2011 Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment Final Report

Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/1
P/2 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment

Chicago
LGBT Community
Needs Assessment
Data Summary
April 2012
Mary F. Morten with

Keisha Farmer-Smith, LSW, Ph.D.
Christina Smith, LCSW,
Alicia T. Vega, MJ,
Jessica Kadish
Text Copyright © 2012 by The Chicago Community Trust;

Mary Morten Materials Copyright © 2012 by Mary Morten.

funding support for the LGBT
Community Needs Assessment
data summary was made
possible by
and
the francis Beidler iii
and prudence r.
Beidler foundation
Table of Contents
I Acknowledgements 05 4 Needs of the Unemployed and 39

Underemployed
II Executive Summary 06
5 Diversity and the LGBT 40
III Introduction 08 Community
IV Methodology 11 6 The Recession and the Impact on 41
the LGBT Community
V Demographic Highlights 12
7 Existing Resources 42
1 Surveys 12 and Underserved Areas
2 Data Cards 16
VIII Conclusion 44
3 Focus Groups 18
IX Sources 47
4 Interviews 19
X Appendices 48
5 Key Highlights Across
Data Tools 20 1 Detailed Methodology 48
2 Extended Survey Demographics 49
VI Key Identified Needs from
the the LCNA Survey 28 3 Extended Data Card 52
1 Demographics
Affordable Health
Services and Care 28
2 Sustainable Employment 30
3 Access to Government Benefits,
Rights, and Services 31
4 Response to Community
Discrimination 32
5 Community Safety 33
VII Key Identified Themes from

Multiple Data Tools 34
1 Unique Needs of LGBT Seniors 34
2 Commonalities Between
LGBT Seniors and Youth 36
3 Supports Needed by 38
LGBT Families

I. Acknowledgements
Ken O’Keefe, Judith C. Rice,

and Patrick Sheahan – as well
The Morten Group LGBT as The Chicago Community
Trust, The Elizabeth Morse
Needs Assessment Team Genius Charitable Trust, and the
Francis Beidler III and Prudence
was very fortunate to have R. Beidler Foundation for

funding the needs assessment
and for their commitment to
a broad base of support providing philanthropic support
to underrepresented and often
and participation in this marginalized populations.
data collection effort. Thank you to the reporters,

public media professionals and
bloggers who took the time to
cover the Needs Assessment:
Stephen Chaitman of The Windy
City Times, Belhú Sanabria
of La Raza, Emmanuel García
of Homofrecuencia, Anna
DeShawn of The Anna DeShawn
Thank you to the more than Special thanks are also due Show, Rod McCullom of Rod 2.0
60 community and business to Dr. Bianca Wilson of the and the writing teams at In Our
organizations that served as Williams Institute, Dr. Lourdes Words blog and XQSí Magazine.
community partners and the Torres of DePaul University,
more than 20 LGBT leaders Dr. James H. Lewis of The Special note of thanks for
and allies in the Chicagoland Chicago Community Trust, and the exemplary leadership
area who publicized, supported Jason Cox of the Andersonville and dedication provided by
and participated in the data Chamber of Commerce, for Liz Thomson for serving as
collection activities.* their invaluable input regarding our Asian Language Liaison,
the development of the online Andrea Densham for her efforts
We are deeply grateful to survey. surrounding the Evanston focus
everyone who filled out a survey group, and Tracy Baim for
or data card, participated in a Thanks are also given to graciously providing essential
focus group, or completed a our eight facilitators and contact information and the
telephone interview. interviewers for their hard work support of Windy City Times
and dedication to the project: with numerous articles.
We are also grateful to Loyola Tony Alvarado-Rivera, Simon
University Chicago’s Center for Aronoff, Cece Lobin, Ryan
Urban Research and Learning, Meher, Mairita Smiltars,
particularly David Van Zytveld, Christina Smith, Alicia T.
Koonal Patel, Will Bolton and Vega, and Marisol Ybarra.
Gina Lopez, for their support
during the early stages of the We thank the Steering
development of the Needs Committee of The LGBT *A list of participating organizations,
Assessment project as well as Community Fund - James L. businesses and LGBT leaders and
their comparison data analysis Alexander (Co-Chair), Prudence allies can be found at http://www.
efforts during the final stages of R. Beidler (Co-Chair), Ramesh lgbtfund.org and at
http://mortengroup.com/
the process. Ariyanayakam, Denise C. Foy, lgbtneedsassessment.php.

II. ExEcutive Summary
In September 2011, The LGBT Community Fund Steering Committee

retained Morten Group to conduct a needs assessment for the LGBT
community1 in the Chicago metro area. The purpose of the needs
assessment was twofold: 1) to gather data about the assets, needs
and challenges of the LGBT community in the Chicagoland area to
2) inform future funding decisions of the Steering Committee.
Overview of Data Demographic Key Identified Needs

Collection Methods Highlights from LGBT Community
Data were collected over an 11- Needs Survey
Data was collected from a
week field period from October The report is divided into two
diverse respondent pool of over
to December of 2011, using a main sections. The first section
2,000 Chicagoans representing
“snowball” sampling method of the report focuses on five
a wide variety of sexual
where four main data collection key needs in the Chicago LGBT
orientations, gender identities,
methods were utilized: community as identified by
ages, races, socioeconomic
backgrounds and residential survey takers, the survey being
1. Online surveys by far the largest data collection
areas. Demographics differed
2. Community drop boxes considerably between data vehicle. The five major needs
with data collection cards collection vehicles; this report identified include:
3. Focus groups presents major demographic
highlights across the four 1. Affordable heath
4. Individual interviews services and care
instruments of data collection,
and subsequently provides 2. Employment
The following report contains
specific characteristics of the 3. Access to government
both qualitative and quantitative
respondents for each respective benefits, rights
analyses of the data collected.
data collection vehicle. and services
4. Discrimination
5. Community safety
1
Please note that the phrase “LGBT community” is used throughout this report as an
umbrella term to refer to all individuals who identify as LGBTQ. However, the term
is something of a misnomer as “the LGBT community” is not monolithic, which is a
commonly held misconception. While this term is used for simplicity and brevity, it
should be underscored that Chicago’s “LGBT community” in fact consists of many
overlapping smaller communities and subcultures. Moreover, not all individuals who
identify as LGBT take part in community life within the structured settings reflected
in the institutions and organizing models represented within this report.

Key Identified Comparative Data Conclusion and
Themes from An extensive amount of data Recommendations
Multiple Data Tools was collected through this The concluding section of the
The second section of the report process and where possible, report outlines concrete funding
focuses on seven major themes a comparative analysis was recommendations based upon
found across multiple data col- conducted with similar local the data collection. This report
lection vehicles. These seven and national studies, and other is supplemented by a
themes are: qualitative research. Most of companion process report
the comparison data used, as that includes all documents
1. Senior needs with most studies, was designed used in data collection,
to highlight targeted findings as well as further funding
2. Similarities between youth about specific populations recommendations from
needs and senior needs and where possible, provide individual interviews with
3. Family needs comparisons. community stakeholders.
4. Needs of the unemployed
and underemployed The LGBT Community Needs
Assessment, in contrast, was
5. Diversity within the conducted to provide a broader
community view of the many communities
6. The impact of the that comprise Chicago’s LGBT
recession on the community community at large and utilize
7. The need to focus financial the existing data selected to
resources on existing make comparisons to relevant
services and under- categories throughout our data
served areas analyses. Further, because of
the diversity of respondents
represented within the data
collected by the LCNA, the
capacity to make greater
comparisons among sub-
groups within Chicago’s
LGBT community now exists.
Morten Group, led by President Mary F. Morten, was established in November 2001
to focus on clients in the nonprofit, for-profit, and foundation fields. Morten Group
provides a customized approach to solve organizational and resource development
challenges and to explore new opportunities. Morten Group offers expertise in building
communities of inclusion and access, succession planning, trustee recruitment and
retention, and film and video production.

III. Introduction
The LGBT Community Fund is one of the Purpose of Needs

identity-based funds of The Chicago Community Assessment
Trust. The Fund was established in 2010 with the 2010 Census data reflects
an increase in the reported
goal of distributing $1 million over the following members of the LGBT
three years to community-based organizations community, whereas smaller
studies of LGBT subgroups
in Chicago and the surrounding counties. have provided greater
The Fund began with a $500,000 matching qualitative information about
grant from the Trust, which will go toward a particular needs of these
groups. The LGBT Community
permanent endowment benefitting the LGBT Needs Assessment was
community. commissioned to provide a
more comprehensive view of the
entire community, one focused
The purpose of the Needs Assessment was on demographics, strengths,
to gather data about the assets, needs and and collective community
member input related to areas
challenges of the LGBT community in the of need. This was the primary
Chicagoland area and to inform future funding focus of the data collection by
Morten Group.
decisions made by the Steering Committee.
Further, the data is intended
to provide information based
on individuals’ accounts of
LGBT communities and their
life experiences as part of
those communities. As such,
Morten Group maintained a
commitment to diversity and
access to participation by
reducing as many barriers to
the process as possible. This
was achieved by attending
to such considerations as
ethnicity, linguistic background,
socioeconomic status and
geography (North, South,
West and East sides of the
city, as well as the suburbs),
among others.

Review of Existing
Research/Data
The Chicago LGBT Community The studies selected for The studies selected for
Needs Assessment (LCNA) comparison included: comparison were chosen
conducted by Morten Group is because of the similarity in
the first comprehensive needs 1. Somjen Frazer’s 2009 LGBT populations surveyed as a
assessment of the Chicago Health and Human Services primary population across
area LGBT community to be Needs in New York State similar categories as the
completed since approximately for the Empire State Pride LCNA, which were:
2003. Agenda Foundation: Albany,
NY 1. Affordable heath
A review of existing local and services and care
2. Gay, Lesbian and Straight
national data was conducted
Education Network (GLSEN) 2. Employment
to provide qualitative and
and Harris Interactive’s 3. Access to government
quantitative comparisons to the
2006 study From Teasing to benefits, rights, and services
LCNA data. Nine comparable
Torment: a Report on School
data sets were identified. 4. Discrimination
Climate in Illinois
This data review revealed
that while some comparisons 3. Howard Brown Health 5. Community safety
could be made across similar Center’s Elder Services
categories, the methodology, Community Initiative Study This report provides a first-level
and populations sampled were (2009) analysis of the data collected
limiting factors in reducing and is largely descriptive in
4. Lourdes Torres and nature. The data collected
the capacity to conduct a Nicole Perez’s 2011 study
comprehensive comparative by the LGBT Community
Latina Portrait: Latina Queer Needs Assessment provides
analysis. Women in Chicago a necessary background
5. Illinois Department of against which The Chicago
Human Services (IDHS) Community Trust should explore
Bureau on Domestic and further comparative analyses.
Sexual Violence Prevention’s Exploring the similarities and
2005 Safety and Sobriety contrasts across categories,
Manual, particularly the characteristics, as well as
section “Special Populations: variation in context is the next
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and level of research needed to
Transgendered People" provide a more comprehensive
6. 2010 US Census analysis. It is also important
Bureau Data. to note that the data from the
assessment does not allow for
evaluation of current programs
and delivery of specific
services; the assessment was
not designed to gather this
information.

