Intersecting Identities,Intersecting Issues: Exploring the Needs of LGBTQ+ Communities in Wisconsin

Abstract

To identify the most critical needs facing lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer/questioning, plus (LGBTQ+) communities in Wisconsin postmarriage equality, this case study utilizes intersectionality as a theoretical framework for conducting a needs assessment through collaborative engagement with social service agency leaders, a community foundation, and a university research center. Adopting intersectionality as a framework allows for a more nuanced understanding of the various communities (racial, class, sexual orientation, gender, etc.) comprising the LGBTQ+ population and, just as critically, generates important qualitative data about the ways in which key social determinants, such as poverty, discrimination, and violence, impact certain communities in more substantive ways.

Keywords

LGBTQ+intersectionality needs assessment poverty violence race

Personal Reflexive Statement

Angelique C. Harris: I have lived in a number of diverse communities throughout the United States, including Boston, New York City, Long Beach, and Milwaukee. Each community had their share of challenges, such as segregation, gentrification, poverty, unemployment, crime, incarceration, and poor health and education. Within each of city, these social problems were more prominent and most negatively impacted the most marginalized groups. Throughout my scholarship and teaching, I work to educate others about the unique challenges facing marginalized populations, such as women, people of color, LGBTQ+ people, and those at their intersections. I further work with groups and organizations that help promote social justice within these communities.

Katherine M. Anderson: In recent years I have worked frequently on the topic of access to health care services in complex contexts for high-risk and disadvantaged populations, particularly as access is impacted by legal restrictions and social barriers. I began this work with the Marquette University Department of Social and Cultural Sciences and Center for Gender and Sexualities Studies and continued that in my position at the Emory University Rollins School of Public Health. I firmly believe in health as a human right, and in the distinction between the right to access and the right to health and health care. My work has reflected that, encompassing both academic research and advocacy, with topic areas including access to sexual and reproductive health care in domestic and international settings, access to health care with an emphasis on health disparities among women, and access to health care with an emphasis on health disparities among populations with diverse gender and sexuality identities.

Daniel J. Bergen: As the founding executive director of the Marquette University Office of Community Engagement, I cultivate, support, and promote mutually beneficial, bi-/multi-directional partnerships between faculty, staff, students and community members, to elevate the assets within our community and respond to its most pressing needs. I think that it is a matter of justice to leverage the knowledge and resources of our university in relationship with those of our community members and organizations to advance exciting ideas and systemic solutions to challenges. Critical, community-responsive leadership paired with rigorous, community-responsive research establishes opportunities for more effective and appropriate allocation of resources, disrupts traditional modes of thinking, and creates impactful change.

This case study uses an intersectional theoretical framework to explore the ways in which local and nonprofit organizations and groups understand the needs and issues facing lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer/questioning, plus (LGBTQ+) communities throughout Wisconsin postmarriage equality. Before federal marriage equality in 2015, some LGBTQ+ activists argued that the predominately white and more politically powerful and connected members of LGBTQ+ communities would fight for marriage equality while ignoring other social issues facing more marginalized community members, such as those of color, the poor, trans people, and those at their intersections (Nair 2010). Activists feared that once marriage equality was won, funding and support for LGBTQ+ communities would wane, as people would falsely believe that these communities would have achieved equality in all levels of society (Borenstein 2010).

This case study details the results of a needs assessment conducted by a Milwaukee, WI–based foundation that provides funds and services to LGBTQ+ organizations throughout the state of Wisconsin. The assessment was conducted to better focus their work and funding in response to the potential decline in LGBTQ+-targeted philanthropy and to improve upon the support they provide to LGBTQ+ organizations and clients served by those organizations. The resulting assessment, and subsequent case study, demonstrates how utilizing an intersectional framework for a needs assessment allows for a more nuanced and deeper understanding of the intersecting issues and concerns facing LGBTQ+ communities throughout Wisconsin. Interviews were conducted with 27 leaders from 25 organizations and groups that provide services and support LGBTQ+ communities throughout the state. Findings suggest that intersecting identities and issues greatly impact the ways in which LGBTQ+ people experience social issues, in particular, poverty, discrimination, and violence.

Background and Context

In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality, finally ending years of battle for the federal legal protection of same-sex marriage and the recognition of these marriages across state lines. Studies suggest that the primary concerns facing LGBTQ+ communities postmarriage equality fall into two broad categories: (1) economic justice and poverty and (2) violence and discrimination. Importantly, Wisconsin’s high rates of poverty and discrimination are well-documented and add to the complexity of social problems LGBTQ+ people experience in the state. The following background and context provides a national statistical overview of the issues of economic justice, poverty, and violence and discrimination, as well as their impacts on LGBTQ+ communities, before situating the analysis more locally in the state of Wisconsin, and the southeast region, including Milwaukee.

Economic Justice and Poverty

Economic justice includes employment, poverty, and housing insecurity. LGBTQ+ individuals regularly face workplace discrimination, despite an increase in antidiscrimination policies (Catalyst 2015). Trans individuals face discrimination at especially high rates (Catalyst 2015). Most states, Wisconsin included, do not have employment nondiscrimination laws which cover sexual orientation or gender identity (Movement Advancement Project [MAP] 2013). Many LGBTQ+ youth (Badgett, Durso, and Scheenbaum 2013), adults (Catalyst 2015; MAP 2013; The Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation [OPRE] 2015), and elderly (MAP 2013) face higher rates of poverty and/or homelessness.

While reports indicate that there is a higher percentage (41 percent) of same-sex couples with a household income exceeding US$100,000 than opposite-sex couples (36 percent; Catalyst 2015), a larger percentage of LGBTQ+ individuals (20.7 percent) live on less than US$12,000 a year than non-LGBT individuals (17 percent), and 15 percent of trans individuals live on less than US$10,000 a year, compared to 4 percent of the general population (MAP 2013). Additionally, a report by the OPRE (2015), a subsidiary of the Administration for Children and Families, found LGBTQ+ adults are 1.7 times more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to report not having enough money for food in the last year.

