Playing Against the Margins
April 9, 2008 - The Funding LGBT Issues Group held a provocative conversation about the challenges and opportunities facing individuals whose gender expressions differ from that usually associated with their birth sex. More specifically, they looked at the intersection of gender expression, homelessness, healthcare, youth development, and the arts. The group also explored how funders who focus on specific target populations and those who fund some of the above issue areas can begin to incorporate Trans inclusivity into their grantmaking strategies. The session featured presentations from Kristen Cox of the Fire This Time Fund, Myrl Beam of Broadway Youth Center, Lois Bates of Howard Brown and a video short from musician/documentary filmmaker Simon Strikeback.

The Funding LGBT Issues Group held a session on Playing Against the Margins: Gender Identity as a Funding Criteria. The session was introduced by Meg Leary, The Irving Harris Foundation, and Consuella Brown, Woods Fund of Chicago, and featured contributions from Lois Bates, Howard Brown Health Center; Myrl Beam, Howard Brown Health Center; Kristen Cox, Fire This Time Fund; and a video presentation by Simon Strikeback, Actor Slash Model.

Transgender individuals and individuals whose sense of gender identity does not conform to roles imposed by society often face a host of barriers to accessing both basic life needs (including health care, education, and housing) and community needs (including supportive relationships and outlets that value their voices and contributions). By building stronger connections to the transgender community, by exploring creative funding options, and by playing a role in education, foundations can help reduce these barriers.

Common barriers transgender individuals face include the following:

• The medical community often defines transgender individuals in terms of disorders and has worked to force individuals into one gender expression or another rather than letting individuals discover what expression works best for them. Treatments such as hormone therapy and sex-reassignment surgery can be difficult to find and pay for, and many doctors are unfamiliar with the needs of transgender individuals or express bias against them in the course of their treatment.
• Transgender individuals, especially youth, are at high risk for homelessness since they are often forced out of their homes. Since shelter beds are often gender-segregated, there are very few beds in homeless shelters that can serve transgender individuals.
• It is often difficult for transgender individuals to get all of their official documents to properly reflect their gender, and employment checks and police checks of these documents can often lead to undue problems. Access to higher education can also be problematic due to issues with official IDs.
• Transgender individuals are often targets of violence, and a high percentage of them have been subject to violence and harassment, which can play a strong role in leading transgender individuals to drop out of school.
• Restrooms are generally not configured to be accessible to transgender individuals, and establishments often harass or even seek arrest of transgender individuals who use their bathrooms. This can make it difficult for transgender individuals to function in public, and it can also lead to high arrest rates for transgender individuals and a criminalization of their identity.
• The criminal justice system often brings transgender individuals into the system for actions they took due to other barriers they faced (for example, sleeping outside or loitering due to homelessness). The system often does not know what to do with transgender individuals once they are brought in. Being assigned to gender-segregated cells, dealing with violence from other inmates, and facing a lack of hormone therapy and other health care issues all negatively impact transgender individuals in the justice system.

To address these barriers, foundations may need to be more creative in their giving while also improving their outreach to the transgender community. The arts are often at the center of significant social change, and employing artistic and cultural activities to build understanding of transgender individuals and the issues they face can help de-marginalize them. Since transgender individuals have been so marginalized, they often are not part of existing institutions, so looking outside the existing nonprofit structure can help funders find innovative projects that can help build a voice for the transgender community.

Funding services is important (existing services only address the needs of a fraction of the transgender population), but finding a way to look at some of the larger issues and reduce societal barriers can also be an important activity for foundations. Some of this involves working with existing programs; if a foundation funds youth programs, for example, they can make sure program organizers are aware of transgender issues and know how to bring transgender individuals into their programs and help them access the benefits of their work.

Until 1994, LGBT status was not included as a characteristic of a "membership in a social group." In 1990, the Board of Immigration Appeals granted asylum to a gay man who was beaten severely in a Cuban prison, where he was sent solely due to his sexual orientation. Following this precedent, Attorney General Janet Reno ruled that gays would be eligible for asylum protection. This ruling was considered by the LGBT community to be a pivotal step for immigration law.

The HIV ban is a serious issue affecting many LGBT immigrants. In 1987 HIV was defined as a contagious disease, which meant that any illegal immigrants with HIV were subject for deportation under the 1952 Division of Nationalities Act. Although HIV is not considered a contagious disease in medical standards, the HIV bar remains for reasons of "public health significance," according to the government. This leads to the problem of undocumented immigrants not seeking the health treatment they need, knowing their illness will prevent them from ever gaining citizenship. This actually increases the public health risk because it increases the individual's chance of spreading the disease while also draining resources from public hospitals due to HIV patients waiting until they are extremely ill to seek medical treatment.