IV. Methodology
The LGBT Community Needs

Assessment (LCNA) used “snowball"
sampling to learn about the experiences
and needs of the Chicago metropolitan
LGBT community.
Snowball sampling is a non- information about the LCNA. period, beginning on October 7,
probability sampling method Morten Group also designed 2011, and ending on December
used by researchers to identify a series of e-newsletters and 20, 2011.
a target population and engage an active Facebook page to
them in involving others within aid in participant recruitment. A core project team of three
their networks for the data Community partners and people was responsible for
collection process. All people leaders serving varied the survey development, focus
who identified themselves as geographic regions of the city groups, stakeholder interviews
part of the community were and suburbs were identified and the community drop box
invited to participate in at least in order to develop a strong, data collection. Eight trained
one of the data vehicles. Morten diverse sample. facilitators, interviewers
Group identified community and note-takers worked on
partners and leaders who Through cooperative the project with additional
shared news of the assessment relationships with more than administrative support from
survey with their contacts, 60 nonprofits and businesses the core team.
housed community drop and 20 individual leaders in
boxes with data cards, held the community, Morten Group
focus groups and provided collected and analyzed data
suggestions for leader from 1,562 survey completers, Please see Appendix A for
interviews. Their contacts, in 319 data card respondents, 125 a more detailed description
turn, continued to share this focus group participants and of the methodology used
information, which subsequently 52 interviewees. Data collection for each of the four data
caused more contacts to share was conducted for an 11-week gathering methods.

V. Demographic Highlights
A variety of factors resulted in different levels of demographic

information collected across the four methods of data gathering.
Because they supported relative anonymity, surveys collected
the most detailed demographic data, followed by data cards.
Where appropriate, responses from the “other” category related to race/ethnicity, gender or identity
were moved into designed categories. For example, racial/ethnic identity responses mentioning a
country or countries in Latin America have been counted among the Hispanic/Latino category. Finally,
when answering questions about race/ethnicity, gender and related facets of identity, survey takers were
allowed to select all appropriate responses, rather than setting a constraint that might keep a participant
from expressing their full demographic identity.
Only broad, general information on gender, orientation and age range was asked of interview and
focus group participants. Choosing to collect and report aggregate information for the focus groups
and interviews was purposeful and reflected Morten Group’s commitment to learn about the needs
and experiences of LGBT people in a safe and respectful way.
This section details demographic highlights from the surveys, data cards, focus groups and interviews,
followed by several comparison tables that provide a comprehensive view across all of the data
collection tools. All percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number, except for figures
related to unemployment.
1. Survey Gender Identification of Survey Participants

Demographic
Highlights Other 2%
Information collected from MTF 2%

the needs assessment surveys
reveal that respondents are FTM 3%
quite diverse in multiple areas.

Although the vast majority of Transgender 3%
the participants identified as

Genderqueer
female (51%) or male (42%), 7%
others identified as genderqueer

Male 51%
(7%), transgender (3%), female
to male (3%) and male to Female 42%
female (2%). Ten percent of
participants selected more
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
than one gender identity.
“Other” self-defined responses
for the survey included:
gender nonconforming, gender fluid, nonbinary, A large percentage of the
gender nonspecific, human, transmasculine, transmale, trans- sample identified as gay (43%)
female assigned, bi-gender, butch, transwoman, transsexual, and lesbian (35%). There
two-spirited, third gender, myself, Ze, dyke/Chicana and were other respondents who
androgynous, queer, femme, kid/boy/guy. identified as bisexual (14%),

queer (23%) and questioning Sexual Orientation of Survey Participants
(2%). Additionally, nearly 22%
identified with more than one Other 5%
category and 2% wrote in that
they identified as either straight Questioning 2%
or heterosexual. “Other” self-
defined responses for the survey Queer 23%
included: polyamourous, BDSM

oriented, poly, kinky, pansexual, Bisexual 14%
asexual, pan-romantic asexual,

Lesbian 35%
grey-asexual, aromantic asexual,
same gender loving, open to Gay 43%
love, open, transwoman, spouse
is transgender, androphile, A,
normal, ally, lesbian married to 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
a trans man, lover of women,
straight gay, dyke, myself,
homosexual and two-spirited.
Racially, survey takers were

diverse, stating that they are Racial Identification of Survey Participants
African-American (18%); Latino
(13%); bi/multiracial (5%); and Other 3%
Asian, Pacific Islander or Native
American (less than 5% each). It Bi/Multiracial 5%
is important to share, however,
that a clear majority of the Pacific Islander 1%
respondents stated that they are
Caucasian (65%). When early Native American 2%
data revealed that survey takers
were 76% Caucasian, Latino/a
13%
Morten Group developed paper
surveys and worked proactively Caucasian
65%
with community centers in
underrepresented areas to Asian
3%
recruit participants of color.
“Other” self-defined responses African
18%
for the survey included: Arab/ American/
Middle Eastern, Jewish and Black
“prefer not to say.” 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Age of Survey Participants

18%
14-17
21%
9% 18-24
3% 25-34
1%
35-44
45-54
16%
32% 55-64
65 or older
Outreach to people of color was The age of needs assessment between $25,000 and $49,999.
not the only diversity initiative survey takers was effectively The largest percentage (about
intentionally undertaken by distributed between several 37%), however, earn $50,000
Morten Group. Special efforts groups including 18- to 24-year- a year or more - and when
were made, whether through olds (16%), 25- to 34-year-olds reporting household income,
targeted focus groups, (32%), 35- to 44-year-olds (21%) four in ten people state that
strategically placed drop boxes, and adults ages 45- to 54-year- their household collectively
survey mailings or translated olds (18%), and adults 55 or earns $75,000 or more.
data cards, to reach out to older (12%). The median age
as many sectors of the LGBT of survey takers was between When looking at survey
community as possible: youth 34 and 35 years old—slightly respondents by community
(including homeless and/or older than the city of Chicago area, it is important to note that
perilously housed youth), older age demographics that put the there were no clear “majority
adults, incarcerated individuals, median age for the city at 31.5 communities” identified. About
transgender and genderqueer years. 69 of the 77 Census-defined
individuals, undocumented Chicago community areas
individuals, persons in recovery Like age, reported individual participated in the survey,
from substance abuse, and income was varied, with 35% of along with more than 40 other
individuals whose primary survey takers earning $24,999 suburbs, villages and cities in
language is Spanish, Chinese, a year or less and another 28% the Chicago metropolitan area.
Korean, Hindi or Vietnamese. reporting an individual income Top response counts came

28% Individual Yearly Income
of Survey Participants
37%
Less than $24,999
25,000-$49,999
More than $50,000
35%
from neighborhoods including in the general demographics was listed as 9.8%, while the
Lakeview, Edgewater, Rogers section. It is important to national rate was 8.6%.
Park, Uptown, Lincoln Square, note that 13.3% of general
Logan Square and Hyde Park. survey takers report being Most survey takers are English
More than half (54%) of survey unemployed and 7% report that speakers, even if they speak
takers have resided in the they are employed but earning another language. Other
Chicago area for 16 years or a wage that is not livable. reported languages included
more. About 13% are new to When controlling for race Spanish (29%), French (8%),
the area, residing here for 0 to and ethnicity, however, these German (3%), Italian (1%)
3 years. More than 80% of the results shift. One of every five and Japanese (1%), as well
survey sample report living in Latino/a and African-American as Chinese, Hebrew, ASL
Chicago, while 8% reside in the survey takers report that they (American Sign Language),
North suburbs, 6% in the West are unemployed and about 10% Polish and Russian (all less
suburbs and 3% in the South report that they are employed than 1%).
suburbs. but earning a wage that is not
livable. According to Illinois
Survey employment fields Department of Labor Security
were extremely varied, further statistics cited by The Chicago
reflecting the diversity of the Sun-Times (December 22, 2011),
Chicago area LGBT community. for November 2011, the Chicago
Details are highlighted later metro area unemployment rate

When sharing information on

their household characteristics,
Relationship Status of Survey Participants
a majority (72%) of survey
Other 4%
takers report that 1 to 2 people
live in their home, while another
Widowed 1%
20% report that 3 to 4 people
live in their home. Accordingly,
Single 40%
a vast majority of households
are only home to adults over the
Partnered 12%
age of 18 (84%). Living Separately
A majority of survey takers Partnered 28%

(about 45%) report that they are Living Together
in committed relationships via
civil union (9%), marriage (9%) Married 9%
or partnered living together
(28%). Another large group Divorced 3%
(40%) describe themselves
as single. Unlike some needs Civil Union 9%
assessments and other studies
that have been completed for 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
LGBT populations, the Chicago
LGBT Community Needs
Assessment survey received
responses from a large number
of single-identified individuals, 2. Data Card
with more survey takers
Demographic
choosing “single” than any other
individual category. Less than Highlights
4% report that they are divorced Equal percentages of male and About 32% of the data card
or widowed. female-identified participants respondents were African-
filled out data cards (44% American, which represents
each). Approximately 17% a higher response rate than
Please refer to Appendix B for
of respondents (combined) in the survey, which was 18%.
a more detailed breakdown of
identified as transgender, FTM, Asian or Pacific Islander-
survey demographics.
MTF, or genderqueer, whereas identified participants, while
3% of participants self-identified only comprising 4% of survey
in other ways, including asexual, respondents, represented a
femme, intersex-transsexual and percentage over twice that
gender nonconforming. size for the data cards, at 9%.
Caucasian participants made
About 35% of the respondents up less than 40% of data card
identified as gay, 23% identified respondents, a significantly
as lesbian and 16% as queer, lower proportion than on the
while 13% identified as bisexual. survey. “Other” self-defined
Self-defined responses included responses for the data cards
straight, intersex transsexual, included Arab/Middle Eastern,
and ally. Nearly one in five data human and North African.
card participants self-defined The higher reporting numbers
within the “other” category. among African-Americans and