Within the LGBTQ+ community, there are also disparities in economic insecurity by gender and sexuality. Female-identifying LGBTQ+ elderly populations face poverty at increased rates in comparison to both their heterosexual and male LGBTQ+ counterparts. While only 4.6 percent of opposite-sex couples 65 and older live in poverty, and only 4.9 percent of older male same-sex couples live in poverty, 9.1 percent of 65+ female same-sex couples live at or below the federal poverty line (MAP 2013). Additionally, 24 percent of lesbians and bisexual women (single or in relationships) live in poverty, compared to only 15 percent of gay and bisexual men (Albelda et al. 2009). Bisexual adults also face heightened levels of poverty, with approximately 40 percent of bisexual men and 42 percent of bisexual women living in poverty (Gorman et al. 2015).

LGBTQ+ youth face homelessness disproportionately compared to both heterosexual youth and adult LGBTQ+ populations. Approximately 40 percent of youth served at drop-in centers, street outreach programs, and housing programs identify as LGBTQ+; of these, 30 percent identify as lesbian or gay, and 10 percent identify as bisexual. Of the providers working with homeless LGBTQ+ individuals at these centers, 43 percent report working with more LGBQ+ youth than LGBQ+ adults, and 30 percent report working with more trans youth than trans adults, proportions significantly greater than the percentage of the total LGBQ+ and trans populations they make up (Badgett et al. 2013). Approximately 19 percent of trans individuals have reported having been refused a home, and 11 percent report having been evicted because of their gender identity. One-fifth of trans individuals have reported being homeless at some point (Grant et al. 2011).

As with other issues, moderate gains have been made in support of impoverished and homeless LGBTQ+ individuals in recent years. The equal access rule, implemented by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), prohibits inquiry into an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity for any housing that receives HUD funding or is insured by the Federal Housing Administration. However, this does not affect all housing services, and it does not ensure appropriate housing for trans individuals (Rooney, Durso, and Gruberg 2016).

In Wisconsin, research suggests similar trends with higher rates of poverty found within same-sex households than among their heterosexual counterparts. For example, same-sex households with children in the state had 43 percent lower median annual income (US$46,778) than heterosexual households (US$82,767; Gates 2014). This is likely because of the higher percentages of female same-sex couples and the lower earnings among women. Rates of poverty are higher among people of color and women identified people both in and out of LGBTQ+ communities.

Violence and Discrimination

Violence and discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals include overrepresentation and mistreatment within the criminal justice system (Hanssens et al. 2014), enabling of discrimination through religious freedom laws, continued use of conversion therapies, sustained violence against trans individuals (National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs [NCAVP] 2014; Forge 2012), racial discrimination, and discrimination against immigrants. From policing, to adjudication, to incarceration, LGBTQ+ individuals represent a larger percentage of population of the U.S. penal system than the general U.S. population (Hanssens et al. 2014). Religious freedom laws continue to be enacted throughout the United States and subject LGBTQ+ individuals to discrimination. Conversion therapy continues despite strong and consistent evidence that it causes harm to LGBTQ+ youth (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 2015). Trans individuals, particularly trans women of color, face high rates of hate violence and homicides (NCAVP 2014). LGBTQ+ persons of color are subject to increased rates of discrimination in and out of the workplace, increased rates of unemployment, increased negative interaction with law enforcement, and racism from within the LGBTQ+ community (Choi et al. 2011; MAP 2015; Teunis 2007). LGBTQ+ immigrants face these problems in addition to detention and harassment within detention facilities (Hanssens et al. 2014). Additionally, LGBTQ+ students regularly face discrimination and harassment in educational environments, which lead to negative academic and social outcomes (The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network 2013).

Across the nation, one of every three LGBTQ+ people identify as a person of color. Individuals of color are more likely than whites to identify as LGBTQ+ (Gates and Newport 2012). LGBTQ+ people of color face disparities far beyond those of their white counterparts in and out of the LGBTQ+ community. This includes well-documented racism within mainstream (predominately white, male, and cisgender) LGBTQ+ communities (Choi et al. 2011), economic disparities, increased interaction with the criminal justice system, and difficulties for LGBTQ+ immigrants.

Black same-sex couples are more than twice as likely to live in poverty as black opposite-sex couples, while all same-sex couples of color have much higher rates of poverty than their white counterparts. Rates of workplace discrimination are incredibly high for LGBTQ+ people of color, with between 75 percent and 82 percent of LGBTQ+ Asian/Pacific Islander (API) individuals reporting discrimination at work due to their sexual orientation. Similarly, 4 in 10 black LGBTQ+ individuals have experienced employment discrimination due to race, sexuality, and/or gender identity. Moreover, LGBTQ+ people of color experience higher rates of unemployment, at 11 percent for LGTBQ+ API, 14 percent for LGBTQ+ Latinx, and 15 percent for LGBTQ+ black individuals. Comparatively, unemployment rates for their heterosexual counterparts are 8 percent, 11 percent, and 12 percent, respectively (MAP 2015).

LGBTQ+ people of color face additional difficulties with law enforcement and the criminal justice system, both in comparison with non-LBGTQ+ people of color individuals and in comparison to white LGBTQ+ individuals. In interactions with police, trans people of color were 2.5 times as likely to experience physical violence as non-trans white individuals, while LGBTQ+ people of color were 1.82 times as likely to have such experiences (MAP 2015).

As one of the most segregated states in the nation and, according to a 2014 report by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the “worst” state in the nation for black children and families, Wisconsin has gained a notorious reputation in recent years. The report outlines how the poor educational attainment for youth and young adults, the high rates of poverty, extreme racial disparities in incarceration rates, and even poor rates of overall health among black youth in Wisconsin are significantly worse than experienced in comparable states. In fact, two of the three most racially segregated and “racist” cities in the nation, Milwaukee and Racine, are in Wisconsin (Causey 2014). Milwaukee, the most racially diverse city in the state, is well known as the “metropolitan area [that] experiences the highest level of segregation in the country” (Causey 2014).