Persons affected by HIV can be considered for asylum; however, they cannot be granted asylum simply because they fear their country cannot or will not give them the best medical treatment. They must prove the government's intent to cause harm, not simply deny the best care.

Currently, 70 percent of green cards are issued to family members of legal citizens. However, there is no similar form of relief for bi-national same-sex couples, where one partner is a citizen and the other is not.

Federal immigration law defines a "spouse" as a member of the opposite sex and does not recognize gay marriage, even in states where the marriage was legal, such as Massachusetts. The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) is scheduled to be reintroduced into the House, which seeks to substitute the term "permanent partner" for "spouse" in the Immigrant and Nationality Act.

However, UAFA evokes some criticisms by LGBT organizations such as Queers for Economic Justice. They feel that this law is not comprehensive immigration reform, but rather a very small improvement that does not help the whole situation. UAFA does not help undocumented partners, regardless of sexual orientation. Many feel that UAFA does not face the reality that not all immigrants have loving families, and some families should not be forced to stay united for the sake of their citizenship. For example, it makes the spouse (usually the wife) very dependant on the husband to stay in the country, leaving her vulnerable to abuse.

While the NIJC works on specific programs, the advocacy done in congress focuses on general overarching issues in immigration. One issue is that immigrant detention centers are contracted out to private centers that are not controlled by government detention standards. Immigrant detainment centers have deeply flawed medical care systems, and some deny any medical treatment to detainees unless there is an emergency situation. This often results in persons with HIV and other serious illnesses being refused the treatment they need to survive. The NIJC is currently lobbying for binding standards in all detention centers to align their health care practice with established principles of constitutional law.

Recommendations for funders:

• Encourage grantees to advocate lifting the HIV bar for immigrants because it not only encourages a stigma around HIV but also contradicts most United States international policy in regards to health care.
• Avoid focusing efforts on UAFA or marriage requirements. These solutions don't address comprehensive immigration reform. Problems facing HIV and immigrant detention, particularly in regards to access to medical care, are issues commonly ignored in the immigration debate. However, these are very morally charged issues that a vast majority of the population doesn't know about. It seems that the layers of immigration reform are so thick and copious that the fight for gay immigrant rights doesn't have a lot of pull with advocacy groups. However, the issues of detention and access to medication are not only a LGBT immigrant problem but also a clear-cut human rights violation, which can stir up much-needed attention.

Immigration reform and LGBT issues are an important topic, but the problem isn't going to be resolved by focusing only with that lens. The issue must be approached on a holistic level while ensuring LGBT problems are included in the solution.

While issues and policies that affect black youth often make headlines and are the subject of much discussion, the voices and perspectives of the youth themselves are frequently overlooked or ignored. Public issues like education, poverty, HIV/AIDS, welfare reform, affirmative action, sex education, and others play a direct role in the lives of black youth, which makes it crucial to better understand their beliefs and opinions.

The Black Youth Project surveyed 1,590 youths, including black, Hispanic, and white youth between the ages of 15 and 25. Approximately 40 in-depth follow-up interviews were conducted with survey participants. The survey included over 200 questions, and a large amount of data is still being analyzed. The project will also include a forthcoming analysis of the content of popular rap songs from the past ten years.

Some of the findings of the survey include:

• While rap music and rap videos are a frequent presence in the lives of many black youths, a majority of black youths agree that rap videos are too violent and that rap videos portray both black women and black men in "bad and offensive ways."
• Black youth are more likely than Hispanic and white youth to believe it is hard for black people to get ahead because of discrimination (61 percent of black youth agreed with this statement, compared to 45 percent of Hispanic youth and 43 percent of white youth). Follow-up interviews showed that the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina played a pivotal role for some youth in making discrimination plain to see.
• Black youth also differed from white and Hispanic youth in their perception of the quality of education black youth receive compared to the quality of white youth's education. Fifty-four percent of black youth agree that black youth receive a poorer education on average than white youth, while 40 percent of Hispanic youth and 31 percent of white youth agree with the statement.
• Responses to questions about the criminal justice system showed that black youth respondents were more likely to have been stopped by police officers than were white youth, and they were also more likely to have been arrested. White youth who were arrested were more likely to be convicted of a crime than black youth, but black youth were far more likely to be convicted of a felony.
• While a majority of black youth (79 percent) believes they have the knowledge and skills to participate in politics, most of the black youth surveyed (56 percent) believes that the government cares very little about people like them. Sixty-eight percent of the black youth surveyed believed the government would do more to find a cure for AIDS if it affected more white people.
• While only about one-fifth of the black youth surveyed indicated active political participation, they showed involvement in some non-traditional forms of action, including "buycotts" (purchasing goods or services because they like the values of a company), electronic petitions, and blogging.
• All youth surveyed are heavily in favor of mandatory sex education in school, and they also strongly disagree with government funding of abstinence-only programs.