Gender Identification of Data Card Participants
Asian/Pacific Islanders may
be attributed to the strategic
Other 3%
community locations for the
drop boxes and targeted MTF 3%
events identified to reach
underrepresented members FTM 4%
of the community.
Transgender 5%
A significant majority of the
data card respondents are Genderqueer 5%
English speakers reporting

Male
(96%). Other languages 44%
include Spanish (2%) and

Female 44%
Hindi, Vietnamese, Chinese
and Korean (all less than 1%).
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
The age range reflected most
among data card responders
is 25 to 34 (32%), followed
closely by 18 to 24 (28%), with
the median age being 25 years
old. This represents a greater
response rate within these
younger age categories than
that of the online survey. This Sexual Orientation of Data Card Participants
increased reporting can be
attributed to the community Other 19%
sites, locations and events
targeted for distribution. Questioning 2%
Individuals with lower incomes Queer 16%

were more likely to complete
the data cards than the online Bisexual 13%
survey. Half of the data card

responders made less than Lesbian 23%
$25,000 in 2010. About 35% of

Gay 35%
all data card respondents report
that they are employed and
earning a livable wage, which 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
correlates with the high levels
of education reported. 7.8% of
respondents reported being
employed full time but not
earning a livable wage,
while 19.4% of respondents
report being unemployed.

Please note this number is Racial Identification of Survey Participants

double that of the City of
Chicago’s unemployment Other 1%
rate (November 2011). This
is alarming and particularly Bi/Multiracial 6%
significant, given the high
education levels reported, Native American 3%
and may be the result of
possible discrimination Latino/a 16%
experienced within the
LGBT Community. Caucasian 38%
In general, data card responders Asian or 9%

are well educated, with nearly Pacific Islander
50% of all participants reporting
that that they have completed African 32%
college. However, it is important American/

Black
to note that 14% of the data
card responders reported high 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
school as the highest level of
education completed.
The community areas reflect

some diversity in reporting. The community areas reflect
The top response counts came some diversity in reporting. 3. Focus Group
from Lakeview, Edgewater, The top response counts came
Rogers Park, Lower West Side, Demographic
from Lakeview, Edgewater,
Uptown, Hyde Park, Lincoln Highlights
Rogers Park, Lower West Side,
Park and Humboldt Park, which Uptown, Hyde Park, Lincoln For focus groups, participants
collectively represent more than Park and Humboldt Park, which were given blank boxes
53% of the total communities collectively represent more than rather than options to choose
reported. About 85% of the 53% of the total communities from, so all self-identified
responders were from Chicago reported. About 85% of the gender, orientation and race/
communities and 7% from North responders were from Chicago ethnicity freely. Many of these
and Northwest suburbs, with communities and 7% from North responses could be classified in
5% reporting from the West and Northwest suburbs, with accordance with the categories
suburbs and 3% from the South 5% reporting from the West used for the survey and data
suburbs. suburbs and 3% from the cards, though some responses
South suburbs. remained free of categorization.
In general, data card responders
are well educated, with nearly Self-defined identity responses
50% of all participants reporting Please refer to Appendix B for
for gender included: “Woman
that that they have completed more detailed breakdown of
for now,” “Male publicly, female
college. However, it is important data card demographics.
privately,” TGirl, cisgender
to note that 14% of the data and post op TS. Self-defined
card responders reported high responses for race/ethnicity
school as the highest level of included Indo-Dutch and
education completed. Jamaican, among others.

Employment Status of Data
Card Participants
35%
3% Unemployed
Employed part-time
7%
8% Employed full-time,
wage below liveable
Employed full-time,
wage liveable
19%
Retired
28%
Other
Self-defined responses for 4. Interview Demographic Highlights

sexual orientation included:
Interview participants ranged in age from 30 to 80 years old. This
Transgender, trans, “Queer till I
group was also racially diverse with over half of interviewees being
find a better concept,” “Hetero
people of color (African American, Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander or
as male / lesbian as female,”
bi-/multiracial).
Stud, and “No preference.”
As with the survey, data cards and focus groups, a vast majority
Focus groups represented
of interviewees identified as female or male. Interview participants
the most racially/ethnically
were not asked to specify their orientation.
diverse respondents of all
data gathering methods. One
A variety of community leaders, professionals, educators, policy
in three participants identified
experts, activists and heads of service providing organizations
as Caucasian, one in three
participated in the interviews. A list of people completing the
as Latino/a, and one in five
interview is not available in the public version of this report in
as African American/Black.
order to maintain interviewees’ privacy.
Focus groups also had a high
percentage (15%) of gender
nonconforming participants
(identifying as transgender,
MTF, FTM, genderqueer, or
self-defined). Focus group
participants ranged in age
from 14 to 78 years old.

5. Key Highlights Across Data Tools

The following charts present data from six major demographic categories in a comparative format:
gender identification, sexual orientation, race, age, income and relationship status.
1. Gender Identification
Interviews
Other 5% Focus Groups
3% Data Cards
(self-defined) 2% Survey
2%
Genderqueer 5%
7%
1%
MTF 3%
2%
1%
FTM 4%
3%
2%
6%
Trans 5%
3%
54%
Female 47%
44%
51%
44%
Male 46%
44%
42%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
*Please note: for the focus groups, the “trans” category includes all terms
including the word “trans” (i.e. transwoman, transman, transgender).
Across data collection vehicles, data collection vehicle, with

most participants identified the strongest representation
as male and/or female, with (17%) seen in the data cards.
relatively even distribution Female-identified individuals
between these two categories. were most strongly represented
Transgender, MTF, FTM and in the interviews and data
genderqueer-identified cards, comprising over 50% of
individuals (combined) participants for both of those
comprised between 2% and data collection vehicles.
17% of participants for each

2. Sexual Orientation
32%
Gay 35%
43%
19%
Lesbian 23%
35%
17%
Bisexual 13%
14%
11%
Queer 16%
23%
0%
Questioning 2% Focus Groups
2% Data Cards
Survey
22%
Other 19%
(self-defined) 5%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
The majority of participants in and 23% respectively. The

all three data collection tools greatest percentage of bisexual-
where this question was asked identified respondents was seen
identified as gay, nearly 43% in the focus groups, at 17%. For
in the case of the surveys. both the data cards and the
The highest percentage of focus groups, approximately 1 in
respondents identifying as 5 participants self-identified in a
lesbian or queer was also way that differed from the major
seen in the surveys, at 36% categories used.

3. Race
0% Interviews
Other 4% Focus Groups
1% Data Cards
(self-defined) 3% Survey
0%
3%
Bi/Multiracial 6%
5%
0%
0%
Native American 3%
1%
17%
34%
Latino/a 16%
13%
62%
Caucasian 36%
38%
65%
4%
Asian or 1%
Pacific Islander 9%
4%
African 17%
22%
American/ 32%
Black 18%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
The majority of participants participants. The greatest

in every data collection tool proportion of Asian or Pacific
identified as Caucasian: Islander-identified respondents
over 60% in the case of was also seen in the data cards,
the interviews and surveys. at nearly 1 in 10 participants.
The greatest percentage of Latino/a participants were most
African American-identified strongly represented in the
respondents was seen in the focus groups, comprising
data cards, at nearly 1 in 3 one-third of all participants.

4. Age
22%
14-17 0%
1%
32%
18-24 28%
16%
14%
25-34 32%
32%
7%
35-44 17%
21%
5%
45-54 15%
18%
9% Focus Groups
55-64 7% Data Cards
9% Survey
10%
65 and older 2%
3%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
*Please note: community leader interview participants ranged in age from 30 to 80 years old.
The distribution of participant in the focus groups, with over

ages across data collection 50 percent of participants
vehicles indicates the active between the ages of 14 and
participation of individuals from 24. Focus groups also saw
all stages of the life course. the strongest participation for
No one age group represented seniors; approximately 1 in 10
more than 1 in 3 people for any focus group participants was
given data tool. The strongest over age 65.
youth participation was seen

5. Individual Income (2010)
$100,000 or more 4%
11%
$75,000- $99,999 5%
9%
$50,000- $74,999 16%

18%
$35,000- $49,999 10%

17%
$25,000- $34,999 16%

10% Data Cards
Survey
$15,000- $24,999 8%
10%
Less than $15,000 42%

25%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Comparison of individual survey respondents earned

income of data card and less than $15,000 in 2010, over
survey respondents shows 4 in 10 data card respondents
that individuals earning lower did. About 38% of survey
incomes made up a greater respondents made $50,000
percentage of data card or more in 2010, compared with
respondents. While 1 in 4 25% of data card respondents.

6. Relationship Status
2%
Other
4%
2% 61%
Widowed
1%
Single
40%
10%
Partnered (LS)
12%
13% Data Cards

Partnered (LT)
28% Survey
8%
Married
9%
0%
Divorced 3%
5% 60% 70%
Civil Union
9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
*Please note: for the two “Partnered” categories, “LS” indicates

“living separately” and “LT” indicates “living together.”
Single was by far the most Given that U.S. Census data
common relationship status and many prominent studies
chosen by needs assessment only examine partnered couples
participants, with 4 in 10 survey and same-sex households, this
respondents and 6 in 10 data sets the LCNA apart in its
card respondents indicating representation of single LGBT
that they identified as single. community members.

Other Overall
data highlights
Community Areas and Residences

Needs assessment respondents reside in 71 of Chicago’s
77 officially defined community areas. It is important to
note that there were no clear “majority communities”
defined. No single community reported more than 15% of
the participants for any data collection vehicle.
Additionally, not all needs assessment participants have

homes:
• At least one survey respondent is currently incarcerated

at the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC).
• Two people identified as homeless or without an address.
• One focus group was held for perilously housed youth (12
participants), and although most of the participants from
this group identified as living in Lakeview, 50% of them
listed addresses of social service agencies or parking lots
in Lakeview.
The vast majority of participants came from the city of

Chicago—between 78% and 85%, depending on the data
collection method. North suburban residents accounted
for 7% to 12% of respondents, West suburbs residents 5%
to 8% of respondents and South suburbs residents 1%
to 3% of respondents (depending on the data collection
vehicle). Northwest Indiana residents accounted for just
0.3% of survey respondents and were not represented in
other data collection methods.