Theoretical Framework

Intersectionality examines how social identities and group memberships impact life experiences and access to resources. It is the “analysis claiming that systems of race, social class, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, nation, and age form mutually constructing features of social organization which shape Black women’s experiences and, in turn, are shaped by Black women” (Collins 2000:299). Rooted in the black feminist scholarship that sought to explain and “redress the oppressive forces that have constrained the lives of black women in particular and women of color more generally” (Alexander-Floyd 2012:4), intersectionality originated in the legal scholarship of black feminist researcher Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw. Intersectionality is a framework within critical race theory that helps us to better understand the ways that race, and other identities and social locations intersect and impact access to resources. As a framework, intersectionality was originally “meant to describe the ‘intersecting’ or co-determinative forces of racism, sexism, and classism in the lives of [B]lack women” (Alexander-Floyd 2012, p. 4). Intersectional approaches have been adopted to not only examine how race, gender, and class intersect but also how other social locations and identities intersect such as sexualities and gender identity (Rankin et al. 2010). Also, these intersecting identities lead to different access to power, resources, and levels of social oppression. Collins (2000) calls this the matrix of domination and explains it as,

the overall organization of hierarchical power relations for any society. Any specific matrix of domination has 1. a particular arrangement of intersecting systems of oppression, e.g. race, social class, gender, sexuality, citizenship status, ethnicity and age; and 2, a particular organization of its domains of power, e.g. structural, disciplinary, hegemonic, and interpersonal. (p. 299)

As such, intersectional frameworks are vital in examining the experiences of marginalized communities. Although needs assessments typically examine the experiences of diverse community groups, they rarely take into account the ways in which intersecting identities impact the way in which groups experience issues within their communities.

Moving beyond a traditional needs assessment, this case study provides an intersectional framework to deepen understanding of the ways in which intersecting identities impact the social issues facing LGBTQ+ communities in Wisconsin. Further, it demonstrates how overlaying an intersectional framework on a needs assessment can provide a more useful and substantive final document for organizations. The research questions that guide this study include:

What are the issues facing LGTQ+ communities in Wisconsin postmarriage equality?

How do intersecting identities influence how LGBTQ+ communities experience social issues in Wisconsin?

Method

In the fall of 2015, the Board of Directors of a Milwaukee-based LGBTQ+ foundation decided to restructure the Foundation and realign its mission and grant making to better provide funding and support to organizations that serve LGBTQ+ community members. The foundation partnered with a private consulting firm and a research center at a local university to conduct a needs assessment of the issues facing LGBTQ+ communities in Wisconsin.

In order to more effectively provide resources to communities and groups, it is vital that nonprofit organizations and groups have an understanding of how intersecting identities impact access to resources. A needs assessment helps organizations set priorities and it aids in the decision-making for how they distribute organizational funds and resources (Witkin and Altschuld 1995). Importantly, the focus of needs assessments is to encourage change and improvement within an organization so they can better serve the needs of the community (Witkin and Altschuld 1995). Needs assessments are frequently used by community organizations and groups to ascertain the issues and concerns facing groups of people or communities in a targeted area, so organizations better serve their communities or realign their mission. As the purpose of needs assessments is to provide more appropriate services for groups and communities, those groups assessed often come from more marginalized populations that are typically underserved. These underserved groups often experience myriad social problems often rooted in the discrimination they encounter as a result of race, gender identity, and class, but also, as a result of how these particular identities intersect, resulting in unique manifestations of social problems.

Interviews

As is demonstrated in the Background and Context for this case study, an initial scan of the issues and concerns facing LGBQTQ+ communities across the nation was conducted based on a review of the literature. The findings indicate that issues of poverty, homophobia, transphobia, and access to health care are the major issues facing LGBTQ+ communities nationwide. Based on this scan, the interview focused on general questions ascertaining issues and concerns within LGBQT+ communities more locally, as well as how issues of poverty and discrimination impact LGBTQ+ communities in the state.

Interviews were conducted with 27 representative leaders from 25 organizations serving LGBTQ+ communities in Wisconsin. Although this needs assessment focused on the experiences of LGBTQ+ people throughout the state, it primarily considered Southeast and Central Wisconsin, as these are the regions in which both a majority of the foundation funding is distributed and a majority of the state’s population reside¹ (Milewski 2016). There were nine organizations in the sample that provided support to LGBTQ+ communities statewide and nine that provided support to LGBTQ+ communities in Milwaukee County specifically. Seven organizations provided support to communities specifically in Southeast Wisconsin, which also encompasses Milwaukee County.

Unlike community needs assessments that focus on the experiences of individual community members, this needs assessment focused on how community leaders and service providers perceived the issues of LGBTQ+ community members in the region. Community leaders from service organizations were invited to participate in the study, as opposed to individual community members, due to the fact that the foundation only provides services and support to LGBTQ+ organizations (not individuals). Additionally, the foundation wanted to focus their granting on how best to support these organizations and their clientele. The respondents’ titles and positions at the various organizations included president, CEO, lead teacher, manager, director, and board member. The participating organizations provide services in health, youth development, social support, employment, and emergency shelter to LGBTQ+ individuals. Organizations ranged in size from one full-time staff member to more than 50 full-time staff and hundreds of volunteers. Additionally, 2014–2015 revenue ranged from US$300 to US$56 million.

Interviews were conducted in-person by the hired consultants over a three-month period from April to June 2016 (importantly, prior to the 2016 election). Interviews ranged in length from 37 min to 131 min, averaging 74 min. Interviews were audio recorded on a digital recorder for accuracy, and the file was then uploaded to computer software prior to transcription. Verbal consent was obtained from participants prior to beginning the interviews. Research questions included, but were not limited to, discussion of economic justice, criminal justice, health care, and issues facing LGBTQ+ families. Interviews were transcribed by the research team from the university research center and subsequently analyzed.

Transcriptions were reviewed by two different researchers using a line-by-line analysis to review each transcript independently, before using an inductive analytic approach to identify key themes in order to develop the codebook. Once the codebook was developed, a second line-by-line analysis was conducted of each interview transcription and additional themes were identified. Codes were developed based on these themes, which included discussions of racism and discrimination, transphobia, poverty, health care, and concern for the people experiencing social problems. All data were coded by hand by three different researchers and, in order to ensure consistency, half of the interviews were then reviewed by a fourth reader. Memos and comments were used to explain and analyze each instance in which a particular theme emerged in the data. The key themes that emerged from the research and data analysis included an understanding of the impact that intersecting identities had on the ways in which LGBTQ+ community members experienced two key social justice issues facing LGBTQ+ community members in the state: poverty and violence. Importantly, they also highlight that while intersecting identities have an impact on both poverty and violence, the social problems of poverty and violence themselves intersect as well.