Data analysis will be ongoing, including matching the data to community profiles to see if the racial and ethnic makeup of the respondents' communities had any bearing on their responses. More data and updates are available at http://blackyouthproject.uchicago.edu/.

Sex In Our Schools: What Are Kids Learning Part Two
February 12, 2007 - The Youth Task Force, the Health Program Affinity Group, Funders for Lesbian and Gay Issues, and the Education Funders Group hosted a discussion on Sex in Schools: What Are Kids Learning, Part 2. The discussion was introduced by Julie Walther, Girl's Best Friend Foundation, and featured contributions from Dorinda Welle, The Ford Foundation; Kenneth Papineau, Chicago Public Schools; Vicki Pittman, Chicago Public Schools; Soo Ji Min, Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health; Jonathan Stacks, Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health (ICAH); Marcela Howard, Advocates for Youth; James Wagoner, Advocates for Youth; and students Mya Patitucci, Kevin Brown, and Adaku Utah, who are part of Furthering Responsible Education Everywhere, a program of ICAH.

In April 2006, the Board of Education for the Chicago Public Schools adopted a new Family Life and Comprehensive Sexual Health Education Policy. The policy was the result of organizing and advocacy on multiple levels, and it created a new mandate in the CPS system for comprehensive sexuality education within specific guidelines. While establishing such a policy is a significant step, there is more work to be done-the policy needs to be implemented in all Chicago schools, and efforts are underway to implement a similar mandate on the state level.

The CPS policy guidelines emphasize information that is comprehensive, age appropriate, medically accurate, abstinence-based, and includes information on emotional, social, and psychological aspects of sexuality along with physical and health aspects. The comprehensive approach can produce benefits in a wide range of areas, including student health, emotional well-being, and even job training and preparedness.

As part of the policy, CPS has provided every school with curriculum in both print and online forms. The online version allows teachers to search for lesson plans by subject area or by skills they are teaching, allowing them to present material that specifically addresses their students. CPS is working to monitor how many schools are using the curriculum and how often they employ it, and CPS staff will work with schools that are under-employing the curriculum to find ways to help these schools meet the new mandate. While CPS has occasionally encountered resistance from teachers and principals, most who go through the training for the curriculum speak positively of the experience.

The creation of the new policy happened with significant input from CPS students, and students also plan to be involved in promoting the policy. By spreading word about the policy to students throughout the system and telling them what kind of education they have a right to receive, student organizers hope to build participation in the new policy from the ground up.

Along with working on implementation of the new Chicago policy, organizers will focus on attempting to expand comprehensive sexuality education resources to suburban and downstate locations. Building momentum for a statewide mandate could help marshal resources for underserved areas while clarifying occasional confusion about what can and cannot be taught. Some of these areas do not have the organizational resources that the Chicago region has, and partnerships with community colleges and other groups are being explored as a way to offer the needed health and education services.

This organizing effort comes at a time when federal funding for abstinence-only education has constructed an infrastructure of programs that aggressively market themselves to schools. Since they do not need additional funding from the schools, these programs can present themselves as a fully funded sexuality education resource. While well funded, such programs often contain inaccurate, incomplete, or non-factual information, and there is not yet any peer-reviewed research showing the effectiveness of abstinence-only education. By emphasizing curricula that are medically accurate and fact-based, comprehensive sexuality education programs present an alternative to abstinence-only programs-an alternative that not only provides students with a broader range of knowledge but that has, in some cases, been shown to promote higher rates of abstinence from sexual activity than do abstinence-only programs.

But You Do Fund Youth, Part One: Finding Overlap In Programs
November 09, 2006 - The Youth Task Force hosted a discussion on But You Do Fund Youth Part One: Finding Overlap in Your Program Area. Julie Simpson, Cricket Island Foundation, introduced and moderated the discussion, which featured presentations by Marcia Festen, Marcia K. Festen and Associates; Tom Fuechtmann, Community Memorial Foundation; Ngoan Le, Chicago Community Trust; and Nikki Will Stein, Polk Bros. Foundation.