Survey Data Cards
Not-for-profit 20% Student 14%
Education 15% Education 7%
Student 12% Teacher 7%
Finance, insurance, real estate 7% Artist 3%
Arts and Entertainment 6% Social worker 2%
Medical field 6% Manager 2%
Employment Education U.S. Citizenship and

Vocational fields reported In general, survey takers are Immigration Status
via surveys and data cards highly educated, with more The vast majority of
were extremely varied, further than 50% of all survey takers survey takers reported U.S.
reflecting the diversity of the reporting that they completed citizenship (97%). Of those
Chicago area LGBT community. college or graduate school. High who reported non-citizenship,
The six most reported fields education is consistent when 77% are residents, 14% are
from the surveys and data cards controlling for race (African- undocumented, 8% have
are listed below. Employment American/Black and Latino/a). special visas and 1% have dual
status or field was not collected citizenship with the U.S. and
as demographic data in focus In general, data card responders another country. One of the 15
groups or interviews, although are also highly educated, with focus groups was designed for
many shared their experiences nearly 50% of all data card undocumented participants.
with employment, which are responders reporting that
explored later in this report. that they completed college. Documentation status was not
In comparison, the 2010 collected as demographic data
Chicago Census data shows in focus groups, data cards or
32% of respondents reporting interviews.
completing college or higher.
Educational level attained was

not collected as demographic
data in focus groups or
interviews.

VI. Key Identified Needs from the LCNA Survey
In the governance section Discussion of Key

of the survey and on the Community Issues
data card, respondents
were asked to ordinally Issue 1: Affordable Health in accessing care, while 7.9%
rank 14 categories in Services and Care indicated that they had no
the order of urgency insurance.
with which they thought Respondents overwhelmingly
Among LCNA data card
the government should expressed concern about
respondents (who were
health care. Among survey
address them. The most overall younger than survey
respondents, 66% ranked health
frequently selected are care as their highest concern
respondents), 68.1% report
identified below. having access to health care
and 35% ranked it as their
and resources and 63.5% report
second highest concern.
having access to both physical
Among survey and mental health services.
respondents, affordable While these numbers represent
Latina Portrait: Latina Queer
health-care services and Women in Chicago (2011)
a positive trend, they also
care or health insurance indicate that 32% to 37% of
members of the Chicago LGBT
ranked as the number one The Latina Portrait study (Torres
community do not have access
issue the respondents felt and Perez, 2011) reported that
to these resources.
27.9% of Latina LGBTQQ women
the government should
in Chicago have not disclosed
address (66%), followed their sexual orientation to
Howard Brown Health Center’s
by access to government Elder Services Community
all of their doctors or other
Initiative (ESCI) Study (2009)
rights and services [i.e. health care providers, and of
marriage equality] (43%), those who have disclosed,
AARP survey respondents
13.9% report receiving negative
employment (33%), were presented with a list of
reactions. Additionally, 17.8% of
community safety and Latina queer women discussed
sixteen needs and asked to
violence (25%), and rank them from highest to
experiencing unfair treatment
lowest unmet need. Affordable
discrimination based on by hospitals/doctors or other
medical and mental health care
class, race and age medical professionals, and
came in fourth on the list of
15.2% reported that their sexual
(21-24%). unmet needs, with 28% of the
identity contributed to the
survey population reporting.
negative interaction.
Data card respondents Affordable prescriptions were
the second highest unmet need
reported slightly different cited by respondents, and 32%
“top five” areas of New York LGBT Health and
of the overall survey population
Human Services Needs
community need. The reported concern about them.
Assessment (2009)
number one reported The LCNA data cards’ specific
issue was services for responses about health care
Similarly, in the New York Needs
needs included but were not
youth (16%), followed Assessment Survey, 35.3%
limited to: “universal health
by access to affordable of participants identified a
care”; “better medical and
lack of mental health services
health care (13%), LGBT physical health programs”;
and 39.2% identified a lack
access and equity (12%), of support groups as being a
“non-bar social environment for
employment (9%), professionals”; “mental health
problem or a major problem
issues”; “free comprehensive
and safety (8%).

dental health insurance”; “better “I am very concerned about heath care.
health resources and affordable
foods”; “health prevention I worked for a company that went bankrupt
clinics”; “mental health services” when I was in my mid-50s. I worked in the
and “groups, case management,
mental health psychosocial IT area and was unable to find work and
groups or therapy.” began doing my own consulting, but at one
The following remarks from point was unable to afford individual health
survey respondents further insurance and got sick. I'm still paying that
highlight concern about
this issue, particularly the hospital visit off as best as I can. I applied
connections between access but was not granted any discount. I now have
to healthcare and stable
employment: minimal heath care coverage that I can afford
but won't provide too much and waiting to
“I will make it personal. I
am unemployed. I can't get be eligible for Medicare in another year.”
employment because I have
visible dental issues so no one
wants to hire me. I can't get The focus groups also discussed Interviews with community
them fixed because I have no the complexity of health leaders supported findings in
income to do so. There are NO care services and insurance, the surveys that health services
aid services to assist people like including issues faced by and health care are complex and
me. So, I remain unemployed. undocumented people and serious issues. Some leaders
I am very much an activist for the un-/underemployed, and tie lack of health care to rising
gay rights and gay marriage and the importance of mental and un-/under employment and
safe and secure neighborhoods emotional health care services other economic issues, while
for gays. But if I can't access that are all too often inadequate. others state that until the LGBT
basic health, i.e. basic dental Two focus group participants community is treated equally
care so I can then access shared: under the law (regarding
employment none of it matters. marriage and the privileges
All levels of government— “My partner of 35 years that come with it), health
state, local, county and eventually within the next year care/services will continue
federal—should get involved. or so will need more assistance to be a major need for LGBT
A contributing factor to my than I can give him, and it would people. Several community
dental issues is my HIV status. be essential for us to have a leaders representing the
No one would blatantly admit gay-friendly at least, if not gay Latino/a community note
they were fearful of working on or lesbian, person to come in that under health care reform,
my teeth, but they found lots of and do the caring. My friend will undocumented members of the
convenient excuses not to. Then, not go to a nursing home, he’ll LGBT community will lose some
when I could no longer afford commit suicide.” basic health care services.
insurance at all, my teeth rapidly
deteriorated...”

“Many people are still afraid on the South Side. $10,000. Overall, 19.5% said
that they did not have enough
Bottom line, people are there and they need services. income to meet their basic
Services closer to the people. I can’t think of a sadder needs, while 40% had just
enough and 40.5% had more
sight than an African-American gay youth. Many
than enough. In contrast, the
are uncomfortable coming up to the North Side median income reported in the
because it’s out of their comfort zone. I refer people 2010 Chicago Census data is
reported as being $39,000 and
to [addiction rehabilitation center on the North Side] $44,000 annually for women
all the time and they don’t go because they don’t feel and men respectively.
comfortable even though it’s right off the El.” Further, the Howard Brown
ESCI Elder Study indicated that
many older adults, including
“Health care is an issue. The We are much bigger than our LGBT older adults, rely on Social
assumption is that it does not sexuality and our sex lives— Security as a primary source of
affect most in the community. we care about things more retirement income. According
But because many people are than that.” to a National Center for Lesbian
still closeted, they do not seek Rights report cited in the
care. They are losing their jobs, Howard Brown study, 62% of
Issue 2: Sustainable
become lower income and they adults 65 and older use Social
do not want to out themselves Employment
Security for half or more of their
by seeking care. There are also annual income; 26% use it for up
lesbians raising families and Respondents of the LCNA
to 90% of their income and 15%
health care is out of reach. Also, also voiced serious concerns
use it as their only source
there are youth of color being, about employment. Among
of income.
particularly trans youth, kicked survey participants, 33% ranked
out of their homes and this is employment as their number
Many factors can contribute
rising.” one concern and 23% ranked
to the unemployment
it as number two. Among data
and underemployment
“When the Obama plan goes card respondents, only 50%
rates experienced among
into full implementation, any report having a livable wage and
respondents, including age,
undocumented person with being able to meet expenses,
gender, and access. While rates
AIDS will lose health care. with only 50.2% indicating that
of unemployment are higher
It’s all economics. It’s mostly they have strong employment
than those in similar categories
myths, not reality. In the networks. 2010 Census data
throughout the state of Illinois,
whole, we need to see the real throughout Illinois reflect a 7.3%
greater analysis is needed to
social/economic needs of our statewide unemployment rate.
assert a causal relationship.
community. I think folks will be Given the biases expressed in
surprised how many folks are The Latina Queer Women in
previous data, discrimination
uninsured in our community. Chicago study indicated that
experienced may not always
In the Latino community, we as many as 40.9% of women
be overt and can often be
haven’t done enough work to reported making less than
assigned to a class of people
educate health-care providers. $29,000 annually while the
without regard for individual
They need to look broadly—not New York Needs Assessment
competencies.
just at AIDS and STD, it’s much indicated that a total of 11.9%
broader, like mental health of the survey respondents were
issues and substance abuse and in poverty, having no income
tobacco use and cancer rates. or household income below