Results

There was general consensus among all 27 study participants that marriage equality did not address the key issues impacting the LGBTQ+ communities they serve. In examining the issues facing LGBTQ+ communities postmarriage equality, respondents like Alida, the executive director of a legal services organization providing resources to LGBTQ+ communities statewide, argue that people do not know or understand the issues facing LGBTQ+ communities. Alida explains, “You can just be like, you know, ‘Oh my God I had no idea: I thought marriage equality solved everything. And you know, they find out that their friend who just got married, they can’t tell anyone about it at work because you know they’re afraid of getting fired.” Alida then explains, regardless of marriage equality, the LGBTQ+ communities her organizations serve in the state still face inequality, discrimination, and poverty:

Discrimination, to criminal justice system to healthcare access, employment, homelessness, the fact that marriage solved just sort of one narrow band of issues but, you know, didn’t, marriage equality didn’t make schools safer, it didn’t make people free from employment discrimination, in fact in a lot of states that don’t have, you know, discrimination protections at all you can get married and then get fired because you’re…you got married!

Study participants emphasized the social, racial, and class diversity found within LGBTQ+ communities in Wisconsin and discussed the intersecting identities and resulting oppressions that the LGBTQ+ people experienced. As one respondent, Joan, the executive director of a Milwaukee-based LGBTQ+ organization notes, “I tend to think about people of color in extreme discrimination that they face in addition to discrimination around their gender identity and sexual orientation, youth, older adults.” Importantly, study participants emphasized the specific roles that intersecting identities play in the ways in which poverty and discrimination—two of the most pressing social justice issues identified by respondents—are experienced within LGBTQ+ communities in Wisconsin. Based upon the participants’ responses, the following sections will consider each of the identified prominent themes in greater depth: intersecting identities; poverty: race, youth, and aging; and discrimination and violence.

Intersecting Identities

As expected, all respondents noted the diversity of people in LGBTQ+ communities and how working to address the needs of so many diverse members of LGBTQ+ communities can be a challenge. According to Sebastian, the executive director of a Milwaukee-based LGBTQ+ organization responsible for hosting yearly pride events says,

When you look at the LGBTQ+ the acronym or whatever…it becomes 26 letters, it becomes 35 letters because there are so many sub-sub-subcategories of possible things that another part of that subcategory of the same letter isn’t going to relate to. Or isn’t going to agree with how they want to live their life. That is a challenge specifically, it is a challenge for all organizations but [us] specifically.

In addressing some of the challenges in reaching multiple groups, Shaun, the president and CEO of an LGBTQ+ health services organization in Milwaukee, simply says, “Good luck with getting that to resonate. What resonates with me, a white educated gay man versus what resonates with a lesbian Latina, it is difficult.”

Respondents confirmed previous research that indicated that poverty and discrimination were the primary issues facing LGBTQ+ communities postmarriage equality. However, study participants also highlighted the diversity of experiences in LGBTQ+ communities based on that intersections of race, gender identity, and age and emphasized how, based on one’s social location, their experience in LGBTQ+ communities as well as their needs and necessary services will vary. Study participants also recognized that community members are not all adequately being served and how many fall between the cracks. For example, Rose, the policy and program director at an LGBTQ+ service organization in Milwaukee, explained how bisexuals are often overlooked, arguing,

The majority of the LGBT community is bisexual. What we have found in the few studies that have not lumped [bisexuals] in with L or with G is that the bisexual violence, health disparities, discrimination rates, they are all higher than for lesbians and gay men. Milwaukee has virtually no bisexual infrastructure.

Respondents, like Anne, the CEO of a Milwaukee-based foundation that funds many LGBTQ+ organizations, groups, and communities, note, “the intersections of racism and segregation and economic justice,” going on to acknowledge, “So, to grow up, you know, Black and LGBT in an impoverished neighborhood in Milwaukee, you have a lot of strikes against you. I think it’s like, you have to zoom out and look at the, like, all of the historical things that have contributed to where people are at.”

Importantly, respondents pointed out that many organizations do not meet the needs of their diverse community members. Robert, one of the two representatives interviewed from a national youth–focused LGBTQ+ service organization with Wisconsin offices located in Madison, explains,

It is still a problem if you are LGBT and a person of color. You often have to choose am I going to go and get my needs met at this predominately white LGBT organization, or am I going to go to the organization that serves Latinos or African Americans and they may not be an LGBT org. I think we need to respond to like the multiplicity of the LGBT experience and I think more spaces need to be carved out that are culturally specific.

In addition to examining how social identities, such as gender identity, race, and age impact experiences, several respondents, mainly those who served LGBTQ+ communities more statewide and outside of Milwaukee County, emphasized the lack of resources for rural community members. Community leaders, particularly those located in rural areas, argue that the concerns facing LGBTQ+ people in rural areas of Wisconsin were often overlooked. They state that services for LGBTQ+ community members are often concentrated in urban or even suburban areas. Perry, the founder and director of an LGBTQ+ organization located in a more rural area of Southeastern Wisconsin, explains, “It’s just the stigma of living in a rural area, a rural, very conservative area. A very religious area, I think people are afraid to be open and honest about [one’s sexuality].” Nathan, the program coordinator for a drop-in center that services LGBTQ+ youth in both rural and suburban areas of Southeast Wisconsin, questions,

I don’t know if people have more fear of being exposed as being gay, I don’t know if they’ve moved past that. I don’t, if there aren’t the social outlets. Milwaukee has greater social outlets when you think of a city. Chicago, they have, there’s more social outlets. You’re—it’s more visible, you know, you’re more visible in a small town.

As respondents explained, this visibility often leads to more stigma and problems for community members who then opt to stay in rural communities. As visible LGBTQ+ populations dwindle in these communities, respondents noted, so too does the support and services for people, particularly youth, the elderly, and trans community members who remain in these areas.

Study participants argued that organizations need to take on a broader and more intersectional framework in addressing social justice issues facing members of LGBTQ+ communities. Robert, from the youth organization, explains,

The organizations that are already in place, particularly the larger organizations, need to be taking an intersectional framework and talking about racial justice in their work. I think we need to be showing up like if anti-immigration bills are being proposed or being passed. I think LGBT orgs need to speak out against those kinds of things and I think we need to be in solidarity with communities of color and other marginalized groups.

