Philadelphia LGBT

Community Assessment
A focus on LGBT youth

August 30, 2007

Funded by the City of Philadelphia The Philadelphia Foundation

John F. Street, Esq., Mayor Andrew Swinney, President

Loree D. Jones, Managing Director

Division of Social Services

Julia Danzy, Director

Philadelphia Department of Public Health

Carmen I. Paris, Commissioner
 Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 3

BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 3

DATA FROM THE YOUTH RISK BEHAVIOR SURVEY AND 2000 US CENSUS................. 5

SEXUAL ORIENTATION OF YOUTH IN PHILADELPHIA..................................................... 7

Summary of demographic data from 2000 Census and the 2004 PHMC SEPA Household Health Survey .... 12

FOCUS ON CURRENT SERVICES TO LGBT YOUTH BY LGBT-SPECIFIC AGENCIES.. 13

Focus on agency youth in the schools ............................................................................................................................ 36
Focus on Transgender youth........................................................................................................................................... 39
Summary of key themes from LGBT youth-serving agency data: ........................................................................... 43

FOCUS ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES FOR LGBT YOUTH............................................. 45

Department of Public Health .......................................................................................................................................... 45
Department of Behavioral Health .................................................................................................................................. 45
Department of Human Services (DHS) ......................................................................................................................... 46
Office of Emergency Shelter and Services (OESS) ..................................................................................................... 48
Department of Recreation ............................................................................................................................................... 48
School District of Philadelphia ....................................................................................................................................... 48
Police Department ............................................................................................................................................................ 48
Summary of Agenda for Government Agencies .......................................................................................................... 49

UNDERSTANDING THE LGBT YOUTH COMMUNITIES: PERSPECTIVES FROM KEY

INFORMANTS AND LGBT YOUTH THEMSELVES ............................................................ 49

FOCUS ON THE LGBT YOUTH WHO CONGREGATE IN THE WASH WEST

NEIGHBORHOOD ................................................................................................................ 56

RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................... 62
Appendix 1: Top issues of concern identified by LGBT Youth in focus groups .................................................... 66
Appendix 2: Street Intercept Survey Results ............................................................................................................... 67
Appendix 3: Street Intercept Survey Results: Transgender Responses Only ........................................................ 73
Appendix 4: Transgender Case Study Report ............................................................................................................. 76
Appendix 5: Street Intercept Survey Instrument....................................................................................................... 79
Appendix 6: List of Open-Ended Responses regarding a recreational space for LGBT youth ........................... 81
 Page 3
Introduction

The Philadelphia LGBT Assessment is a project funded by the City of Philadelphia and the
Philadelphia Foundation to assess the size, composition, and needs of the diverse LGBT populations
of Philadelphia. In 2005-2006, the Assessment focused on the broad LGBT populations by reviewing
existing data from the PHMC Household Health Survey and from the 2000 U.S. Census. The analysis
of these data was published in the Assessment’s first year report. 1 This report recommended that
additional research be completed into LGBT subpopulations, including LGBT youth. At a presentation
of the LGBT Assessment’s results to Mayor John F. Street and his senior staff, the Mayor requested
that the City seek to better understand the needs of LGBT youth, particularly relating to how city
agencies and community based organizations could best provide services. Finally, the Philadelphia
LGBT Youth Coalition, a group of LGBT youth-serving organizations, recommended that the City of
Philadelphia support additional research into the needs of LGBT youth in the City.

Philadelphia’s Managing Director Loree D. Jones and Division of Social Services Director Julia
Danzy identified funds to support the LGBT youth study, which would include 1) a review of
available LGBT youth-serving agency data, 2) focus groups with LGBT youth, and 3) key informant
interviews. Finally, the project would seek to better understand how the City and its community-based
organizations might better serve the many LGBT youth who congregate in the City’s Washington
West neighborhood.

Assistant Managing Director Michael S. Hinson, Jr. organized a team of researchers to conduct this
work. Chris Bartlett, MA, a local community organizer and researcher, and Heather Batson, BA, of
Philadelphia Health Management Corporation (PHMC), who had conducted the overall LGBT
assessment, returned to complete the key informant interviews and agency data review, respectively.
Kevin Trimell Jones, MEd, an experienced researcher in LGBT communities based at the University
of Pennsylvania HIV Prevention Research Division, conducted the focus groups with LGBT youth.

This report presents the results of this study of the population of LGBT youth in Philadelphia.

Background
LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) youth in Philadelphia are a broad class of individuals,
both in terms of their sexual behaviors and identities, and their age. As with other LGBT individuals,
the identity of LGBT youth would include a number of possible characteristics:

• the individual’s possible self-identification of his or her sexual orientation,

• his or her homosexual behavior,
• his or her attraction to a person of the same gender,
• and/or perceptions of others about any of these characteristics.

Given the complexity of youth identity in general, and with regard to sexual orientation and gender
identity specifically, it is impossible to generalize about the experience of all youth who might
appropriately fall under this category. It is possible, however, to estimate the size of this population,
and show how general trends in youth demographics are likely to relate to LGBT youth. These
general data help to give a general sense of the population city-wide.

Building upon this general frame, we will use five strategies to collect information on particular
segments of the LGBT youth population of Philadelphia, and the services provided for them. At the

1
The Philadelphia LGBT Community Assessment Final Report, October, 2006.
 Page 4
end of the report, recommendations culled from each of these methodologies will be summarized.
These five strategies are:

• Analyzing data of Philadelphia’s LGBT youth-serving agencies to gain a perspective on youth

who are already accessing services
• Reviewing city departments and their services to insure provision to LGBT youth.
• Using street intercept survey interviews to gain a perspective on the diverse corps of youth
who are socializing in the Washington West neighborhood of Philadelphia
• Using focus groups, to explore key issues affecting a range of LGBT youth
• Using key informant interviews, to identify key issues affecting LGBT youth as identified by
the opinion leaders who work with and among them.

Through these strategies, we will focus in particular upon two segments of LGBT youth: the youth
who participate in our LGBT youth-serving agencies, and the LGBT youth who congregate to
socialize in the Washington West neighborhood of Philadelphia.

We decided upon these two categories of LGBT youth since they have shown potential affinity for
LGBT services, either through participation in an existing LGBT youth program, or through desire to
be in the vicinity of other LGBT individuals and LGBT nightlife. We believe that better understanding
these (sometimes overlapping) populations will provide useful insights for understanding and
addressing challenges in better serving LGBT youth throughout the city. By including the opinions of
key informants, we can also identify issue areas that are not revealed through our other qualitative and
quantitative data.
 Page 5

Data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey and 2000 US Census
For background to the project, we provide basic information about LGBT youth, and youth in general,
in Philadelphia. These data are drawn from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) and data from
the 2000 US Census.

In 2003, the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, which is conducted every other year in a random sampling
of the public high schools of Philadelphia, asked a sample of 1,437 high school students about whether
their sexual partners were male or female (see Figure 1). Overall, 3% of the students had sex only
with same-sex partners, with an additional 2 % who reported sex with both same-sex and opposite-sex
partners. In addition, over a third of the students overall had their sexual debut yet; this varies by
gender, with 28% of males students and 41% of female students abstaining from sex in their lifetime.
2% of both the males and female students reported having sex with both males and females, but more
of the males (4% compared to 2% of the females) reported sex only with same-sex partners. This
apparent difference decreases when only sexually active students are included in the analysis: of the
sexually active female students, 4% had sex with only females and 3% had sex with both males and
females for a total of 7% of female students exhibiting bisexual or homosexual behavior. Among
sexually active males students, 6% had sex with males, and 2% with both males and females for a total
of 8% of sexually active male students exhibiting homosexual/bisexual behavior.

Students under 16 were more likely to have not yet reached sexual debut (45% of all students,
including 34% of the males less than 16, and 54% of the females under 16) and were less likely to
report sex with partners of the same or both sexes (3% of all students under 16 reported sex with either
same-sex or both males and females compared to 6% 16 and older). Due to the small sample size of
students who reported same-sex or both-sex partners (a total of 71 students), further analysis of these
data by race or other factors was not possible.

In order to get a sense of the race and gender breakdown of LGBT youth populations, we can look at
the race and gender breakdowns of the overall youth populations for the City of Philadelphia. These
 Page 6
data are culled from the 2000 US Census. Though we cannot be absolutely sure that LGBT youth’s
race and sex reflect the same percentages as the overall youth population, the Philadelphia LGBT
Assessment showed that, for the overall population of LGBT people in Philadelphia, the racial
breakdown was almost exactly the same for heterosexuals, bisexuals, and homosexuals. We might
expect similar racial parity among youth. Since there was not exact gender parity between
heterosexuals, bisexuals, and homosexuals in the Philadelphia LGBT Community Assessment (the
homo/bisexual population was more likely to be male (55%) than the heterosexual population was
(49%), there is also the possibility that the youth population is slightly more male.

Given this background from the broader LGBT Assessment, it is interesting to look at the racial and
gender data from the 2000 Philadelphia US Census.

These data show that as we look at younger

generations of Philadelphians, these populations
grow less white and more black and Hispanic
(Figure 2). So, for example, the Age 10-14
cohort is 41% black, while the Age 15-19 cohort
is 37% black. This trend points to the need for
increasing services designed for black and
Hispanic LGBT youth within Philadelphia, as
new cohorts of youth are likely to be
increasingly people of color.

The sex of youth in Philadelphia (Figure 3)

splits evenly down the middle in both youth age
cohorts. We would likewise expect to see fairly
equal numbers of LGBT girls and boys,
although the adult data from the Phase I LGBT
Assessment showed that the LGBT population
as a whole might skew slightly towards a larger
male population. Thus, programs and services
must expect to provide gender-appropriate
services for girls and boys.
 Page 7

The PHMC 2004 Southeastern Pennsylvania Household Health Survey (SEPA HHS)
The Philadelphia Health Management Corporation’s (PHMC) 2004 Southeastern Pennsylvania
Household Health survey is a unique data source for health and other data in the Southeastern PA
region. The survey is conducted in the 5-county region of SEPA, but information presented in this
report is from Philadelphia County only. Households were contacted using a computerized random
digit dialing methodology so that households with unpublished numbers and households that had
recently moved to the area would be included in the sample.

Sexual Orientation of youth in Philadelphia

Respondents to the SEPA household health survey were asked about the sex of their sexual partner(s).
Those who reported only opposite-sex partners were classified as “heterosexual”; those with only
same-sex partners were classified as “homosexual”, and those with partners of both sexes were
classified as “bisexual”. A sample of 475 youth aged 18-24 participated in the survey and answered
the question about sexual partners. Because this information is based on sexual behavior, when
referring to these data, the terms “heterosexual” (referring to those with only opposite sex partners),
“homosexual” (referring to those with only same-sex partners) and “bisexual” (referring to those with
partners of both sexes) will be used. Information on gender, and sex categories other than “male” and
“female” were not available.

Overall, (see figure 4) 93% of young adult Philadelphia residents age 18-24 reported having a sexual
partner. The majority (86%, or 408 respondents) reported only heterosexual partners, but 5% (22)
reported only same-sex partners, and 2% (9) reported partners of both sexes. Based on this
information, there are a projected 9,300 behaviorally homosexual or bisexual young adults between
the ages of 18 and 24 in Philadelphia. Following are some more demographic information about the
31 homosexual and bisexual youth who participated in the survey.
 Page 8
Race of Homosexual and Bisexual Youth in Philadelphia:
This group of homosexual and bisexual youth was racially diverse, with the largest group (45%, n=14)
non-Latino Black youth (See Figure 5). Over a quarter (29%, n=9) were non-Latino White youth,
19%(n=3) were of Asian descent, 3% (n=1) were Latino and 3% (n=1) were from another racial/ethnic
group.

Because this group of homosexual/bisexual youth is so small (n=31), application to the general
population of homosexual and bisexual youth ethnic and racial background should be approached with
caution. Nevertheless, the race/ethnicity reported by these 31 youth were not statistically significantly
different from those reported by their heterosexual peers (see Figure 6). Compared to the census data
(Figure 2), both groups of 18-24 year-old-respondents appear to be more likely to be Asian than
expected and less likely to be Hispanic/Latino or other races than expected.

However, when compared to the homosexual/bisexual adults age 25 and older, there are some
interesting differences between the older homosexual/bisexual group and both groups of youth aged
18-24 (p<..05). First, the 25+ groups is far more likely to be White non-Latino, with 47% of the over-
25 group in this category, compared to 2-29% of the 18-24 groups. In contrast, the proportion of non-
Latino Black participants remains fairly consistent across the groups. The difference between the
younger and older age groups then, is most visible in the Asian, Latino, and "Other" groups.
 Page 9

Gender of Homosexual and Bisexual Youth in Philadelphia:

The homosexual/bisexual youth surveyed were about equally male and female (see Figure 7), with
48% (15) of the youth female and 52% (16) of the youth male.

Only two categories of sex or gender were available in this survey, so these data cannot reveal
anything about transgender youth, youth with intersex conditions, or other youth who do not fit the
binary model of sex and gender.
 Page 10

Income of Homosexual and Bisexual Youth in Philadelphia:

Many of the homosexual/bisexual youth that responded to the income question (n=28) reported very
low household incomes (See Figure 8). Half (50%) reported a household income under $15,250 in the
previous year, with and additional 4% reporting incomes between $15,250 and $24,000. The
remaining youth reported household income over $24,000, but most (36% overall) reported incomes in
the $24,001-$37,000 category.

This income pattern of the homosexual/bisexual youth aged 18-24 is significantly different from both
their heterosexual peers (p<.05) and the homosexual/bisexual adults aged 25+ (See Figure 9). More of
the homosexual/bisexual youth have income in the lowest income category than either reference
group. This trend continues when looking at the “higher” income households (e.g. those earning more
than $24,000 per year); The homosexual/bisexual youth have lower incomes, and are the least likely to
have a higher household income over $60,000 (7%) compared with their heterosexual peers (12% of
whom had household incomes over $60,000) or homosexual/bisexual elders (32% of whom had
household incomes over $60,000).
 Page 11

Employment of Homosexual and Bisexual Youth in Philadelphia:

Most homosexual/bisexual youth reported being employed, with 53% stating their status full-time
worker or student, and 16% reporting part-time employment (See figure 10). However, nearly 1 in 5
(19%) were unemployed and looking for work. A remaining 12% (4 youth) had some other
employment status, such as “unable to work”, or “homemaker”.

There were no significant differences between homosexual/bisexual youth aged 18-24 and their
heterosexual peers. They were equally likely to report being employed full or part time, and 1 in 5 of
each age group reported being unemployed but looking for work.
 Page 12

Summary of demographic data from 2000 Census

and the 2004 PHMC SEPA Household Health Survey

These data, both about youth in general (from the 2000 census) and about LGB youth (from the 2004
PHMC SEPA Household Health Survey) help us to see what the general population of LGB youth in
Philadelphia look like, and how they compare to their heterosexual youth counterparts. To reiterate
some key points:

1) We can project approximately 9,300 behaviorally homosexual or bisexual young adults between the
ages of 18 and 24 in Philadelphia. This is 18% of the entire LGB population aged greater than 18
years (projected at 51,600 individuals)2 .

2) It appears that the trend regarding race of LGB youth is towards more Asians and Hispanics among
youth than found in older generations of LGBs, about the same percentage of non-Hispanic blacks
(across generations of LGBs), and a significant reduction in the number of white LGB youth
(compared to older generations).

3) More of the homosexual/bisexual youth have income in the lowest income category than either their
LGB elders or their heterosexual age peers.

4) Our current population-level data sources say nothing about transgender youth. This gap in
knowledge will be supplemented somewhat by data about transgender youth collected in LGB youth
serving agencies (see page 39).

We now turn to build upon these population-level data with data from agencies serving LGBT youth
in Philadelphia. It is important to remember that the data that follow will tell us a story only about a
specific subpopulation of these LGBT youth: those attending local LGBT youth-serving agencies.

2
Philadelphia LGBT Community Assessment, p. 11 .
 Page 13
Focus on Current Services to LGBT Youth by LGBT-specific agencies
In order to explore the current state of services to LGBT youth, we gathered data from three LGBT-
serving agencies in the region: the Attic Youth Center (the only exclusively LGBT youth serving
agency), the Mazzoni Center, and GALAEI.

Agency Data
The Philadelphia LGBT Assessment staff asked agencies serving LGBT youth in Philadelphia for data
relating to services to these youth. Different agencies collected different types of information about
youth and the services youth received or wanted to receive. The Attic, the Mazzoni Center, and
GALAEI reported data to project staff. Because each agency serves different youth LGBT
populations, collected different types of data, and utilized different methods of collection, they are
difficult to combine. Therefore, they are reported separately by agency, and in the case of the
Mazzoni Center, program area.

The Attic
The Attic Youth Center is located at 255 S. 16th Street in Center City, Philadelphia. As a
comprehensive l/g/b/t/q youth service agency, The Attic provides programming in three major areas:

Life Skills Center: Training in literacy, job and interpersonal skills; safe and affirming connections to
the larger community; opportunities for leadership; arts and cultural enrichment; and information
related to sexual orientation, gender identity and health and wellness.

Mental Health Services: Individual and Family counseling, crisis intervention and case-management
services.