Several focus group participants Issue 3: Access to because they are unable
voiced the opinion that Government Benefits, to access benefits. Further
employment concerns are analysis of this is needed
Rights and Services
especially pressing for trans- to determine context and
identified individuals: contributing lifestyle factors
Categories relating to access prior to accessing benefits. Even
“I guess when it comes to to government benefits, rights without the benefit of historical
employment—looking for a full- and services, such as marriage knowledge, the data across all
time job over the summer— equality, were ranked by 43% studies used for comparison
I have it so deep in my head: of participants as their greatest indicate a greater vulnerability
‘Why would somebody want concern. Additionally, 31% for seniors in general, and those
to hire me when they could hire of respondents ranked such individuals without spousal or
someone who isn’t trans?’ And categories as their second partner benefits, retirement
then if I did get a job, I would greatest concern. While 44.3% benefits, and disabilities.
have to get new clothes for it— of data card respondents stated Additional influencing factors,
go out and spend $100 that they knew how to access such such as social, cultural or
I don’t have.” services, this indicates that political circumstances may also
almost 6 out of 10 do not have exist which can limit access to
“Being able to prove that you’ve knowledge of how to access eligibility, increased benefits or
not been given/lost a job governmental programs, entitlements.
because you’re trans is difficult. including Social Security, When discussing overall
Worked at temp agency—often unemployment and medical aid. inequality, access to government
it would be determined on rights and services on an equal
first day whether they were Reflected in the Howard Brown basis with other people—for
a good fit, sometimes felt ESCI Elder Study, The National example, marriage equality—
like they weren’t asked back Gay and Lesbian Task Force were not mentioned repeatedly,
because they made someone estimates that LGBT elders are but certainly brought up and
uncomfortable. Nothing you denied roughly $124 million discussed in the context of
can do about that—very little a year from Social Security overall inequality. For example,
protections, especially in a temp two survey takers shared:
job. There was nothing explicit
that they could bring up. Still ”The economic situation is the
treading into realm that it was top priority for me. My partner
an unfriendly environment.” lost his job because it was
outsourced to India. He needs
to find work and to receive
unemployment benefits when he
“There’s a report that says that a trans is not working (he is doing temp
person is 11x more likely to not get or lose a work right now). Fortunately,
because we have a civil union
job than a gay/lesbian individual. And if you he is covered by my health
add on top of that a person who is trans insurance. Marriage equality
would provide additional
and a POC, then can’t even comprehend economic benefits. Pensions
what that challenge will be for a young need to be protected, except for
African-American trans woman.” the few instances where people
get ridiculously (sic) high
pensions. Social Security needs
to be protected.”

“Civil union is [a] nice first step, 19.3% claim to have experienced between race and gender
but same-sex marriage must discriminatory treatment by when exploring the impact of
become approved federally. a social service agency, 27.1% discrimination experienced,
Employment is tough for report instances of racism by similar to the data card
everyone now but gays are still governmental agencies, and respondents, who were
discriminated (sic) against in 17.8% identify experiencing overwhelmingly African
hiring. Affordable health care for unfair treatment by hospitals/ American and youth or young
those without insurance is vital. doctors or by any medical adults. Respondents from the
Too many hate crimes. Any is professional. Additionally, 68.7% data cards report experiencing
too many.” of women claimed that they had discrimination across multiple
offensive remarks aimed at them settings within the LGBT
One senior focus group directly, and 84.7% reported community at large as well when
participant indicated a particular being in the presence of interfacing in different social
lack of access of government offensive remarks. 53.8% stated contexts where their safety
services for seniors: that others have avoided being felt compromised because of
near them, 60.7% have had race, ascribed characteristics,
“A lot of seniors that I know— others make them feel that they sexual orientation or gender
and I know because I just spent did not fit in and 30% of women expression.
6 months looking for a place have received unfair treatment
for my sister to stay—a lot of by their partner’s family due Examples of top issues facing
seniors have to go back into to their sexual orientation.” the LGBT people as written by
the closet when they go into Furthermore, 40.9% of Latina data card respondents include:
the nursing facility. The Tuesday queer women have experienced “housing and employment
group at [name of organization discriminatory treatment by discrimination”; “homophobia
omitted] is the only outlet for service providers in public bullying discrimination”;
a lot of people. Many people restaurants and establishments “civil rights and marriage
really regret that. An LGBT place in Metropolitan Chicago, and discrimination”; “trans issues:
for assisted living really doesn’t 21.8% of women stated that housing and employment
exist—there isn’t any. Housing they often feel disrespected by discrimination”; and “religious
does not exist for us.” people who either know or think equity.”
they are LGBTQQ.
Many groups tied
Issue 4: Response to A common bias is also shared in socioeconomic inequality to
Community Discrimination the Howard Brown ESCI Elder unequal allocation of resources.
Study, where it was noted in a Also, many youth stated that
Discrimination, whether survey of 24 Area Agencies on class assumptions are made
based on class, age, or race, Aging in New York that 46% about them because they are
was ranked as a number of staff respondents said that perilously housed or of color.
one concern by 21 to 24% of openly gay men and lesbians
the survey respondents. As would not be welcome at One youth focus group
reflected in the quantitative senior centers in their areas participant had this to say about
and qualitative responses, (Behney, 1994). Highlighting age discrimination:
greater acknowledgment and the often unspoken prejudices
responsiveness to community experienced by LGBT individuals “In Chicago, it feels like there’s
prejudices and discrimination in daily social interactions an age restriction on being gay.
is needed. in what should be safe and [Lots of nods of agreement
welcoming social environments. from the group.] Boystown
This is significantly reflected means nothing if you’re under
in the Latina Queer Women in These data reflect some 21. You can look but you can’t
Chicago study as well, where influence in relationship touch. Essentially you can go

to [name of local business
omitted]… Anything social in
Boystown is 21+. And you need
to have money to do those
things, regardless.”
While a community leader

being interviewed shared:
“There are still issues at every level. This is still

lots of homophobia/ transphobia, especially in
the workplace, on the street, in the criminal legal
system. It impacts the marginalized communities
because people without resources can[not]
affect their ability to protect themselves.”
Issue 5: Community Safety with 26.6% reporting a “not One youth focus group
applicable” response. It is not participant related the following
Violence and safety within the surprising, then, that the GLSEN story of safety concerns:
LGBT community and within Report indicates that only
lived community spaces was a half (52%) of Illinois students “Word that I was gay spread
chief concern for almost half reported that they felt very to these homophobic boys—
of survey respondents. About safe in their schools, and over because we were friends they
25% ranked it as a number one a third (37%) of the students automatically broke their
concern and 23% ranked it as a reported that they felt unsafe in friendship with me—they
number two concern. school because of one or more decided to physically abuse me
personal characteristics, such as at school, they pushed me down
Data card respondents listed the physical appearance or sexual stairs. I didn’t really tell anybody
following among the top issues orientation. about it, they would push me up
facing the LGBT people: “safety against lockers and threaten me
in Boystown area”; “safety Additionally, 39.9% of women a lot—the boys got suspended
education”; “safety from/with in the Latina Queer Women in for a long time—still to this
police”; “violence prevention” Chicago study reported being day my car is getting egged,
and “safe spaces.” Of the data harassed (i.e. name calling, things that you wouldn’t expect
card respondents, 67.7% report jokes, fights, etc.) for being happen to someone...I do have a
feeling safe at school and work, LGBTQQ when they were restraining order now and I can’t
while only 56% indicated feeling growing up, and 6.2%disclosed hang out with them outside of
safe within the city at large. that they have never told school—they’re not allowed to
Only 22.3% reported feeling anyone that they are LGBTQQ come near me or touch me or
comfortable that the police for fear of negative impact this bump into me.”
would respond to their needs, could have on their lives.

VII. Themes Emerging from Multiple Data Tools
Emergent themes for this project 1. Unique Needs of

were developed in several steps. LGBT Seniors
First, the data was transcribed and LGBT seniors face serious
needs in the areas of affordable
hand coded. When hand coding, housing, access to governmental
key phrases and quotes used by the and nonprofit resources, feeling
safe to access those resources,
study participants were highlighted vocational services and health
and reviewed for commonalities. care. Two older survey takers
Reoccurring phrases and similar and several focus group
participants have shared stories
statements within and between the of losing their homes, jobs and/
four data vehicles were collected. or health insurance. Data cards
did not demonstrate a trend
Similar words, phrases and quotes of concern for seniors’ needs,
were placed in “theme baskets” possibly due to the significantly
and provided a visual display of younger age demographic of
data card respondents.
the emerging themes. Relationships
among these data were connected
with lines and explanations. These Survey and focus group
participants older than
preliminary themes, with supporting age 55 stated:
data and quotes, were developed
“If people have the basics
and shared with Morten Group covered, such as health care,
support staff for feedback. employment and housing, the
other social issues can get some
attention. Without the basics,
In this section, themes developed people care a lot less about
by common trends found in the marriage equality, etc.”

surveys, data cards, focus groups “There needs to be a more
and interviews are explored. These visible group of LGBT
themes highlight the diversity and community elders for those who
are more isolated—in nursing
complexity of people who comprise homes. I think we need to be
the LGBT community, the unique careful when we talk about the
community—it extends beyond
needs of different segments of the Lakeview and Sheridan. It’s
community (especially youth, seniors important to have places like
and families), and how the country’s the Mather cafeteria—satellite
locations throughout the city
economy has impacted LGBT people. so that elders can gather away
from the usual places. One of
the detriment—and it’s not a
knock—is that the community
has always been focused on
Chicago’s lakefront.”

Interviews with community Survey data from respondents
leaders indicated that as
baby boomers become ages 55 and older shows That:
seniors, community based
service providers in the LGBT
community must begin to re- 22% rate health insurance as fair or
poor on a 5 point Likert scale.
15% rate
think their service population employment services/support as fair or poor while
and reach out to older adults 52% report that they are not sure how to rate these services.
who are leaving the work force
and unaccustomed to seeking
social service support. For
About 40% stated that they do not currently face
serious quality of life issues; however,
example:
almost 20% 20%, or 1 out of 5, do not feel comfort-
able accessing government resources,
“… [B]iggest safety issue is
seniors, primarily people over
the age of 75. There are a lot of
and 27% report that they do not have
strong employment networks.
safety concerns for this group

such as income safety, physical
security, health, living alone
especially with many older
LGBT people having a lack of
family structure, not kids or
especially those estranged from
their families.”
“I am over 60, have been unemployed for almost two years,

no health care or benefits. I have had to move into low-
income housing, find a free clinic for health needs, track
down free meds from pharmacies and find part-time work
to make ends BARELY meet. My prospects are very poor
and the outlook is rather bleak going into winter. You see
my top 5 are all around these issues. I do not feel like I am
being heard or even seen by government and media.”

