The London Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) voluntary and community sector Almanac, 3 rd Edition
© centred January 2014
First floor
38 Great Windmill Street
London W1D 7LU
020 7437 6063 www.centred.org.uk
Registered Charity Number 1054152
Company Number 3168854
ISBN 978-0-9558780-5-3
1

Acknowledgements centred would like to extend thanks to the diverse LGBTQ organisations that completed the LGBTQ Almanac 3 rd Edition survey; the contributors to the Almanac 3 rd Edition; volunteering and activism workshop participants and participants in the London LGBTQ
Learning Network; Rob Berkeley; Robert Dufton; Lia Latchford; Joan Neary; the HEAR
Network; UK Black Pride; Rainbow Friends; Gay Star News; Peter Purton of the Trades
Union Congress (TUC), the Consortium of LGBT Organisations, and Fiona Colgan of
London Metropolitan University; and everyone who has provided feedback on and support for the Almanacs 1 st and 2 nd Editions. The Almanac is always a collaborative project made possible by participants and supporters.
2

Contents
Introduction
Methodology
Organisations
Purposes and aims
Activities
Policy and campaigning
Organisation structures
Premises
Experiences
The people involved
Volunteering in depth
Focus group results: Creating positive volunteer experiences / Dee
Olerenshaw
Case study: centred Tour Guides / Tom Wilkinson
Case study: Funded volunteer management: Naz Project London / Kim
Hawkins
Finance and funding
Engagement with Infrastructure
Case study: Guildhall Art Gallery / Tom Wilkinson
Case study: Funder infrastructure / Ashlee Christoffersen
Case study: Barking and Dagenham CVS / Carl Blackburn / Jane
Standing
Conclusions
References
20
25
31
33
45
45
53
57
60
61
5
5
4
4
7
8
9
11
11
11
20
3

Introduction
The London LGBTQ Almanac 3 rd Edition, the final edition funded under the original Big
Lottery Fund funded ‘In Our Name LGBT Infrastructure Project’, contains up to date statistical information about diverse LGBTQ organising in London; an in-depth look at
LGBTQ volunteering and activism, with the results of two workshops/focus groups and two volunteering case studies; and case studies exploring LGBT engagement with mainstream infrastructure organisations. This 3 rd Edition is published as an online/web publication.
The Almanac aims to provide a strategic information base for diverse London LGBT organisations to plan and develop; and for funders and infrastructure organisations to be better equipped to understand the experiences of, and offer support to, diverse LGBTQ organisations. The Almanac is a continuation of London LGBT sector research begun in
2007 with centred’s
publication of the PiP report, the first in depth look at LGBT organising in London. This 3 rd Edition draws on data now spanning a seven year period to explore changes within the London LGBTQ organising landscape. This edition compares detailed demographic informati on across the sector’s governance, staff, volunteers and service users to the 1 st Edition survey in 2010.
The Almanac pays particular attention throughout to the experiences of LGBTQ organisations that work intersectionally, i.e. that work around other specific equalities areas such as race or disability. These LGBTQ community of identity organisations constitute 42% of the research sample and a large portion of LGBTQ organisations in
London.
It has been found that the Almanac has supported diverse organisers and organisations to raise awareness of their work, fundraise, and influence policy. The number of London based organisations that participate in the Almanac research process has grown year on year.
Profiles of London LGBTQ organisations can be created, searched and updated by organisations themselves on the London LGBT Almanac wiki 1 .
Methodology
The main Almanac 3 rd Edition sample is made up of London based, not for profit organisations that specifically serve and/or represent LGBTQ people, and that completed the London LGBTQ Almanac 3 rd Edition survey, which was open from May to July 2013.
The survey was emailed to all London LGBTQ organisations known to centred , promoted through centred
’s networks, and disseminated by organisations who had been previous participants in the Almanac research.
For the first time centred worked with a larger research team to extend the Almanac survey across England and Wales. The team comprised of centred , the Consortium of
LGBT Voluntary and Community Organisations, the Trades Union Congress (TUC), and researchers in the Centre for Corporate Responsibility, Diversity and Human Resource
1 http://londonlgbtalmanac.wikispaces.com/
4

Management (CRDHRM) at London Metropolitan University. The national perspective will look at the impact of austerity on LGBTQ organising and is being managed by CRDHRM.
This will be explored in a TUC publication later this year.
In total 117 London-based organisations completed the survey in full or in part. Of these two were excluded as they provided information to indicate that they did not specifically serve or represent LGBTQ people. One was excluded as it provided information to indicate that it was a purely statutory organisation. The full sample is thus made up of 114 organisations, five more than the Almanac 2 nd Edition sample and 25 more than the
Almanac 1 st Edition sample.
64 organisations that completed the Almanac 3 rd Edition survey also completed the
Almanac 2 nd Edition survey. Comparisons to 2012 are limited to comparisons between only these organisations unless otherwise stated.
49 organisations that completed the Almanac 3 rd Edition survey in 2013 also completed the Almanac 1 st Edition survey in 2010. Comparisons to 2010 are limited to comparisons between only these organisations unless otherwise stated.
Of 70 organisations that say they raise funds or have income, 58 are included in the finance sample. These are organisations that are LGBTQ by mission, in order to capture the particular context of organisations th at make a ‘funding ask’ from a place of being specifically LGBTQ. Five organisations were excluded as they indicated that it does not state in their mission statement that they specifically serve or represent LGBTQ people.
Seven were excluded as they are projects within larger organisations or mainstream organisations, so the finance sample is made up of 58 organisations.
ORGANISATIONS
Purposes and aims
Of the 114 respondents to the survey, 103 organisations stated their purposes and aims.
Most of the categories that were established with the same question in prior years are still present this year. However, the
‘To provide non-commercial social spaces and activities’ category has not been identified this year as this motivation was not made explicit by any organisation in the current survey. Many of the organisations included in this category in the Almanac 2 nd Edition are now included in the new ‘Social/recreational activity group’ category. There is one other new organisation purpose identified this year, which is the
‘support group’ category.
The purposes and aims of London LGBTQ organisations can be broadly placed into the following, with some organisations in more than one category:
To promote LGBTQ equalities and human rights.
This category represents 16.5% (n=17) of the sample.
To build and empower/support community, including work around LGBT heritage and work to address isolation:
5

This category is one of the most prominent with 20% (n=21) of organisations’ purposes and aims being relevant. For example, QTIPOCs London is ‘a group for QTIPOCs (queer, trans and intersex people of colour) in London who want to hang out together and develop our community ’.
To address LGBTQ experience and need around a specific issue:
This category is the largest this year and includes 32% (n=33) of organisations who provided their purposes and aims. The issues that organisations in this category addressed were varied, though 11 organisations form a large subgroup, focusing on physical and mental health and wellbeing. Other issues that were addressed include domestic violence, education, homelessness, the austerity politics of the current government, and immigration. For example, Queer Resistance is a ‘collective of queers and allies across the UK coming together to fight the cuts
’.
To provide a platform for representation in order to influence policy:
Organisations in this category represent 2% (n=2) of the sample. For instance the LGBT
Domestic Abuse Forum ‘exists to provide individuals and organisations with support to develop, implement and improve services for LGBT people who have experienced domestic abuse’.
To facilitate knowledge exchange across individuals and organisations:
Organisations included in this category represent 15.5% (n=16) of the sample.
Organisations in this category include Gendered Intelligence, whose purpose is ‘to increase understanding of gender diversity in creative ways ’.
To support LGBTQ organising and collaboration:
Four percent (n=4) of the sample is included in this category. For example Queers Against
The Cuts aim ‘to mobilise the LGBTQ communities against the cuts, [and] promote discussion of alternatives to the cuts and reconstruction of a more LGBT friendly public service ’.
To provide space for LGBTQ people of faith:
This category includes 11% (n=11) of the sample.
To provide support for individuals and communities affected by HIV:
Organisations in this category represent 3% (n=3) of the sample. Included in this category is Naz Project London , which ‘provides sexual health and HIV prevention and support services to selected Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) communities in London ’.
Social/recreational activity group:
This new category of purposes and aims includes 18% (n=19) of the respondent organisations and is one of the most prominent. The social and recreational activities themselves are varied. Six organisations in this group organised sports activities including
6