Training and Advocacy: Education, consultation and advocacy to schools, religious institutions,
academic institutions, and other youth service providers on best practices for working with l/g/b/t/q
youth.

A total of 1000 unduplicated youth participated in Attic programming from the period of July 1, 2006-
June 30, 2007. Two hundred and seventy eight (278) of those youth had come to The Attic for the
first time during that year. Of the remaining 722 youth, 116 (16%) youth have participated in Attic
programming for one year or less, 289 (40%) youth have participated for more than one year and up to
three years, 318 (44%) youth have participated for more than three years.

For the purpose of this report the researchers used the data collected on the 278 new youth who came
to The Attic Youth Center seeking services from July 1, 2006-June 30, 2007. When a youth comes to
The Attic for the first time they are given a tour of the center and are asked to complete a “Youth Tour
Form”. The tour form asks for basic demographics and has a small section on educational background
and family history. Additionally, the form asks youth what they want to get from participating at The
Attic Youth Center and asks if they are interested in receiving counseling.

Of the 278 “new” unduplicated youth and young adults aged 13 – 23, who filled out The Attic’s tour
form, twenty-one (8%) had previously been to The Attic and failed to complete the form on their first
visit. However, for the overwhelming majority (92%, or 257 new members), the form was filled out on
their very first visit. Both groups of youth who completed The Attic tour form are reported together in
the following discussion.
 Page 14
Race and Ethnicity of Attic New Members:

Attic new members were asked to write in their race and/or ethnicity on the Tour Form. 267 new
members reported a race or ethnicity. These open-ended responses were collapsed into categories that
match the more commonly used racial/ethnic groups in Philadelphia: Black/African-American/Afro-
Caribbean, Caucasian/White/Euro-American, Latino/Hispanic/Puerto Rican, Asian, bi- /multi-racial,
and Other. "Other" ethnic/racial identities included specific identities such as "Native," "Moroccan,"
and "Jewish," as well as racial/ethnic identities that some would not consider racial/ethnic, including
"gay," "a lady", and "human" (See figure 11).

Although Attic new members were extremely diverse in their self-identification, over half (53%) of
the Attic new members identified as Black/African-American/Afro-Caribbean. The remaining new
members identified as Caucasian/White/Euro-American (19%), Latino/Hispanic/Puerto Rican (9%),
Asian (3%), Biracial or multiracial (13%), or other ethnicities (3%).

The population at the Attic reflects the diversity of the youth population in Philadelphia. However,
there are more biracial/multiracial youth new members to the Attic than might be expected based on
census data.

Biracial and Multiracial Youth at the Attic:

Of the Attic new members, thirty-four youth specified biracial or multiracial, or “mixed” racial/ethnic
identity. Of these, 10 wrote in “mixed” or “multi” to explain their race/ethnicity, while the remaining
24 were more specific. Specific biracial identities that were mentioned include “Black and White” (7
new members), “Black and Hispanic” or “Black and Puerto Rican” (5), “Black and Native” or “Black
and American Indian” (3). Eight had multiracial identities including 3-5 different specific racial or
ethnic groups. Nearly all of the biracial and multiracial new members to the Attic included Black or
African-American ancestry in their identities.

Youth new members to the Attic were more likely to report a multiethnic or multiracial identity than
youth at the other agencies that reported data to the project (See Figure 18 and Figure 27). The Attic
 Page 15
was the only agency with an open-ended racial/ethnic identity option; the others used closed-ended
lists of race/ethnicity. Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether the Attic attracts more youth with
mixed racial/ethnic heritages more than the other locations, or whether youth are more likely to report
a more complex race/ethnicity with an open-ended race/ethnicity category than they are to select
“other” from a list.

Age of Attic new members

Youth new members to the Attic included youth and young adults aged 13-23, with a mean age of
17.01 years (n=277). The majority (63%) of the new members were under 18, with 1 in 4 of the total
new members between 13-15. An additional 31% of new members were between the ages of 18 and
20, but new members drop off after age 20, with only 6% of the new members reporting an age
between 21-23 (See Figure 12).

The age range for clients of the Attic is age 13-23. Developmentally speaking, this group represents a
wide spectrum of needs and experiences not easily categorized. A 13-year old adolescent is in a very
different developmental stage than is a young adult of 23. In addition, changes in legal status that
occur at age 8 and 21 may affect access to a broad range of community locations and resources. For
this reason, age is reported in groups of only 2-3 years (see Figure 12). The age group with the most
representation among Attic Youth Center new members was the 16-17 age group. These youth may
be more mature than the 13-15 year old group, and be looking for a social outlet, support, and/or
services for themselves. However, they may experience many different types of barriers if they
attempt to access "adult" social spaces (such as bars and clubs), or adult-oriented services, even if
these service providers are able and willing to serve this population. As Figure 6 shows, youth in the
18-20 group continue to visit the Attic; however, there were comparatively few new members in the
21-23 range. This age group has greater access to LGBT coded adult social spaces, as well as fewer
age-related barriers to adult-oriented services.
 Page 16

Gender identity
Nearly all of the new members to the Attic Youth center reported a gender identity by selecting one
identity from a list of possibilities (See Figure 13): only 6 (2% overall) did not report a gender. Most
of the youth new members in this time period were non-transgender, (also known as cisgender) Male
(44%) and Female (51%) youth and young adults (together comprising 95% of the new members).
An additional 3% of new members were Male-to-female transgender, 1% was Female-to-male
transgender, and 1% identified as an "other" gender. "Other" genders included "Alien", "Queer", and
one unspecified "other".

Comparatively few of the Attic new members were transgender youth. There are several possible
explanations: first, there may be a limited number of “new” transgender youth per year. Perhaps those
who have heard of the Attic are in more need of services, and are more likely to already be “regulars”
there. Second, the Attic may be a less comfortable space for transgender youth than their lesbian, gay,
and bisexual counterparts. Third, some transgender youth may not be “out” as transgender at the time
they fill out the visitor form. Some transgender youth may be more comfortable with their gender
identity at a later age than youth tend to visit the Attic.

Sexual Identity
Nearly all (275) of the Attic new members reported a sexual identity by selecting one from a list of
possibilities on the tour form (See Figure 14). About half (53%) identified as "Gay" or "Lesbian",
23% identified as "Bisexual", 4% said they were "Questioning" their identity, 15% identified as
"Straight" and 5% chose "other". Of the 14 youth who chose "other", many did not specify what this
other identity was. However, 4 said that they were “between bi and straight", 2 stated they were
"queer", 1 identified as "sexual", and 1 felt he was "between gay and bisexual".
 Page 17

Although most new members to the Attic identified as LGBT, a significant proportion (15%) indicated
a “Straight” sexual identity. These youth may be allies lending support to LGBT friends. It’s also
possible that they are youth who are questioning their sexual identity but are not ready to clam a
“questioning” identity at the time that they fill out the Tour Form. Regardless, it is clear that the Attic
serves youth who identify as “Straight”.

Residential Location of Attic New Members

The majority (n=265) of the Attic new members wrote in a ZIP code on the tour form. Of those who
did not, 2 indicated they were homeless. The ZIP codes mentioned on the completed forms indicate
that the Attic draws new members from all over Philadelphia as well as surrounding counties in
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware (see Figure 15 and Table 1).
 Page 18

The majority of new members (83%, n=220) reported a residence in Philadelphia, but 11% (n=28)
were from other Philadelphia counties, including Bucks (1 visitor), Chester County (6 new members),
Delaware County (13 new members) and Montgomery (8 new members). An additional 5% (12 new
members) were from New Jersey counties, including Burlington (3 new members), Camden County (5
new members), Gloucester (3), and Mercer (1). Two new members were from New Castle County,
Delaware, and an additional two were from outside the PA/NJ/DE tri-state area.
 Page 19

Residential Locations within Philadelphia

The 220 Attic new members from Philadelphia were from all areas of the city. ZIP code data were
used to determine the region of the city the new members were from (See Figure 16).

These areas were further divided to match the City's Planning Analysis Sections (PAS) (see Table 2).
In this year, the Attic drew new members from each of the 12 Philadelphia PAS, with the largest
proportions coming from PAS J: Olney/Oak Lane (18% n=39); PAS D: West Philadelphia (14%,
 Page 20
n=30); and PAS K: Near Northeast (12%, n=27). However, substantial numbers also came from
Southwest and West Philadelphia, South Philadelphia, and North Philadelphia.

Thus, it appears that LGBT and allied straight-identified youth from most areas of the city are drawn
to Center City for the services, support, and social outlet offered by The Attic. However, for youth
from some areas, such as the Far Northeast, transportation may be a barrier. Other areas, such as
Center City, have a comparatively small youth population, so it is not surprising that this area does not
have a larger group of new members. However, the location of the Attic in Center City clearly works
for these new members: the Center City location may give it neutrality that a location in a more
residential neighborhood may not have. It is in a transportation hub, allowing for a one-leg bus, train,
or subway trip on public transit from most locations in the city (with the exception of the Far
Northeast area).

What Services were Important to Attic New Members?

Attic new members were asked to rate the importance of the role that the Attic could provide for them
personally in 3 areas: counseling; support; and a social outlet. Although new members were intended
to rank which was most, somewhat, and least important so that each area had a different ranking, many
new members ranked each separately as though ranking on a scale from 1 to 3, such that all 3 area
might be “most important” or “least important”. Eighty-two new members skipped this section, and
the following open-ended questions, completely. As a result, these responses are a bit hard to
interpret. However, these results are reported here because they are so striking (see Figure 17).

“Social outlet” was deemed “most important” by 62% (n=123) of those who rated the important of a
social outlet. In contrast, only 34% (n=68) gave “support” a “most important” rating. Only 20%
(n=39) gave counseling a “most important” rating.

This emphasis on the social outlet aspect of The Attic is especially interesting given that in a separate
item asking new members if they wanted to receive counseling, more youth new members (68, new
members, or 30% of the 223 respondents answering this item) did want to receive counseling from the
Attic than rated counseling as “most important”. It is important to note here that the Attic Youth
 Page 21
Center offers counseling to all new members for whom it is appropriate. Thus, it is clear that many of
the youth new members do value the support and counseling services available at the Attic. However,
it is equally clear that many of these youth feel that a social outlet is an even more compelling need.

The Mazzoni Center: HIV Care and HIV Testing Programs

The Mazzoni Center, located at 1201 Chestnut Street, serves youth populations aged 13-24 both
through their HIV programs and their behavioral and primary health care divisions. The HIV division
serves this population through anonymous HIV tests (which may include duplicates) and HIV care
services, including ambulatory medical care, housing services, and others: these cases are
unduplicated, as each person has their own record. Both groups were added together. Although a
single person usually has multiple contacts with various aspects of HIV Care and Case Management
services once they start to receive HIV care, for the purposes of this analysis, each of the 53 care
clients in the 13-24 age range will be treated as only one contact, just as each of the 1,467 HIV tests
performed for youth aged 13-24 will be treated as one contact. These contacts took place between July
1, 2006 and June 30, 2007.

Because these data are related to use of HIV testing and services for HIV-positive youth, they do not
reflect the overall population of LGBT youth in Philadelphia, or even the youth who utilize other
LGBT services in Philadelphia. First, risk for HIV transmission varies by behavior. LGBT-identified
youth who have not yet reached sexual debut, or who correctly assess that they are low risk for HIV
are unlikely to take an HIV test. For example, youth on the younger end of the age range are less
likely to have had experiences that would put them at risk. Gender and sexual identity may also
reflect differences in behavior that make other subgroups of the LGBT population less likely to be
represented in HIV testing data.

Even among youth who are at high risk for HIV infection, the decision to take an HIV test is very
complex. Most people who choose to take a test through an anonymous testing program like
Mazzoni’s know that they have placed themselves at risk for contracting the virus and are motivated to
take the test when they see the mobile testing unit, or decide to drop in for a test at drop-in hours. For
example, partly for developmental reasons, teens with such experiences are less likely to think about
getting a test than are those in their 20s. Other demographic factors can also affect perceived risk for
HIV and the decision to be tested. However, the data about the youth who tested or are receiving
services for their HIV infection are still valuable.

Race and Ethnicity of Mazzoni HIV Youth Contacts

The 1,520 youth receiving HIV counseling and testing or HIV services selected one race/ethnicity
from a list. Available categories included: Asian/Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic Black, Non-Hispanic
White, Hispanic, and Other (See Figure 18).
 Page 22

Of these 1,520 contacts with the Mazzoni HIV programs, 45% were with non-Hispanic Black youth,
41% were Non-Hispanic White youth, 8% were with Hispanic youth, 5% were Asian youth, and the
remaining 2% of the youth were from other racial/ethnic groups. These contacts appear to reflect the
racial and ethnic diversity of the youth population of Philadelphia, but have some over-representation
of White youth. However, the Mazzoni Center draws youth from the larger Southeastern PA region
and beyond (see Figure 22), areas with very different demographics from Philadelphia County.
Therefore, the demographics of Mazzoni’s HIV testing clients and of Philadelphia youth should not be
expected to be exactly the same. Nevertheless, it does raise questions about differing facilitators and
barriers of HIV testing for the different racial and ethnic youth populations of Philadelphia.

Age of Mazzoni HIV Youth Contacts

The 1,520 youth who used Mazzoni’s HIV testing and HIV services tended to be older youth
populations (See Figure 19).
 Page 23

Only 5% were under 18, with only a few in the 13-15 age group. Use of the services picks up after
age 18, with 36% of the youth clients of these Mazzoni services aged 18-20 . However, use of these
services was even more prevalent among youth in the 21-24 age range: the majority (58%) of youth
using the HIV testing and HIV services were in this age range. As stated in the introduction to this
section about HIV testing, different age groups may have different needs for HIV testing, as well as
different barriers and facilitators that encourage (or discourage) the use of this type of HIV testing
services.

Gender Identity of Mazzoni Youth Contacts

The 1,520 youth contacts of Mazzoni HIV testing and HIV services reported a gender identity; Youth
could select from 5 gender identity choices: Male, Female, Male-to-Female transgender, Female-to-
male transgender, and transgender (unspecified) (see Figure 20).
 Page 24

Most of the youth new members in this time period were non-transgender, (also known as cisgender)
Male (51%) and Female (45%) youth and young adults (together comprising 96% of the new
members). An additional 1% of new members were Male-to-female transgender, 1% was Female-to-
male transgender, and 1% identified as (unspecified) Transgender. (Note: these do not add up to
exactly 100% because of rounding).

Sexual Identity of Mazzoni Youth Contacts

Only the 1,467 youth contacts of the Mazzoni HIV testing services reported their sexual identity; the
care clients did not report sexual identity. Staff indicated that most of the HIV Care clients are LGBT
identified, but no further information was available. Youth could choose from a list of 5 sexual
identities: heterosexual, gay, bisexual, lesbian, and other (See Figure 21). Because these data are from
youth who took an HIV test, and sexual risk for HIV may be related to both gender and sexual
identity, sexual identity is reported separately for the 3 major gender groups; male, female, and
transgender.
 Page 25

For the male group, the majority (61%) identified as gay (51%) or bisexual (10%), but a substantial
proportion of males identified as heterosexual (38%). Only a handful (1%) had an “other” sexual
identity. In contrast, the majority (82%) of females identified as heterosexual, with 1% identifying as
gay, 8% identifying as lesbian, and 8% identifying as bisexual. The final 1% of females had an
“other” sexual identity.

The transgender youth contacts reported very diverse sexual identities. About 37% overall identified
as gay (26%) or lesbian (11%); 13% reported a heterosexual identity, and 11% a bisexual identity.
However the largest group was those reporting an “other” sexual identity. Thus it appears that the
current model of sexual identity may be too restrictive for some transgender youth.

Residential Location of Mazzoni Youth Contacts

The 1467 youth HIV testing contacts reported their ZIP codes (See Figure 22). The HIV care contacts
did not report ZIP codes. Most (74%) of the youth HIV testing contacts were from Philadelphia.
However, there was substantial geographic diversity in these HIV testing contacts. 12% of the
contacts were from other areas in southeastern PA, including 68 contacts from Delaware County, 44
contacts from Montgomery County, 41 contacts from Chester, and 12 contacts from Bucks County.
An additional 2% were from other PA counties, including contacts from as far away as Allegheny
County (Pittsburgh). Another 6% were from New Jersey, including but not limited to Camden
County (33 contacts) and Burlington County (20 contacts). 1% of the contacts was from Delaware,
with the remaining 5% from outside the PA/ NJ/DE region
 Page 26

Residential Locations within Philadelphia

Of the 1080 HIV testing contacts from within Philadelphia (See Table 3), all areas of the city are
represented. The ZIP code data were used to sort the contacts into the Planning Analysis Section
areas. West Philadelphia, Center City, South Philadelphia, and Lower North Philadelphia PAS areas
had the highest proportion of youth contacts.

These are areas that are the closest to the walk-in testing site, or include areas where the mobile HIV
testing unit routinely visits. However, most areas of the city (with the exception of
Roxborough/Manayunk) have a fairly high level of participation.
 Page 27

These Zip Code data suggest that Mazzoni’s HIV testing services, many of which take place during
walk-in hours in the Washington West neighborhood of Center City, or in the mobile unit when
parked in other sites in this area, do catch youth whose homes are in other areas of the city.