Success in youth funding efforts often directly relates to a foundation's ability to break down existing barriers. Some of these barriers are:

• Separate program areas that might each fund youth-related efforts (for example, education and community development) but have little interaction
• The division between private and public funding sources;
• The lack of interaction and coordination between schools and other community organizations;
• The gap between leaders of community organizations and the youth in their communities; and
• The divide between programs serving large numbers of youth and programs that might not have as many youth enrolled but that provide deeper, more sustained services

There is no one method to deal with these obstacles. However, programs that have produced positive results are generally ones that bring various organizations and institutions together and give youth ways to be involved. By providing youths with activities that capitalize on their interests and that respect their opinions and ideas, programs can help a variety of youths develop leadership skills.

Some of the more successful programs mentioned at the session include:

• A theater organization that enlists local youths in writing, producing, and staging their own shows. The organization has an open door policy-there are no auditions, and the youths are able to set their own level of involvement. The program's recruiting methods draw in many youths who are not often involved in other leadership development programs, including youths who are immigrants or children of immigrants.
• A college preparation program that brings students together for regular meetings and takes them on college visits. The students are selected from non-elite Chicago high schools and must be referred to the program and then pass a three-tiered interview process. They receive not only college preparation but also scholarships to the colleges they visit.
• A long-term initiative focused on building healthy interactions for youths before the need for interventions for negative behavior arises. A major focus of the initiative was strengthening links between youths, parents, and their community.
• A skateboard park designed with significant input from local youths. The youths had a hand in shaping the rules for the park (which they made stricter than those originally envisioned), and they also helped set up skateboard classes and fund raising efforts. The park was self-sustaining within a few years of its opening.
• A youth commission that meets the night before the board of trustees meeting in a suburban village. The youths receive the same information packet as the trustees and discuss the same issues. The next night, two of the youth commissioners attend the board of trustees meeting to share their thoughts and ideas.

While these programs provided useful examples of how some of the barriers surrounding youth programs can be broken down, questions remain and will be discussed at a continuation of this meeting. Some of these questions include: When designing a program for youth, how do you define "youth"? Is a sustainable program always desirable, or is it occasionally acceptable to fund a program that works in the here and now, meeting the current needs of a group of youths? How can you balance youth and adult leadership when youth leadership, due to the simple function of age, has more rapid turnover? How do you balance programs focused on quantitative results with more issue-oriented programs?

Discussion With Urvashi Vaid, ED of the Arcus Foundation
May 18, 2006 - The Funders for Lesbian and Gay Issues hosted a discussion with Urvashi Vaid, executive director of the Arcus Foundation. Evette Cardona, Polk Bros. Foundation, and Aly Kassam-Remtulla, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, introduced the discussion.

The Arcus Foundation is poised to grow significantly in the next few years, with its current endowment of about $130 million growing to $500 million, and the foundation is giving away money as if it already has a $500 million endowment. As it grows, the Arcus Foundation might become more regional in its focus, possibly looking to fund organizations in other Great Lakes states besides Michigan. The foundation's two primary funding areas are human rights, with a particular focus on LGBT issues, and conservation, with a particular focus on preserving great apes. These two areas present opportunities for education-practitioners in one area are often not aware of issues in the other.

To develop a funding strategy, the Arcus Foundation wrote goals for each program area. In the human rights area, the foundation's goals are to encourage a plural society in which people can live and express themselves freely and to achieve social justice that is inclusive of sexual orientation, gender identity, and race. The overlap of race and sexual orientation is currently a difficult issue, as some communities of color attach a stigma to LGBT orientations.

The foundation is acting on a sense of urgency due to the rise of fundamentalism and other forces that work against pluralism around the world. Part of their funding will be dedicated to building a progressive movement and to build energy that may currently be lacking. Efforts to build a dialogue between different groups, and earmarking a portion of a grant for progressive organizing, can help strengthen this movement. The foundation also looks for ways to connect people involved in this movement so their actions can be better coordinated.

Social movements are very much about relationships and the conversations that occur at the lower levels of many systems and organizations. At present, these relationships have created an effective pipeline for people of a more conservative leaning to become involved in politics; the pipeline for people of a more liberal inclination is not as strong. The creation of more fellowships and internships at selected organizations can construct a better pipeline.

Some of the decisions the Arcus Foundation must make about how it spends its money involves balancing national and local priorities. While money given to national organizations has often not flowed down to the local level, it is still possible for grants to national organizations to have a local effect, particularly if the grant contains a grassroots organizing component. Social service funding can be difficult to do on a national level, and most likely should be done by local funders who can better respond to the particular needs of their communities, though national funders can leverage increases in local social service funding.

