusion associated with being Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Trans (LGBT) has varied greatly over the past twenty-five years. In the 1980s a number of Local Authorities set up initiatives to address discrimination against Gay men and Lesbians. These ranged from the purely symbolic (poster campaigns or flying flags) to extensive policy and practice innovations (same sex tenancies, adopting and fostering initiatives etc.). However, without legislative underpinning and in the face of a largely hostile government, such interventions remained short-term. In particular, successive Local Government Bills in the late 1980's limited Local Authority response to LGBT need. The 1985 Local Government Act abolished the Greater London Council (GLC) along with all Metropolitan Councils. The GLC had been a major driver for increasing social justice and ending discrimination against Lesbians and Gay men in London. The Succeeding Local Government Act of 1988 contained a controversial anti-Gay amendment (Section 28). The amendment stated that a Local Authority "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship". In essence, Section 28 prohibited councils from distributing any material that portrayed Gay relationships as anything other than abnormal. It also appeared to prohibit teachers and educational staff from discussing Gay issues with students for fear of losing state funding. These legislative attacks on LGBT civil rights fostered an atmosphere of hostility in which many Local Authorities were pilloried by the right wing and populist press as ‘loony left’. This legislation was ultimately effective in that by the late 1980s, LGBT need and concerns had been excised from developing policies and practices around social care, social exclusion and discrimination. Government responses to social problems associated with the LGBT population focussed increasingly on preventing and treating HIV among Gay men and, with a few notable exceptions, the broader LGBT rights agenda stalled. The legislative environment within which public services operate has changed dramatically over the last decade and significant legislative and policy developments have begun to reinvigorate both the LGBT rights agenda and Local Authority responses. Legislation has both constrained Local Authorities to be more accountable and transparent in the delivery of services generally The Full Report of Lambeth LGBT Matters 1 and to safeguard against various discriminatory practices. In particular, legislation has ensured the extension of various rights to LGBT individuals. The modernising of public services agenda has made local government more open to the demands and influence of minorities. Local Authorities are obliged to improve and modernise both their internal processes and their service delivery with a greater emphasis on consultation and citizen focus. The Best Value regime (Local Government Act 1999) requires Local Authorities to abide by the four principles of consultation, competition, challenge and comparison. In short, this means that any Local Authority which does not commit to continuous improvement of its services through monitoring, evaluation and ongoing consultation of its citizens automatically fails to be effective under Best Value. Specifically, Local Authorities must now consult with stakeholders and groups whose views have traditionally been under represented. The Local Government Act 2000 requires Local Authorities to form Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) in order to produce Community Strategies. As with Best Value, Local Authorities are required to demonstrate how they have consulted with citizens (and especially equalities groups) in the development of their Community Strategy. The Community Strategy employs the concept of ‘community well -being’ which effectively means that Local Authorities are now empowered to make interventions to improve the quality of life of communities living in the area.
Details
-
File Typepdf
-
Upload Time-
-
Content LanguagesEnglish
-
Upload UserAnonymous/Not logged-in
-
File Pages127 Page
-
File Size-