Mazzoni’s Behavioral Health Services

The Mazzoni Center’s Open Door program provides a range of behavioral health services to the
LGBT community of Philadelphia, including group and individual therapy, support groups, psychiatric
care, recovery services, and referrals. From the period July 2006-June 2007, 51 youth clients aged 13-
24 were served in individual therapy services. Demographic data were compiled by staff and reported
in aggregated form.

Race and Ethnicity of Mazzoni Open Door Counseling Youth Contacts

The majority (63%) the Open Door Counseling youth contacts aged 13-24 in this time period were
Non-Hispanic White (63%), with the remaining clients Non-Hispanic Black or African-American
(37%) and Hispanic/Latino (2%) (See Figure 23).

These youth clients are more likely to be Caucasian than the youth receiving services in other venues.
It may be that these youth are more likely to seek out this type of more traditional talk therapy than
youth from other racial/ethnic groups. Since the Open Door Program also provides psychiatric care as
part of its spectrum of services (a service which is unique among LGBT behavioral and mental health
programs in Philadelphia), it is possible that the demographics of LGBT-identified youth seeking out
integrated psychiatric and counseling services are different than those seeking other types of services.

Age of Mazzoni Open Door Counseling Youth Contacts

The youth receiving counseling services skewed toward the higher age groups of youth (see figure 24).
Two-thirds (67%) of the youth contacts were age 21-24, with the remaining third under 21. 13% were
age 13-15, 11 were age 16-17, and 9% were age 18-20.
 Page 28

The sharp increase in age at age 21 is consistent with the data from the HIV testing and services
contacts at Mazzoni (see Figure19). Like HIV testing and care, behavioral health care is sometimes
something that youth do not seek out for themselves until a later developmental stage.

Gender Identity of Mazzoni Open Door Counseling Youth Contacts

Open Door clients were very diverse in regard to gender identity (See Figure 25). However, the
largest group identified as female (47%) with the remaining clients identifying as male (29%) or
transgender/queer-identifying (24%).
 Page 29

Sexual Identity of Mazzoni Open Door Counseling Youth Contacts

Most of the youth clients receiving counseling services identified as “gay” (27%), or “lesbian” (43%),
with a total of 70% identifying as gay or lesbian (See Figure 26). The remaining youth were split
between “bisexual (6%), “questioning” (6%), and other identities (18%). Those with other sexual
identities had transgender/queer gender identities that impacted the way that they thought about sexual
identity.

The Mazzoni Center’s Adolescent Health Care Services

Mazzoni Center provides health care services to LGBTQ Youth. Services offered include:

♦ Primary Care Services

 Preventive Care Evaluation by Clinician
 Immunizations
 HIV Rapid Testing
♦ Reproductive Services
 GYN Exam
 STD Testing
 Immunizations
 HIV Rapid Testing
 Birth Control
 Sexual Health Counseling
 Other Family Planning Services
♦ HIV Care
 Diagnosis and Management
 Immunization
 Treatment Adherence Counseling
 Page 30
♦ HPV Trial
 The purpose of this study is to test the safety and effectiveness of the research
study vaccine, Gardasil, in young men, in preventing HPV related genital warts,
HPV infection, and anal pre-cancer.
 Men who have anal sex are at high risk for catching HPV infection. The
infection can cause abnormalities in the cells of the anal canal that in some
people develop into precancer or cancer.
 Currently there is not treatment or immunization on the market that would
prevent HPV transmission in Men.
 50 Subject currently enrolled in this three-year study. Our goal is to enroll 50
more subjects in the next several months.

During the period July, 2005- June 2006 covered by this section, 264 clients were served by the
Mazzoni Adolescent Health Care Services program.

Race and Ethnicity of Mazzoni’s Adolescent Health Care Services

The majority (54%) the Open Door Counseling youth contacts aged 13-24 in this time period were
Non-Hispanic White, with the remaining clients Non-Hispanic Black or African-American (37%),
Hispanic/Latino (2%), Asian (1%), and Other (6%). (See Figure 27).

Age of Mazzoni Adolescent Health Care Services

The youth receiving health care services skewed toward the higher age groups of youth (see figure
28). Two-thirds (68%) of the youth contacts were age 21-24, with the remaining third under 21. 2%
were under age 13, 1% was age 13-15, 3% were age 16-17, and 26% were age 18-20.
 Page 31

Gender Identity of Mazzoni Open Door Counseling Youth Contacts

Open Door clients were very diverse in regard to gender identity (See Figure 29). However, the
largest group identified as female (51%) with the remaining clients identifying as male (41%) or
transgender-identifying (9%).
 Page 32
GALAEI

GALAEI, located at 1233 Locust Street, has a number of programs providing outreach, counseling,
and intervention services for LGBT youth. GALAEI works with transgender youth mainly through
the Trans-Health Information Project (TIP), a joint project with Prevention Point Philadelphia. The
TIP counseling program provides counseling services for trans youth and adults. Youth clients under
age 25 make up 58% of the participants of the TIP counseling program. GALAEI also serves general
LGBT youth populations through the M-pact youth programs, including counseling and group level
interventions; these are restricted to youth clients. Data from a total of 78 unduplicated youth clients
aged 14-24 from these 3 project areas is presented below. Of these 78 clients, 29 clients were from
TIP individual counseling (from January 1-June 30, 2007); 28 were from M-Pact individual
counseling (July 1,2006-June 30, 2007), and 21 were attending the M-pact group level intervention but
not other M-pact services (October1, 2006-June 30, 2007).

Race and Ethnicity of GALAEI Youth

GALAEI served a racially diverse population of LGBT youth (See Figure 30), most of whom were
youth of color (97%). The majority (78%) of the youth were African-American, 15% of the youth
were Latino, 3% were Asian, and 1% were mixed race. The remaining 3% were White youth. There
was not a significant difference in the race/ethnicity of youth served by program area.

Although GALAEI’s organizational identity is that of a Latino organization, the majority of the youth
that are served are African-American. Thus, it seems that GALAEI is able successfully reach out to
youth of color outside of its Latino/a focus.
 Page 33
Age of GALAEI Youth

The youth served by GALAEI ranged in age from 14 to 24, with an average age of 17 (see Figure 31).
Age differed slightly by program, with the TIP counseling clients slightly older than the two groups of
M-Pact clients, as M-Pact programs specifically emphasize intervention with high-school-aged youth.
The TIP youth clients ranged in age from 15-24, with an average age of 18. In comparison, the M-
pact counseling clients ranged from 14-22, with an average age of only 16, and the M-pact GLI clients
range from 14-20, with an average age of 17.

Thus, although GALAEI’s youth programs serve a broad range of youth in terms of age, from the
average age of the youth served, it appears that these youth are toward the under-18 end of the age
range.

Gender identity
Nearly half (42% ) of the youth served by these GALAEI youth programs were transgender youth (see
Figure 32), with the remaining non-transgender (also known as cisgender) male (51%) and female
(7%) youth. All of the transgender youth with a more specific gender were male-to-female
transgender youth (5% of the total youth) with an additional 37% of the youth with an unspecified
transgender identity.
 Page 34

Gender identity of the youth differed by program: All of the 29 TIP counseling clients were
transgender, compared to only 4 of the 49 M-pact clients. Conversely, all of the male and female
youth are M-pact clients. The two groups of M-pact clients are similar in terms of gender identity:
there were no significant differences by gender between the counseling and GLI clients.
GALAEI’s programs are funded to have a HIV-prevention focus. Although the programs are holistic,
the programs are still targeted to gay and bisexual young men and transgender youth, rather than the
broader LGBT population. This emphasis is evident when looking at the gender identity of the youth
clients.

Sexual identity
All of the youth served by GALAEI’s youth programs are LGBT-identified. Specific data regarding
identity were not available.

Geographic Area
All (100%) of the GALAEI clients were from Philadelphia County. However, 15 of the 78 youth
(19%) did not provide ZIP codes. According to GALAEI staff, many of the youth who did not
provide ZIP codes were homeless. In fact, a number of youth who did provide this information were
housed transitionally or had insecure housing arrangements.
 Page 35

The ZIP codes of the 63 youth who could provide them were collapsed into Planning Analysis
sections. Seven of the twelve sections were represented, with the largest groups from Southwest
Philadelphia (24%), Upper North Philadelphia (21%), and Bridesburg/Kensington/Richmond (19%).

Self-Defined Needs of Youth Clients

All of the youth clients attended at least 4 sessions of the GLI (group level intervention) or counseling
program at GALAEI. The transgender youth in the TIP counseling program had had more sessions
than their peers in the M-pact program (even though the TIP data cover a shorter time period), with
TIP youth clients averaging 5.6 sessions after 6 months, compared to 4.9 session in a year for the M-
pact counseling mean. The TIP youth also required more sessions than the adults in the TIP
counseling program: TIP adults clients needed an average of 3.7 sessions from Jan-June 2007,
compared to 5.6 sessions for the TIP youth clients in the same period.

Both the TIP and M-pact counseling clients define their own need/risk areas on which to focus. Both
groups have high self-defined needs for assistance with housing, job readiness/ employment, and
education/re-enrollment into school. In addition, the TIP youth have self-defined needs for assistance
with legal issues (including identification issues as well as other issues such as harassment and bench
warrants), dealing with partner violence, and negotiation of sex (for both sex working youth and youth
seeking gender affirmation through sex). M-pact counseling clients also had unique self-defined
needs, such as building systems of support with family and friends, and building healthy relationships
with partners.
 Page 36
Focus on agency youth in the schools
The school environment can have a huge impact on the lives of youth high school age or younger.
This is no less true for LGBT youth, who may find an intolerant environment, with unsupportive or
hostile faculty, staff, and fellow students. This type of extremely hostile, stressful environment can
lead students to drop out of school, or to develop or intensify behavioral or mental health challenges
that student may be experiencing. Alternatively, it is possible for a school environment to be a
supportive and affirming place that allows LGBT youth a place to thrive and reach their full potential.
The tone of a school is influenced by the adults at the school, from administration to teachers and
other staff. Although some literature indicates that many LGBT youth go on to reach high levels of
educational attainment, not all LGBT youth-even these high achievers-have a positive experience in
school.

Educational Attainment of Youth Respondents to the SEPA Household Health Survey

The 31 homosexual and bisexual young adults aged 18-24 who responded to the PHMC SEPA
Household Health Survey tended to be polarized in regard to their educational attainment (See figure
33).
 Page 37

Nearly a third (29%) of these young adults had not completed high school, compared to 18% of their
heterosexual peers (p<.05), and only 11% of the older 25+ homosexual/bisexual group (P<.05) (see
Figure 34). On the other hand, 52% had attended at least some college, compared to 40% of their
heterosexual peers, and 55% of their homosexual/bisexual elders. Although education level is
associated with age for youth, and many in the homosexual/bisexual young adult group are highly
educated for their age, it appears that a subgroup have faced challenges with education, more so than
their heterosexual peers have.

Data from Attic new members

The majority of the Attic new members reported being in school currently (See Figure 35). Most of
the 253 Attic youth who responded to a series of questions about school reported attending school at
their grade level (78%). An additional 6% of the Attic new members are attending school but repeated
at least one grade. The remaining new members (16%) were not attending school; 11% were not in
school but had completed 12th grade or higher level of education. The final 5% were not in school and
had completed less than 12th grade; of these, half (6 new members) had repeated a grade. In addition,
twelve of the 25 new members who were missing all or part of the school data reported that they were
not attending school now, but did not specify the last grade completed.
 Page 38

Of new members to The Attic who were attending school (see figure 36), grade levels mentioned
ranged from a 7th grade student to a college senior. However, the majority were in high school (see
Figure 34), as would be expected given the age range of the new members (see discussion of age of
Attic participants on page 15). Nevertheless, two thirds (67%) of the new members to the Attic were
in grades 10-12 at the time of their visit. Of the 172 new members in grades 7 through 12, 125 (73%)
reported that they attended a Philadelphia public or charter school. These schools were in locations
from all over the city.
 Page 39
Gay-Straight Alliances in Philadelphia Public Schools

The Mazzoni Center’s ALLY Safe Schools program partners with faculty in Philadelphia
schools, supporting and training these faculty allies in forming Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs). Thirty
schools in Philadelphia’s school system have GSAs, with about 300 total members in the 2006-2007
school year. Size of the GSA groups ranged from 4 to 40 students. Activities standard across the
GSAs include celebration of LGBT History Month and holding a Day of Silence at school to honor
those who have been harassed or abused because of sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender
expression. GSA members can also participate in city-wide GSA groups, attend workshops, work on
projects, and attend other activities. One group of new members to the Attic reported that they were
visiting as part of a school GSA tour, indicating that the GSA structure could be used to connect the
students participating in GSAs to other resources in the community.

Precise demographics were not available for GSA members, but some information was available.
First, all GSA youth members were students, as only students could be members of school-based
organizations. Most student GSA members were African-American and female. It is not clear what
the sexual and gender identity of all of the students members are. Some members are LGBT students,
some are questioning; others are allies. Racially, it appears that the youth members reflect the
demographics of the school system as a whole. However, the mostly-female composition of the
groups is less representative.

The students have told Mazzoni staff that the GSAs are important to their lives. Some have stated that
they would have dropped out of school had it not been for the support of the other students and the
faculty advisor/ally. However, issues with depression, isolation, suicidal ideation, and substance use
are still present for some of these youth. They would like to feel more connected to larger LGBT
communities in Philadelphia. They want to know more about sex and want to be able to meet other
LGBT-identified young people to decrease the feelings of isolation and pressure, as well as for dating.

Focus on Transgender youth

All of the agencies and programs served some youth who did not identify with our U.S. American
societies’ standard gender categories of male and female. This “other” gender category can be very
diverse. Although some transgender, queer, or other gendered gender-nonconforming youth feel from
a very young age that they were born in the wrong body, and want to transition to what they feel is the
correct body, other youth with gender identities that do not match their birth sex feel more fluid or
undecided about their own gender, and sometimes question even the existence of binary gender
categories.

Three sets of data had more information about youth contacts with transgender or other gender
nonconforming gender identities: the Attic, the GALAEI TIP [Trans-health Information Project]
program data, and the Mazzoni HIV services and testing contacts. Data from these three locations is
presented below by subject area and location. The contacts are kept separate by location because the
same individuals may have visited each location, which would make that person’s data count up to 3
times, while other individual’s data would count only once, skewing the results. Although not ideal,
this method allows comparison of the transgender and gender nonconforming youth served by each
site, and prevents problems caused by possible multiple agency contacts.

Additional focused information about transgender youth can be found in Appendix 3, Street
Intercept Survey Results: Transgender Responses Only (Page 73), and Appendix 4, Transgender
Case Study Report (Page 76 ) .
 Page 40

Gender Identity of Transgender Youth

The transgender youth contacts of each agency have somewhat different profiles (See Figure 34).

At the Attic, the majority of the 12 contacts identified as male-to female transgender (58%), followed
by those with an “other” gender (17%), female-to-male (17%), and unspecified transgender (8%). The
29 GALAEI TIP Counseling contacts were majority male-to female (65%), but also included many
female-to-male contacts (35%). Three of the GALAEI TIP youth contacts were non-gender
conforming: that is, they did not simply identify as male-to-female or female-to-male, but identified
with a more complex gender (for example, a genderqueer-identified female-to-male transman; a
“butch queen” male-to-female transwoman). In contrast, the Mazzoni HIV testing and services
contacts were more likely to be unspecified transgender (41%) with about equal proportions of Male-
to-female (31%) and female-to-male(29%) transgender youth.

Race/ethnicity of Transgender Youth

The racial/ethnic identity of the transgender youth was diverse and varied somewhat by location (See
Figure 37).

In each location, the largest group of youth contacts were African-American: 42% of the Attic new
members, 83% of the GALAEI TIP Counseling contacts, and 51% of the Mazzoni HIV testing and
services contacts were African-American. White transgender youth were the next largest group at
each site, with 33% of the Attic new members, 7% of the Mazzoni TIP Counseling contacts, and 39%
of the Mazzoni HIV contacts identifying as White or Caucasian. Latino, Asian, and Other
race/ethnicity contacts were also represented among these youth.

Age of transgender youth

Compared to the overall age of the contacts from these agencies, transgender youth tended to be
somewhat older youth (See Figure 38). At the Attic, 8% of transgender new members were 13-15,
42% were 16-17, 17% were 18-20, and 33% were 21-24. In contrast, the GALAEI TIP counseling
 Page 41
contacts and the Mazzoni HIV contacts were older: neither group included transgender youth under
age 16.

Although the Attic still has a larger group of younger new members than the other locations, the 12
transgender new members skew older than the general Attic population. In each location, at least half
of the transgender contacts were over age 18, with a full 96% of the Mazzoni HIV contacts over age
18.
 Page 42
Sexual Identity of Transgender Youth
The Attic and Mazzoni presented data about sexual identity of their transgender contacts. Sexual
identity was very diverse (see Figure 40). About a third of each group identifying as gay or lesbian,
25% of the Attic new members, and 12% of the Mazzoni HIV contacts identifying as bisexual, 8% of
the Attic new members and 16% of the Mazzoni HIV contacts identifying as straight, and about a third
of each group choosing an “other” sexual identity.