In fact, some participants explicitly maintained that intersectional frameworks are vital in not only understanding how identities intersect but also how these intersecting identities are impacted by intersecting social issues. Michael, the executive director of an LGBTQ+ organization focused workplace, business, and employment, and which is located in Milwaukee but provides services statewide, reminds us,

The other last piece of is the intersectional piece. How do you continue to make sure that people are addressing and viewing both LGBT issues but also other social justice issues from an LGBT lens? When you talk about poverty and health care and hunger issues, making sure that people aren’t just looking at it as solely this and there are LGBT issues over here, but that LGBT issues are integrated into everything.

Emphasizing how this intersectional framework directly impacts his organization’s work with community members, Shaun, the president and CEO of a Milwaukee-based LGBTQ+ health organization that provides funding and services statewide, explains, “The intersection of race, poverty transgender stuff is just huge…About 75 percent of the people that we test [for HIV and STIs], are from households of poverty, these guys are in poverty. I mean, this is Milwaukee.”

Poverty and Identity

A consistent theme among all study respondents was the impact that poverty had on LGBTQ+ community members. Joan, the executive director of a Milwaukee-based LGBTQ+ organizations, explains, “Issues of poverty and discrimination are really foundational to so many other issues that we see that are happening in the community.” In discussing the impact that poverty has on LGBTQ+ communities they serve and how it influenced their interactions with community members, Alida, the executive director of an LGBTQ+ advocacy organization discussed explains,

We have disparities in the LGBTQ community. So, you know, we have a higher incidence of living in poverty and a higher instance of, and all of the things that are interconnected with it, like involvement with the criminal justice system, unemployment, homelessness, and, you know, in particular for people of color in the LGBT community and in the trans community.

Study participants noted how the lack of recognition of the diversity of LGBTQ+ community members often blinds people to issues of poverty and economic justice. Shaun, the president and CEO of a LGBTQ+ health organization in Milwaukee, explains,

You know, so many of our guys who come in to get tested, you know the whole couch surfing literally from place to place. I don’t want to say that this happens for everyone, it is just a general part of our world, it is not uncommon the family finds out they are asked to leave or often times won’t even be living with the family. They might not even be living with a family they might be living with an aunt and there’s other children in the house. There is great desperation out there. Certainly using sex as a place to stay. That is a significant issue amongst the people that we serve within the whole HIV piece and the sexually transmitted infections.

Shaun goes on to describe how the popular stereotype of wealthy LGBTQ+ community members causes people to ignore the diversity of experiences within LGBTQ+ communities. He explains, “You know the popular understanding is we’re all White professionals and we summer in Provincetown and winter in Ft. Lauderdale and we have our great jobs and our great condos in Chicago. Because even the ‘gay community,’ that’s such a bazar term because we’re a billion different silos.”

Interview respondents were quick to note that sexuality, in and of itself, does not appear to influence poverty as much as how one’s sexuality intersects with other aspects of their identity, such as their race, age, and gender identity. Todd, the executive director of a Milwaukee-based clinic that primarily works with LGBTQ+ clients, explains,

I think race plays more into poverty than sexuality just because here at the clinic we see, we see people of all races, all economic status, etc. sexuality, gay, bi, transgender, straight, anything. And I don’t see as much poverty issues related to sexuality. I see many more poverty issues with race.

There were also concerns expressed around poverty and experiences of youth and aging. Robert, from a LGBTQ+ youth service organization, explains,

So I think when you look at kind of economic disadvantage among LGBTQ youth, I think there are major concerns around access to health care, particularly for youth who are transitioning and what that support can look like based on their access, you know to having their medical needs met.

Other study participants focused on the needs of the elderly. Michael, the executive director of an LGBTQ+ business-focused nonprofit, states,

I don’t think we have done as much for [the] poverty and housing side to support that community. I think part of it ties in with the elder issues. I think it all kind of ties together. So, to me that is kind of the big piece that nobody is addressing. The particularly the low-income LGBT.

Agreeing that elder issues are a concern, Joan, the executive director of an LGBTQ+ service organization, explains,

There are other studies that show even more extreme poverty in the LGBT community, housing insecurity, food insecurity. Of course, even more so for example, for people of color, people with disabilities, youth, seniors, particularly those seniors who are now whose partners have died and they will not have the benefit of social security from that partner for example or other family resources because the population of older adults we have right now in the LGBT community now, are much more likely to be disconnected from their families because when they came out, they were essentially disowned at a young age.

However, Joan also points out that although the youth and elderly are the most at risk of poverty, others within LGBTQ+ communities should not go ignored.

I think that as a society, as a general culture, we tend to think that youth need resources and senior citizens need resources. And we just assume anyone else can be working. That they don’t need as much help. That is really, not the truth, because there are a lot of working poor LGBT people in this community, and a great majority of them can be described as people with disabilities. And that there are a few national studies that show that if you look at the population of people with disabilities, the proportion of them that are LGBT is significantly higher than the rest of the population. And some of those disabilities are frankly the result of lack of family care and family support. And sometimes even frankly as a result of family abuse and both physical and mental abuse. I guess I didn’t even know that until I started talking more to people about disability organizations, and how many LGBT people they’re serving.

As previously noted, study participants noted how stereotypes of the white, cisgender, affluent gays often cause people to ignore the diversity of identities and issues in LGBTQ+ communities. Study participants noted that this has even impacted the ability of organizations to raise funds to address poverty in LGBTQ+ communities. Joan, the executive director of an LGBTQ+ organization in Milwaukee, describes how her organization is challenged by,

the issues of poverty and discrimination. We don’t get funding because typical funders don’t think there’s, they have this myth that the LGBT community has lots of money because that’s what all the marketing studies say. [Marketing companies] need to be marketing to the LGBT community, but yeah but that’s a very narrow band of the LGBT population. Those who are well educated, typically White individuals who have had family support, who are doing very well financially. And those are the ones with discretion and who don’t have kids and the ones with the discretionary income and the rest of us have fewer resources, our net worth is lower and income is significantly lower. And that’s who we serve, so poverty and discrimination is the underlying crux of everything that we do. And that of course, those are the issues we are trying to address but we don’t have the resources for.