football, cricket, tennis, cycling, squash, and running. Other activities included climbing, diving, singing, yoga, and writing. Many organisations had a purpose and motivation that was orientated specifically towards the activity, for example, Grace’s Cricket Club’s purpose is to ‘promote the game of cricket in the LGBT community’, and the Gay Authors
Workshop intends to ‘provide a forum for LGBT writers’. A minority of organisations in this category explicitly intended for their facilitation of the activity to have impact beyond the participation in the activity itself. For example, the Gay Football Supporters' Network has a purpose to ‘tackle homophobia in football on behalf of our supporting and playing members ’.
Support group and user led support group:
‘Support group’ and ‘user led support group’ are new categories, where those organisations in the user led category explicitly state this aspect of their organising.
Together they represent 12% (n=12) of the sample, and 9% (n=9) and 3% (n=3) respectively. For example Rainbow Friends is a ‘social and support group for people with learning disabili ties that self identify as LGBTQ’.
Activities
The activities of London based LGBTQ organisations are in the table below.
Organisation activities
Events
Information, advice, signposting, referrals
Newsletters and online media
Campaigning
Support
Building knowledge
Arts activities (e.g. performance)
Advocacy
Outreach
Training (e.g. of public sector staff)
Skills development
Education (i.e. in schools)
Befriending and/or mentoring
Resource development
Supporting LGBT organisations
Counselling
Research and research services
Sport
Helpline
Youth work
Religious/spiritual worship
Third party reporting
Health testing and alternative therapies
Direct action and/or civil disobedience
No of organisations
65
53
49
43
40
40
28
28
28
26
37
33
31
28
16
14
12
9
25
20
17
16
7
5
%
(n=104)
63
51
47
41
38
38
27
27
27
25
36
32
30
27
15
13
12
9
24
19
16
15
7
5
7

Housing provision 4 4
When comparing the activities of organisations that completed both the London LGBT
Almanac 2 nd and 3 rd Edition surveys, notable differences are:
The number of organisations that provide newsletters and online media has increased by
35%.
The number of organisations that campaign has increased by 12%.
The number of organisations that deliver arts activities has increased by 12.5%.
The number of organisations that indicate that they support other LGBTQ organisations has increased by 29%. This is consistent with findings from the PiP report (2007) that
LGBT organisations tend to rely on one another for support. It is also notable since there is a general reduction in funding for infrastructure organisations.
The number of organisations that say that they do work in schools has increased by 42%.
The number of organisations that provide training e.g. to public sector staff has declined by
17%; that provide skills development for LGBT people has declined by 21%; and that provide research and research services has declined by 25%.
20% (n=19) of organisations indicated that they provide public services that would also/ordinarily be provided by public bodies, while a large majority of 80% (n=76) indicated that they do not.
Policy and campaigning
60% of organisations (n=62) reported that they participate in policy and campaigning.
Some organisations that indicated that they participated in policy and campaigning activities in the Almanac 1 st Edition survey in 2010 now no longer do (n=7).
Amongst organisations that do, engagement has increased slightly: the number of organisations that participated in seven or more, and more than 10 policy initiatives or consultations has increased. The same is true of participation in policy forums.
Organisations were asked to describe a contribution that they had made to mainstream policy in the past year, to which there were 50 responses. From these open ended responses the following types of policy interventions were identified:
Policy level
National
Local
No of organisations % (n=50)
28
15
56
30
8

Policy issue
Equal Marriage
Crime and the justice system (domestic abuse, sexual offences and homophobic crime)
Equality issues within the
LGBT community (E.g. bisexuality, trans issues)
Health
Housing
Homo/transphobia in sport
International solidarity with
LGBT people in other countries
Sexual health
Asylum
Austerity
No of organisations
13
6
5
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
%(n=50)
26
12
10
6
6
4
4
4
2
2
For instance Sarbat ‘provided the gay Sikh community's response to the UK Government’s same sex marriage bill ’. The Albert Kennedy Trust (AKT) ‘helped stop legislation being introduced which would have removed housing benefit rights for under 25's
’.
Organisation structures
The below table shows the categories that organisations chose to describe themselves.
Type of organisation
Not for profit
Community group
Membership organisation
Registered charity
Network or forum
Company Limited by Guarantee
Online group
LGBT project in non-LGBT organisation
Community Interest Company
Partnership project between voluntary organisations
Social enterprise
Other
Student group
Industrial and Provident Society
No. of organisations
68
63
37
34
26
19
18
16
10
8
7
6
3
1
Of the organisations that selected ‘other’ or commented on the categories, three said they were faith based organisations, three said they were support groups, two musical performance organisations, and three sports groups.
9

Organisations were asked if they wished to become more formally constituted, e.g. by registering as a charity or a Community Interest Company. Many sources of funding are available only to formally constituted organisations. Of organisations who found the question applicable, 43% (n=27) of organisations stated that they did wish to become more formally constituted, whilst 57% (n=36) did not.
Those organisations that sought formal constitution were asked if they experienced any barriers in the process of formalising. 39% of organisations (n=14) stated that they did experience barriers; 61% (n=22) stated that they did not.
The table below shows the barriers that organisations described. These categories were developed after careful analysis of organisations’ descriptions.
Barriers to formalisation % (n=23)
Financial and funding
Knowledge
Time
Space
35
30
26
4
Financial barriers were mentioned by the largest proportion of organisations that experienced barriers. For example, and as one participant pointed out, at the time of writing in order to register as a charity with the Charity Commission organisations need to demonstrate that they have income of over £5000.
Membership organisations
Previous editions of the Almanac have identified that organisations use different definitions of membership; and that membership is an important income development route for
LGBTQ organisations. In the 3 rd Edition survey membership organisations were asked for the first time to describe their membership structures.
The table below shows the different types of membership that organisations describe.
These types are not mutually exclusive i.e. an organisation may have more than one type.
Membership structures
Fee paying membership
Annual membership (that has to be renewed)
Voting rights membership
Mixed levels of membership
Free membership
No. of organisations
23
21
16
13
11
Online membership
Corporate/partner organisation membership
8
3
Members attend meetings and receive emails* 1
Membership is by invitation* 1
*These categories were not available at the point of survey and were developed based on analysis of organisations’ descriptions of their membership. Therefore it is likely that the number of responses shown is lower than it might otherwise be.
10

Premises
46
% of organisations in this year’s sample report that they do not have a regular and reliable office or meeting space; whilst 54% report that they do.
Experiences
As in prior years, organisations were asked: ‘on a scale of 1 to 5, to what extent do you feel your organisation has been able to deliver against your purpose or mission in the past year?
’ (1 being ‘not able to deliver’ and 5 being ‘delivered all we set out to’). Amongst the same organisations that also answered this question in 2010, a higher proportion chose 5,
‘delivered all we set out to’ (26% compared with 9%).
Organisations were also asked ‘do you think the general situation of your organisation will improve or worsen over the next 12 months?
’. Amongst the same organisations who also answered this question in 2010, there was a higher degree of uncertainty in 2013: 24% of organisations selected ‘don’t know’ compared with 15% in 2010. In 2010 a higher proportion of organisations thought that their situation would improve: 38% compared with only 18% in 2013. Yet in 2010 also, a higher proportion of organisations thought their situation would worsen: 24% compared with 21% in 2013.
In 2013 the largest proportion of organisations thought there would be no change: 29%
(compared with 18% in 2010).
A relatively large and longstanding organisation in the sector shared: ‘we are at crisis point with a recent drastic loss of income. The next few months will either show improvement or we will be forced to plan for closure.’
When organisations were formed
11 organisations (9.6%, n=104) formed since the Almanac 2 nd Edition survey in 2012.
2012 was the year when the greatest number of organisations formed (n=9). 51 organisations in the sample were formed in 2000 or later (49%, n=104). The London based LGBTQ organising landscape is at a point of growth, particularly amongst community of identity organisations: 8 of the 11 organisations formed in 2012/13 are
LGBTQ community of identity organisations, and 4 of these are BAME organisations.
The people involved
Target group
Organisations were asked who they work on behalf of. Categories were provided that were developed based on prior year responses to this question. For the first time, organisations were able to select multiple responses to the question, so that the Almanac could more accurately capture the complexity of the sector. For instance some BAME organisations identify as working on behalf of BAME LGBT people and LGBT people of faith.
Interestingly, most organisations selected multiple responses to this question, some selecting all of the categories provided. Two analyses were conducted, one with all of the responses (Target Group 1, below)
, and one with the responses ‘cleaned’ with reference
11

to organisation s’ mission statements, to reflect only their primary target group(s) (Target
Group 2). Some organisations that selected nearly all other categories did not select
‘D/deaf LGBT people’ or ‘Disabled LGBT people’. This could be a reflection of the ongoing inaccessibility of many LGBTQ spaces in terms of provision of interpretation and disability awareness. Many organisations indicated that they work on behalf of BAME LGBT people
(n=39), when the data on service users/participants actually shows a drop in the number of
BAME service users/participants compared with 2010 (this is explored further below).
Looking at all of the Almanac samples overall, the picture of primary target groups has changed. For instance whilst the second largest number of organisations in the Almanacs
1 st and 2 nd Editions targeted young LGBT people, in the 3 rd Edition this has dropped to number four. Whilst organisations that target BAME people formed the fourth largest number of organisations in the 1 st and 2 nd Editions, in the 3 rd Edition they form the second largest number of organisations.
Target Group 1
LGBT/LGBTQ/LGBTQI
BAME LGBT people
Gay/Bi men/MSM
Bisexual people
Young LGBT people
Trans people
Older LGBT people (50+)
LGB people
LGBT people of faith
Disabled LGBT people
Trans BAME people
LBT women
Trans men
People affected by
HIV/AIDs
GL people
Trans women
D/deaf LGBT people
LGBT parents
No. of organisations
82
39
32
29
28
26
26
26
25
25
24
24
21
21
21
20
19
18
12