Some of the transgender youth chose “gay” or “lesbian”, which implies gender (gay male and lesbian
female) based on their birth sex, while others based this sexual identity on their gender identity
instead. In addition, a sizable proportion of transgender youth chose an “other” sexual identity when
forced to pick. Thus, these data seem to indicate that the standard sexual identity categories do not fit
many transgender youth.
 Page 43

Summary of key themes from LGBT youth-serving agency data:

1. Some LGBT youth are first and foremost seeking a social venue when they seek out LGBT
youth-serving agencies.
2. 30% of new members at the Attic report that they are interested in receiving counseling when
they arrive at the agency. This high percentage of youth requesting counseling points to a need
across the board to support counseling services for LGBT youth.
3. HIV services (counseling and testing, and prevention services) may provide a gateway to other
services for some LGBT youth—especially gay and bisexual young men and some transgender
youth. However, this is less the case for the younger (less than 18 years old) cohort.
4. The focus of many current LGBT youth services on HIV risk, though providing an entry point
for some, may alienate others (especially young lesbians and bisexual women who are not “at
risk” for HIV but who face other challenges). It is important to ensure that services not only
linked to HIV risk are provided for LGBT youth, who may be at-risk for other health outcomes
resulting from their sexual identity, such as depression, substance abuse, or suicide. Resources
should continue to be provided to agencies that currently provide services outside of the HIV
service framework. The data also show a need for additional youth-focused, non-HIV efforts
to attract younger cohorts of youth.
5. It appears that LGBT and allied "straight" youth from most areas of the city are drawn to
Center City for the services, support, and social outlet offered by its central LGBT youth-
serving agencies. However, for youth from some areas, such as the Far Northeast,
transportation may be a barrier.
6. LGBT youth services serve as an important bridge as these youth seek to find their place in
LGBT adult organizations and venues. The agencies provide an important role in providing
peer and adult support, information, and health services that are frequently unavailable in
schools, families, or home neighborhoods.
7. Current LGBT youth services appear to be reaching different groups of youth, which is
appropriate. A diverse range of programs are needed to appropriately serve the population of
LGBT youth who themselves have very diverse experiences, identities, and personal
challenges.
8. School may be a difficult place for many LGBT youth. Although many achieve very high
levels of academic achievement, others have a more difficult time. It appears LGBT youth
may be as or more likely than their heterosexual peers to repeat a grade or to leave school
before receiving a high school diploma.
9. Transgender spectrum youth in Philadelphia are very diverse in terms of race/ethnicity, gender
identity, and sexual identity. Like transgender youth everywhere, many have challenges
meeting basic needs such as employment and housing.
 Page 44
Conclusions from Agency Data:

Viewed alongside each other, these agency data help us to see the breadth of services that have been
created for LGBT youth in Philadelphia, and the effectiveness of these services in reaching a broad
geographic sample of LGBT youth in the City and region. LGBT youth services serve as an important
bridge as these youth seek to find their place in LGBT adult organizations and venues. The agencies
provide an important role in providing peer and adult support, information, and health services that are
frequently unavailable in schools, families, or home neighborhoods.

Youth arriving at the Attic express a need for social connections to other LGBT youth like themselves.
Even youth who are well-supported by friends, families, and other structures need this type of
community interaction. Youth with fewer supports and greater challenges need these connections all
the more. Although counseling, health services, and other programs are needed and valued by this
population, these types of services cannot serve the unmet need for social connection and community
interaction that many LGBT youth express.

Many services provided for LGBT youth are focused on HIV risk. Not all LGBT youth are at risk for
HIV, and many who are do not perceive this risk, and may find programs focusing on HIV alienating,
or superfluous. It is important to ensure that services not linked to HIV risk are provided for LGBT
youth, who may be at-risk for other health outcomes resulting from their sexual identity, such as
depression, substance abuse, or suicide.
 Page 45
Focus on Government Services for LGBT Youth

Under the administration of Mayor John F. Street Esq., many operating departments of the City have
been reviewed by the Mayor’s LGBT Advisory Committee between 2001 and 2007 to assess whether
those departments are providing appropriate services to the City’s LGBT populations. We have
reviewed the recommendations of these departments, and recommend that LGBT youth advocates
work, both within the current administration and the next, to insure that these recommendations are
pursued and successfully achieved. We highlight here areas where work is still required. We have
included recommendations from past reports in the footnotes.

Department of Public Health

The Department of Public Health’s services to LGBT youth have been provided primarily through the
AIDS Activities Coordinating Office (AACO). Though AACO has a long track record of providing
HIV specific services to LGBT youth through community based organizations, there is a need to
provide a broader range of health services that builds upon this HIV-focused foundation. We
recommend that the Department of Public Health:

a. Continue to prioritize HIV prevention and care services conducted by the AIDS
Activities Coordinating Office that address the pressing needs of LGBT youth, and
especially LGBT youth of color.
b. Continue to invest in the LGBT youth-specific clinical care to insure that LGBT youth-
sensitive health care is available to the many uninsured LGBT youth who seek services
there.
c. Work systematically to create uniform data collection of sexual and gender identity
data, in keeping with HIPAA and other legal data collection requirements.
d. Provide education and training to staff of the city’s Public Health Clinics about the
specific health needs of LGBT youth, including information about the diversity of
LGBT families.
e. Address violence and harassment of LGBT youth as a public health issue.
f. Work in partnership with local providers to insure that LGBT youth are vaccinated for
Hepatitis A and B.
g. Insure presentation of this report (and other LGBT youth-specific reports) to Health
Department planning bodies, including the Board of Health, the HIV Commission, the
Community Planning Group, and other appropriate boards and committees.

Department of Behavioral Health

Under the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Commission, specific recommendations3 were made regarding LGBT
youth. The primary point of these recommendations was to make clear that LGBT youth have

3
The Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Children’s Behavioral Health, January 2007, p. 43:

Attention must be given to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) issues and anti-discrimination
policies within all systems’ initiatives, contracts and projects. In serving LGBTQ young people or children of LGBTQ
parents, services and supports across all child-serving systems should be tailored to their specific goals, strengths, and
needs.

• Provide these services in LGBTQ-welcoming environments that involve community organizations, advocacy
groups, and other groups that specialize in providing LGBTQ-focused community support services. Services should
be delivered in a culturally competent manner to reflect LGBTQ diversity. They should include a comprehensive,
wrap-around approach to providing services to LGBTQ consumers. Such services should offer LGBTQ-affirming
activities for children and their families, create partnerships with culturally relevant community organizations and
institutions and use research conducted by and for LGBTQ minorities to guide services for LGBTQ children and their
 Page 46
behavioral health care needs that are distinct from LGBT adults and non-LGBT youth. Building upon
the work of the Blue Ribbon Commission, in January, 2007, the DBH/MRS system completed a series
of recommendations related to better services for LGBT populations. These recommendations
included the following LGBT youth –specific language: “The DBH/MRS needs to have a similar
workgroup to the Behavioral Health LGBT Initiative to specifically address the service needs of
LGBT youth. Recommendations or work developed by that group should coincide with the work that
has been done by the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Commission. The workgroup should include LGBT youth
as well as providers, advocates, and family members. “ DBH/MRS should insure the establishment of
this workgroup to better understand the behavioral health needs of LGBT youth.

We recommend that the Department of Behavior Health:

a. Work with LGBT youth advocates and youth themselves to insure that the
recommendations of both the Blue Ribbon Commission (see footnote 3, above) and the
Behavioral Health LGBT Initiative (item a, above), especially as they relate to LGBT
youth, are implemented.
b. Continue to support youth-serving agencies in receiving CBH funding so that they can
expand counseling services to meet the increased need and to address LGBTQ youth in
the context of their families.

Department of Human Services (DHS)

Recommendations regarding LGBT clients at the Department of Human Services (DHS) were made
by the Mayor’s Advisory Committee4 in September, 2003. Under the direction of former DHS We

families. Several steps can be taken to fulfill this strategy. First, provider processes should be sensitive to LGBTQ
consumers’ needs and circumstances. For example, providers could:

• Structure service intake processes to ensure privacy and confidentiality.

• Use client forms that reflect gender- and sexual- inclusive language.
• Post non-discriminatory signs in places where services are delivered.
• Create grievance procedures addressing LGBTQ issues and concerns.
• Encourage communication about LGBTQ issues among staff, children and families.
• Track quality assurance relating to LGBTQ issues and elicit LGBTQ issues from consumers.
• Make available a culturally appropriate hotline to provide information, referral, and peer counseling, as some local
organizations have already done.

All child-serving systems should have access to information about resources and support groups for LGBTQ issues.
Develop a resource manual for service providers. Finally, take steps to ensure that service providers are sensitive to
issues such as homophobia and transphobia.

4
Report to the Mayor’s LGBT Advisory Board, September, 2003, Recommendations to the Department of Human Services

Policy Recommendations:
i. Policies and Procedures: DHS contract performance standards should be written to reflect provider compliance with
nondiscrimination policies, staff development requirements and best practice as recommended in this report and adopted by
DHS.
ii. Staff Development & Training: The DHS staff development support center, together with experts in the field of LGBTQ
issues, should create a mandatory set of courses to insure managers, direct service staff, group home staff, assigned city
attorneys, provider staff and foster parents or caregivers, are prepared to work effectively with this population. This set of
courses should be available to probation officers, child advocate attorneys, the family court and its employees and the
behavioral health system as well.
iii. Staff Development & Training: A resource manual should be compiled and be made available for DHS staff. The manual
should include current information on services such as professional and peer counseling, community support programs,
housing alternatives, school programs, and health services for LGBTQ youth.
iv. Quality Assurance: DHS should include questions that relate to actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity and
the delivery of services in its determination of client experiences and customer satisfaction with the delivery of services,
especially questions that address behaviors and views expressed by DHS staff, contractors or others during investigations or
the delivery of services. Youth themselves must be interviewed by the customer satisfaction teams to determine their
experiences in the DHS system.
 Page 47
have seen a number of positive steps forward in response to the 2003 recommendations. These
include:

a. The opening of Bethel House, an 8 bed group home for dependent LGBT youth
located in Queen Village that serves youth 15 to 18 years of age. The opening of
Bethel House has led to two important successes: a) LGBT youth residing at Bethel
House can remain in their city of origin, close to neighborhoods and families of
origin, and; b) the City creates a significant cost savings of funds that were formerly
spent for expensive shelter services in New York City.
b. The appointment of an LGBT liaison at DHS. This position is currently vacant, but
it is expected that it will be posted and filled. The former liaison collected
information and policies that will be available in the future.
c. Outreach to encourage LGBT fostering and adoption (with the consequent possible
connection of LGBT parents to LGBT children and youth).
d. Continued work with the family court, which is generally supportive of LGBT
youth issues. The court is not caught off guard by families with LGBT youth, and
recognizes that the youth need appropriately to be taken care of. There is not as
much of a need to educate the judges, especially since Judge Dougherty and Judge
Butchart have been so supportive of working on these issues.
e. The child-welfare division of the legal department also has a lawyer who focuses on
LGBT issues, and this is very helpful when legal issues arise.

In order to build upon these successes, we recommend that the Department of Human Services (DHS):

a. Work within the new mayoral administration to insure the continuance of these
strides forward in DHS, and continue to track the remaining recommendations set
forth in 2003.
b. Focus on improvement of managing cases of families that have youth placed at
Bethel House. Having a caseload of LGBT adolescents can be challenging to case
managers. Parents and families' reactions can also be difficult to manage.
c. Support provider agencies in making their environments safer for LGBT youth. It is
hard to find appropriate placements when children may have multiple needs (say
LGBT-affirming, as well as the ability to deal with mental health issues). Relying
too much on Bethel House means that other agencies with specialties (mental
health, D&A) often relegate LGBT youth to Bethel, where their specialized needs
may not be so well met.
d. Continue to directly fund LGBTQ youth services at LGBT-affirming agencies.

v. Best Practices: Steps should be taken to increase the number of LGBTQ service providers that are CBH certified.

Foster Care, Group Homes and Adoption Recommendations

vi. Procedures should be established to ensure that LGBTQ youth in foster care in need of individual and/or family therapy be
provided with such therapy that is grounded in sound professional standards and that therapeutic strategies intended to change
young person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation and/or gender identity not be engaged in.
vii. As a formal component of the foster care or adoption process, screenings should be conducted to determine willingness to
accept and support the LGBTQ youth’s sexual orientation and gender identity.
viii. Selected DHS staff members should be designated for specialized training in working with LGBTQ youth, in order to act as
secondary workers and resource persons for consultation on all cases involving LGBTQ foster youth.
ix. DHS should ensure that all group homes or congregate care facilities are safe and supportive environments for LGBTQ youth
through strict enforcement of nondiscrimination policies, staff training, sensitivity education for non-LGBTQ residents, and
services and resources for LGBTQ youth. In the meantime, DHS should designate a specific group facility as a safe haven for
LGBTQ youth and provide immediate training and support to that facility until all other facilities can be addressed.
 Page 48

Office of Emergency Shelter and Services (OESS)

Given the identification of LGBT youth homelessness as a significant issue (see page 55 below), we
recommend that OESS follow up on a recommendation from the Mayor’s Task Force on Homeless
Services Sexual and Gender Minorities Working Group’s report5: “Given our emphasis on Adult
shelter issues, issues relating to youth, teens, and young adult gender and sexual minorities in the
system were outside of our scope. However, we recognize this as an important issue and we hope it
will be addressed in another forum.” We recommend that the OESS request a specific study of LGBT
youth homelessness.

Department of Recreation
Recreation centers throughout the city are an important non-school venue for neighborhood youth.
These centers provide opportunities for neighborhood and family connection, skills development, and
social connection. The Department of Recreation must commit to making their services more LGBT
youth and family friendly. We recommend that the Department of Recreation:
a. Invest in an LGBT youth-focused recreation center, available at late night hours, to
address the interests and needs of LGBT youth who congregate in Center City.
b. Support training of staff at citywide recreation centers to insure, as much as possible,
venues that are safe and welcoming for LGBT youth in their own neighborhoods.

School District of Philadelphia

The School District has long had a diversity policy (Policy 102) that addresses the importance of
making schools LGBT welcoming and affirming. This is important not only for school-going youth,
but for LGBT faculty and staff who work in the schools. The schools are perhaps one of the most
important sites for the possibility of giving LGBT youth a positive sense of themselves, and they
potentially can act as a site for skills building and building a foundation towards higher education.
Though Policy 102 remains on the books, the real test of the School District’s commitment comes in
the dedication of resources (both financial and human) towards making the schools welcoming and
affirming of LGBT youth. In the past, resources have been dedicated to GSAs, training, and other
programs to diffuse information about LGBT youth to faculty, staff and students. This commitment
on behalf of the School District is waning significantly, and a new dedication of resources must be
brought about immediately to counteract the possibilities of increased violence against LGBT students
and truancy. We recommend that the School District:
a. Continue to support and increase funding for programs that support LGBT youth in
schools. The alternative is to condone increased dropout rates among LGBT students,
who already drop out at a higher rate than their heterosexual counterparts.
b. Insure that the CEO of the district has LGBT youth issues firmly on his agenda, and
must insure a concrete plan of action to serve these youth within the schools.

Police Department
The police have direct interaction with LGBT youth both in the Gayborhood, and in the youths’ home
neighborhoods. Thus it is important that policemen and women throughout the city be trained on
issues related to LGBT youth. We recommend that the Police Department:
a. Provide training to the police in the 6th district to insure that policeman who are
working in the 12th/13th Street gay nightlife zone understand the LGBT youth dynamics
on these streets, and understand how to make use of social service agencies where
appropriate.

5
Trimell Jones, Kevin, Report of the Sexual and Gender Minorities Working Group of the Mayor’s Task Force on Homelessness
(Philadelphia), 2004, p. 11.
 Page 49
b. Provide training to the police academy about LGBT youth specific issues, including a
case study involving these issues.

Summary of Agenda for Government Agencies

a. The LGBT Communities, with strong leadership from LGBT youth themselves, must
immediately develop and adopt a series of recommendations as part of a LGBT youth
agenda for presentation to the next Mayor. This agenda must be completed as soon as
possible, and incorporate elements of this document and others in order to
communicate the urgency of LGBT youth needs in the City.

b. A mechanism must be put in place within the new Mayoral administration to track
additional accomplishments in the area of LGBT youth development.

These recommendations are intended to build upon the work of the current administration to insure
LGBT youth-friendly services in all departments of the city’s government. We have seen over the
past eight years that careful tracking of goals and objectives, as well as successful outcomes, is
necessary in order to bring about incremental positive change. We charge LGBT youth advocates and
youth themselves to maintain this level of scrutiny into the next administration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Understanding the LGBT Youth Communities: Perspectives from key informants and LGBT
youth themselves

Introduction
We turn now to the voices of LGBT youth themselves, and the men and women who work with them.
We collected data from these individuals through two strategies (methodologies are listed individually
below): key informant interviews and focus groups. We have sought key themes emerging from these
methods, and we report them below

Methodologies:

1. Key Informant Interview Methodology

Interviews were conducted with individuals who had leadership roles in serving LGBT youth
in the City of Philadelphia. In particular, 12 interviews were conducted with stakeholders from
the following stakeholder groups: service providers, LGBT youth leaders, local community
members in the Washington West neighborhood, and businesses in that neighborhood. The
interviews gathered information about LGBT youth in Philadelphia, obtained the perspective
of key stakeholders on the key needs of those youth, and provide direction for future
programs.