Discrimination and Violence

Study participants noted that discrimination and violence are still issues within LGBTQ+ communities postmarriage equality. Although they were not especially concerned about conversation therapy and religious freedom laws, they were particularly concerned about the discrimination experienced by already marginalized members of LGBTQ+ communities. There is a general recognition that the racism impacting communities of color in Wisconsin has a direct impact on LGBTQ+ communities. For example, Robert, from an LGBTQ+ youth service organization located in Madison, explains that he sees “incredible disparities in income and access between the youth of color I am working with and the White students that I am working with.” He goes on to note,

We have huge disparities in Wisconsin around youth of color and youth with disabilities, suspended more, pushed out of school more, the disciplinary, like even just being disciplined more and policed more in the school, you know our schools continue to have quote on quote, educational resource officers who like one, they’re not there, even just calling them educational resource officers it’s a problem.

In discussing the types of discrimination LGBTQ+ community members’ experience, Joan, the executive director of an LGBTQ+ community organization in Milwaukee, says, “I tend to think about people of color in extreme discrimination that they face in addition to discrimination around their gender identity and sexual orientation, youth older adults.”

Participants noted that the discrimination experienced among their LGBTQ+ community members—trans women, people of color, youth, and elderly people, and those at their intersections, in particular—concerned them most. Florence, the senior vice president of programs at a youth-focused organization that also serves LGBTQ+ individuals, says,

I think if you talk to any of the LGBT young people, if you asked them, they’ll be really clear and they’ll be able to identify exactly the discrimination that they get and especially for many of our young people because they are LGBTQ people of color, sometimes it is hard to tease out where did the discrimination happen.

Respondents appeared most concerned about the experiences of trans people. Nathan, programs coordinator from an LGBTQ+ organization in Southeast Wisconsin, explains, “Youth, transgendered youth are the most at risk right now. On the national level you would see transgendered being at risk right now. Our high school youth are the ones who are getting bullied and to the point of wanting to kill themselves.” Study participants maintained that one of the primary reasons for this transphobia was that few people personally know a trans individual. Michael, the executive director of an LGBTQ+ organization based in Milwaukee, explains,

I think the trans community in particular. I think people in this country have come around to LGB issues, “Oh yeah I know a gay person.” Trans issues is still one that they don’t understand they don’t know what it means, they don’t grasp it. I think there is a huge public education campaign I think that will need to be done. As we look at you know amending Wisconsin [state laws to that prohibit discrimination] to include members of the trans community. We have LGB in it and has since 1980 something. How do you get the T included is a whole another thing.

Participants all emphasized that the most at-risk from facing discrimination and violence were trans women of color. Matilda, a board member for an LGBTQ+ health organization, explains,

If transgender people are marginalized, transgender people of color are marginalized even more and discriminated against even more. Transgender people are murdered…if you’re a transgender person of color, the figures are about 87% that trans women of color are murdered. And, of course you already started your life, there is the possibility that you already started your life in poverty and then to come out as trans.

Many study participants noted the various ways in which discrimination impacted the lives of their LGBTQ+ clientele, such as in housing and, in particular, in health care. In explaining the impact that discrimination and housing has on self-esteem, Joan from an LGBTQ+ service organization says,

In addition to that, once people have faced discrimination, it is very difficult for them, it is very difficult for all of that to internalize that and be able to move on. And so, the ability to sort of pick yourself up and get it together and go into a new place and not start out with a questioning attitude, really doesn’t help your sense of success. Or your ability to be productive at work. So, I think there’s a significant amount of that going on.

In discussing health care, Rose, the policy and program director for an LGBTQ+ service organization in Milwaukee, explains that many people have difficulty finding a doctor,

Because we got a lot of local physicians who say, “I won’t treat you.” I don’t know about your kind of people, I won’t treat you. So that is a serious problem. Some of the health care providers we do have treating people, trans people, and this is in particular mental health and physical health, have some rather backwards ideas.

However, community leaders do note that this lack of medical support is rooted in the fact that many health-care practitioners simply do not know much about LGBTQ+ health. Nathan, a programs coordinator for an LGBTQ+ organization explained in Southeast Wisconsin, explains, “A lot of our healthcare professionals have no knowledge of the needs of [LGBTQ+ health]. They don’t have an understanding; they don’t have the education. We are getting much better at getting out to the medical community. There aren’t enough practitioners, there aren’t enough social workers.”

Discussion

This study highlights the ways in which intersecting identities and issues impact the experiences of LGBTQ+ people in Wisconsin and detail the impact that social location and privilege have on access to resources, quality of life, and overall life changes postmarriage equality. An intersectional framework was used to assess the needs of LGBTQ+ communities in Wisconsin and interviews were conducted with 27 community leaders who work and/or lead 25 LGBTQ+ organizations throughout the state. All interview respondents noted the diverse experiences of LGBTQ+ community members. Respondents agreed that economic justice and violence and discrimination were major concerns for LGBTQ+ people in the state and findings also indicate an increased need to focus on the issues facing LGBTQ+ people across the life span as community leaders indicated the unique issues facing LGBTQ+ youth, such as suicide, poverty, and homelessness, as well as issues facing the aging population, such as health care, and housing concerns. The results of this needs assessment show that understanding the intersections of race, gender identity, sexualities, and even geographic location are key to understanding the needs and concerns facing people in LGBTQ+ communities.

Intersections of Poverty and Discrimination

Throughout our interviews with LGBTQ+ organization leaders, a common theme was poverty and ability to access resources. This study highlights the variety of issues and concerns facing LGBTQ+ people in Southeast Wisconsin and the impact that social location and privilege has on access to resources, quality of life, and overall life changes. As such, this study indicates that there is not one LGBTQ+ community, but multiple communities made up of people from a variety of different backgrounds who experience significantly different issues and concerns. Importantly, respondents emphasized the impact that systematic racism has on people of color and, in particular, blacks in Wisconsin.