Target Group 2
LGBT/LGBTQ/LGBTQI
BAME LGBT people
LGBT people of faith
Young LGBT people
Gay/Bi men/MSM
People affected by
HIV/AIDs
Trans people
Older LGBT people (50+)
LGB people
LBT women
Disabled LGBT people
GL people
D/deaf LGBT people
Bisexual people
Trans men
Trans BAME people
LGBT parents
Trans women
No. of organisations
67
18
11
7
7
6
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
Governing body
There has been an overall increase in the number of people that sit on governing bodies in the London-based LGBT sector since the Almanac 1 st Edition survey in 2010. This is in part attributable to some organisations that did not have a governing body having set one up in the period. The total number of people who sit on governing bodies in the sector is
540.
The tables below show how the demographics of the people who sit on governing bodies in the sector have changed since 2010. Where the table shows ‘N/A’, that question was not asked in that year.
The figures are estimated by some organisations as they do not monitor the identities of the members of their governing body. Without that information it can be difficult to determine what progress is being made, if any, in ensuring that the leadership of the
LGBTQ sector is a ppropriately representative of London’s diverse LGBTQ community.
Looking at organisations that provided data in 2010 and 2013, there has been an increase in representation on governing bodies of bisexual, trans, and heterosexual people, deaf and disabled people, and older people; but a decrease in representation of BAME people, people of faith and younger people. This is a negative finding as the Almanac 1 st Edition already found that ‘the proportions of BAME members of governing bodies, members generally, and service users are notably low as compared with numbers within the LGBT community’ (p.148). However as noted above, a number of new BAME organisations have formed in the same period, possibly as a response to experiences within the wider sector.
13

Governing body
Year
Lesbian
Gay
Bisexual
Trans
Heterosexual
Women
Men
Black, Asian or from an ethnic minority
Of faith
D/deaf
Disabled
Older (50+)
Younger (up to 25)
Asylum seekers
Refugees
Parents
Carers
Other
Queer
Intersex
1st Edition
%
34
59
3
2
1
34
57
3
0
N/A
N/A
17
11
1
11
17
7
0
2
9
Staff
Year
3rd Edition
%
30
53
4
5
10
35
58
15
9
3
13
24
2
N/A
1
13
6
0
3
0
In total there are 184 people employed in the London LGBTQ sector. 43% of these are full time (n=79) and 57% are part time (n=105).
Compared to the Almanac 1 st Edition survey in 2010, the number of staff in the sector has decreased by 3% (n=4); and, the ratio of full time to part time staff has changed dramatically. Looking at the whole samples overall in the 1 st and 3 rd Editions, in 2010 the ratio of full time to part time staff was 1:0.4; in 2013 it is 1:1.3. Where before there were more full time staff than part time, now the reverse is true.
There was no change between the Almanac 3 rd Edition and 2 nd Edition surveys in the number of organisations with paid staff.
Compared to the Almanac 2 nd Edition survey in 2011/12, the number of staff in the sector has increased by 3%. Eight organisations experienced an increase in staff and eight organisations experienced a decrease.
Amongst the same organisations that provided data in all three surveys, the number of staff decreased in the period between the Almanac 1 st Edition survey in 2010 and the 2 nd
Edition survey in 2011/12; and then increased slightly in the period between the 2 nd Edition survey in 2011/12 and the 3 rd Edition survey in 2013, yet still remaining below 2010 levels.
14

The tables below show how the demographics of people employed in the sector have changed since the Almanac 1 st Edition survey in 2010. Where the table shows ‘N/A’, that question was not asked in that year.
Staff
Lesbian
Gay
Bisexual
Trans
Heterosexual
Women
Men
Black, Asian or from an ethnic minority
Of faith
D/deaf
Disabled
Older (50+)
Younger (up to 25)
Asylum seekers
Refugees
Parents
Carers
Other
Queer
Intersex
1st
Edition %
29
48
5
3
17
45
55
20
15
0
22
6
1
N/A
N/A
12
13
7
0
1
Year
3rd Edition
%
31
35
6
10
19
54
46
20
15
0
10
20
8
N/A
1
22
1
0
13
1
The proportions of staff that are lesbian, bi and particularly trans have increased; whilst the proportion of staff that is gay has decreased slightly. The proportion of staff that is women has increased whilst the proportion that is men has decreased.
There has been no change in the proportion of staff that is BAME, and the proportion of staff that is disabled has decreased slightly. The Almanac 1 st Edition found that ‘the proportions of staff that are BAME and disabled are low given their proportions in the
LGBT community and overall population of London’ (p.143).
Volunteers
The total number of active volunteers in the sector (that volunteer at least once per month), including trustees/members of governing bodies, is 1735.
The average number of volunteers in each organisation is 15, and the median 2 number of volunteers is 8.
2 The median is the numerical value that separates the higher half of a sample from the lower half.
15

The total number of volunteer hours that London based LGBTQ organising benefits from each month is 10,400. This is an average of 111 hours per month in each organisation, and a median average of 24.
This means that London LGBTQ organising benefits from 342 volunteer hours per day;
2,391 per week; and 124,800 per year.
Compared with 2012, there has been an 8% increase in the number of volunteers in the sector, and a 15% increase in the total number of hours that volunteers contribute.
For the first time, the Almanac 3 rd Edition survey explored volunteer management in the sector. Among organisations with volunteer manager positions, (22%, n=21), just 29%
(n=6) of these were paid positions, while a majority of 71% (n=15) were themselves unpaid volunteer positions. Two organisations with voluntary volunteer manager positions had paid staff, but the volunteer manager position remained unpaid. Of the paid positions, just
3 were full time; the rest ranged from 7
– 17.5 hours per week. This finding is significant in a sector that is disproportionately reliant on volunteers, in terms of support for unpaid contributions. centred ’s prior research findings on LGBTQ volunteering and activism experiences have found that support is vital to creating sustainable and positive volunteering experiences. Whilst this support does not necessarily need to come in the form of a volunteer manager, having that dedicated role, whether paid or unpaid, has created positive experiences for some, as centred ’s research has found.
The tables below show how the demographics of active volunteers amongst unstaffed organisations have changed since the Almanac 1 st Edition survey in 2010. Where the table shows ‘N/A’, that question was not asked in that year.
Volunteers
Lesbian
Gay
Bisexual
Trans
Heterosexual
Women
Men
Black, Asian or from an ethnic minority
Of faith
D/deaf
Disabled
Older (50+)
Younger (up to 25)
Asylum seekers
Refugees
Parents
Carers
Other
1st
Edition %
37
50
3
17
4
39
62
Year
3rd
Edition %
32
58
3
10
7
36
68
14
2
1
6
15
18
1
0
3
3
10
16
8
0
11
34
7
N/A
0
10
4
1
16