From July- August 2007, twelve interviews were conducted. The three primary purposes of
these interviews were to: (1) gather information concerning the needs of LGBT youth, (2)
identify additional informants who play a significant role in the area of LGBT youth in
 Page 50
Philadelphia, and (3) provide direction concerning the fundamental issues and questions facing
LGBT youth and other stakeholders in the Washington West neighborhood of Philadelphia.
These interviews were conducted with individuals who had a direct role and vested interest in
the improvement of LGBT youth communities in the City. Interviewees were also asked to
identify additional key informants for future research.

Interview questions were discussed with each interviewee. Each of the interviews was analyzed
to identify additional sources of information and data. Questions included:

1. What was is your role in LGBT youth issues in Philadelphia?

2. What was the role of your organization? (if applicable)
3. What three issues are you most concerned with?
4. What barriers are there to services for LGBT youth?
5. What do you see as the roles for different stakeholders who participate in the community
around 13th Street?
6. What role could your organization play in addressing LGBT youth issues on 13th Street?
7. What do you see happening to LGBT youth communities over the next ten years?
8. Are there other individuals whom we should speak to about these issues?

2. Focus Group Methodology

Two focus groups were conducted as an attempt to understand the experiences, and assess the
views and opinions, of LGBT youth. The focus groups took place at a non-profit organization
known for providing services to LGBT youth in Philadelphia. Its office is located within
blocks of the 13th Street corridor; the focus groups took place during its business hours. Street
recruitment and organization-referrals were used to identify participants for the focus groups.
Youth were considered eligible to participate if they “hung out” in the 13th Street corridor at
least four times in the past two weeks after 8:00pm; and, were between 15 and 20 years of age.
Participants did not have to identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to participate in
the focus group. Participants were compensated $50 and two SEPTA tokens. Food was served
at both focus groups. Both focus groups had male- and female-identified participants.

Questions for the focus group were divided into four main sections: experiences of LGBT
youth, LGBT supports, the community of LGBT youth, and the notion of “hanging out” by
LGBT youth. Each focus group took approximately 1.5 hours to complete.

The participant’s demographics were as follows: Nineteen (19) people participated in the focus
groups: nine in group one, and ten in group two. Sixty-eight percent (n=13, 68.4%) identified
as male. No one identified as transgender in the focus group. The majority of the sample
reported being between 18 and 20 years old (n=12, 63%). Ten people (n=10, 52.6%) identified
as gay or lesbian; two participants (n=2, 10.5%) identified as straight. The majority of the
sample identified as Black (n=13, 68.4%). Regarding highest grade completed, over half of the
participants (n=10, 52.6%) reported having completed high school.
 Page 51
Results
Focus Group participants and key informant interviews raised numerous issues that they thought
were most important in the area of better serving LGBT youth. The following categories of issues
emerged from their responses:

1. Synopsis: We need vision, collaboration, and resources to address root causes of the
challenges that LGBT youth face, and we need to build upon the inherent strengths and
resiliencies that reside within LGBT youth. The root causes include the broad stigma faced by
LGBT youth in all areas of their lives, the challenges surrounding family and community
nurturing, and the path to self-acceptance and individual and community flourishing. One of
the greatest challenges overall for LGBT people of all ages is not knowing where resources are
and not knowing how to find them. This is particularly challenging for youth because of a
common belief that implies that young people cannot be agents of their own lives. Thus many
young people are not used to having authority over their own lives, agency, and independence.
This filters into not knowing resources that are available because young people may have a
limited view of the world by default. So it may not dawn on them that there might be a group
for parents of LBGT youth, a group of people that are organizing GSAs locally, or a medical
clinic that could meet their clinical care needs. For many young people it is not known that
these resources could exist, thus they are unable to seek them out.

2. LGBT youth strengths and resiliencies: One key informant commented upon the strength
of some LGBT youth, “For a lot of LGBT youth, by coming into LGBT identity you have to
force your self-independence a lot quicker—this is one of the strengths. A lot of LGBT youth
do seem to have a bigger picture because you have had to force yourself to get that bigger
picture. Think about youth and high schools--- LGBT youth have to network with students
from other high schools since their high school may only have a limited number of LGBT
youth. They are forced to step outside of their comfort zone whereas their peers are much
more self sufficient in those environments and can manage.” So it is important to state at the
outset that the challenges that LGBT youth face (outlined below) sometimes lead to
remarkable skills, abilities, and resiliencies.

As regards resilience, one key informant reported: “What is accurate is that those young people
who figure out how to look for resources, or take it upon themselves to find resources—these
are the resilient ones. There are others who cannot imagine that there are resources for them.
They have gotten so many messages that gay is bad or wrong that they can’t imagine deserving
what they need. There is the suicide path and the resilience path—the two main paths.”

3. Violence: Violence in schools, on the streets, and in families is a major challenge confronted
by LGBT youth.

“There is a big difference between city youth and suburban youth—a big difference between
fine suburban schools and schools with metal detectors and limited resources. Because of the
relative lack of resources in the city, there is more anger and frustration among the LGBT
youth, and you could imagine that much of the general economic/resource-related anger in the
schools is taken out on LGBT youth—the fag is an easy target.”

Key informants also felt that lack of leadership in the school district around making schools
 Page 52
more LGBT-affirming will naturally lead to an increase in violence against LGBT students.

Finally, given the increased growth of gun violence in the city, and the large number of
unsolved murders of black gay men, the City must recognize that violence against LGBT youth
is a major health issue, and that the violence often stems from the actual or perceived sexual or
gender orientation of the victim.

4. Schools: Informants felt that the significant headway made in making schools safer to LGBT
students over the past decade has largely been lost. There are no resources from the school
district for the Ally Project, and there is a belief that there is no leadership that cares about the
health of LGBT youth.

As a result, informants fear that the incidence of harassment of LGBT students will continue to
grow, with a corresponding growth of LGBT youth truancy from the schools. This issue needs
to be politically put on the map to insure that we don’t lose more LGBT youth from the
educational system.

Strengths to build upon in the system include further investing in existing Gay/Straight
Alliances (GSAs), Ally training campaigns that have been conducted with faculty and staff
(and need to be continued), and media campaigns designed to encourage support of LGBT
youth by families, teachers, and fellow students.

Indeed, participants in the focus groups expressed dissatisfaction that organizational supports,
like Gay-Straight Alliances (GSA) in Philadelphia Public Schools were rarely offered to youth
attempting to understand their identities as gay, lesbian, bisexual or questioning youth.
According to one participant, most of the teachers in his school did not know the GSA existed.
Another participant said that teachers thought she was trying to skip classes by attending GSA
meetings, and was not there for the “right reasons”.

5. Health Care Access/ Homophobia in services: A key issue involves youth who don’t have
health insurance of their own and may not want to go to their pediatrician or parents’ doctor (if
such a person exists). The current medical services for youth are funded by a very small grant
from the health department. There are 200 youth a year who attend the Mazzoni medical
center alone, none of whom have insurance.

The need for LGBT-affirming health care is clear. One focus group participant, who was
“hospitalized” for an undisclosed reason, described an experience of “the workers” restricting
her from being around other females; she states: “we couldn’t even hug. It was unfair. It wasn’t
even sexual.”

6. Importance of LGBT affirming community based organizations: A Hispanic female

discussed how an organization reached out to another organization when she needed support in
understanding her sexual orientation and attractions to both males and females. Because the
first organization had little experience dealing with “gay issues”, she was happy that they were
able to link her to another organization that serves Latino (gay and lesbian) youth. She simply
 Page 53
describes the experience as “life saving.” According to this participant, she is now back in
school and looking forward to college. Without the support of these two organizations, and in
particular, the latter organization, she would not have “made it”.

7. Mentoring/Intergenerational Connection: Successful communities and cultures rely upon

a transferal of information, strategies for survival, and wisdom from one generation to another.
Since most LGBT youth do not come from LGBT families, and may be rejected by their
families, they often must seek extra-familial mentors.

Key informants noted that investment must be made in creating programs that encourage
passing of wisdom and skills from one generation of LGBT people to the next. Such
intergenerational connection can take place within existing programming, but must recognize
and address the dynamics of fear and misunderstanding that sometimes exist between
generations of LGBT individuals.

One key informant reported, “There is a disparity of mentorship that impacts young people—a
lack of intergenerational connection-- young people don’t look at older people as experts, but
as a hindrance in their process.”

Key informants also recommended that work be done with existing mentoring programs (e.g.
Big Brothers/Big Sisters) to make them more welcoming for LGBT individuals of all
generations.

8. Life Skills: One key informant reported that, with regard to life skills, it is not always about
“gay”. Often these youth face challenges that result from a poor educational system and lack
of other important supports. Often the LGBT youth are just like other youth who lack money,
other resources, and education. Thus, our social service agencies are being called upon to
provide the life skills that are not available, for one reason or another, in schools or families.

9. Family and Community Engagement: Researcher Caitlyn Ryan at the Family Acceptance
Project has completed research that shows that LGBT youth who are raised in families that
nurture and accept them are more likely to flourish than those from families where such
support is lacking. We have very few programs that have developed strategies to maintain
family and community connection. We can benefit from using the family reunification model
from child welfare as a prevention model so that LGBT youth don’t feel that they have to
separate from their families and communities in order to come to terms with their gender or
sexual orientation. In the absence of a curriculum or support network designed to prevent
separation of LGBT youth from families, we can only expect to lose the youth to families of
choice, which are not always equipped to assist LGBT youth in making the transition to
adulthood.

Both focus groups expressed a myriad of experiences within their neighborhoods.

Philadelphia’s current crime rate contributed to certain unsafe feelings for some of the youth
participants. For other youth, they felt that their sexual orientation was not a concern for others
in the neighborhood. An African American male in the focus groups stated: “No one really
cares.” Another African American male described his experiences of living behind a public
 Page 54
housing site in Philadelphia. Despite the location, he felt he did not have to worry about crime
based on his sexual orientation. He describes himself as a “flaming queen.”

However, the majority of the participants from the focus groups felt that their homes were
possibly the most “unsafe” places in their neighborhoods. Several youth described being
kicked out of their homes; called “faggot” and other names in their homes; or had other
personal liberties restricted: males not being able to talk to other males on the telephone; not
being able to experience sleepovers at friend’s houses of the same sex; or just not having
supportive family members.

Participants of the focus groups expressed that they go to their friends or siblings close in age
when they need support. Most participants felt that they could not go to their parents, as their
parents would not be able to understand their “issues.” The “issue” would be clouded by the
parent’s misunderstanding about, concerns with, or disagreement over their child’s sexual
orientation. One participant states: “my mom gives advice, but it is not what you want to hear.
I would rather go to a stranger.” Another youth participant states: “Family don’t always stay by
your side. You are out of the circle if they don’t accept certain things.” A Jamaican youth
stated that before he came to a youth-servicing organization located in Center City, he only had
his ex-boyfriend for support. He moved in with his boyfriend at the time when his parents
kicked him out for being “gay.” One focus group participant reported, “Any place is better than
home.”

A key informant put it succinctly, “For so long, the value of peer support has grown—the
hierarchy has changed--- peer support has replaced all other forms of influence-- parents can
grapple at some level—but at this point-- other teens and other young adults have more
power—even more than work and education.”

10. Society’s difficulty with gender variance: Participants in the focus groups reported that
societal pressures to conform their sexual and gender identities into rigid definitions. For
example, two Hispanic females, one bisexual and the other identifying as a lesbian, discussed
how straight men who “hit on” them refuse to believe that they are “gay” because they don’t
“look or act gay.” These women describe their identities as “femmes”—women who are more
effeminate acting, versus “butches” who present a more masculine appearance in physical
feature and dress. Based in societal thinking on masculine and feminine coupling as the ideal
standard (even within some gay relationships), these women felt people—both straight and
gay—would have fewer concerns if one were more effeminate and the other were more
masculine. Similarly, several of the men in the focus group discussed their experiences in
coming out: assumptions were automatically made that if you told someone you were gay, they
assumed that you enjoyed penetrative anal sex.

One focus group participant felt that society, including some gay communities, is “child-
minded” in that it “hasn’t matured in its thinking.” Another stated: “once you step out, people
get scared. They can’t accept it. They’re scared of it.” Participants in both groups expressed
that there are penalties for not fitting into established gender categories, and expressed varying
degrees to which they were made fun of, called names or harassed because of their sexual
attractions.
 Page 55

11. Homelessness: Numerous key informants and some focus group participants named
homelessness as a key issue to address. Since LGBT youth may often be alienated from their
families and other support networks, they may end up on the streets with no awareness of
where to turn for support. Further, key informants reported that more and more LGBT youth
of very low socioeconomic status are arriving at social services agencies, and homelessness is
one of the key issues they face. In addition to the emergency services provided by Bethel
House, a group home for youth aged 17-18, and transitional housing for youth aged 19-21
would fill an urgent gap for the ranks of homeless LGBT youth. The numbers of these youth
are likely to grow, and we need to be preparing now to provide infrastructure for a new wave
of homeless LGBT youth. GLASS Youth and Family Services in Los Angles provides a model
of a multimode housing program that provides group housing, emergency housing, and
transitional housing. Philadelphia should look to develop such a comprehensive answer to
LGBT youth homelessness.

12. Leadership: Some key informants expressed a desire for improved leadership in LGBT
communities. One said, “We have to tap into who has the power—we need deeper exploration
around power dynamics in LGBT youth communities--- who is governing and who is
delegating power and responsibility---- health disparity, violence, drugs—we don’t know
who to go solve these problems—for so long adults have spoken for youth—we need more
youth in advisory capacities--- they end up being entertainment instead of serious
stakeholders.”

There is also a sense that interpersonal rivalries and distrust between community leaders often
gets in the way of effective collaboration between youth serving agencies. Efforts should be
made to rebuild bridges where necessary, and make clear the areas of expertise of particular
agencies, to avoid conflicting agendas.

The information gleaned from key informant interviews and focus groups points to one jarring fact:
the challenges we face in providing support and nurturing environments for LGBT youth are
symptoms of numerous underlying structural challenges that leave even the most resilient LGBT
youth facing a need to create their own safety, their own families, and their own broader networks of
support. The next section provides an example of LGBT youth congregating to seek safety and
support, building upon their own resilience and strength, and in the face of the overwhelming
challenges mentioned above
 Page 56
Focus on the LGBT youth who congregate in the Wash West neighborhood

In order to better understand the LGBT youth of Philadelphia and the challenges they face, we believe
it is important to study a major area of congregation of these youth: the Washington West
neighborhood. Since youth come to this neighborhood from around the City and region, it is a useful
place to understand a broad diversity of these youth: in-school youth as well as dropouts, those who
attend and receive services from agencies as well as those who don’t, and a broad diversity of LGBT
youth by age, race, gender, and neighborhood of origin. In this section of the report, we again present
data from the key informant interviews, and add the results of a late-night street intercept survey that
was conducted in this neighborhood. These data point to the attitudes, knowledge, beliefs and
behaviors of these youth.

The Washington West neighborhood is a place of congregation for LGBT youth . The specific area of
LGBT youth congregation is bounded approximately by Chestnut Street on the north, 13th Street on
the west, Spruce Street on the south, and 11th Street on the east (see map with neighborhood enclosed
in blue square). 13th Street between Walnut and Locust (the area on the map between the green and
blue balloons) has a particularly high density of LGBT youth, especially on weekend nights.
 Page 57

This neighborhood is a long-time site of socialization, community affiliation, and community initiation
for many LGBT youth in Philadelphia. The location here of many bars and clubs, social service
agencies, cafes and restaurants that serve the LGBT community make the neighborhood a natural draw
for youth who are seeking to connect to other members of the LGBT community. Youth visibility has
created a tension (observed in other cities, such as New York and San Francisco) where residential
neighborhoods co-exist with nightlife zones, and quality-of-life issues arise for all stakeholders in the
neighborhood (residents, businesses, social service organizations, and the youth themselves).

In order to better understand this microcosm of LGBT youth, we here again review data from the key
informant interviews, focus groups and street intercept surveys with youth who participate in the
social networks in and around the Washington West neighborhood. To review the methodology of
these strategies, see page 49.

The 13th Street Corridor: LGBT youth spend time in this neighborhood to be around the LGBT
nightlife, and this is an old tradition, dating back to the 1980s. Most of the youth are here because
they want a safe place to interact, and are often escaping the more dangerous streets of their home
neighborhoods. Our street intercept survey showed that these youth are predominantly African
American and often school age, and most frequently hail from North Philadelphia, West Philadelphia,
or South Philadelphia.

The challenge in understanding 13th Street is to recognize the competing interest of neighborhood
stakeholders: businesses, neighbors, the LGBT youth themselves, and the youth-serving agencies.
Philadelphia is not the first city to report this challenge of competing neighborhood stakeholders. In
2006, New York City worked to resolve conflict between youth in the West Village neighborhood and
adjoining Hudson River piers, and the neighbors and businesses who were resident in the Village. The
city responded by increasing police presence, and providing increased social services for the youth in
the neighborhood, with the goal of keeping the youth as much as possible alongside the Hudson River
and away from residential neighborhoods. Philadelphia unfortunately does not have the luxury of a
riverbank that is close to its gay nightlife. We thus must seek alternate resolutions, that ideally call
upon the investment of all stakeholders (LGBT youth, local residents, businesses, and social service
agencies).