2. Commonalities Survey Survey data reveals the following

Between LGBT when comparing youth (24 and under) and
Seniors and Youth seniors (55 and older):
LGBT youth and seniors have
a great deal in common when • When controlling for • 13% state that they cannot
it comes to needs. However, in age (taken from sample safely access job related/
addition to needing housing, of 24 and younger and vocational services and
resources, employment and 55 and older), individual another 31% state that
health-care support, youth and household income they are not sure if they
are also facing safety issues, drastically shifts to the left, can access these services.
including feeling unsafe while with more than half of the
navigating their community and sample (52%) earning less • Almost one third do
feeling targeted by the police. than $15,000 individually not know how to access
Furthermore, some younger per year. government support
adults feel that they aren't programs including social
taken seriously by, or receiving • 25% of the sample security, unemployment
equal respect from, the LGBT categorizes themselves or medical aid.
community. Interestingly, both as unemployed, 26% as
older adults and youth report working part time and 8% as • 30% do not have strong
experiencing age discrimination. working full time but earning employment networks.
below a livable wage.
• Over 20% state that they
• Education rates remain high cannot safely access health
with almost 50% earning a services and another 10%
college degree or beyond. state that they are not sure
if they can access these
• 36% do not currently earn services.
wages that allow them to
meet expenses.

• 24% do not feel that
Chicago police respond to
their needs.
Data card respondents were West sides”; “LGBT support in “education (for safe sex)”;
highly concerned about youth schools, support for homeless “youth housing”; “LGBTQ youth
issues (youth issues replaced youth, “access to services programs”; “more time in
health care in the top 5 issues outside of Boystown”; and youth centers and more youth
of concern for data card “youth (esp. youth of color) activities”; “more LGBT youth
respondents, as mentioned discrimination and over-policing services/centers, supportive,
earlier). Examples of top issues and incarceration.” respectful, accountable schools,
listed included: “support for anti-discrimination laws/
the youth, services (health), By that same token, examples of policies”; and “mentoring for
jobs (well paying)”; “homeless suggested services to address GLBT youth substance use and
youth”; “youth support, LGBT youth issues included: "safe mental health services.”
resources on the South & place (for homeless youth)”;

One survey participant main issue I face is being taken have a class problem is pathetic.
shared the following about seriously in my community as a Young people need support,
their schooling experience younger person, and that people particularly around transitional
as a youth: don't leverage their ‘experience’ housing and *affirming,
or their age over me. I may not supportive* mentors.”
“I walk fearless as a own a condo in Lakeview, but I
transgendered I couldn't hide still live here and have a voice in While older survey
my true feelings of appearance. my community.” participants wrote:
A lot of jobs that provide health “Job discrimination that has
insurance basically ripped up “…The North Side has it scarcely been touched by age-
my application in my face. It’s so discrimination laws. Disrespect
hard to pay for health insurance easy. I feel if my family by those who consider old
….I would of saved my family A had more money and persons to be out of ideas
LOT of money if I just walked lived there, I wouldn't and out of energy, when we
home. But it wasn't an option are in fact disproportionately
even though I lived so close. have been on suicide conscientious in our
I was lucky if I made it on the watch, I would have lived commitments, whether on the
bus without getting bullied, or at home, I wouldn't have job or in volunteer service to the
having a beer bottle thrown at community.”
my head… School officials didn't been homeless for 2
do anything for GLBT. When whole years. Prostituting “The biggest issues I face are
there was brutal fight between my body for meals and racism and homelessness. I
a Gay and HOMOphobe. There am fortunate to have a good
was never a letter or call sent clothes and somewhere job that pays me well, but
home.” to stay. My life would homelessness is an issue that
have been so much easier touches me because many of
Young people younger my friends have no job/can't
than age 24 shared: if they had more services find one/can't keep one so there
for GLBT teens/youth.” is always someone looking for
“… I never have access to a place to stay. They see I am
health care that is reliable and “I think there is a significant stable, so they try to stay with
consistent and respectful and amount of ageism in the me. Racism is an issue because
knowledgeable about my needs gay community, particularly. Chicago is a very segregated
as a trans person. I depend on There seems to be a general city, which is not inherently a
[name of healthcare provider dismissal of non-‘business- bad thing, but it's a problem
has been omitted], which is type’ young queer folks, and when you have to go to a part
great, but I worry that they a general disrespect for the of town you don't necessarily
will run out of funding or will work going on at this level. belong in.”
have to terminate my service I think the LGBT community
for some other reason. Without can be incredibly isolating and In youth focus groups,
them, I don't know what I restrictive, particularly for young participants discussed issues
would do. Regular doctors queers. The issue of class here faced as well as strategies used
scare me because I have been is so intertwined, as a lot of the in schools by Gay-Straight
traumatized.” isolation and discrimination Alliances and youth service
against the young happens in agencies to help young people
“I am a young, college-educated re: class issues, poverty, housing address these issues. The quotes
professional. I don't have many instability, transition into the included below may be useful
needs (other than hoping that workforce, low-wage jobs. The when thinking about ways to
I can alleviate myself of debt at lengths to which the queer fund programs for youth.
some point in time). I think the community will go to deny we

“I feel that one of the problems 3. Supports Needed by LGBT Families

is that the Lakeview community
doesn’t accept the fact that LGBT families with children report needing child care assistance
young people do exist. They and support around helping their child(ren) to deal with bullying
don’t give a f*** about us. from other children. Some respondents also reported the need
Money should be delegated to for support groups/opportunities for same-sex couple children to
us so they can see we’re not the interact and develop friendships.
stereotypes and statistics they
think.”
Survey data regarding
“Yes, there also needs to be families shows the following:
education for other people
because even now people think
that AIDS is only for gay people.
74% of survey takers with children
identified as female
It is okay to be gay and AIDS is
NOT just a gay disease.”
more
than 60% are between 35 and 54 years old
“All of the organizations… they

think they know everything
more
than 65% are married, partnered and living
together or in a civil union
about homeless youth, but
Income, occupation and employment status and
they really don’t. Don’t assume
level of education are similar to the general sample
his family kicked him out for
being gay and ask if he needs
resources. He wants to know: When asked about certain services in their
How can he get a job? Get an
apartment? There’s a need community some people with children were
[for] a homeless shelter for concerned with several issues:
LGBTQ youth—there are day
programs, but they need a
guaranteed place where they 20% rated “affordable/healthy foods” and
“services for children and youth” as fair or
can sleep. Register, stay for an poor services in their respective communities
extended amount of time. A
place that can help get a job or
24%
an apartment. More shelters and rated “health insurance” and “vocational/
support systems. Not just a day employment related” services as fair or poor
place that acts like they know services in their respective communities
everything.”
A majority of the community Survey completers with children used their surveys to call for more
leaders interviewed also support services including: family counseling, parenting support
expressed deep concern about groups and other emotional health services, child and respite care,
safety issues faced by youth, safe recreational space for their families and support around finding
especially youth of color and jobs.
young people that identify as
transgender. When asked how The LGBT Community Fund should best use funds
and resources, and what should be the funding priorities, youth
focus group participants recommend education for members of the
LGBT community and the heterosexual community, more support
groups, and experiential learning opportunities.

4. Needs of the When asked about services in Focus group participants
Unemployed and their community: shared the following
commentary about the Chicago
Underemployed
• 32% rate access to Police Department and having
Livable wages, accessing vocational/ job-related access to resources for basic
government support programs, services as fair or poor practical needs:
needing strong employment
networks, and having the • 30% rate access to “Another issue I wanted to
Chicago Police Department affordable/healthy foods bring up was that some of
respond to one’s needs were and access to public health the resources inside some of
listed as top needs across services as fair or poor the centers we attend…more
groups. resources needed for bus fare
• 28% rate law enforcement to get back and forth to job
About 20% of all survey takers as fair or poor interviews, job training, food
identified as unemployed or pantry…we used to have funds
employed but not earning a • 20% feel unsafe or very for that but now if we don’t get
livable wage. When controlling unsafe in their community a grant approved, then people
the data to better understand have to walk or come up with
the needs of these survey • 20% state that there bus fare however they can.”
respondents: are NO neighborhoods
or communities in the
• The vast majority (68%) Chicagoland area that they
“As a recovering
lived within city of Chicago consider safe and supportive prostitute, [I] ran
limits to LGBT people or families
across all kinds of
• Almost half are people of • And 25% state that there
color, identifying as African- are no programs, groups,
situations that by the
American, Latino, Asian- religious institutions or grace of God—taken
Pacific Islander, Native social service agencies in the
American or bi/multiracial Chicagoland area that they out to the suburbs
• 13% have children consider safe and supportive
to LGBT people or families
and raped… Been
• 42.5% earn an income of robbed, jumped, had
$10,000 a year or less and When asked about serious
70% earn $25,000 a year issues in their community, more a gun pulled. Most
or less than half of the respondents
reported gangs as the most
challenging thing
• 22% feel that they cannot significant issue. Other top though was the
safely access hospitals or responses included: the cost
other public health services of housing (50%); vocational police arrests. Police
or vocational/job-related opportunities (about 40%);
services gentrification (33%) and
would come to house
hate crime related to sexual and knock on door
orientation (30%), which is
markedly different from the and lock [me] up
general survey population.
Unfortunately, more than 33%
for prostitution…”
do not know how to access
government support programs
including social security,
unemployment or medical aid.

One community stakeholder 5. Diversity and The

made the following comment LGBT Community
about resource deployment in
an interview: Many participants urged the LGBT community as a whole to begin
to recognize and celebrate its own diversity. The community has
“There is a lack of diversity many strengths, including its diversity (economic, cultural, racial,
regarding the decision making, occupational and wide ranging skills), creativity, determination to
specifically in the way resources be treated equally and resilience. Several interviewees and
are deployed. An example of focus group participants also indicated that although the LGBT
this is reflected in the impact community is diverse, it does not necessarily work well together.
of HIV in communities of color,
in that I not sure that the The demographic data across data collection vehicles support this
‘dollars are following the need.’ theme by reflecting the extensive depth of diversity in the study
Also the same for LGBT youth population for categories such as race, income and age.
services, the community is
diverse enough to have more One focus group participant shared the following opinion of being
than one LGBT community unwelcome in the community:
center. Smaller organizations
around the city are doing “People act like the North Side is supposed to be like Ellis Island for
outstanding work without the LGBT community, but that’s not true. You get harassed by the
larger and governmental grants police, people look at you like you’re a criminal.”
and funding, but I’m not sure
that information related to One interview participant outlined in detail the need for the LGBT
resource allocation is getting to community to work together across various boundaries:
organizations in other parts of
the city. I’m also not sure that “We need to transcend racial and geographic barriers. There is not
awareness on the part of larger a lot of intersectional work being down with black, brown and Asian
funding sources about smaller communities for the purpose of pushing forward realities that are
organizations even exits to not used to the mainstream. Lots of issues between genders. We
support their growth.” need lots more dialogue. …We really need to address these issues
and have intentional conversations with stakeholders. …. The LGBT
communities of color need to start demanding more transparency,
demanding the breaking down of geographic barriers. The larger
and smaller organizations need to do more marketing and let people
know that gay Chicago is not just the north side. We need to step
out and step back.”