Queer
Intersex
N/A
N/A
0
0
Amongst organisations that do not have paid staff that provided data in 2010 and 2013, in contrast with staff, the proportion of active volunteers that are men has gone up slightly, whilst the proportion of volunteers that are women has gone down slightly. Representation of trans people amongst volunteers has decreased by 7 percentage points; whilst representation of heterosexual people has increased by 3. Representation has improved among BAME people; people of faith; disabled people; and older people.
Service Users
Together, LGBTQ organisations in the Almanac 3 rd Edition sample reported that they had had 85,333 service users or participants in their activities in the past year.
Compared with the Almanac 2 nd Edition survey in 2012/13, amongst the same organisations the number of service users/participants has increased by 6%. The Almanac
2 nd Edition also found there had been an increase in the number of service users over
2010.
The tables show how the demographics of service users/participants in activities have changed in the period between the Almanac 1 st Edition survey in 2010 and 3 rd Edition survey in 2013. Where the tables show ‘N/A’, that question was not asked in that year.
Service Users
Lesbian
Gay
Bisexual
Trans
Heterosexual
Women
Men
Black, Asian or from an ethnic minority
Of faith
D/deaf
Disabled
Older (50+)
Younger (up to 25)
Asylum Seekers
Refugees
Parents
Carers
Other
Queer
Intersex
N/A
N/A
1st
Edition %
18
60
11
7
6
24
71
22
4
0
5
12
28
2
1
3
0
1
Year
3rd Edition
%
11
79
5
8
2
14
83
12
6
2
10
8
10
N/A
1
6
2
5
4
1
17

There has been an increase in the proportion of service users who are trans; of faith;
D/deaf; and disabled; but a decrease in the proportion who are lesbian; bisexual; women; and BAME. The decreases in the proportion of BAME service users and women service users are significant, at 10 percentage points. This is a negative finding, though as noted above there are indications that there has been an increase in independent BAME LGBTQ organising in the same period.
Some of the increases in proportions could be due to improved monitoring in light of the development of the Equality Act and related practice. The decreases in the proportions of older and younger people in particular could be due to the use of different definitions of older and younger; in the Almanac 1 st Edition survey no definition was provided and organisations were asked which definition they used, whilst in the 3 rd Edition survey, the definitions given were younger (25 and under) and older (50 and over).
Conclusions
Overall representation in the sector across governing bodies, staff, volunteers and service users presents a mixed picture. There has been an improvement in representation amongst staff in the sector in terms of gender, bisexuality and trans identity. There is improved representation of disabled people across governing bodies, volunteers and service users; but the picture in terms of race and ethnicity is less positive: there has been a decline in the proportion of BAME people who sit on governing bodies and who use services.
As the Almanac 1 st Edition also found, there is more diverse representation within the leadership/governing bodies of the sector, than amongst the actual people that use services and participate in activities. This could be viewed positively as this may eventually translate into more diverse participants and service users.
Organisations were asked if their work had changed in terms of addressing the diversity in the LGBTQ community in the past few years. 27 organisations indicated that they had taken efforts to become more inclusive; 43 organisations indicated that they had not. Of those that had, 7 organisations indicated they had focused on trans identities; 4 mentioned access or disability; 4 mentioned BAME identities; 4 mentioned people seeking asylum; 1 mentioned young people and 2 mentioned women. Comments include:
‘We are trying hard to improve the intersectionality of our work.’
‘We have ensured our volunteers, staff and management committee are taken from all sections of our diverse communities and regularly review our work to ensure diverse needs are being met.
’
‘We were diverse from the start.’
‘We have recorded the demographic make up of the organisation for the first time last year. We are now making efforts towards increasing diversity .’
‘We plan to have a discussion internally soon around inclusion of Q and I people in our work.
’
18

‘We observe that meetings are vital to the growth of community so we have increased the number of social events we hold across the country.
’
‘Our organisation has only been going for a few years but we are always open to listening to people's experiences. We have had to work on being more accessible to people with access needs, and this is something which we are continuously trying to improve on.
’
19

VOLUNTEERING: IN DEPTH
Creating positive volunteer experiences
Dee Olerenshaw
Introduction
Similar to centred ’s 2011 workshops and focus groups which sought to investigate the varied experiences which comprise LGBTQ volunteering and activism, centred held a further two focus groups in the latter half of 2012. These more recent workshops once again investigated the motivations and experiences of LGBTQ volunteers within both community of identity and mainstream voluntary organisations. The focus groups explored factors that helped to maintain a positive and sustainable volunteer experience and enhance retention in terms of its relationship to support and resources. Furthermore in
2012 centred also explored how the volunteering experience may relate to the mental, emotional and physical health of LGBTQ volunteers.
The research participants themselves were from a range of voluntary organisations, some of whom were from the LGBTQ community and representing mainstream voluntary organisations and vice versa. As in previous years an attempt was made to include representatives from volunteer-led and grassroots organisations, reflecting the diversity of the voluntary sector. The mainstream volunteering organisations included medical research and health charities, whilst community of interest voluntary organisations included those from the women’s sector, from refugee voluntary organisations and from
LGBTQ community of identity organisations. On an individual level the participants included activists, volunteers, people who run LGBTQ organisations on a voluntary basis, volunteer managers in LGBTQ organisations, as well as a range of voluntary sector employees. The first workshop was held in London and included both community of identity organisations and mainstream voluntary organisations. The second workshop took place at the National LGBT Health Summit 2012 in Canterbury where at least 50% of the participants were from LGBTQ voluntary organisations.
The major themes elicited from the 2012 focus groups differ from those identified in the earlier workshops. The London LGBT Almanac 2nd Edition focused on two major themes, firstly ways in which LGBTQ volunteering and activism differ from mainstream volunteering, and secondly those factors that contribute to a positive volunteer experience.
In this current study retention and sustainability and their underlying elements of motivation and also empowerment and engagement were at the fore of the discussions.
Although these issues are not unique to the LGBTQ voluntary sector, in some respects the participants’ experiences do differ from their peers in the mainstream voluntary sector.
Retention
Retention of volunteers is of ongoing concern to both mainstream and community of identity voluntary organisations. A survey by the Institute for Volunteering Research (IVR) in 2010 of over 1000 voluntary sector volunteer managers found that 30-40% of all voluntary organisations experienced problems with retention of volunteers (Brewis et al
20

2010). This figure appears to be irrespective of the size of the organisation in terms of income. This is in contrast to an earlier report by IVR which found that organisations with lower incomes and/or with low numbers of paid staff were more likely to have concerns with volunteer retention (Machin and Ellis Paine 2008). Less resourced organisations tend to have less access to information related to best practice in volunteer management and are much less likely to have a funded volunteer manager or coordinator in place.
These findings were reflected by some of the participants who suggested that a lack of funds was a real problem in that there was not enough money to employ a volunteer manager: ‘I think it’s really important to have a volunteer manager in place. Not all of us are lucky enough to have a large enough budget most of us are volunteers; you know only a small part of the sector is paid ’. Many of the community of identity LGBTQ voluntary organisations fall within the lower range with respect to income and were lacking in the infrastructure required to have a paid volunteer manager. Nevertheless unpaid volunteer managers, and the incorporation of management of volunteers within a wider role are common within the voluntary sector (Ockenden and Hutin 2008).
Enriching the volunteer experience has previously been shown to be an important factor in maximising volunteer retention. This covers investing in and recognising volunteers, providing training and professional development for them, and matching volunteers’ skills to organisational tasks (Investing in Volunteering, 2010 UK Quality Standard for
Organisations that Involve Volunteers). Again these factors and related issues came up in the workshop discussions. In some cases strategies for promoting these factors were already in place; in others they were absent and sorely missed. Despite these being recommended practices in the UK, a study of volunteers by Machin and Ellis Paine (2008) found that the majority of volunteers had received little or no training from their organisation.
However further research should explore how, in terms of positive volunteer experience, underfunded organisations retain committed, and long serving volunteers, in spite of no formalised volunteer support. Retention issues can affect the capabilities of organisations in different ways and may be more keenly felt in less resourced organisations. Large organisations may see a loss in service delivery, but less resourced organisations may experience difficulties within the organisational structure. Loss of volunteers and volunteer trustees within less resourced organisations can present very specific challenges, especially if the volunteers have a significant role, specialist expertise, or have committed large amounts of energy and time to the organisation. An IVR report on the governance of smaller organisations indicated that within these, types of volunteers are often irreplaceable (Hutchinson et al 2009).
Training
Many participants within the focus groups felt that training was an important element in improving volunteer satisfaction, motivation, and retention. For some limited funds and skill bases meant that they were unable to provide training for volunteers and therefore were only able to provide openings for skilled volunteers which is necessarily exclusive: As one participant said ‘we are often asked if we could train volunteers, but we can’t because we don’t have the money for it’. This may be an issue for those who volunteer in order to gain
21