The process of creating social justice demands significant institutional change, and there are many ways of going about this. Requiring all grantees to have a non-discrimination policy that covers sexual orientation, gender identity, and race is one; learning how to speak the particular language of an organization and then questioning their assumptions in ways that are palatable is another. This latter method may demand persistent and long-term questioning, but it can help people think more about what they are doing and why they are doing it.

Peer Exchange and Planning
March 3, 2006 - The Funders for Lesbian and Gay Issues hosted a Peer Exchange and Planning session. Introduced and facilitated by Evette Cardona, Polk Bros. Foundation, and Rose Jagust, Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago, the meeting centered on planning the group's activities for the next few months.

A recent civic reflection meeting hosted by the Funders for Lesbian and Gay Issues brought in representatives from corporate foundations who had not previously been involved with the group, and the additional participants showed an interest in further involvement. Participants decided to follow up with some of the people who had attended the civic reflection to see if they would be interested in participating in another civic reflection meeting, or if they would have more interest in a concrete discussion of LGBT issues, and then plan a meeting based on their input.

The Girl's Best Friend Foundation, Crossroads Fund, and Chicago Foundation for Women are holding a presentation and panel discussion about Safe Space for Youth on April 5 from 3-5 pm. The participants agreed that FLAG will co-sponsor this discussion, along with the Education Funders Group and the Youth Task Force.

During the group's retreat last summer, participants planned a session on substance abuse in the LGBT community, and that remains an issue of interest. Particular focus could be given to programs addressing crystal meth addiction and harm-reduction programs that meet people with substance abuse problems where they are and help them progress, as opposed to sobriety-based programs that often have stricter standards. Other Donors Forum groups, like the Grantmakers Concerned with Poverty and the Health Program Affinity Group, could be approached about co-sponsoring sessions on these topics. This session, along with the safe space meeting and the follow-up on the previous civic reflection session, would make three planned sessions before next summer's retreat.

Participants discussed ways to measure the amount of funding that Chicago-area foundations give to LGBT issues. Tracking such money is not always easy, as it is often folded into other categories and not specifically designated as serving the LGBT community. For example, any youth program likely involves gay youth to some degree, yet such programs are often categorized as simply serving youth without an acknowledgement of the LGBT element. The group agreed to move forward on ways to measure spending on LGBT issues, with the results either to be discussed as part of a future peer exchange or as a separate program in the next year.

The session concluded with participants updating each other on their recent funding activities.

New Tools To Serve LGBT Youth
June 1, 2005 - Jeanne Kracher of the Crossroads Fund began the joint presentation by explaining that the Safe Space collaboration project is very much a work-in-progress. The partnerships between Crossroads Fund, Girl's Best Friend Foundation, and Chicago Foundation for Women began through a discussion to pursue ways to include multiple demographics among their respective primary audiences (ie. homeless women, disabled women, etc.) In other words, the three organizations realized that - by working together - their target populations would intersect thereby resulting in reaching individuals who often are not fully served by each organization's nonprofit grantees.

From a larger perspective, it became clear that a collaborative effort would also result in the opportunity to have an impact on the field of philanthropy in Chicago.

Mary Morten discussed the survey results of interviews with 43 Chicago-area youth programs, a research project conducted jointly by the three organizations. Of the private foundations in America, 0.1% provide support to LGBTQ youth. Although actual total dollars granted by private donations have tripled since the 1990s, the percentage given to LGBTQ youth has not shifted.

The research team concluded with the following recommendations for grantmakers to strengthen support of LGBTQ youth:

• Create a round-table discussion network of organizations
• Research and identify assessment tools to measure nonprofit programs
• Fund training and technical assistance opportunities
• Promote funding opportunities for the creation of LGBTQ safe space programs
• Provide funding to build the capacity of organizations that can provide technical assistance to grantee organizations.

Yasmin Ahmed of Girls Best Friend Foundation explained the specific steps taken by all three foundations to develop the Safe Space concept. Based on what they learned from the focus groups with nonprofits, a toolkit was drafted to be used as a resource for other organizations to create Safe Spaces - this toolkit will be officially released on July 1.

Jeanne Kracher concluded that there is a total lack of funding for LGBT youth issues due in no small part to the social stigma of homosexuality combined with the sensitivity of dealing with young people. Much bias still exists among foundation and nonprofit boards and staff alike when faced with the topic of gay children. Many perceptions need to be overcome in order for any advancement to take place in this field.

Chicago Hosts Gay Games in 2006
April 14, 2005 - Representatives from Gay Games VII made a comprehensive presentation to members of the Donors Forum of Chicago's Funders for Lesbian and Gay Issues (FLAG).