As study findings show, the respondents made a direct link between the discrimination and racism experienced among people of color in Wisconsin and the high rates of poverty among LGBTQ+ communities in the state. Joan, executive director of an LGBTQ+ organization in Milwaukee, notes, “poverty and discrimination are really foundational to so many other issues that we see that are happening in the community.” It was clear that Wisconsin’s reputation as the state with one of the highest rates of segregation in the nation and the “worst” state for Blacks in the nation (Anne E. Casey Foundation 2014) directly impacts LGBTQ+ communities. They discussed the intersection of identities and the intersection of social issues, in particular, in Milwaukee—Wisconsin’s most populated city (Milewski 2016). Milwaukee has among the highest rates of segregation in the nation, with its outer suburbs consisting of approximately 94 percent white residents and only about 1–2 percent black residents (Patterson 2016). Most of the places seeking employees in the area are more frequently located in these outer suburbs, which are difficult to get to or inaccessible by public transportation (Patterson 2016). This influences rates of unemployment, and consequently poverty, as 40 percent of blacks in Milwaukee live below the poverty line and almost 25 percent are unemployed (Elbow 2013). Additionally, respondents emphasized that regional factors greatly impacted the experiences and access to resources for LGBQT+ community members. Community leaders, particularly those located in rural areas, argued that the concerns facing LGBTQ+ people go unnoticed.

Using an intersectional framework allows for a deeper understanding of the ways in which race, gender, class, sexuality, age, and other forms of identity and group membership intersect and impact one’s experiences and life chances (Collins 2000). The application of an intersectional framework is key to understanding how issues and concerns faced LGBTQ+ communities in the Wisconsin. Shaun, the president and CEO of a Milwaukee-based LGBTQ+ organization, suggests that many of the challenges facing LGBTQ+ communities are part of larger, structural issues. He maintains,

Eliminate racism, eliminate heterosexism, and eliminate poverty. It’s not as though gay people are born inherently more likely to drink, or smoke or whatever. It’s the culmination of the experiences…Again, racism, poverty, it’s these bigger structural things. We’re just a piece of the fabric. Just a piece of a very fragile fabric.

This study highlights the diversity of issues and needs within LGBTQ+ communities and demonstrates that there is not one LGBTQ+ community, but multiple communities made up of people from a variety of different backgrounds who experience significantly different issues and concerns. Respondents noted that those most in need within LGBTQ+ communities in Wisconsin are trans people, people of color, youth, the elderly. They argued that those at the intersection of those identities were the most at risk and the most likely to experience poverty and discrimination. Using an intersectional framework allows for a more nuanced recognition of the ways in which race, gender, class, sexual orientation, age, and other forms of identity and group membership intersect and impact one’s experiences and life chances. Intersectionality helps to explain why respondents emphasized that the communities most in need in Wisconsin are the most marginalized members of LGBTQ+ communities. Importantly, Michael, a respondent and the executive director of an LGBTQ+ organization, states, “We have done a lot of work around getting marriage equality, but people think that that is it. I think there are a lot of groups out there that kind of don’t know what to do now, there is a whole lot of work.”

Although federal recognition of same-sex marriage was one of the most historic achievements in LGBTQ+ history, there is still much work to be done. The results of this needs assessment show that understanding the intersections of race, gender identity, sexualities, and even geographic location are key to understanding the needs and concerns facing people in LGBTQ+ statewide and nationwide. Clearly understanding the intersections at a local level will allow for service providers and foundations to more calculatedly direct their resources to the needs of their respective communities. As this is a case study designed to inform the distribution of funding and services for a Milwaukee-based foundation, the findings are not meant to be generalizable but rather are meant to show how intersectional frameworks can be used to facilitate needs assessments around community issues and concerns because as Michael, the executive director of an LGBTQ+ organization, states, “Milwaukee has its own particular challenges that may not resonate with other parts of the country.” Further, these findings foreground the significance of applying intersectional frameworks in examining social problems within already marginalized communities.

Conclusion

Utilizing a collaborative engagement paradigm, through which local social service agency leaders, a community foundation, and a university research center partnered to identify the most critical needs facing LGBTQ+ communities in Wisconsin, allowed for community members and agencies to become cocreators in knowledge generation and problem-solving. Further, the methodology moved participants from individual qualitative interviews to communal engagement through broader convenings. As a result of this needs assessment and a better understanding of the intersectional identities and issues facing LGBTQ+ community members in Wisconsin, the foundation’s board of directors voted to restructure the organization to serve as a convening organization, bringing LGBTQ+ organizations and groups together to address the needs and issues that are the root causes of concerns for the most marginalized LGBTQ+ community members in Wisconsin. In fact, over 25 percent of participating organizations identified a need to turn people away at some point given their capacity—leaders identified convenings as a way to increase the community capacity of LGBTQ+ serving agencies to more effectively respond to the specific needs of the various communities. Further, in the process of restructuring, the board has chosen to visit the participating LGBTQ+ organizations to deepen their understanding of the services provided and the communities to whom they are delivered. Finally, based on these findings, the foundation identified three elevated priorities: (1) equity, (2) health, and (3) prosperity, among LGBTQ+ people in Wisconsin. Within these elevated priorities, the first cycle of grants will address key impact areas identified by community participants, including health-care provider and law enforcement competency, trans youth emotional health, and LGBTQ+ workforce development. Fundraising, grantmaking, and convening will be focused on supporting these priority areas. Not only did this research shift the direction of this organization and impact LGBTQ+ programming and support services in Wisconsin, it also highlights the diversity of identities, issues, and concerns within LGBTQ+ communities. Through this assessment, we anticipate that the foundation will be able to better provide for and address the intersecting identities and issues facing diverse members of LGBTQ+ communities in the state. Furthermore, we anticipate an intersectional framework will continue to be employed in future considerations of the needs of the LGBTQ+ community in Wisconsin, so as to maximize the utility of the offerings of the foundation and its beneficiaries; similarly, we hope the demonstration of this framework as highly applicable in community engaged research with LGBTQ+ communities and organizations will serve to promote its use, allowing for identification of needs including policy changes, as they are positioned within intersectionality. While this represents a single study, the area which is covered geographically and topically lends itself to be used a tool for future studies and needs assessments.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We wish to acknowledge and thank the study participants who made this project and the resulting organizational changes possible.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

References

Albelda

Randy

Lee Badgett

M. V.

Schneebaum

Alyssa

Gates

Gary J.

. 2009. Poverty in the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Community. The Williams Institute. Retrieved January 04, 2019 (https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Albelda-Badgett-Schneebaum-Gates-LGB-Poverty-Report-March-2009.pdf).

Alexander-Floyd

Nikol G.

2012. “Disappearing Acts: Reclaiming Intersectionality in a Post-Black Feminist Era.” Feminist Formations 24(1):1–25.