6. The Recession and
the Impact on the
LGBT Community
“It goes back to employment.
As seen in the earlier When jobs are more scarce, any
demographics, unemployment
and underemployment are
type of difference, gender non-
exacerbated by discrimination. conforming, race. It’s already
Like many other communities,
the recession has affected hard, so it becomes harder. It
the LGBT community, but this
impact is compounded by the is taking a hard toll especially
additional discrimination that
members face as a result of for non-white, gender non-
sexual orientation or gender
identity.
conforming. But certainly for
people who are seen as different.”
For example, the unemployment
rates shown in the data cards
are slightly higher that the
city’s and much higher than the
national trends. Among people
of color and youth, they are
markedly higher at almost 40%.
Survey respondents shared the
following:
“Presently jobs are a priority

for people to get back on their
feet. Technical, training support
for jobs that can be thought in
a few months...trade jobs like
carpentry, in short handy man
jobs. At the local level so people
get hired by people living in the
community.”

7. Existing Resources and Underserved Areas

In this economic climate, resource providers serving the LGBT community face serious funding
challenges. Therefore, the focus should be on how to 1) best utilize existing resources/maximize results;
and 2) support new innovative practices in underserved areas. There are no quantitative data to support
this theme; rather, it emerged repeatedly in qualitative responses.
Data card respondents shared a plethora of service ideas

regarding existing resources and underserved areas:
Education: Increased Community

• "More educational forums for the community” Services and Programs:
• “Educational tools” • “Community center on the South Side for
• “Education regarding state laws” gay teens”
• “More efforts to educate and more • "More community centers spread out and
consequences for organizations that accessible to more people”
discriminate” • “Help community centers that exist and add
• “GLBT education for schools and more programs”
communities” • “Job programs that lead to jobs with good
• “Posters and resources in West wages”
neighborhoods” • “More community outreach in the hood”
• “Resources in Spanish, more education for the • “Mentorship cross-neighborhood networking”
Latino community” • “Trauma awareness services and counseling”
• “Education within police department and • “Homeless shelters for LGBTQ folks”
criminal systems” • “LGBT Services on South and West sides of
• “Improved education of health-care providers” Chicago”
• “Greater awareness and policy change” • “Employment services; more bi-events at
existing organizations”
• “Health services integrated into recreational
Increased Access to Funding:
activities”
• “Equitable distribution of funding and other
• “Government, medical, housing, social services,
efforts”
mental illness”
• “Greater research and understanding of mental
• “Services distributed to more than white gay
health advocacy”
men”
• “More funding for domestic violence/intimate
• “More paid staff for LGBT offices, employment
partner violence treatment programs and
services”
for prevention - it is not either/or, both are
• “Legal services”
needed”
• “Create more programs that serve Trans-
• “Funding for people of color social
people's health and transition needs”
organizations”
• “Police training on anti-racism, genderqueer”
• “Funding for civil unions/marriage and family
programs”
• “Funds for social services”
• “Better and equal distribution of resources,
not just on the North side”
• “More money toward supportive housing in the
community”

Survey respondents also shared supportive areas in the engaged with parents, queer
specific details about the areas Chicagoland area. I have to and not. At the same time, I’m
they feel to be supported and in admit that I feel Lakeview is really concerned about the
need of support: changing, although it appears to youth because I can see where
be the place that would be most this goes. For the Trust to
“I believe the Chicago area is supportive.” figure out how to continue to
lacking in this area, especially build infrastructure, it needs to
on the Southside, the Southside Focus group participants were feel out where the community
is in short supply of all services, also vocal about where they felt is. At this point I think there
and yet people wonder why the resources should go: might be more bang for the
HIV infection rate is still on the buck in supporting the small
rise in this area.” “Unless the community works micro-community organizations
hard to sustain itself, it won’t who are in the community in
“I feel that Oak Park, Evanston, last. That’s something the their neighborhoods already
Andersonville, Edgewater, fund needs to think about. [more] than the macro ones.
Lakeview and Hyde Park As someone now who has a [2 community groups given as
are areas that are safe and 13-year-old, I’m much more examples.]”
“I think if this fund is going to work, it needs to

speak to this. As great as the fundraisers are, they
should not be the only people doing advisory
work to the fund. Also people living and working
in the community. Current board: Make sure you
diversify yourselves! If you want to impact and
improve the community, you need to have folks
who live and work in it.”

VIII. Conclusion
At this moment in American

history, it is clear that significant
The data collected through the numbers of individuals – both
LGBT and otherwise – are
Chicago LGBT Community Needs experiencing concerns about
Assessment (LCNA) offers a many basic areas of daily
life, including healthcare,
uniquely comprehensive glimpse employment, education and
access to government services.
into the needs, assets and In fact, this was a sentiment
that surfaced repeatedly
challenges of Chicago’s diverse in participant comments
throughout the data collection
LGBT communities. In some ways process. LGBT people, like
these challenges are similar to most individuals, are concerned
about meeting their practical
those of other communities, with needs and accessing resources
when needed. However, this
added complexities often related study and the comparison
studies used demonstrate that
to an LGBT identity. for individuals who identify
as LGBT, sexual orientation
and gender identity serve as
compounding factors. Like their
non-LGBT counterparts, LGBT
community members seek to
experience a quality of life;
however, unlike their non-LGBT
counterparts, LGBT individuals
also seek to have the barriers
connected to their identity
eliminated where possible,
and when found to be present,
be able to access service
delivery systems which are
responsive to acknowledging
and eliminating them.

Having access to healthcare, Howard Brown ESCI Elder Study populations as their primary
sustainable employment, safe reported candid participant constituency. Many of these
schools, affordable housing opinions of bias against resources, although targeted,
and safe communities were LGBT older adults who might are limited in their outreach
overwhelmingly among the participate at senior centers in for various reasons, often
most significant areas of New York City. resource related. Additionally,
need reported across all data many of these services are
collection vehicles. Universal issues of well-being concentrated in geographic
impact the LGBT community areas of the city that are
Experiencing inequities because in ways that are similar to reported by respondents to be
of discriminatory practices were and different from other less welcoming of the diversity
reported as creating additional communities. Allocation of that is in fact characteristic of
challenges and stressors, which future funding should be aimed Chicago’s LGBT community. This
were highlighted throughout at strengthening existing underscores the critical need for
community members’ services where possible and increased funding allocation to
anecdotal experiences. This building capacity in under- occur throughout the city.
was reflected in the Latina served areas. The LGBT
Queer Women in Chicago Community Needs Assessment More than 2,000 LGBT
study, which highlighted provides a broad view of Chicagoans and allies
experiences of discrimination Chicago’s LGBT community and contributed their thoughts
against Latina LGBT women in captures community feedback and experiences to increase
healthcare situations and when in an organized way to support awareness and knowledge, and
accessing government services. more informed approaches to to support the development
Discrimination is further priority setting and decision of targeted responses to
exacerbated with populations making regarding future unmet community needs. The
where increased vulnerabilities funding. Further, the study opportunity to build greater
exist, as with youth and seniors. acknowledges the varied assets capacity across multiple
This is supported both by LCNA and strengths of organizing communities now exists,
data and comparison study strategies utilized by the many which will help inform more
data. Data card respondents, organizations, small and large, comprehensive approaches
largely African American youth which support the diversity of to strengthening programs
and young adults, reported individuals, neighborhoods, and and supporting new and non-
feelings of decreased safety and organizing efforts that comprise traditional organizing models.
experiences of discrimination Chicago’s LGBT Community. Such work has the potential to
when attempting to access empower greater segments of
services and resources within There are many existing services the Chicago LGBT community
the larger LGBT community. The that specifically identify LGBT and Chicago at large.

IX. Sources
Chicago Sun-Times Illinois Department U.S. Census Bureau

(2011, Dec. 22). Chicago of Human Services (2011, Feb. 15). U.S. Census
unemployment rate rises to 9.8 (IDHS): Bureau of Bureau Delivers Illinois' 2010
percent. Retrieved January 25, Census Population Totals,
2012 from http://www.suntimes. Domestic and Sexual Including First Look at Race
com/business/9600239-420/ Violence Prevention and Hispanic Origin Data
chicago-unemployment-rate- (2005). Special Populations: for Legislative Redistricting.
rises-to-98-percent.html Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Retrieved December 27, 2011
Transgendered People. In Safety from http://2010.census.gov/
Frazer, Somjen and Sobriety Manual (p. 75). news/releases/operations/cb11-
(2009). LGBT Health and Retrieved July 23, 2011 from cn31.html
Human Services Needs in New http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.
York State. Empire State Pride aspx?item=38468 U.S. Census Bureau
Agenda Foundation: Albany, (2010, Oct. 5). Table of
NY. Retrieved July 20, 2011 Mackun, P. and Metropolitan Statistical Areas.
from http://www.prideagenda. Wilson, S (2011, March). Retrieved December 10, 2011
org/Portals/0/pdfs/LGBT%20 Population Distribution and from http://factfinder2.census.
Health%20and%20Human%20 Change: 2000 to 2010 (p. 6). gov/faces/tableservices/
Services%20Needs%20in%20 U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved jsf/pages/ productview.
New%20York%20State.pdf December 27, 2011 from http:// xhtml?pid=DEC_10_
www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/ NSRD_GCTPL2.
Gay, Lesbian and briefs/c2010br-01.pdf US24PR&prodType=table
Straight Education
Network (GLSEN) and National Coalition
Harris Interactive of Anti Violence
(2006). From Teasing to Programs (NCAVP)
Torment: a Report on School (2008). Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Climate in Illinois. Retrieved July Transgender and Queer
22, 2011 from http://www.glsen. Domestic Violence in the U.S.
org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/ in 2008. Retrieved July 21, 2011
record/2001.html from http://www.ncavp.org/
publications/NationalPubs.aspx
Barrett, H. A.
& Sadtler, C. Torres, L.
(2009). Assessing the and Perez, N. (2011).
Healthcare and Social Service Mujeres Latinas en Acción
Needs of LGBT Adults in and Amigas Latinas. Latina
Chicago: Findings from the Portrait: Latina Queer Women
Elder Survey. Elder Services in Chicago. Retrieved from
Community Initiative (ESCI). http://www.mujereslatinas
Howard Brown Health Center, enaccion.org/resources/
Chicago, IL. documents/LTQ.pdf