The City of Chicago will host Gay Games VII during the week of July 15-22, 2006. Gay Games is a 25-year old sports and cultural festival for gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender participants. It is an all-inclusive event: anyone can compete, regardless of athletic ability, age or sexual orientation.

Presenters shared the scope of Gay Games VII and its potential impact on Chicago. Gay Games expects more than 12,000 individuals from over 70 countries to participate. It will also result in approximately $75 million in sales for Chicago businesses, provide long-term tourism benefits for the city, and strengthen the local volunteer pool.

Opening and closing ceremonies are scheduled for Soldier Field and Wrigley Field, respectively. Over 2,300 individuals from more than 30 countries have already registered; several major sponsorships have also already committed. Presenters closed by explaining opportunities for philanthropic organizations to play a major role in the success of Gay Games VII, such as athletic scholarships and grants.

Legislative Realities Meet the Movement on the Streets
February 11, 2005 - The Group on Funding Lesbian and Gay Issues held a FLAG Legislative update to discuss the ramifications of the New Human Rights Bill which updated the Human Rights Ordinance to include sexual orientation in the safe clause. Cheryl Potts, Grantmaking Program Manager, AIDS Foundation of Chicago welcomed everyone before turning it over to Matthew Blakely, Program Officer, Communities Program, McCormick Tribune Foundation; and Evette Cardona, Program Officer, Polk Bros. Foundation, who lead the panel discussion. Panel members included: John Knight, Director of Gay and Lesbian Rights and AIDS and Civil Liberties Projects, ACLU; Patricia M. Logue, Senior Council, Lambda Legal Defense and Education; Kevin Morrissey, Equality Illinois; Victoria Raymont, Board Member, Human Rights Campaign. The group also heard from Art Johnston, Board Member, Equality Illinois; and Mona Noriega, Regional Director, Lambda Legal Defense and Education.

Art Johnston spoke about the legislative reform and advocacy work of Equality Illinois and the importance of education to this work. He stated that in many cases LGBT daily life has often changed before legislation because of educational efforts. He sees the next step as fighting amendments and religious exemptions to the Human Rights Ordinance.

Patricia Logue presented an overview of Lambda Legal's work to support and advance equal rights for the LGBT community on local, regional, and national levels, often providing key legal council to other advocacy and educational organizations. Ms. Logue believes the next steps are an examination of parenting cases, custody rights, and a fight against anti-adoption legislation. The fight against anti-marriage acts are really fights against anti-civil union acts.

John Knight talked about the role of the ACLU and how equal rights for the LGBT community is a part of the ACLU's overarching mission to help support all civil liberties. He highlighted the shared need and overlap between all people who were being discriminated against for anything from sex and race to gender and sexuality.

Victoria Raymont spoke for the Human Rights Campaign, America's largest bi-partisan grassroots lobbying and advocacy organization, which is fighting the Marriage Protection Act. The next step for the Human Rights Campaign is to adapt their tactics and develop more straight allies, more Republican allies, and to establish a thoughtful dialogue with the communities of faith, reintroducing the "face" of the LGBT community.

The discussion was then opened for questions. The first question asked if a religious leader had ever used the freedom to practice religion to support their right to marry two people of the same sex. The argument has been made but the distinction between the ecclesiastic and civil worlds remains, and as the Human Rights Act only covers the civil world, a faith-based marriage does not change the couple's civil standing.

A concern was raised that LGBT bills are shown as attacks against religion and that religious people are victims of the LGBT movement. It is necessary to find a way to speak to the religious community.

A question concerning LGBT youth and their safety raised discussion of pending legislation that would protect students in schools and foster care. California provides many good models for safe-schools legislation. It was also noted that just because the HRA legislation passed does not mean the state legislature will pass every LGBT bill.

Transgender issues are poorly understood, both in the LGBT community and especially in state legislature. Funding for transgender issue work comes from the LGBT community but not from without it, as it is still too socially radical.

The group identified issues such as relationship recognition and protection, identification of relationship discrimination, growth of a sense of history in the LGBT community, recognition of the real face of the LGBT community, and inclusion of the LGBT community in the constitution as the most important issues to rally people around locally.

In identifying cross-issue work to develop allies who are not LGBT, the group mentioned using natural allies such as the choice movement, staying open to the possibility for major support from mainstream religious organizations, using single parent families as allies in parenting discussions, and using businesses as allies by getting them to endorse legislation and protect their business climate by fighting discrimination.