transferable skills, although previous research carried out by centred on LGBTQ volunteering found that in contrast to motivations in mainstream volunteering settings, people shared that gaining skills to add to their CV was not necessarily a motivating factor.
Rather experiences of specific identity-based inequality, and creating spaces where identities were positively affirmed, were found to be important motivating factors for
LGBTQ activists and volunteers (Kairos in Soho 2012, now centred ).
The significance of training for the volunteer experience was one of the major themes expressed by all participants throughout the two workshops. Another aspect of training essential for good working practice was also highlighted i.e. equality and diversity training for all new volunteers in order ‘to promote knowledge and understanding....across different equality groups ’ as one participant put it. It was felt that ‘getting to know’ the organisation and how the organisation promotes inclusive practice and supports diversity ought to be an ongoing activity that did not end with the induction process. Other participants emphasised the need for accredited training for volunteers whereby quality assurance could establish benchmarks for personal and professional development. Accreditation whether it be internal or outside the organisation, is however more likely to be practiced in larger organisations which have more resources and a more established infrastructure which enables them to implement these strategies more easily.
All participants saw training as integral to the volunteer experience and thus to retention.
Similarly Wymer and Starnes (2001) in their work on volunteer motivation and retention suggest that inadequate training was a primary reason for high volunteer turnover.
However earlier research on the LGBTQ volunteering experience by centred has indicated that volunteers leaving need not necessarily be seen as something negative, but rather sometimes moving on is symptomatic of an increase in self-confidence and skills.
This changing face of volunteering has been noted by others within mainstream organisations in that traditionally volunteering has seen strong links between the volunteer and the voluntary sector organisation, whereas increasingly volunteers prefer flexibility, moving between organisations and seeking out project based assignments rather than a long term commitment (Hustinx 2010). Such a shift in focus of course changes how variable retention rates should be viewed and measured. It is also useful to look at the motivation for individual volunteers when taking on volunteer roles; gaining skills and experience may suit more flexible project by project approaches to volunteering, whereas identity-based volunteering may see more long term commitment because of the connection people can make to their communities and organisations working with them.
When considering both accreditation and training, these clearly provide a level of motivation and retention in various volunteer settings, but when considering the volunteer experience where the role and organisation are closely connected to identity, a higher degree of motivation and commitment might relate more to how people are recognised or rewarded for the time that they give.
Rewards and recognition
Reward and recognition are important facets of creating a positive volunteering and activist experience, which was mirrored in the experiences of the participants in the focus groups:
22

‘Just recognising... the people who manage volunteers as well as the volunteers themselves can do wonders.
’ Keeping volunteers and activists in the loop was also seen as fundamental to recognising and validating their contribution to the organisation.
‘It’s important to inform volunteers about all aspects, that they ’re not just a volunteer , that they are integral, as they’re important. Why aren’t they in the management meeting – they do the work ’ (Focus group participant). Communication is key here: ‘One of the crushing things I heard as a volunteer manager was when I invited a volunteer to an event and she said to me, why are you inviting me I’m just a volunteer. I thought oh no you are the backbone of us you know.
’ The contributions made by volunteers and activists were seen by the participants to be pivotal to the successful operation of voluntary sector organisations. Equally important was making sure that the volunteers and activists were aware of this and that their work was acknowledged. Even a
‘thank you’ by email is sometimes all that is needed to make a difference. One participant explained ‘all the places that I had really good experiences was when I felt like I was a part..., when my contributions were valid and they were actually listening to what I was saying ’.
It was suggested that rewards perhaps in the form of awards would be a valuable addition to the volunteer experience:
‘awards like best life time server, best newcomer things like that and it is not going to cost us a lot of money
’. Another common theme emerging from the focus groups, unsurprisingly given the current economic climate and coupled with the fact that LGBTQ community of identity organisations are less likely to receive funding than more established LGBTQ voluntary sector organisations, is that a shortage of funds hinders the implementation of strategies to enhance the volunteer experience and aid retention. Despite this participants seek to develop strategies to circumvent this as demonstrated above. As one participant said a ‘regular thank you’ can be enough to keep you going. Some organisations already had awards and recognition schemes in place which were seen as indispensable in maintaining volunteer motivation and validating the volunteers
’ contributions: ‘we have a 5, 10 year recognition award and we have special events where they are thanked by the Chief Executive
… by a volunteering and community action team. It’s extremely important otherwise you lose your volunteer base, you lose everything, then you lose the reason why you were doing it in the first place.
’
Supervision and support
The need for volunteer supervision or an equivalent was also a theme which emerged from the discussions, which is of course tied to volunteer management and volunteer support. One participant felt that ‘It’s really important to have supervision, we’ve got to be careful about straying into things that look like employment. There are a lot of ways around it. Call it guidance for volunteers, still it ’s got to be there, you’ve got to have structure.’
Where volunteers are in direct contact with a vulnerable client base supervision becomes increasingly important as a forum for emotional support and as an emotional outlet:
‘Our switchboard volunteers have supervision and we also do peer to peer support where people can meet up as a group and share some of the distressing experiences they may have had ’. Again keeping the channels of communication open between volunteers and activists and the organisations helps prevent gaps in understanding around the experiences of the volunteers, those who manage them, and organisational management
23

more broadly. A particular issue arises here in terms of identity based volunteering, in that volunteers may experience unexpected emotional impact related to their own gender, sexuality and identity. This is undoubtedly the case in a range of organisations working with volunteers and around identity.
Tasks that play to strengths
As previously mentioned matching volunteers’ skills to organisational tasks is another key factor in providing a positive volunteer experience, a theme which was reiterated within the focus groups by the LGBTQ volunteers and activists. One participant shared
‘how important it is to value the previous experience of volunteers and giving them space to contribute, in relation to the work that they’re doing’. Matching skills was thought to be an important contributory factor towards maintaining volunteer motivation and retention. As one LGBTQ volunteer said: 'I feel most motivated when I am given tasks that play to my strengths
’; this was reiterated by another activist: ‘when I’m doing something I know I’m good at, then that really helps ’.
Summary
Many of the themes emerging from this data highlight the principles of good practice found in the Volunteer Management Charter, for example the embeddedness of equality and diversity, the provision of induction, supervision, opportunities for personal development, accreditation, rewards and recognition. These are cross cutting issues irrespective of sector type and size of organisation. However organisations with very little or no funding that often lack formal management and volunteer infrastructure may not have the capacity to put all these principles into their volunteer management practice. Despite this LGBTQ community of identity and volunteer led organisations may not experience high turnover rates. They are able to provide alternative benefits, activities, safe spaces, and networking opportunities for their volunteers which are not available in mainstream voluntary organisations. These organisations can fulfil a much needed, often neglected role in the community not provided for by any other organisation. Nick Ockenden and Mark Hutin
(2008) found that volunteers in less resourced voluntary led community organisations are frequently very committed to their organisation in terms of time, financial contributions, and longevity of service.
Understanding more about the positive volunteer experiences within organisations which can fund formal volunteer support helps to highlight and underline the impact of the various best practice guidelines for managing volunteers in these settings and the value and personal and community impact of diverse LGBTQ people volunteering within less funded community of identity groups. Commitment given often happens in spite of such guidance. A more nuanced understanding of volunteers who take on roles within community of identity organisations and groups will add much to understanding the motivations that keep diverse LGBTQ people engaged in volunteering, and the positive impact this has on both the volunteers and the communities they volunteer within.
24