In imaging ways to mitigate tension between stakeholders of the neighborhood, some key informants
reported a need for a short-term resolution of the 13th Street challenges, in order to show progress to
concerned neighbors who wish to see a reduction in youth noise and visibility. One suggestion was to
keep the William Way Community Center at 1315 Spruce Street open until 3AM in the morning on
Friday or Saturday nights as a social space for youth. William Way would secure insurance for these
events, promote activities, and insure that the space was staffed by appropriate agencies. Key
informants felt that it would be helpful to have a program up and running prior to the next mayoral
administration in order to have something upon which to build moving forward. Though a possible
short-term solution, it is unlikely to work as a long-term one given the variety of needs that a
successful youth drop-in center would need to meet to succeed for the long term (see page 60 below).

A long-term solution might involve a youth drop-in center that would have late hours, be staffed by
community agencies and youth themselves, and be located close to the LGBT nightlife so that LGBT
youth would make it their own. It would be important to build upon the data gathered in this report
 Page 58
about what LGBT youth might want from such a drop-in center, and insure prominent leadership by
LGBT youth in the development and creation of the center.

Another key informant suggested hiring LGBT youth who spend time on 13th Street to conduct
outreach to youth there to make them better aware of services. These youth outreach workers would
be known by the youth new members to the area, and could easily establish trust to better provide
services.

Long-term challenges in the 13 Street neighborhood:

“The real key-- the residents might not want to think about this—is that this
is a very safe neighborhood for these young LGBT people to be themselves---
they don’t get to do this when they go home--- if they vogued on their home
street they could be murdered.”

The many shifts in the neighborhood will most likely lead to growing pressure to reduce youth
presence on 13th Street. The neighborhood is trending wealthier, more residential, and more owned
(not rented). Some newcomers to the neighborhood are unaware that they are moving into the center
of gay nightlife. One informant said, “The people moving in are often democratic liberals, but that
doesn’t always translate into social consciousness. There is an older LBGT community with different
values from the households that are now moving in. There is a similar challenge with the heterosexual
clubs on 12th Street. Often new people will move in without even coming to see the neighborhood on a
weekend night.”

In order to address confusion and lack of information on the part of all stakeholders, it would be
valuable to start an ad hoc committee of neighborhood stakeholders, including representatives from
business, social service agencies, neighbors, and the youth themselves. This group could meet quarterly
to discuss developments in the neighborhood, including needs of the LGBT youth, development of
new businesses, growth in new residences, changes in crime, and other issues pertinent to the
interaction of various neighborhood stakeholders. In order for the neighborhood to successfully adapt
to the changes that will inevitably occur there, it will be helpful for all those who participate in the
neighborhood culture to share concerns and develop responses and solutions together.

Ironically, some of the growth of youth culture on 13th Street reflects the success of the youth serving
agencies. The youth come to Center City to receive services, and then they stay for the night.

Policing Issues:
One key informant suggested that the City should consider making use of the Center City District
employees to have a non-police late-night presence on 13th Street who could collaborate with police to
reduce noise and litter. One informant reported that “there are occasional rogue policemen, and these
can be dealt with through de-escalation and identifying information about such officers in a non-
confrontational way. We need a central place to collect the data about policing issues in the 13th Street
area, and elsewhere.” Youth on 13th Street have reported that one or two policemen have been pulling
wigs off transgender individuals and treating some individuals roughly. There are also issues with the
concourses under Locust Street and Broad Street. The Port Authority Police are responsible for the
 Page 59
PATCO concourse, and have been reported to push youth into the Broad Street concourse, which is
the responsibility of the local police. At least one key informant recommended enforcing the City’s
curfew of youth.

The impact of racism and adultism on a natural hangout for youth

One key informant reported, “13th Street and the neighborhood are incredibly useful--- the youth
really use and need that space. There were lots of times when I would just walk around, hang out, pay
attention to who was walking around. There is a draw to being outside, as opposed to inside. Racism
is operating: the young black guys get targeted by everyone in that area. Me as a young white guy,
often the police will shoo away the black young kids, and I’ll just walk in front of them and stand
there, and they won’t say anything to me. That’s happened on a number of occasions. “

He continues, “For all the people who live in the neighborhood—one of the messages of racism is that
young black teens are noisy, and reckless, and out of control—that black children are unruly. Simply
because of that message, regardless of what people are doing, there will be a perception of trouble.
There is an expectation of their being loud and obnoxious which lead to an escalation of angry feelings
when even one or two black youth are noisy or unruly.”

The Community of LGBT Youth and Hanging Out

Questions in both the focus groups and key informant interviews were designed to understand LGBT
youth, how they organize themselves, and where and why do they hang out in certain places. Both
focus group participants and key informants affirmed that LGBT youth were a part of many different
cliques and other groups within the city. Some youth in the focus groups described experiences of
being first introduced to Philadelphia’s “gay scene.” One African American male “experienced a
cultural shock” the first time he came around gay and lesbian identified youth. Like him, several
participants from both groups discussed varying experiences of not understanding indigenous
language (i.e. shade (attitude), top (a sexual position), butch queen (A gay male who is neither
extremely feminine, nor extremely masculine and can easily portray both mannerisms, etc.).

Despite the ways they organize themselves, most participants felt that LGBT youth hung out in many
of the same places. The participants listed the following places as LGBT youth hangout spots: South
Street, 13th Street, the Galleria, Penn’s Landing, LGBT youth organizations, Love Park, and at the
homes of a select few friends with supportive parents. Participants expressed varying reasons for
hanging out in these locations. One person stated that they felt “comfortable”. An African-American
male states: “[I] release myself. I can be me.” Another stated that some of these places “appeal to the
hobbies [he likes].” This photographer felt that being outside allowed him to take better photographs.

The Street Intercept Survey found that most youth congregated in the 13th Street area on Wednesday,
Friday, and Saturday nights. Wednesday is a popular night because of a youth-focused event that is
held weekly at Woody’s Bar. Most youth surveyed congregated in the area from one to two nights a
week. Most congregation in the area takes place between the hours of 11:00 PM and 2:00 AM, with a
gradual ramping down of participation until 5:00 AM.

It is also important to remember this point made by a key informant: “This is an outdoor scene—it
runs from March at the earliest to October at the latest, and the neighbors have the winter season to
forget about it. Then the folks on the street return with the next spring.”
 Page 60
Focus groups were explicitly asked about their experiences being outdoors. Several
participants stated that when they leave an LGBT youth organization in Center City, there
is no place for youth to go other than outdoors or home. Most youth expressed not being
ready to separate from the fun and excitement of their friends; other stated that they were
not ready to go home: “it is after-hours, when everything is closed. We have to finish the
night out.” One person stated that outdoors represents being “free.” He continues to say:
“We want to be free. We want to be out.” Still another stated: “these places are more
accepting.” Participants in both focus groups seemed to agree and/or express similar
rationales for hanging out in these locations. “I can see my friends.” “We can be around
other gay people versus being home and called faggot.” “We can see other people who
have been through similar experiences.”

When asked about 13th Street, many youth participants said they hung out in the area at least twice a
week. Despite the enjoyment some participants were able to get from being in this setting, an African
American male expressed his dissatisfaction with the police on 13th Street: “Cops give you a lot of
flack for literally doing nothing.” He continued to say that the police view gay men, especially African
American young gay males, as “having nothing better to do than to smoke weed and sell their bodies.”
Several of the participants of the focus groups expressed similar concerns regarding the police.

“A lot of these youth feel like they have been thrown away…. One day we were
doing outreach and we saw someone taken away by the police, and we were extra
scared. So we were giving out cards that explained what to do if you were
arrested by the police. So we crossed the street to talk to four young black gay
guys. And one guy was just completely shocked that we would even think about,
care about, look out for them instead of ignore them. “

Not everyone enjoyed their experiences on 13th Street. One participant stated that it was only a few
blocks and he felt this location restricted his “gay experience” to only a small portion of the city. Still,
the majority of the youth stated that even though they may “stop by 13th Street,” they enjoy hanging
out in Love Park. Most participants expressed similar reasons for hanging out in this location: “I get to
be around other gay people.” This location was conducive for a “chill spot” and provided opportunities
to “sit around and talk about people…like read or throw shade in a fun way.” Several participants in
both focus groups stated that you could do more in Love Park than on 13th Street. For example, one
person stated that “you can have a ki-ki function…a mini-ball. We can vogue and not get in trouble.”
(A mini-ball or ki-ki function is a competitive dance event that includes vogueing, a type of stylized
dancing)

Even though some people were not completely satisfied in hanging out in the locations mentioned
previously, they expressed reasons why they continued to hang out there. One person states: “any
place is better than home. Even in some places when my friends are not there, I still stay.” Similarly,
in the other focus group, an African American male states: “It’s not home. No one wants to be home.”
One participant expressed not wanting to be alone. Additionally, for some, these places provided
opportunities to connect with other people who “might have something in common” with them.
Another person expressed that the memories of the location remind him of why the place is enjoyable.

Youth participants were asked to imagine a space for LGBT youth that would be open after-hours.
Participants from focus groups and street intercept surveys shared their ideas on what they would want
in/from the space; some stated:
 Page 61

• It should provide opportunities where people could vogue (i.e. a vogue floor);
• It should have a similar environment as other LGBT youth servicing organizations;
• It should have structure: provide different types of support groups;
• “It should offer memberships to give people a sense of purpose and belonging;”
• It should have a kitchen, and possibly even a pantry where people could eat for free;
• The staff should be youth friendly and properly trained to work with youth. They should be
“fun,” but could still be disciplinarians;
• It should allow smoking, which could take place in a possible court yard;
• It should be larger than current LGBT youth servicing organizations in order to accommodate
all of the people;
• It should have showers with individual stalls that are only accessible by key. showers should be
monitored to dissuade “improper” activities;
• It should be safe, and free from police harassment;
• It should offer HIV testing; and “services shouldn’t cost.” (Possibly even services for the
homeless);and,
• It should provide a library and computer room, a basketball court, and a dance floor.

All of the youth from both focus groups expressed great interest in having an after-hour location that
welcomed LGBT teenagers. One person said that a “home away from home is needed.” One person, in
discussing straight versus gay teenager experiences, states: “we need a place too.” He cautions: “don’t
let me be thirty years old [approximately ten year from now] and the places still isn’t built.” A straight,
African-American female chimed in: “if you build it people will come.”
 Page 62
Recommendations

These recommendation pages summarize key recommendations made earlier in the report, particularly
on pages 12, 42, and 51. We have also added some overall process recommendations to insure that
action steps are pursued by appropriate agencies and entities:

1. Greater Philadelphia LGBT Youth Coalition process recommendations

a. That the Greater Philadelphia LGBT Youth Coalition be convened to review this
report, provide feedback, and suggest next steps. Strong participation and leadership by
youth should be encouraged.
b. That the coalition, with feedback from the project consultants, design a uniform data
collection form for use by LGBT youth-serving agencies.
c. The coalition must advocate with the School District of Philadelphia and Temple
University to insure that sexual behavior and sexual identity questions are returned to
the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, and that gender identity questions are added.
d. The coalition should insure that these recommendations are presented to appropriate
individuals in the next administration.

2. Agency recommendations
a. Some LGBT youth are first and foremost seeking a social venue when they seek out
LGBT youth-serving agencies. Although counseling, health services, and other
programs are needed and valued by this population, these types of services cannot serve
the unmet need for social connection and community interaction that many LGBT
youth express.
b. Counseling services targeted to LGBT youth are still needed: they are desired by up to
30% of new members at the Attic. The data make clear that there is a strong need in
this area.
c. HIV services (counseling and testing, and prevention services) may provide a gateway
to other services for some LGBT youth—especially gay and bisexual young men and
some transgender youth. However, this is less the case for the younger (less than 18
years old) cohort.
d. The focus of many current LGBT youth services on HIV risk, though providing and
entry point for some, may alienate others (especially young lesbians and bisexual
women who are not “at risk” for HIV but who face other challenges). It is important to
ensure that services not linked to HIV risk are provided for LGBT youth, who may be
at-risk for other health outcomes resulting from their sexual identity, such as
depression, substance abuse, or suicide.
e. It appears that LGBT and allied "straight" youth from most areas of the city are drawn
to Center City for the services, support, and social outlet offered by its central LGBT
youth-serving agencies. However, for youth from some areas, such as the Far
Northeast, transportation may be a barrier.
f. LGBT youth services serve as an important bridge as these youth seek to find their
place in LGBT adult organizations and venues. The agencies provide an important role
in providing peer and adult support, information, and health services that are frequently
unavailable in schools, families, or home neighborhoods.
g. Current LGBT youth services appear to be reaching different groups of youth, which is
appropriate. A diverse range of programs are needed to appropriately serve the
population of LGBT youth who themselves have very diverse experiences, identities,
and personal challenges.
 Page 63
h. School may be a difficult place for many LGBT youth. Although many achieve very
high levels of academic achievement, others have a more difficult time. It appears
LGBT youth may be as or more likely than their heterosexual peers to repeat a grade or
to leave school before receiving a high school diploma.
i. Transgender spectrum youth in Philadelphia are very diverse in terms of race/ethnicity,
gender identity, and sexual identity. Like transgender youth everywhere, many have
challenges meeting basic needs such as employment and housing.
j. Agencies must make more services available during the late night hours (11PM-3AM)
during which LGBT youth participate in the 13th Street nightlife.

3. Recommendations for Government Agencies

a. The LGBT Communities, with strong leadership from LGBT youth themselves, must
immediately develop and adopt a series of recommendations as part of a LGBT youth
agenda for presentation to the next Mayor. This agenda must be completed as soon as
possible, and incorporate elements of this document and others in order to
communicate the urgency of LGBT youth needs in the City.

b. A mechanism must be put in place within the new Mayoral administration to track
additional accomplishments in the area of LGBT youth development.

4. Recommendations for improvement of the quality of life for all stakeholders in the 13th and
Walnut / Washington West neighborhood.

a. Immediately plan a series of youth events to be held in September and October, 2007 at
the William Way Center (or other appropriate venue) to be staffed by youth-serving
agencies, and other appropriate stakeholders. The events should be well-publicized, and
should take into consideration the opinions contained in the survey and focus groups
discussed here.

b. Convene a committee of stakeholders, including members of the Midtown Village

Association, representatives of Councilman DiCicco’s office, the Washington West
Civic Association, LGBT-youth serving social service agencies, and LGBT youth
leaders to conduct quarterly meetings to discuss challenges and successes in creating a
quality of life that benefits all community stakeholders.

This quarterly meeting would include an agenda of reviewing concerns of youth,

neighbors, and businesses, and as an opportunity for various stakeholders to meet each
other so as to reduce distrust and misunderstanding.

c. Work with the Center City District, the Midtown Village Association, and the
Washington West Civic Association to encourage the creation of new paid positions
(similar to the Center City District street cleaners) for late night outreach workers to be
visible from 8:00PM- 2:00 AM on weekend nights and Wednesday nights in the area
of12th and 13th Streets between Chestnut and Spruce Streets. In uniform, these workers
would keep tabs on potential problems developing on the streets, stay in
communication with LGBT youth peer leaders, act as liaisons to social service
agencies, and participate in the quarterly stakeholders meeting (see ‘a’ above).

d. Work to track incidents between police and LGBT youth, and to deescalate potential
conflict between the two. Police who are serving in the Washington West area should
 Page 64
be invited to the quarterly stakeholders meetings, and should be strongly encouraged to
attend.

e. The Washington West Civic Association should provide an orientation to new

neighbors in the neighborhood, and should educate these neighbors about the diversity
of populations who share the neighborhood. An orientation brochure that shares
information about social service agencies and other neighborhood stakeholders would
also be valuable.

f. Because youth use the streets for socializing primarily in the months April-October,
efforts should be made to focus a concentration of programming during these months.
g. Special events, including social events, should be created to bring together LGBT
youth, neighbors, businesses, social service agencies, and other stakeholders, in order to
diffuse misunderstandings and to build trust.
h. LGBT youth, and especially peer leaders, should be hired to conduct outreach in the
Washington West neighborhood with the hope of mitigating noise and conflict.

5. Recommendations for creation of an evening and late night recreation center for LGBT youth,
to provide for the specific needs of youth who are congregating in Center City late at night,
when existing agencies, both youth-serving and otherwise, are not open.

a. An ad hoc group, led by and including significant LGBT youth representation should
be convened to identify an appropriate site for the LGBT late night recreation center,
and to decide upon appropriate design and programming.
b. The center should be located close to the 13th Street corridor that draws a large
population of LGBT youth from the region.
c. The late night recreation center should provide programming designed by and for
youth.
d. The late night recreation center should explore a business model that enables youth to
work on premises to help secure the economic well-being of the center.
e. The late night recreation center should be a location at which all LGBT youth-serving
agencies can conduct programming.
f. The late night recreation center should provide a one-stop site for services needed by
the LGBT youth.