A concern was raised that too much focus on LGBT relationships can overlook rights for people who aren't in relationships; there might be a need to change the popular models for long-term relationships and develop new models. This discussion of new models has been put on hold while the LGBT community gathers around the marriage issue. A question was raised whether marriage rights will force out civil unions. Many people see the goal as providing opportunities for LGBT people to be protected regardless of their relationships and provided the opportunity to choose marriage.

Participants discussed misinformation in sexual education curriculum that is being taught in schools. Many parents and administrators don't care that the misinformation is damaging to the LGBT community and embrace this misinformation as a victory for their side. "The reachable middle" was named as the biggest potential ally of the LGBT equal rights movement, as there are some people whose minds cannot be changed on the issue and it is best to direct efforts towards the middle section of the population that currently disagrees. This middle portion of the population is reached by personal connections: when people know someone who is LGBT they become more interested and more open to discussion and education, and having legal protections in place helps people feel safe to voice their opinions and more willing to discuss these issues. The local media was also mentioned as necessary to effectively spreading LGBT educational efforts.

The meeting was adjourned, and the Mid-year review was rescheduled as a conference call, the date and time of which would be discussed via email.

FLAG Peer Exchange
September 23, 2004 - The Funders for Lesbian and Gay Issues and the Peer Network for New Grantmakers held a peer exchange to review foundation guidelines and recent grants by foundations represented. "Discrimination & Inclusiveness at a Crossroads" created by the Funders for Lesbian and Gay Issues Member Issue Group was distributed to program attendees.

The group discussed grants to organizations involved with lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, trans-gendered and questioning (LGBTQ) youth. One program officer highlighted the founder's interest in funding major and emerging LGBTQ groups. Many foundations indirectly fund programs in interest areas such as youth, community organizing, and the arts that affect LGBTQ youth. A review of the foundation's recent grants revealed many organizations that received funding from multiple foundations present.

Participants attempted to identify gaps in funding for LGBTQ groups. One funder highlighted fundraising challenges, particularly within certain communities for organizations serving the LGBTQ population.

Gender Consciousness =/= "No Boys Allowed"
February 17, 2004 - The Group on Funding Lesbian and Gay Issues and Youth Development Task Forced co-sponsored a program on local and national organizations creating gender-specific programming. Panelists included: Daniel McNeil and Tawanna Brown, Family Matters; Nancy Mullen, Questioning Youth Center - Dupage; and Lateefah Simon, Center for Young Women's Development.

Local and national organizations discussed how youth programming is stronger when it is gender conscious. The discussion highlighted different models on gender-specific programming, including a peer model working with low-income women and an organization with young men and women's gender-specific programming implementing side-by-side. Organization leaders recognize that youth feel more comfortable discussing gender-specific issues in a gender-specific space. The conversation illustrated the importance of creating a safe and nurturing space for young women and young men to create, learn and grow.

Positive outcomes of gender specific programming included:

• Youth gain experience in leadership opportunities.
• Youth are involved in the creation of their programming.
• Youth are empowered to make decisions on issues that affect them.

One organization illustrated the challenges teenage boys, specifically those of color, face in our society, highlighting gangs, drugs, and families without a male role model. Addressing leadership training, building a feeling of self-worth and growing group cohesion among the young men build a sense of responsibility and create opportunities to be effective and powerful in their community.

Challenges of gender specific programming included securing funding for bisexual and transgender youth programming and the lack in expertise and experience some youth leaders bring to leadership roles.

One funding opportunity identified highlighted the credibility given to research funded by foundations. Often embedded in the research are citations of other resources and tools useful to nonprofit organizations.

Distributed materials included:

• Gender Matters: Funding Effective Programs for Women and Girls by Molly Mead, June 2001
• What's Equal: Figuring Out What Works For Girls In Co-Ed Settings, Girls Incorporated

Evan Wolfson: Freedom To Marry
January 28, 2004 - The Group on Funding Lesbian and Gay Issues invited Evan Wolfson, Executive Director, Freedom To Marry to discuss how the organization originated, its methods for bringing about change on the issue of marriage equality, and its funding sources. Mr. Wolfson talked briefly on the creation of the organization and its four principal roles to enhance progress toward civil marriage equality: " multi-year, sustained commitments to the cause, not a crisis-driven approach:

• multi-state strategies
• building relationships with multiple advocating partners
• multi-prolonged strategy though litigation, public education, and coalition building.

Mr. Wolfson emphasized three tasks:

1. Secure victories. This includes making sure that on May 17th marriage licenses are issued in Massachusetts.
2. Repel attacks from right wing groups on the state and federal levels.
3. Enlist additional, diverse messengers to speak before the American people on the issue of marriage.