Case Study: centred LGBTQ History Tour Volunteer Guides
Tom Wilkinson
This is a case study of the volunteering experiences of the group of volunteer tour guides that deliver centred ’s LGBTQ History Tour of Soho. Four volunteer tour guides participated in a focus group designed to explore their experiences and motivations before and after taking up the role. The intention of this case study is to generate learning useful for equalities and LGBT organisations. It is intended to provide learning that might support organisations to manage and support volunteers and increase volunteer satisfaction.
The focus group’s discussion of experiences can be divided into three interrelated themes.
First, the volunteers’ experiences from the training they received prior to taking up the role played an important part in sustaining their commitment early on, and developing a sense of ownership of their role and being supported. Second, the focus group included discussion that concentrated on certain aspects of the organisation’s interaction with the volunteers that were effective in sustaining their commitment once they had taken up the role. Third, the focus group discussion included insight into the volunteers’ motivations before and after taking up the role and how their motivations developed over this period within an LGBTQ community context. These three interrelated themes will now be discussed in turn.
Training
Training formed a key theme in the focus group discussion of volunteering experiences.
The group discussed that while the training was seen as ‘a lot of work’ [Participant 3], there were aspects to it that made it successful and sustaining. Particularly, the spacing out of the training sessions, the planning and content of the training, and the approach to fostering social connections between the trainee volunteer tour guide cohort.
Spacing the training out over monthly sessions was found to be beneficial as this level of commitment had less of an impact on other aspects of the volunteers’ lives. The focus group found the spaced out training to be more effective as it allowed them and others to devote more time to the learning process. This was seen as positive as it allowed for more input from the trainee volunteers into the training sessions and the ongoing volunteering role. Additionally, the training was seen positively as being structured in such a way as to allow flexibility in how the trainees approached their learning, giving rise to individualised approaches to the tour guide role. The effect of this for Participant 3 [P3] was to promote a sense of a safe space:
‘The learning journey has been done in such a way so that we all learn in our own way, so it felt quite a safe space.’ [P3]
The training was seen as a valuable process of getting to know centred as an organisation. The volunteers reflected on the fact that the role was much more involved than they had expected and felt it was important that the training had set out to convey centred ’s values and method of operation. This additional understanding gained from being orientated to centred as an organisation helped them deliver their guiding role.
25

The training was also seen by the participants as an early and important part of their bonding as a group. This was useful later as team working was always anticipated and experienced as comfortable because they had already built relationships. Additionally, the participants found this early emphasis placed on developing a socially cohesive group useful because they felt that the group’s diversity could have meant a more fragmented group dynamic developing. For example, Participant 4 [P4] states:
‘I think because we’re such a diverse group to begin with, we wouldn’t necessarily meet down the pub, I think [ centred ] very consciously encouraged us to mix and get on with everyone el se, and I think that’s something that we’ve continued on with, and I think without that initial push it could have developed a bit differently.’ [P4]
The focus group discussion indicates that the development of a socially cohesive structure within the diverse group was made possible through the clear setting out and presentation of centred ’s culture and ethics. This was because it helped to establish a shared framework on which to base the relationship of a diverse team. Crucially, for this to be effective the focus group suggested that the representation of the culture and ethics needs to be authentic, actually embodied by the organisation, and not superficial. As P3 explains:
‘I think also that the culture and ethics of the organisation are very strong, so I think that as a foundation has worked quite well in terms of how our relationships are formed. […] In some organisations they say these things, but by the way that they behave it just doesn’t happen. […] the culture and ethics of centred are pretty stro ng and I think that it’s helped to build it and sustain it, because it’s been two years and [the group] doesn’t feel like it’s fallen apart.’
[P3]
Contributing to positive volunteer experiences
The focus group identified three areas where an organisation could positively impact on their experiences of carrying out their role. These were getting feedback, consistent support, and involvement in the development of the service.
As mentioned, the focus group discussed that the tour guide role was sometimes felt to be much more involved than they had expected it to be. The more involved role and the desire to represent centred ’s culture and ethics accurately meant that the volunteering experience was sometimes daunting. This was prevented from becoming a negative experience through the volunteers gaining regular feedback from those on the tour via the volunteer manager. For example, P4 explains:
‘I’m really glad that we got to know centred [in the training], because we’re not just talking about our thoughts on LGBT history in this area or anything like that […] certainly I’m not always confident that I have shown centred to the most accurate way that they want to be portrayed necessarily. But that’s where the feedback to the tour has been really useful, and I think [the volunteer manager] and everyone, they let you know, they reassure you.’ [P4]
26

Positive volunteering experiences were also fostered by the volunteers feeling that they were well supported. This was associated with two interrelated areas: effort specific to centred
’s approach to the volunteers, and peer group support between the volunteers.
The volunteers in the focus group perceived centred to have a high level of commitment to including the volunteers in the ‘ centred team’. This was achieved through an overall effort to bring the volunteers together as a collective, mainly through supervision meetings and encouraging their attendance of events outside of their volunteering role. The most important part of this was that the commitment to the volunteers and their support was consistent. For example, Participant 2 [P2] states:
‘I feel part of an extended team, it’s not just feeling part of a team of guides, and I think I feel part of the extended family of centred . And I think that’s been achieved by the sheer level of commitment […]. The level of commitment over the length of time has been phenomenal, so you really do feel, I feel, part of a larger team.’ [P2]
This ongoing construction of a collective group dynamic has fostered a peer support structure between the volunteers. The use of the online resource ‘Yahoo Groups’ has further facil itated the group’s peer support by allowing communication between volunteers independent of centred . As P2 explains:
‘I see it as centred bringing us together to provide the support, either collectively...or through supervision...There are ways that we can share with each other and support each other electronically as well as in person.’ [P2]
Involvement in the development of the tour’s content was also seen to be a positive and sustaining experience by the focus group. This was because it increased the vol unteers’ connection to the tour guide role and the content that they were delivering:
‘It’s not a static relationship [between the volunteers and centred ], and that was quite well illustrated in our last group session where we were starting to look at changing the tour
…. And that feels like a process that we’re part of, and we’re encouraged to be a part of.’ [P2]
Importantly, the success of this process of involvement was related to the ongoing construction of a collective group dynamic. The focus group felt that the strong team bond generated a level of openness between the volunteers that enabled easy discussion.
Volunteer motivations
In the second half of the focus group the participants discussed their initial motivations for volunteering and why they were motivated to volunteer for an LGBT organisation specifically, if at all. They also discussed the cultural and community connections that they found centred offered once they had started their role and any relationship or effect centred has had with/on their identity. This discussion showed that their initial and most prominent motivations were somewhat varied. LGBTQ experiences and community were present in their initial motivations, but this thinking was not necessarily of central importance and was often expressed in conjunction with other interests. However, once
27

the participants had taken up the volunteering role the importance of diversity, activism, and community within an LGBTQ context became much more central in their motivations and ongoing commitment.
The initial motivations for volunteering discussed in the focus group were somewhat varied. P4 wanted to gain experience to move out of the profession that they were in, but also states that they were interested in the LGBTQ focus of the tour. Participant 1 [P1] explained that they were not content with how they were using the spare time that they had. P1 also had previous experience in similar tour guide roles, but wanted a volunteer role that ‘hit a bit closer to home’, P1 explains further:
‘I was looking at different history projects around and then I thought, ‘actually
I’m going to look into what queer volunteering opportunities there are’, and I found it that way, so it came out of the need to do something that I felt a bit more connected to’ [P1]
Other focus group participants explained that they were initially motivated to apply and take up the volunteer tour guide role at centred because it brought together a number of their interests that did not necessarily include an LGBTQ focus, as P3 explains:
‘I saw that it was going to bring together a number of elements of interest with me. So I’m passionate about history, I’m passionate about community engagement, that’s work that I’ve done for a very long time, and I wanted to be a tour guide.’ [P3]
LGBTQ diversity, activism, and community grew in importance for the focus group participants once they had taken up the volunteering role. For example, the volunteers’ awareness of the diversity of the LGBTQ community grew as their volunteering role progressed and this became a prominent factor in their ongoing approach to their role. P4 explained that attending centred events outside of their tour guide role contributed to this:
‘I think at first I wasn’t that conscious that there would be a different cultural or community connection, I just, sort of, thought it would be nice to meet some other LGBT people. But in practice actually…I’ve definitely found out a lot more about what’s going on more generally in this LGBT community that I was a part of, but not a ware of’ [P4]
For some, access to specialist training opportunities facilitated a growing awareness of the diverse issues experienced within the LGBT community, which impacted on their community and cultural connections. For example, centred facilitated training for P4 with
Gendered Intelligence, an organisation that facilitates debate and learning about gender:
‘I did some training with Gendered Intelligence, as a link through centred . […] outside of centred I’ve become more passionate about trans activism than I have about LGB activism. […] So that was definitely something that was triggered by centred and the information that was given to me through them.’
[P4]
28