----------------------------------------------------------------

In conclusion, it is important to note here that a health of a City at large has been shown to track
closely with the health of its resident LGBT communities. This means that the health of our
LGBT youth, and their future health, has a direct impact on the overall health of the City and
its neighborhoods. The current leadership of the City, including its LGBT leadership, must join
with LGBT youth leadership to give them the resources and authority to create, with the help of
adult allies, responses to both the challenges and strengths of LGBT youth communities set forth
here.
 Page 65
Acknowledgements

We'd like to thank the following individuals who assisted us in our work:

Michael Hinson, Assistant Managing Director of the City of Philadelphia, who envisioned and fought
for the project and provided steady and most valuable guidance and assistance throughout the process

The key informants for the project: Judy Applebaum, Tommy Atz, Irene Benedetti, Michael Everett,
Gloria Casarez, Mel Heifetz, Michael Hinson, Damon Humes, Carrie Jacobs, Michael Lewis, Ricky
Moreau, and Nurit Shein,

Special thanks to Robert J. Winn, MD, Acting Chair, Greater Philadelphia LGBTQ Youth Coalition.
Thanks to the organizational members of the Greater Philadelphia LGBTQ Youth Coalition, and their
corresponding staff and volunteers: ASIAC; Attic Youth Center; Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil
Rights; Colours; GALAEI; GLSEN; Mazzoni Center; Main Line Youth Alliance; North Penn High
School; PFLAG; Philadelphia Citizens for Children and Youth; Philadelphia School District; The
Rainbow Room of Planned Parenthood Bucks County; Trans Health Information Project; and YHEP.

---------------------------------------

We are also most grateful to our continuing supporters within the government of the City of
Philadelphia:

John F. Street, Esq., Mayor, City of Philadelphia; Loree D. Jones, Managing Director; Julia Danzy,
Director, Division of Social Services; Carmen Paris, Health Commissioner; Joe Cronauer, Deputy
Health Commissioner; John Cella, Director, AIDS Activities Coordinating Office; and Jane Baker,
Health Administrator for Program Services, AIDS Activities Coordinating Office.

-----------------------------------------

Thanks to Ben Singer, who reviewed the transgender agency data descriptions.

Andrew Swinney of the Philadelphia Foundation, Perry Monastero and Bob Morrison of the Delaware
Valley Legacy Fund for their commitment and steady assistance with the LGBT Assessment; Lynette
Campbell, formerly of the Philadelphia Foundation, who envisioned and provided key resources to
initiate the project.

Funding for this phase of the LBGT Assessment was received from the Division of Social Services
through the City of Philadelphia, AIDS Activities Coordinating Office (AACO), Philadelphia
Department of Public Health.

Appendix 1: Top issues of concern identified by LGBT Youth in focus groups
Participants were asked to complete a pre-discussion survey that asked demographic questions. It also
asked participants to list the top three issues that they think about most often. The responses, by
participant, are below.
Identities
Black male, 18 years old, who
identifies as “just me!”
Black male, 16 years old, gay
Black male, 18 years old, gay
Black female, 19 years old,
straight
Black male, 15 years old, straight
18 years old; identifies gender as
both male and female; identifies
sexual orientation as “gender
queer”; racially identifies as
“Oreo.”
Black male, 18 years old, gay
Black male, 17 years old, gay
Black male, 18years old, gay
Black male, 20 years old, gay
Hispanic female, 15 years old,
lesbian
Black male, 17 years old, gay
Black male, 19 years old,
bisexual
Black male, 18 years old,
bisexual
Black male, 15 years old,
bisexual
Hispanic female, 18 years old,
bisexual
Hispanic female, 18 years old,
lesbian
Racially identifying as Black,
Native American and White; 18
years old, queer
Page 66
What are the top three (3) issues that you think
about most often?
People bring drugs into the community. Violence that occurs
amongst other peer groups. Discrimination due to age, race,
sexual orientation and stereotypes.
Somebody [or] myself getting gay bashed. How my life is
going to be in the future. How I’m going to get through this
current situation.
Being gay around [straight] people. Being fat gay guy. Being
an outsider.
Finding a good job! Until I start college. Keeping wonderful
friendships in my life.
School. Influences. Future plans
Balancing a job and school. Social acceptance. Me.
Will I be rich/finically stable? Will [I] find happiness? Where
will my career take us?
Gay marriage. My education. Me and my [parent’s]
relationship.
I think about the sexual health of youth in Philadelphia
About who has HIV that I know and how can I help them out.
Is there any way that I can help people with HIV? Am I
someone that knows a lot about AIDS?
My relationship with god being a lesbian. How my generation
is getting worse. Why people let [their] gay life suck them in.
Community. [Queer] issues. Youth Issues.
Money. Power. Respect.
Accepting homosexuality from family. Religion vs.
homosexuality.
World equality (being [accepted]).
Will my mom approve? Will my family approve? Will
[society] approve?
Sex. Racism. STDs.
Adoption rights. Gay marriage. Animal rights.
 Page 67
Appendix 2: Street Intercept Survey Results

On Saturday, June 2, 2007, and Thursday, June 7, 2007, youth-trained interviewers administered 121
street intercept survey interviews; 61 were administered on Saturday and 60 were administered on
Thursday. All street intercept survey interviews were administered at or near the 13th and Locust Street
intersections between the hours of 12:00am and 3:30am. This area has been designated as the heart of
Philadelphia’s Gayborhood. Individuals participating in the approximately 5 minute survey interviews
were compensated $5 for its completion.

All data were entered in SPSS, a quantitative data analysis software package. A basic analysis plan
was developed to generate descriptive statistics for the entire sample, for youth 20 years old and
younger, and for youth 21 years of age and older.

Demographics: Age, Race/Ethnicity, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Residences

The ages of the participants ranged from 16 to 32 years of age. Forty-two percent of the entire sample
(42%, n=51) was ages 18 to 20; another 42% (n=55) were between the ages of 21 years and 24 years.

20 Years Old 21 Years Old

Entire Sample
and Younger and Older
(N=121)
(n=58) (n=63)
13-17 6% 12% 0%
18-20 42% 88% 0%
21-24 42% 0% 81%
25 and older 10% 0% 19%

Nearly three-quarters of the entire sample (72%, n=87) identified as African-American/Black.

Fourteen percent (14%, n=17) identified as other. A majority of the participants identifying as other
indicated multiple races or ethnic backgrounds in their response, with “Black” being at least one of the
races selected. Similar trends were found among the younger and older groups.

20 Years Old 21 Years Old

Entire Sample
and Younger and Older
(N=121)
(n=58) (n=63)
Black 72% 78% 67%
White 7% 3% 10%
Hispanic 5% 0% 10%
Asian 3% 2% 3%
Other 14% 17% 11%

Participants were asked to give the nearest intersection to their home. One-third of the entire sample
(33%, n=34) indicated that they reside in North Philadelphia. There were slight differences when
comparing the residences of the younger and older groups. The younger group indicated that they were
more likely to live in North Philadelphia when compared to the older group (37%, n=18 vs. 29%,
n=16). The older group was more likely to live in South Philadelphia when compared to the younger
group (35%, n=19 vs. 2%, n=1). Seventeen respondents did not answer this question. Of those not
answering, 53% (n=9) were of the younger group; 47% (n=8) were of the older group.

20 Years Old 21 Years Old

Entire Sample
and Younger and Older
(N=104)
(n=49) (n=55)
 Page 68
Center City 5% 6% 4%
North 33% 37% 29%
South 19% 2% 35%
West 11% 12% 9%
Southwest 8% 10% 6%
Northeast 9% 8% 9%
Northwest 4% 8% 0%
Outside of
Phila 13% 16% 9.1%

Regarding sexual orientation, three-fifths of the sample (61%, n=73) identified as gay; 18% (n=21)
identified as lesbian; and 15% (n=18) identified as bisexual. Similar trends were found among the
younger and older groups.

20 Years Old 21 Years Old

Entire Sample
and Younger and Older
(N=120)
(n=58) (n=62)
Gay 61% 71% 52%
Lesbian 18% 14% 21%
Bisexual 15% 12% 18%
Straight 4% 3% 5%
Other 3% 0% 5%

Participants were also asked about their gender identity. The majority of the entire sample identified as
male (70%, n=85) and 23% (n=28) identified as female. Six percent of the entire sample (6%, n=7)
identified as transgender. Similar trends were found among the younger and older groups.

20 Years Old 21 Years Old

Entire Sample
and Younger and Older
(N=121)
(n=58) (n=63)
Female 23% 17% 29%
Male 70% 78% 64%
Female to Male 2% 0% 3%
Male to Female 4% 3% 5%
Other 1% 2% 0%

QUESTION 1: Typically, on which days of the week do you hang out in this area? Check ALL that
apply.

Of the entire sample, Fridays (78%, n=94), Wednesdays (70%, n=85) and Saturdays (65%, n=79) were
identified as typical days in which the participants hang out in the Gayborhood. Youth ages 20 years
and younger were more likely to hang out in the area on Wednesdays (78%, n=45). Individuals 21
years of age and older were more likely to hang out in the area on Fridays (83%, n=52).

20 Years Old 21 Years Old

Entire Sample
and Younger and Older
(N=121)
(n=58) (n=63)
Monday 12% 9% 16%
Tuesday 16% 9% 22%
 Page 69
Wednesday 70% 78% 64%
Thursday 25% 22% 27%
Friday 78% 72% 83%
Saturday 65% 64% 67%
Sunday 20% 17% 22%

QUESTION 2: On average, how many days out of the week do you hang out in this area? Check only
ONE answer.

Across the three samples—entire sample, 20 and younger, and 21 and older—most participants
indicated that they hang out in the Gayborhood 1 to 2 days in an average week (52%, n=63 vs. 55%,
n=32 vs. 49%, n=31%). In calculating averages for the three groups, the group representing the older
ages hung out 2.92 days in comparison to the younger group who indicated hanging out 2.48 days in
the Gayborhood.

20 Years Old 21 Years Old

Entire Sample
and Younger and Older
(N=121)
(n=58) (n=63)
1-2 days 52% 55% 49%
3-4 days 36% 40% 33%
5 or more
days 12% 5% 18%
Average 2.71 2.48 2.92

QUESTION 3: Typically, during what hours do you hang out in this area? Check ALL that apply.

Based on the analysis, it appears that increased number of respondents begin hanging out in the
Gayborhood around 8:00pm to 11:00pm (22%, n=26), with the majority of the participants hanging
out between 11:00pm and 2:00am (88%, n=107). After 2:00am, there is a dramatic decrease in the
number of survey participants hanging out in the Gayborhood. A similar trend was found among the
younger and older age groups.
20 Years Old 21 Years Old
Entire Sample
and Younger and Older
(N=121)
(n=58) (n=63)
8:00am-11:00am 2% 0% 3%
11:00am-2:00pm 0% 0% 0%
2:00pm-5:00pm 9% 9% 10%
5:00pm-8:00pm 1% 0% 2%
8:00pm-11:00pm 22% 31% 13%
11:00pm-2:00am 88% 90% 87%
2:00am-5:00am 18% 17% 19%
5:00am-8:00am 3% 0% 5%

QUESTION 4: If there was a “space” designed for you and your peers that remained opened around
“this time,” would you hang out there? Check only ONE answer.

Nine out ten survey participants indicated that they would attend a “space” designed for them and their
peers (92%, n=110). Notably, 97% (n=55) of the younger sample indicated that they would hang out
in this type of space, in comparison to the 89% (n=55) of the older group.
 Page 70

QUESTION 5: For this next question, I would like you to think about a space designed specifically for
you and your peers? I am trying to get an idea of what the space would look like and what would
happen there. Write answers in space below. Use the other side if necessary.

5A: What does the space look like?

From the available choices, individuals of the entire sample choose “dance floor” (79%, n=96),
“lounge areas” (79%, n=96) and “pool tables” (66%, n=80) as the most “desired” features to have in
the space designed for them and their peers. Similar trends were found amongst the younger and older
age groups.

20 Years Old 21 Years Old

Entire Sample
and Younger and Older
(N=121)
(n=58) (n=63)
Pool Table 66% 64% 68%
Dance Floor 79% 74% 84%
Lounge
Areas 79% 79% 78%
Kitchenette 46% 50% 41%
Classrooms 28% 31% 25%

Survey participants had the opportunity to list other physical features that they would like to see in the
space. They included:

Air conditioning (n=1) Computer/Computer room Halls (n=1)

Ballroom (n=1) (n=17) Housing (n=3)
Bar/club (n=12) Couches (n=2) Lounge (n=1)
Basketball courts (n=1) DVD/VCR/TV/Radio Movie room (n=1)
Books and Library (n=4) (n=16) Music rooms (n=3)
Café (n=1) Electronic game systems No bar (n=1)
Card tables/Blackjack (n=2) Office space (n=1)
(n=2) Games (n=1)

Some of the respondents also suggested how the physical space should actually look (or might
look); those responses included:

Art, lots of (n=1) Dark (n=2) Nice (n=1)

Beautiful (n=1) Falling apart (n=1) Outside, looks like (n=1)
Black and brown (n=1) Flashing lights (n=1) Open space (n=3)
Bright or vivid colors Hole in the wall/Shit (n=2) Trendy (n=1)
(n=2) Large space (n=1)
Clean (n=3) Mirrors (n=1)

5B: What would happen in the space?

 Page 71

From the available choices, individuals of the entire sample choose “HIV testing” (77%, n=93),
“Health Services” (70%, n=85) and “Employment Services” (60%, n=73) as the most “desired”
functions of the space designed for them and their peers. There were similar trends in both the
younger and older age groups.

Entire 20 Years Old 21 Years Old

Sample and Younger and Older
(N=121) (n=58) (n=63)
Businesses 44% 41% 46%
Health Services 70% 66% 75%
HIV testing 77% 72% 81%
Employment Services 60% 62% 59%
Classes 32% 31% 33%
Beds and Showers 43% 38% 48%

Survey participants had the opportunity to list other functions for the space or programs offered
in the space. Some of those responses included:

Activities and Events Dancing/Dances/Parties Give out tokens (n=1)

(n=4)
Balls/vogueing/vogue
classes/dancing (n=8)
Big brother/Big sister
program (n=2)
Building life skills (n=4)
Congregation spots for
youth (n=11)
Counseling and referrals
(n=4)
(n=8)
Discussion groups (n=2)
Educational activities
(n=2)
Groups (n=3)
Music playing (n=17)
Speed dating (n=1)
Youth jobs (n=1)
Sex awareness (n=4)
Food for attendees (n=7)
Spa (n=1)
No sex (n=1)
Smoking cigarettes (n=2)
Soap in the bathrooms
(n=1)
Sexual intercourse (n=1)
Youth given tokens (n=1)

When looking at the suggested list of services on the survey, one respondent told the interviewer
that “it would be too late for services.” Another simply stated that the space should have
“positive things for the community.” Similarly, another stated, “anything for positive impact.”
One person also stated that “bad things” would happen in the space. Another felt that the space
would “burn down.”

Respondent also provided responses regarding the “atmosphere” of the space:

Safe place (n=4) No drama (n=1)

Welcoming (n=2)
A place for fun (n=8)
One person mentioned that
the space should “be the
same as 13th Street.”
Another stated that the
Friendly (n=1)
Socializng (n=5)
space should be one in another indicated that it
which “people could be should be “more so fun,
safe without worrying more less educational.”
about police bothering
them and have fun.” Yet
 Page 72

The entire list of open-ended responses can be found at the end of this report.

QUESTION 6: In the past 2 months, how many times have you received services (health,
employment, etc) or visited a location that provides any of these types of services? Check
only ONE answer.

Most of the survey participants of the entire sample (n=55%, n=60) indicated that they
received services or attended locations where services were offered ‘1-3 times’ in the past
two months. Two-fifths of the younger group (40%, n=21) and nearly one-third of the
older groups (32%, n=18) indicated that they had not received services or attended
locations that offer these types of services in the past two months. It is unclear if
participants understood this question. Ethnographic observations identified many
respondents who often attend a youth organization on a weekly basis.

20 Years Old 21 Years Old

Entire Sample
and Younger and Older
(N=110)
(n=57) (n=53)
0 times 36% 40% 32%
1-3 times 54% 47% 61%
4 or more times 10% 13% 7%
 Page 73
Appendix 3: Street Intercept Survey Results: Transgender Responses Only

On Saturday, June 2, 2007, and Thursday, June 7, 2007, youth-trained interviewers

administered 121 street intercept survey interviews; 61 were administered on Saturday
and 60 were administered on Thursday. Of the 121 respondents, 8 (or 7%) identified as
Transgender. All street intercept survey interviews were administered at or near the 13th
and Locust Street intersections between the hours of 12:00am and 3:30am. This area has
been designated as the heart of Philadelphia’s Gayborhood. Individuals participating in
the approximately 5 minute survey interviews were compensated $5 for its completion.

All data were entered in SPSS, a quantitative data analysis software package. A basic
analysis plan was developed to generate descriptive statistics for those participants who
identified as transgender. These findings are not meant to be representative of
Philadelphia’s diverse transgender population.

Demographics: Age, Race/Ethnicity, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity

The ages of the participants ranged from 17 to 27 years of age. The average age of the
transgender participants was 21.375 years.

Approximately three-fifths of the sample identified as Black (62.5%, n=5); two

participants identified their race/ethnicity as other (25%, n=2), and one person identified
as White (12.5%, n=1).