Discussion included an overview of involved including the Columbia Foundation, California and the Open Society Institution. Mr. Wolfson discussed a process of identifying break-through states where limited resources are beginning to achieve affirmative advances and defend attacks. These actions help the organization decide on a new matrix of states to target for a multi-state strategy.

Articles distributed at the program included:

For Richer, For Poorer: Same-Sex Couples and the Freedom to Marry as a Civil Right, by Evan Wolfon, June 2003

All Together Now, by Evan Wolfson, September 2001

Impact of Supreme Court Findings
December 12, 2003 - The Group on Funding Lesbian and Gay Issues met to discuss the recent Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action and sodomy as well as the role media can play in racial and class discrimination. Panelists included: Laura S. Washington, DePaul University and Contributing Chicago Sun-Times columnist, and Pat Logue, Lambda Legal Defense and Education.

The conversation focused on the June 2003 Supreme Court ruling on racial preferences in the University of Michigan admissions. In addition, a history of court rulings on sodomy was presented and a historical map illustrated how the court made the 2003 ruling on sodomy. The decision reflected a broader meaning of principles and concluded that democracy does not allow the invasion of one's personal life. Media, in many forms, was highlighted as a key influencer in how individuals interpret these issues. Media can present the truth or misinterpret the facts and present a false image to the public.

Nonprofit organizations who work with gay and lesbian issues identified different reasons for fundraising difficulty. They included:

• Emotional nature of race and human relations.
• Gay and lesbian issues do not fall within many foundation guidelines.
• Issues are too controversial for some foundations' Board of Trustees.

Potential areas of funder support highlighted included:

• Fund advocacy for gay/lesbian/bi-sexual/ transgender issues
• Fund research to dispute or defend perceived homophobia in communities
• Educate communities on the policy ramifications of cases such as these that affect human rights.

FLAG Update with Nancy Cunningham
October 2, 2003 - Nancy Cunningham, executive director, Funders for Lesbian and Gay Issues (the national group), presented an update on recent issues and national funding trends. Although research on funding is flawed in tracking only about 40 percent of grants, focusing only on the 500 largest foundations, and not tracking grants under $10,000, support for lesbian and gay issues doubled from 1998 to 2001 from $8 million to $16 million. However, this represents only one-tenth of 1 percent of funding from the largest foundations. No one tracks sponsorships, tickets and corporate gifts, so those contributions to the community are not represented in these findings.

The national FLAG organization has been working in partnership with local community foundations since 1993 to establish LGBT funds. There are now 33 community foundation partners around the United States that have collectively distributed 850 grants to local LGBT programs. Individuals, family foundations and other federated funds are getting more involved in LGBT support. The LGBT community's dependence on individual donor support is positive; most nonprofit organizations do not have skills in this area.

The national FLAG is starting to form a research committee to identify gaps and track and identify LGBT funds around the country. SAGE (Senior Action in a Gay Environment) is preparing a national needs assessment on the LGBT elderly community. It will be released soon. There is a small, growing interest in issues of people of color in the LGBT community.

FLAG will start a newsletter this year. FLAG has a directory of 600 LGBT agencies/programs on its web site, accessible through a search engine.

Creating a Roadmap to Effectiveness: Technical Assistance Workshop for LGBTQ-serving Organizations
March 5, 2003 - FLAG and CGEO cosponsored a technical assistance workshop for organizations serving gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and questioning populations. Marianne Philbin and Marcia Festen led the group through a half-day workshop that highlighted their recent publication, How Effective Nonprofits Work, as well as provided an in-depth discussion on issues of board governance and development and fundraising. The groups in attendance were identified by members of FLAG and represented a variety of service organizations and membership associations serving the GLBTQ community in the greater Chicago area.

Current Issues in LGBT Movement
November 22, 2002 - The Group on Funding Lesbian and Gay Issues hosted a roundtable discussion between funders and nonprofit partners on current issues affecting the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered movement. The audience heard representatives from the Coalition for Education on Sexual Orientation (CESO); Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund; the AIDS Foundation; Chicago Department of Public Health; the Lesbian Community Cancer Project (LCCP); and Horizons Community Services. An issue of importance across agency lines is concern with the current political climate and decreased, or eliminated, funding for programs dealing with sexual education or orientation as a result of the "Abstinence-Only" stance of the current administration. Also of concern in the city are the numbers of homeless youth identifying themselves as LGBT; there are currently few facilities in place to house youth, and even fewer that can accommodate gay youth. These topics will influence future programs.

Back to FLAG main page.