Anne

. Casey Foundation. 2014. Race for Results: Building a Path to Opportunity for all Children. Retrieved January 07, 2019 (http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-RaceforResults-2014.pdf

Badgett

M. V. Lee

Durso

Laura E.

Scheenbaum

Alyssa

. 2013. New Patterns of Poverty in the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Community. The Williams Institute. Retrieved January 03, 2019 (https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGB-Poverty-Update-Jun-2013.pdf).

Borenstein

Kate

. 2010. “An Open Letter to LGBT Leaders Who Are Pushing Marriage Equality.” Pp. 11–14 in Against Equality: Queer Critiques of Gay Marriage, edited by Conrad

. Lewiston, ME: Against Equality Publishing Collective.

Catalyst. 2015. “Quick Take: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Workplace Issues.” Catalyst. Retrieved December 12, 2018 (http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/lesbian-gay-bisexualtransgender-workplace-issues).

Causey

James E.

2014, March 26. “No Shock, Milwaukee Metro Area Has the Worst Segregation.” Journal Sentinel. Retrieved January 07, 2019 (http://archive.jsonline.com/news/opinion/no-shockmilwaukee-metro-area-has-the-worst-segregation-b99233242zl-252332071.html).

Choi

Kyung-Hee

Han

Chong-suk

Paul

Jay

Ayala

George

. 2011. “Strategies for Managing Racism and Homophobia among U.S. Ethnic Minority Men Who Have Sex with Men.” AIDS Education and Prevention 23(2):145–58.

Collins

Patricia Hill

. 2000. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge.

10.

Elbow

Steven

. 2013. “BBC Looks at Wisconsin’s Highest-in-nation Incarceration Rate for Blacks.” The Cap Times. Retrieved December 20, 2018 (http://host.madison.com/news/local/writers/steven_elbow/bbc-looks-at-wisconsin-shighest-in-nation-incarceration-rate/article_b1af2c4a-eb50-5ef8-afd3-51eb3c12af82.html).

11.

Forge. 2012. “Transgender Rates of Violence.” Forge. Retrieved December 10, 2018 (http://forgeforward.org/wp-content/docs/FAQ-10-2012-rates-of-violence.pdf).

12.

Gates

Gary J

. 2014. Same-sex Couples in Wisconsin: A Demographic Summary. The Williams Institute. Retrieved January 02, 2019 (https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/ss-demographics-wi-aug-2014/).

13.

Gates

Gary J.

Newport

Frank

. 2012. Special Report: 3.4% Of U.S. Adults Identify as LGBT. Retrieved November 29, 2018 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/special-report-adults-identifylgbt.Aspx).

14.

Gorman

Bridget K.

Denney

Justin T.

Dowdy

Hilary

Medeiros

Rose Anne

. 2015. “A New Piece of the Puzzle: Sexual Orientation, Gender, and Physical Health Status.” Demography 52(4):1357–82.

15.

Grant

Jaime M.

Mottet

Lisa A.

Tanis

Justin

Harrison

Jack

Herman

Jody L.

Keisling

Mara

. 2011. Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

16.

Hanssens

Catherine

Moodie-Mills

Aisha C.

Ritchie

Andrea J.

Spade

Dean

Vaid

Urvashi

. 2014. A Roadmap for Change: Federal Policy Recommendations for Addressing the Criminalization of the LGBT People and People Living with HIV. New York: Center for Gender & Sexuality Law at Columbia Law School.

17.

Milewski

Todd D.

2016, March 29. “Wisconsin Population Trends Show Urban Areas Growing, Rural Areas Shrinking.” The Cap Times. Retrieved December 20, 2018 (http://host.madison.com/ct/news/data/wisconsin-population-trends-show-urban-areasgrowing-rural-areas-shrinking/article_96978d1b-31c0-5def-8715-efde4e3700aa.html).

18.

Movement Advancement Project (MAP). 2013. A Broken Bargain: Discrimination, Fewer Benefits and More Taxes for LGBT Workers. Retrieved November 29, 2018 (http://www.lgbtmap.org/file/a-broken-bargain-full-report.pdf).

19.

Movement Advancement Project (MAP). 2015. Paying an Unfair Price: The Financial Penalty for LGBT People of Color in America. Retrieved December 10, 2018 (http://www.lgbtmap.org/file/payingan-unfair-price-lgbt-people-of-color.pdf).

20.

Nair

Yasmin

. 2010. “Against Equality, Against Marriage: An Introduction.” Pp. 1–10 in Against Equality: Queer Critiques Of Gay Marriage, edited by Conrad

. Lewiston, ME: Against Equality Publishing Collective.

21.

National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP). 2014. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and HIV-affected Hate Violence in 2013. Retrieved December 12, 2018 (https://avp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2014_HV_Report-Final.pdf).

22.

Patterson

Brandon E.

2016, August 17. These Stats Show Why Milwaukee Was Primed to Explode. Retrieved January 07, 2019 (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/milwaukee-riots-poverty-education-statistics/).

23.

Rankin

Susan

Weber

Genevieve N.

Blumenfeld

Warren J.

Frazer

Somjen

. 2010. State of Higher Education for LGBT People. Charlotte, NC: Campus Pride.

24.

Rooney

Caitlin

Durso

Laura E.

Gruberg

Sharita

. 2016. “Discrimination against Transgender Women Seeking Access to Homeless Shelters.” Center for American Progress. Retrieved November 29, 2018 (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/report/2016/01/07/128323/discriminationagainst-transgender-women-seeking-access-to-homeless-shelters/).

25.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2015. Ending Conversion Therapy: Supporting and Affirming LGBTQ Youth. Rockville, MD: Substances Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

26.

Teunis

Niels

. 2007. “Sexual Objectification and He Construction of Whiteness in the Gay Male Community.” Culture, Health, & Sexuality 9(3):263–75.

27.

The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. 2013. The 2013 National School Climate Survey. Retrieved November 18, 2018 (https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/2013%20National%20School%20Climate%20Survey%20Full%20Report_0.pdf).

28.

The Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE). 2015. Low-income LGBT Populations and Programs to Support Self-sufficiency: A Snapshot of the Knowledge Base and Research Needs. Retrieved January 02, 2018 (https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/chapter_brief_low_income_self_suff_508_nologo.pdf).

29.

Witkin

Belle R.

Altschuld

James W.

. 1995. Planning and Conducting Needs Assessments: A Practical Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.