Regarding sexual orientation, half identified as gay (50%, n=4); 1% (n=12.5) identified
as lesbian; 1% (n=12.5) bisexual; 1% (n=12.5) identified as straight; and 1% (n=12.5) as
other.

Transgender Sample (N=8)

n %
Gay 4 50%
Lesbian 1 12.5%
Bisexual 1 12.5%
Straight 1 12.5%
Other 1 12.5%

Participants were also asked about their gender identity. Approximately three-fifths of the
transgender sample identified as male to female (62.5%, n=5); one quarter identified as
female (25%, n=2), and one person (12.5%) identified as other.

Transgender Sample (N=8)

n %
Female 0 0.0%
Male 0 0.0%
Female to Male 2 25.0%
Male to Female 5 62.5%
Other 1 12.5%

QUESTION 1: Typically, on which days of the week do you hang out in this area? Check
ALL that apply.
 Page 74
Of the transgender sample, Saturdays (87.5%, n=7), Fridays (75%, n=6) and Wednesdays
(62.5%, n=5) were identified as typical days in which the participants hang out in the
Gayborhood.

Transgender Sample (N=8)

n %
Monday 1 12.5%
Tuesday 3 37.5%
Wednesday 5 62.5%
Thursday 0 0.0%
Friday 6 75.0%
Saturday 7 87.5%
Sunday 2 25.0%

QUESTION 2: On average, how many days out of the week do you hang out in this area?
Check only ONE answer.

Within this sample, half of the participants hang out in the Gayborhood 4 days in an
average week.

Transgender Sample (N=8)

n %
1 day 2 25.0%
2 days 0 0.0%
3 days 2 25.0%
4 days 4 50.0%

QUESTION 3: Typically, during what hours do you hang out in this area? Check ALL
that apply.

Based on the analysis, it appears that most transgender respondents hang out in the
Gayborhood between 11:00pm and 2:00am (87.5%, n=7). Few participants report
hanging out during other times.

Transgender Sample (N=8)

n %
8:00am-11:00am 0 0.0%
11:00am-2:00pm 0 0.0%
2:00pm-5:00pm 1 12.5%
5:00pm-8:00pm 0 0.0%
8:00pm-11:00pm 1 12.5%
11:00pm-2:00am 7 87.5%
2:00am-5:00am 0 0.0%
5:00am-8:00am 0 0.0%

QUESTION 4: If there was a “space” designed for you and your peers that remained
opened around “this time,” would you hang out there? Check only ONE answer.

Seven out of eight survey participants indicated that they would attend a “space”
designed for them and their peers (87.5%, n=7).
 Page 75
QUESTION 5: For this next question, I would like you to think about a space designed
specifically for you and your peers? I am trying to get an idea of what the space would
look like and what would happen there. Write answers in space below. Use the other
side if necessary.

5A: What does the space look like?

From the available choices, individuals of the transgender sample choose “dance floor”
(75%, n=4) and “lounge areas” (62.5%, n=3) as the most “desired” features to have in the
space designed for them and their peers.

Transgender Sample (N=8)

Yes No
Pool Table 50% 50%
Dance Floor 75% 25%
Lounge
Areas 62.5% 37.5%
Kitchenette 50% 50%
Classrooms 37.5% 62.5%

5B: What would happen in the space?

From the available choices, individuals of the transgender sample choose “HIV testing”
(75%, n=6) and “Health Services” (50%, n=4) as the most “desired” functions of the
space.

Transgender Sample (N=8)

Yes No
Businesses 37.5% 62.5%
Health Services 50.0% 50.0%
HIV testing 75.0% 25.0%
Employment Services 37.5% 62.5%
Classes 0.0% 100%
Beds and Showers 12.5% 87.5%

QUESTION 6: In the past 2 months, how many times have you received services (health,
employment, etc) or visited a location that provides any of these types of services? Check
only ONE answer.

An equal number of participants reported not receiving services as those participants who
received 1 to 3 services from an organization in the past two months (42.9%, n=3 vs.
42.9%, n=3) Only one participant reported receiving services four or more times in the
past two months (14.3%, n=1).
Transgender Sample (N=7)
n %
0 times 3 42.9%
1-3 times 3 42.9%
4 or more times 1 14.3%
 Page 76
Appendix 4: Transgender Case Study Report

On November 20, 2007, a focused conversation was held with three, transgender
individuals. The report documents the participant responses to the questions and subject
areas outlined in the LGB ‘Preliminary Focus Group Report’, dated August 15, 2007.
This report serves as an addendum to the ‘Preliminary Focus Group Report.’

The LGBT Youth Coalition initially raised concerns that focus group participants should
not come from a single organization, and that additional efforts should be made to recruit
participants from non-organizational programs. Hence, the majority of recruitment efforts
was face to face, and conducted on certain identified street corners within the City’s
Gayborhood.

Qualitative data from the three participants, and feedback from those recruited in street-
based locations, revealed that the day’s rainy and slightly cold weather was a major
deterrent to focus group attendance. Due to this limitation and the limitations associated
with qualitative data collection methods, this case study report does not provide
expansive knowledge or share the multitude of experiences of Philadelphia’s diverse
Transgender community. However, the richness of details as provided by the three
participants provides an excellent opportunity for deeper investigation on identified social
issues, such as transphobia and work place discrimination; the complexities associated
with sexual and gender identity and community formation and belonging (such as
identifying as Transgender, being in straight relationships, and attending LGBT
programs); and the trials associated with illegal work activities and survival. Additional
data collection, even within formed-groups for transgender individuals, can provide
richer detail on these and other topics.

The Participants

James E. identifies as a female-to-male transgender individual. He is 19 years old;

identifies his race/ethnicity as interracial; is straight and graduated from high school. The
three issues that he thinks about most are: “discrimination to gays at workplace;” “trying
to fit in to [his] lifestyle…and transitioning;” and, “finding a career to grow with and
make money.”

Samantha J. identifies as a male-to-female transgender individual. She is 19 years old;

Black/African American; straight; and, a graduate of high school. The three issues that
she thinks about most are: “blinding in with [her] local community;” “growing old with
[her] partner...and progressing over time together;” and, “getting and maintaining a job.”
Samantha J. and James E. have been in a committed, straight relationship. They currently
live together at the residence of James’s mother. Before making their full physical
transitions, they are interested in having at least one child together.

Kelley D. identifies as a male-to-female transgender individual. She is 19 years old;

bisexual; and, a graduate of high school. The three issues that she thinks about most are:
“sex;” “living arrangements, being homeless and out in the streets;” and, “money.” In her
pre-discussion survey, she also writes: “I trick and I don’t like to. I want to work. I need a
job.” Kelley D. is currently in a lesbian relationship.

Samantha J., James E. and Kelley D. are all friends and have known one another over
three years.
 Page 77
th
Views on 13 Street

The participants in this conversation shared similar feelings around being transgender
within society. Each participant felt it was at times easier and more rewarding to be
around other straight people, than being around individuals who identified as gay. They
indicated that they had more similarities with certain straight people and that they could
learn and witness more of what it means to be a “man” or “woman.” This was
conceptualized by working everyday and living a less party-filled life, attributes that they
felt were missing from their gay peers. Specifically, Kelley D. states that “being gay is
addictive, especially 13th Street. It’s bad. There are drugs, late night clubbing. Most
people on 13th Street don’t think of the next morning.” In comparing straight-trans and
gay-trans relationships, James E. states that “straights don’t know how to be fake” as a
reason for preferring straight versus gay friendships, and a preference for being around
straight males.

Each participant was introduced to the 13th Street area before they began their transitions.
Kelley D. shares that she was surprised by what she saw. The “excitement made me want
to know more.” Samantha J. felt that it was a crowded place, and there were a lot of white
people. Compared to Huntington Park, another area known for male-to-female sex work
that is mostly frequented by Black clients, the 13th Street area is more economically
conducive and financially productive to sex work activity. Despite James’s negative
experiences of people attempting to break up his relationships, he felt like this was the
place where he “got introduced to trans”—signifying this as a benefit to hanging out and
selling drugs in the 13th Street area.

13th Street and Work

Each participant has, or has within the past three months, engaged in illegal work to
supplement their income. The two females have served as sex workers, while the male
sells illegal substances. For each of these individuals, most of their clients were found
within the Gayborhood, as this is where they have conducted a lot of their work and/or
made their business contacts. For these participants, 13th Street represents an important
location for economic opportunities.

It should be noted that each of the participants felt that illegal work was their only option
to supporting themselves. Each participant expressed that they were actively seeking
legal work. Barriers to legal work included transphobia, obtaining (representative)
identification, and prior criminal history.

On Designing a Place for LGBT Youth

Each of the participants felt that local organizations struggle to provide a space that
provides joint opportunities for sexual and gender minority youth. Understanding their
issues to be different and less understood, each participant expressed that it is sometimes
difficult to associate with sexual minorities in these programs as gay males take life less
seriously than transgender individuals. This concern has limited their participation in
certain LGBT groups. The participants cautioned that LGBT youth spaces should
consider the holistic needs of transgender youth. Most needs, being less social in nature,
included: services for getting important identification; job training and employment
opportunities; and, sessions on being in straight and/or transgender relationships.

On the more social end of the continuum, James E. felt that a work out room with
equipment would especially attract transgender males. Samantha J. mentioned that food,
 Page 78
vogueing, and planned trips would attract both sexual and gender minority youth to the
space. Kelley D. stated that she should like this place, especially if there “wasn’t so much
drama.” In adding suggestions to making the place more attractive and appealing, she
stated that it should have a red carpet: “when looking good you want to pump down the
street.”

Even with these suggestions, each of the participants felt that such a place, if located in
the Gayborhood, could only provide a temporary outlet for transgender females. Making
note of those who engage in sex work in the Gayborhood, Samantha J. and Kelley D. felt
that they would use the space sporadically throughout the night—to get warm, to eat, or
to take a break when they are not with clients.

Limitations

This case study report offers insightful, first-hand knowledge on issues affecting some
transgender youth in Philadelphia, and provides feedback on proposed community
gathering options for LGBT youth. However, this report only skims the surface on issues
affecting gender minority youth in the 13th Street area of the Gayborhood. Convenient
sampling, such as recruiting youth from already established groups, can ensure greater
participation in data collection activities. Additionally, one-on-one data collection
activities may be best suited for gathering in depth data on important issues where time
and available resources serve as a limitation. Lastly, given feedback from this focused
conversation and from individuals who were unable to attend, greater barriers on the
availability of time (given late night work hours) and priority setting (as in focus group
participation or other “important” matters) should be investigated and considered when
choosing focus groups as the choice data collection method. Supplimenting this data with
the eight responses from the Preliminary Survey Report has the possibility to reveal even
more data about the population. Please review the supplemental Preliminary Survey
Report: Transgender Reponses Only (following this report).
 Page 79
Appendix 5: Street Intercept Survey Instrument
PHILADELPHIA LGBT ASSESSMENT: YOUTH COMPONENT STREET INTERCEPT
SURVEYS
Administration Guide
The street intercept interview is administered by an interviewer.

Before administering the survey on corners specified by the working group, the interviewer will first
complete the following information, which can be found in the grey box:

Location Location (ex. 13/Walnut; 12/Locust)

Time Time (ex. 1230am; 230am)
Interviewer Interviewer’s Initials (ex. KTJ)

For QUESTION 1: Interviewer is asking the participant to select the days of the week when they hang out
in the area. The participant should choose all that apply.

For QUESTION 2: Interviewer is asking how many days out of the week does the person hang out in this
area. Some participants may need help in knowing what is meant by this area. Our boundaries are Broad
Street, Market Street, Spruce Street and 11th Street. The participant should only choose one selection.

For QUESTION 3: Interviewer is asking about the hours that the person generally hangs out in the area.
The participant should choose all of the times that they are generally in the area. The interviewer should ask
the participant about each of the listed times to ensure that these are not times when the participant is
hanging out in the area.

For QUESTION 4: Interviewer is asking the participant if they would hang out in a youth space that is
located in the area and remained opened until 3am. The participant should only choose one selection.

For QUESTION 5: Interviewer is asking the participant to describe what the space would look like, as well
as what would happen in the space. This should be initially asked as an open-ended question. In the space
provided, the interviewer should jot down the participants responses. The back of the page should be used
if the interviewer runs out of space.

Next, the interviewer will ask about the suggested items under each category. After going through this list,
the interviewer should ask if there are other items or descriptive information that the participant would like
to add.

For QUESTION 6: Interviewer is asking the number of times the participant has received or visited a
location that provides health and human services. The interviewer should be prepared to give examples of
health and human services. Some examples include HIV testing, employment-seeking services, doctor
visits, support groups, drop-in centers, etc. The participant should only choose one selection.
Lastly, the interviewer should ask the following five demographic questions:

Age The person’s age

Major intersection where the person has lived the majority of
Major time in the past two months; if homeless, ask for nearest
Intersection intersection of origin; if new to Philadelphia, where they are
currently living
The person’s race:
Race/Ethnicity
B-Black; W-White; H-Hispanic; A-Asian; O-Other
Sexual The person’s sexual orientation:
Orientation G-Gay; L-Lesbian; B-Bisexual; S-Straight; O-Other
The person’s gender identity:
Gender Identity F-Female; M-Male; FTM-Female to Male Trans; MTF-Male
to Female Trans

The participant will also be able to leave their name and phone number if they are interested in
participating in focus group and/or key informant interviews. The interviewer should ask the participant if
they are interested in one of the interviews; if they are interested, the interviewer should write the
participant’s name and phone number on the back of the survey.
 Location_________________________
Page 80
Time____________________________
PHILADELPHIA LGBT ASSESSMENT:
YOUTH COMPONENT STREET INTERCEPT Interviewer_______________________

SURVEYS

1) Typically, on which days of the week do you hang out in this area? Check ALL that apply.

MON TUES WED THU FRI SAT

SUN
2) On average, how many days out of the week do you hang out in this area? Check only ONE answer.

1 DAY 2 DAYS 3 DAYS 4 DAYS 5 DAYS 6 DAYS 7

DAYS
3) Typically, during what hours do you hang out in this area? Check ALL that apply.

8AM-11AM 11AM-2PM 2PM-5PM 5PM-8PM

8PM-11PM 11PM-2AM 2AM-5AM 5AM-8AM

4) If there was a “space” designed for you and your peers that
remained opened around “this time,” would you hang out NO YES
there? Check only ONE answer.
5) For this next question, I would like you to think about a space designed specifically for you and your
peers? I am trying to get an idea of what the space would look like and what would happen there.
Write answers in space below. Use the other side if necessary.

What does the space look like? What would happen in the space?

Pool Tables, Video Games, etc. Youth-run businesses

Dance floor Health services
Lounge areas HIV testing
Kitchenette Employment services
Classrooms/Meeting spaces Classes to learn a skill
Beds and showers

6) In the past 2 months, how many times have you received

services (health, employment, etc) or visited a location that
provides any of these types of services? Check only ONE 1-3
0 TIMES 4+ TIMES
answer. TIMES

Age Major Intersection Race/Ethnicity Sexual Orientation Gender Identity

B W H A O G L B S O F M FTM MTF
O

Survey Design by Kevin Trimell Jones; v2, 5/31/07

 Page 81
Appendix 6: List of Open-Ended Responses regarding a recreational space for LGBT
youth
a place for youth to
a safe space Computers hole in the wall people interact with others
hang
It would be burned
air condition Computers internet place for fun activities
down
Ballroom computers inviting atmosphere place to vogue activities life skill service
anything for positive
balls computers Karaoke play station lots of dancing
impact
bar computers Large pornos bad things meeting with friends
positive things for more so fun, more
Bar computers library bar
community less educational
Bar computers library projector Bar Music
bar computers like a club radio boys/girls music
bar computers look like outside safe space building social skills music/party
bar couch lots of art safer space chill spot no drama
bar for something
dark lots of open space safety chilling no sex
to drink
dark, big,
basketball courts loud music security congregate parties
falling apart
discussion people should be
Beautiful lounge sexual intercourse cooking classes
group friendly
big brother and
discussions mirrors sexy security counseling fun without police
sister program
big brother and counseling and people would have
DVD player movie room Shit
sister program referrals fun
black and brown DVDs TV music smoking cigarettes dance place to chill
educational
black jack music smoking cigarettes dance safer sex discussions
about safer sex
educational
books music soap in bathroom dancing same as 13th street
activities
books electronics music space Dancing security
bright colors entertainment music stereo system dj security
Should be for
café Features music tokens drinking
everyone
card table flashing lights music trendy drop in Sitting
clean food music TV eating social
clean food music TV enjoy each other socializing
clean food music TV entertainment socializing
fresh vivid events that teach
Club music area TV socializing
colors people how to live
club fun activities music room TV family counseling socializing
Someone to listen to
computers games music room TV food
me
colorful "ass"
Gay people naked men/g-strings TV food spa
queers
computer Girls nice TV fun speed dating
gives out
computer no bar TV fun Talking
condoms
Too late [hours] for
computer room group office space TV fun activities
services
computer room groups open area vogue Functions vogue
computers Hall party vogue group HIV awareness vogue
hanging out
computers parties vouging housing vogue
groups
Welcoming housing youth groups
housing youth jobs
Housing assistance