X. APPENDICES
A. Detailed Methodology
1. Survey development: The survey, developed by Morten Group
contained 38 questions with 9 open-ended responses, 2 partly open
ended, and 29 closed-ended responses (multiple choice, ordinal,
numerical and Likert scale2). Questions were split into key areas
including demographic information, services, safety and governance.
Survey completion was voluntary and anonymous. Preliminary data
from the online survey, collected in October, was used to develop
questions for the focus groups and individual interviews. By the end
of the data collection process, 1,562 individuals had taken the survey
with a 76% completion rate. A total of 1539 surveys were completed
in in English, while 23 were completed in Spanish.
2. Community drop boxes: These boxes, accompanied by data

cards, were housed by area community partners, including service
organizations and social events, and offered a quicker method of
collecting assessment data. The data cards contained a total of 13
questions, with 5 open-ended questions and 8 closed-ended. A total
of 319 data cards were collected: 306 in English, 7 in Spanish, 3 in
Vietnamese, 2 in Korean, 1 in Hindi. Cards were transcribed by staff
and volunteers. Like surveys, data cards were anonymous.
3. Focus groups: 15 focus groups were held at various locations

around the city of Chicago and surrounding suburbs. Groups lasted
approximately 90 minutes each with most groups hosting 8 to 10
attendees in each group. A total of 125 participants shared their
perspective on LGBT community needs and strengths during each
focus group. In order to facilitate conversation in a safe space, some
focus groups were marketed to key groups including:
• Youth and young adults aged 24 and younger

• Older adults aged 60 and older
• The Transgender community
Focus Groups were held throughout the metropolitan region,

including the North, South and West sides of Chicago, the West
and North suburbs. Group members were diverse in age, ethnicity,
gender and affiliation to the LGBT community and parameters of
confidentiality were maintained for groups held with community
locations.
4. Stakeholder interviews: 52 LGBT community mentors, leaders 2

On Likert scale questions, participants
and allies were interviewed for approximately 45 to 60 minutes. ranked their feelings and opinions about
community services and issues on scales
Like focus group participants, these stakeholders were diverse in
consisting of 4 to 5 items. For example:
age, ethnicity, gender and role in the LGBT and allied communities. “Strongly disagree / disagree / not
Interviews were conducted via telephone with a script of 10 open- applicable / agree / strongly agree” or
ended guiding questions. “Yes / somewhat / no / does not apply.”

b. Survey Demographics
*Please note: for questions marked with an asterisk,
survey respondents could select more than one answer.
1. Gender
Identification* Response Count Percentage of Total
Male 648 41.7
Female 789 50.8
Trans 49 3.1
FTM 48 3.1
MTF 33 2.1
Genderqueer 106 6.9
Other (self defined) 37 2.3
TOTAL RESPONDENTS 1552 (10 skipped)
2. Sexual Orientation Response Count Percentage of Total
Gay 659 42.6
Lesbian 545 35.3
Bisexual 209 13.5
Queer 350 22.7
Questioning 38 2.4
Other (self defined) 83 5.3

X. APPENDICES
3. Race* Response Count Percentage of Total

African American/ Black 278 17.9
Asian or Pacific Islander 59 3.8
Caucasian 1010 65.2
Latino/a 204 13.2
Native American 23 1.4
Bi/ multiracial 84 5.4
Other 50 3.2
4. age Response Count Percentage of Total

14-17 21 1.3
18-24 244 16.1
25-34 489 32.2
35-44 320 21.0
45-54 271 17.8
55-64 137 9.1
65 and old 38 2.5
5. Individual Income Response Count Percentage of Total

Less than $15,000 374 24.6
$15,000- $24,999 156 10.2
$25,000- $34,999 158 10.4
$35,000- $49,999 260 17.2
$50,000- $74,999 273 18.0
$75,000- $99,999 129 8.5
$100,000 or more 166 10.9
6. Household Income Response Count Percentage of Total

Less than $15,000 204 13.5
$15,000- $24,999 111 7.4
$25,000- $34,999 140 9.2
$35,000- $49,999 189 12.5
$50,000- $74,999 266 17.6
$75,000- $99,999 187 12.3
$100,000 or more 413 27.3

7. Community Areas Response Count Percentage of Total
The top eleven reporting communities
Lakeview 162 11.9 (city of Chicago communities and
Edgewater 160 11.7 suburbs) are shown at left. It is
important to note that there were no
Rogers Park 112 8.2
clear ‘majority communities’ identified.
Uptown 91 6.7 69 of the census defined Chicago
3.9 community areas participated in the
Lincoln Square 54 survey along with more than 40 other
Logan Square 47 3.4 suburbs, villages and cities in the
Hyde Park 41 3.0 Chicago metropolitan area.
Evanston 32 2.3
Oak Park 32 2.3
Albany Park 30 2.2
Humboldt Park 26 1.9
8. Survey Response
by City versus
Suburban Area Response Count Percentage of Total
Chicago 1127 82.5
North Suburbs 116 8.4
West Suburbs 88 6.4
South Suburbs 44 3.2
Northwest Indiana 4 .3
9. Relationship
Status* Response Count Percentage of Total
Civil Union 133 8.6
Divorced 43 2.7
Married 132 8.5
Partnered living together 429 27.7
Partnered living separately 188 12.2
Single 623 40.3
Widowed 14 0.9
Other 65 4.2

X. APPENDICES
c. Data Card Demographics

*Please note: for questions marked with an asterisk, data
card respondents could select more than one answer.
1. Gender
Identification Response Count Percentage of Total
Male 137 43.8%
Female 138 44.1%

Trans 17 5.4%
FTM 13 4.2%
MTF 8 2.6%
Genderqueer 16 5.1%
Other (self defined) 8 2.6%
2. Sexual Orientation Response Count Percentage of Total
Gay 105 35.0%
Lesbian 71 23.4%
Bisexual 38 12.5%
Queer 49 16.2%
Questioning 7 2.3%
Straight 8 2.6%
Ally 6 1.9%
Intersex – Transsexual 1 0.3%
Not-specified 41 13.5%

3. Race* Response Count Percentage of Total
African American/ Black 100 32.0%
Asian or Pacific Islander 29 9.2%
Caucasian 119 38.1%
Latino/a 50 16.0%
Native American 9 2.8%
Bi/ multiracial 19 6.6%
Human 2 0.6%
North African 1 0.3%
Not Specified 1 0.3%
4. age Response Count Percentage of Total

14-17 0.0 0%
18-24 47 27.6%
25-34 55 32.4%
35-44 28 16.5%
45-54 25 14.7%
55-64 12 7.1%
65 and old 3 1.8%
5. Individual Income Response Count Percentage of Total

Less than $10,000 92 30.6%
$10,000- $14,999 34 11.3%
$15,000- $24,999 24 8.0%
$25,000- $34,999 47 15.6%
$35,000- $49,999 29 9.6%
$50,000- $99,999 47 15.6%
$100,000 or more 12 4.9%

X. APPENDICES
6. Community Areas Response Count Percentage of Total

The top eleven reporting communities
Lakeview 40 14.6% (City of Chicago communities and
Edgewater 26 9.5% suburbs) are shown at left. As with the
surveys, it is important to note that there
Rogers Park 23 8.4% were no clear ‘majority communities’
Lower West Side 16 5.8% identified.
Uptown 16 5.8%
Hyde Park 9 3.2%
Lincoln Park 9 3.2%
Humboldt Park 8 2.9%
Logan Square 8 2.9%
Loop 7 2.5%
West Town 7 2.5%
7. Data Card
Response by
City versus
Suburban Area Response Count Percentage of Total
Chicago Communities 233 85.3%
North/ Northwest Suburbs 18 6.5%
West Suburbs 15 5.4%
South Suburbs 7 2.5%
8. Relationship
Status* Response Count Percentage of Total
Civil Union 15 4.8%
Divorced 0 0.0%
Married 26 8.3%
Partnered living together 42 13.4%
Partnered living separately 31 9.9%
Single 193 61.3%
Polyamorist 5 1.6%
Widowed 5 1.6%
Not Specified 2 0.0%


2011 Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment Final Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2011 Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/1

P/2 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment

Mary F. Morten with

Text Copyright © 2012 by The Chicago Community Trust;

Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/1

I Acknowledgements 05 4 Needs of the Unemployed and 39

VII Key Identified Themes from

Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/3

Ken O’Keefe, Judith C. Rice,

was very fortunate to have R. Beidler Foundation for

data collection effort. Thank you to the reporters,

Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/5

In September 2011, The LGBT Community Fund Steering Committee

Overview of Data Demographic Key Identified Needs

P/6 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment

Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/7

The LGBT Community Fund is one of the Purpose of Needs

P/8 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment

Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/9

The LGBT Community Needs

Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/11

A variety of factors resulted in different levels of demographic

1. Survey Gender Identification of Survey Participants

Information collected from MTF 2%

quite diverse in multiple areas.

the participants identified as

others identified as genderqueer

P/12 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment

included: polyamourous, BDSM

asexual, pan-romantic asexual,

Racially, survey takers were

Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/13

Age of Survey Participants

P/14 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment

More than $50,000

Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/15

When sharing information on

A majority of survey takers Partnered 28%

P/16 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment

English speakers reporting

include Spanish (2%) and

Individuals with lower incomes Queer 16%

survey. Half of the data card

$25,000 in 2010. About 35% of

Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/17

Please note this number is Racial Identification of Survey Participants

In general, data card responders Asian or 9%

college. However, it is important American/

The community areas reflect

P/18 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment

Self-defined responses for 4. Interview Demographic Highlights

Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/19

5. Key Highlights Across Data Tools

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Across data collection vehicles, data collection vehicle, with

P/20 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

The majority of participants in and 23% respectively. The

Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment • P/21

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

The majority of participants participants. The greatest

P/22 • Chicago LGBT Community Needs Assessment

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

The distribution of participant in the focus groups, with over