P1 also commented on their growing knowledge of LGBTQ experiences, facilitated in part through specialist training opportunities:
‘I’m doing the [British Sign Language] course that they’re running, which is really good; I wouldn’t be able to do that if I wasn’t here [at centred ]. Yeah really enjoying it, meeting all sorts of queer activists across the community, and learning to sign and, like you say, learning about the deaf queer community, […] and I had no thought that that was going to happen when I started’ [P1]
For the focus group participants the unexpected extent of the LGBTQ community connection that they experienced after taking up the volunteering role contributed to
LGBTQ experiences becoming more prominent in their ongoing commitment. P2 explained that meeting people and sections of the LGBTQ community that they would not tend to have contact with became more of an appeal and motivation as their role progressed. For
P3 volunteering for an LGBTQ organisation was not a ‘conscious’ decision but the role’s
LGBTQ context became part of a process of personal development in understanding diversity. P1 discussed that through their experiences of volunteering in an LGBTQ context, their sense of community grew and became a more prominent factor in maintaining their commitment:
‘I don’t think I thought about how much we were going to be connected into the community […]. In my head we were going to meet members of [the LGBTQ community] as we guided and that would be it, but there’s a lot more to it than that, and I think it’s what keeps us here. If it hadn’t of been this good, it’s the kind of thing you could get bored of, or lose a lot of volunteers, but the reason that we are so connected into it is the reason that we’re here.’ [P1]
Summary
The focus group found that the guide training before taking up the tour guide role was an important environment for learning and building a cohesive dynamic within a diverse group. This was made possible by well spaced training sessions, allowing a flexible approach to learning and including extensive orientation to the values, culture, and ethics of the organisation. The Almanac 2 nd edition found that ‘experiences of specific identitybased inequality, and creating spaces where identities are affirmed, are important motivating factors for LGBT activists and volunteers’ (2012: 42). This appears to be contained within the positive discussion of flexible learning and the sense of a safe space that the training generated.
Additionally, the fact that the training and the shared leaning that it offered was so prominent in the focus group discussion supports the Almanac 2 nd edition finding that
‘shared learning is important to build positive, sustainable experiences, and to recruit and retain volunteers
[…] within LGBT organisations’ (Kairos in Soho 2012: 41). However, this case study builds on this finding by suggesting that the success of shared learning within a diverse group relies on building a common framework, such as the culture and ethics of the organisation, on which to base the group relationship.
29

Providing quality feedback, the consistency of centred
’s approach to supporting the guides, and including the guides in the development of the tour service was important for maintaining the volunteers’ commitment. Including the volunteers in the activities of the organisation in a context outside of their guiding role was also important for this. However, the success of much of this was founded on the strong and cohesive group dynamic that was fostered in the initial training period. This cohesive group dynamic alongside the availability of online tools enabled an effective and sustaining peer support network. This supports the Almanac 2 nd edition finding that peer support was very important for positive volunteering experiences.
Finally, the motivations and interests in volunteering of the focus group participants prior to taking up the role were somewhat varied, including notions of LGBTQ community only as a subtext. However, once the participants had taken up the role proper, issues of LGBTQ diversity, activism, and community grew in importance. For the focus group participants these more prominent identity and equality oriented interests became a central part of their approach to the role and an important factor in sustaining their commitment. For some this was in part facilitated through accessing specialist training opportunities. The Almanac 2 nd edition describes this later state of volunteers’ motivations within an LGBTQ context.
However, the Almanac 2 nd edition does not identify the transition in volunteers’ motivations and the growth in prominence of identity and equality oriented interests that the participants experienced once they took up their roles. This is an important complexity in the development of the participants’ motivations and commitment. It suggests that positive, diverse and affirming space and participation within an LGBTQ context is a prerequisite to a more involved realisation of community within volunteering experiences.
30

Funded volunteer management case study: Naz Project London
Kim Hawkins
NPL (Naz Project London) provides sexual health and HIV prevention and support services to selected Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) communities in London.
How are volunteers involved in your organisation?
Volunteers support us in every aspect of our work.
The most common role is conducting outreach/health promotion for NPL at nightclubs, community venues and schools; followed by supporting large events such as our AGM.
Many of our support groups are facilitated by group members, and/or have volunteers who cook food for meetings, help arrange social trips, or contact group members before each meeting to ensure they know about it.
Volunteers also support our casework and one to one services.
Most of our counselling is done by volunteers (with professional qualifications) or as part of placement. We also have two volunteers who do Shiatsu with our clients.
Volunteers take part in various case studies, some written for our website or resources, and an acted performance, the ‘cope up’ monologues.
Volunteers also serve in focus groups that we consult to ensure our projects meet the needs of our communities in the best way.
Why does your organisation involve volunteers?
Volunteers are central to our charitable mission of mobilising Black, Asian and ethnic minority (BAME) communities for sexual health. We aim for volunteers to gain skills, confidence and experience that they can take elsewhere, both within the sexual health and
LGBT sectors and outside to their wider community. Where volunteers are current or exservice users many find the opportunity to ‘give back’ to others who have had similar experiences quite empowering.
Volunteers are vital to our work, and through the outreach and health promotion allow us to reach more people; they also make us more diverse, allowing us to provide culturally appropriate and language-specific support. Volunteers can provide another link to our communities, and some service users are happier to approach volunteers than staff as they are seen more as peers.
Volunteers can also provide particular skills that our staff team cannot, and/or can provide high level skills that we would otherwise not have access to, such as providing pro bono legal advice or complementary therapies to clients.
What relationships did your volunteers have with your organisation before volunteering with you?
31

Many are current or previous service users, generally members of our support groups; others have no previous connection with NPL.
Many of the volunteers with no previous connection hear about us through being volunteers or service users of other sexual health or LGBT organisations; others have sexual health or public health under- or postgraduate degrees, or are currently studying, and are looking for experience in the field.
A minority of volunteers have no previous background in sexual health or sexuality issues but want to help our work.
How do your volunteers tend to find their way to volunteering with you?
The majority are either service users or ex-service users; others are people who come into contact with our outreach teams and then ask about volunteering. People with no previous connection but who have sexual health degrees often contact us after searching the internet for BME sexual health or after hearing about us at their institution.
We also advertise volunteer opportunities externally through volunteer centres. Around half of volunteers with no previous experience of us come to us in relation to a particular opportunity; the other half are looking more generally for experience in the sector.
What are the challenges of managing volunteers/a volunteer team?
One of our main challenges is in terms of funding: for volunteer expenses, but also training costs, staff time in supervision, back office admin etc. Funders still seem to think that volunteer involvement should cost nothing!
Most of our staff are experienced in working with volunteers; for new staff without that experience there can be challenges with running a volunteer team, especially where there is an existing team of 10 people that they need to be working with as soon as possible.
What are the benefits that volunteers bring to your organisation?
See above; volunteers can also bring a new perspective on our work and encourage us to think in ways we haven’t before. They contributed nearly 3,000 hours in 2012-13 which has been a massive boost to our work and the number of people we have reached and supported.
If your volunteers have any effect on the identity of your organisation, please can you describe how.
NPL started out in 1991 as a community and volunteer led organisation that was kept alive by the passion, motivation and energy of community members. Our ongoing volunteer involvement ensures we keep that spark alive within our projects, and that we always have a direct and real connection to our communities. We have 14 staff (most of whom are part time) and 140 volunteers throughout a typical year, so simple maths will indicate the huge impact that our volunteers have on our outlook and our identity. A further one hundred or so of our former volunteers are still connected with our support groups and projects in some way, which helps NPL have a family feel.
32

FINANCE AND FUNDING
Introduction and method
This section provides information about the economies of a sub-sample of 58 voluntary and community organisations (VCOs) that are ‘LGBT/Q/I by mission’ and say that they have income or raise funds. They state that they are based in and serve London and are not for profit. They are a combination of organisations that may or may not be financially well resourced, registered charities, community of identity LGBT VCOs, companies limited by guarantee and social enterprises.
Information is aimed towards diverse LGBT VCOs to support development and funding and for others interested in the economy of equalities sub-sectors. The aim is to identify and highlight any specific issues and trends that arise when explicitly organising around equality and identity.
Whilst this study’s focus is the economies of organisations that are LGBT/Q/I by mission we recognise that many other organisations serve and are informed and governed by
LGBT/Q/I people. Examples include Naz Project London, Positive East and the Metro
Centre.
In prior years we have presented a great deal of detail about different issues in comparison to a mainstream voluntary and community sector (VCS). By comparison, this year, the focus is more upon diversity and changes within the sector itself, given the fact that we now have data that spans a seven year period for a sub-sample of organisations.
When considering the past six years overall, the finance samples tend to include a core of approximately 20 resourced or formally structured organisations (e.g. registered with official bodies requiring annual compliance), with the less resourced organisations coming in and out of the survey from year to year. For example, 22 of the organisations in the current year sample were also included in the PiP Report (KiS 2007) finance sample.
This year organisations were asked to provide their projected budgets to 31 st March 2013 relatively close to that date. Figures to end of March 2012 were sought from the Charity
Commission in order to look for any significant changes over the past year. This reduced the amount of work required of LGBT VCOs to complete the survey this year. However, by relying on the Charity Commission for any prior year comparisons in that year, the sample in that case will be limited to registered charities only.
Data has been adjusted for inflation within each financial year, for example for organisations whose year end differs to the norm. Comparisons between years make an adjustment for inflation where stated.
Where comparisons are offered against the VCS as a whole, figures have been taken from the NCVO Civil Society Almanac 2013 (financial year end 2010/11). These use NCVO
33

figures for London where available and national figures tend only to be used for percentage comparisons.
Financial information provided by the questionnaire respondents has been reconciled.
Whilst we are not able to corroborate the information provided in most cases we have used Charity Commission data for registered charities to clarify any apparent anomalies or inaccuracies. The sector is relatively small and familiar to centred , and so anomalies tend to stand out.
Organisation income size in the 3 rd Edition sample, using a categorisation consistent with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO), is as follows:
Micro (income is less than £10K): 35 organisations; 15 of these have nil income
Small (income is less than £100K): 10 organisations
Medium (income less than £1m): 12 organisations
Large (income over £1m but under £10m) 1 organisation
Since the Almanac 2 nd Edition was published two organisations that were medium sized have become small and one organisation that would be classed as medium became large for a financial year and is now once again medium sized.
The largest national London based LGB VCO does not currently participate in the Almanac survey; information for 2012/13 is not yet available at the Charity Commission and therefore cannot be included. For the prior year, this organisation employed 64 staff and had income of just over £4m, 43% of total sector income in the prior year.
The organisations
22 (38%) organisations have paid staff
36 (62%) do not have paid staff
44 (76%) organisations have income
14 (24%) organisations do not have income
18 (31%) organisations are LGBT community of identity organisations (COIs)
40 (69%) organisations are ‘mainstream’ LGBT organisations
23 (39%) organisations are registered charities
35 (61%) are not registered charities
There are 23,248 general charities in London (NCVO 2013). Organisations that are
LGBT/Q/I by mission represent less than one tenth of a percent of all general charities.
34

Income and expenditure
Whilst only 39% of the organisations are registered charities (one organisation is registered as Industrial and Provident, and therefore included in this category), their expenditure equates to 97% of total sector expenditure.
Organisation Amount (£) As % VCS London
Almanac 3 rd Edition
Income £4,525,899 0.029
Expenditure
£4,656,345
0.031
As % VCS London
Almanac 2 nd Edition
0.038
0.036
These comparisons indicate that the income and expenditure of the London LGBT sector has fallen during the two financial years since the London LGBT Almanac 2 nd Edition as a percentage of the wider London VCS.
The sector’s income rose between 2009/10 and 2010/11 and has fallen consistently since.
This year income is 9% lower than in 2009/10 when comparing full samples. When considering a common sub-group of organisations across the four financial years, this fall is 4%; there is some suggestion that resourced organisations have been better able to navigate a difficult financial time than the sector as a whole.
Total expenditure of organisations when compared to income is at a high point this year since the analysis began, with the sector spending just under 3% more than the income it received in the year. This compares to spending of 5% less than income two financial years ago and suggests either that the sector is putting exceptionally little by towards reserves, contingency and development, or is in a period of high spending of reserves.
The figure will be affected by several resourced organisations in receipt of Transition
Funding. This income spanned two financial years and was held in reserves at the end of last year by organisations.
35

Average income
The table below shows the income averages and standard deviations for different types of organisation.
Organisation type
D/deaf/Disabledled
Mental health user-led
Women-led
Young-led
Black-led
COI LGBT-led
Faith-led
Trans-led
All organisations
Parent-led
Registered charities
Average income
(£)
110
550
1,350
2,325
8,000
15,750
16,040
21,925
78,033
110,000
168,675
Standard deviation 3
( σ)
156
Organisations (n)
2
0
0
0
12,792
31,445
35,755
28,390
170,851
0
222,427
1
5
2
59
1
23
1
1
5
18
When considering these average income levels, it should be noted that several categories of organisation type contain only one organisation, and therefore may be less useful
‘average’ comparisons.
Registered charities have the highest average income in th e sector (£168,675). Registered charities fair better than all organisations, than community of identity organisations collectively, and than all single community of identity groupings. The lowest average incomes are amongst D/deaf and disabled-led, mental health-led, women-led, young-led and Black-led organisations, in that order. Faith-led and trans-led organisations fair marginally better than community of identity organisations collectively.
3 The standard deviation is a measure of variation from the mean average. A low standard deviation indicates that the income amounts tend to be close to the average; a high standard deviation indicates that the income amounts are spread out over a large range of values.
36

Income source
The table below shows sources of income into LGBT/Q/I organisations, the percentage contribution from each source, the number of organisations in receipt of this source this year and a comparative income level for each source in the wider London VCS.
Income source Total (£) Percentage
(%)
Percentage in London
VCS (%) 4
Organisations
(n)
Investments 3,718 <1 7 7
Private sector
Other*
Trusts and foundations
58,221
149,956
646,395
1
3
14
6
-
9
8
14
15
National Lottery 672,173
Individuals (see below) 1,112,843
Public sector 1,882,593
15
25
42
1
45
32
8
41
16
Total n=44
4,525,899
Notes
*Other sources of income include partnership, secondment fees and one-off payments
Some organisations receive income from more than one source.
42% of the sector’s income, the highest single source, comes from the public sector, including local and central government and NHS health trusts. The second highest source is individuals (25%). Income from individuals is broken down into several sources below.
When comparing different sources of income to the wider London VCS, it is important to note that overall, London organisations that are LGBT/Q/I by mission receive just three hundredths of a percent of the total income of the London VCS.
Despite this disparity in overall income, comparisons of the percentage contribution from each source are interesting.
4 NCVO Almanac 2013 (financial year 2010/11); Quick guides; Regional data
37

LGBT VCOs receive a greater percentage of their income from the national lottery (15% compared to 1%), from trusts and foundations (14% compared to 9%) and from the public sector (42% compared to 32%) than the wider London VCS receives from these sources.
However, the sector does significantly less well from individuals (25% compared to 45%), investments (less than 1% compared to 7%) and the private sector (1% compared to 6%)
(NCVO 2013). This is contrary to common assumptions that arise in discussions about funding; there is a prevailing and dangerous assumption that ‘rich gays’ will support LGBT charities. Whilst some undoubtedly do, centred’ s research indicates that for a whole host of reasons, LGBT people will give to charity but do not necessarily give to or give more to
LGBT charities and projects.
It is also interesting to note the extent to which income from different sources fluctuates in the sector from year to year. For example in the 2 nd Edition Almanac (two financial years ago) income from the public sector represented 61% of total income and lottery distributors
7% of income. One significant grant to single organisations can dramatically change the funding landscape overall in such a small economy.
Income from individuals in detail
The percentage of income from individuals is 24% of total sector income. This is a lower percentage of income from individuals than in any other sub-sector identified in the NCVO
Almanac 2013. For example, Parent Teacher Associations, environment, faith and scout groups and youth club sectors receive 84%, 65%, 66% and 60% of their income from individuals respectively. Income from individuals in the LGBT sector is probably not lower than in other equalities sectors, however, the work of these sectors is rarely subject to funded analysis and dissemination. Only umbrella body and employment and training sectors receive lower percentages of income from individuals than the LGBT sector.
Notably, when considering income to sectors overall, as above, LGBT youth groups are less in evidence this year than in previous research years.
The table below shows the various sources of income that make up the total income from individuals shown above (£1,112,843, n=41), the percentage from each source and the number of organisations in receipt of such income.
38

Income Type
Total (£) Compared to total from individuals
(%)
Compared to total income
(%)
5,650 1 <1
Orgs (n)
Legacies
Other 1
3
18
<1
<1
4
12
22
27
23
1
6
Sale of goods
Membership fees
Donations
Fundraising events and fees
12,466
37,931
201,388
400,133
455,275
36
41
9
11
Total n=41
1,112,843
The highest percentage of total income comes from fundraising events and fees for activities (11%, n=23). Donations are the second highest source of income from individuals (9%, n=27).
Legacies
The percentage of income from legacies amongst micro, small and medium VCOs in
England and Wales is almost eight times greater than the percentage of income from legacies received by this size of organisation in the London LGBT sector.
Donations
According to UK Giving, produced by NCVO and the Charities Aid Foundation (CAF), the estimated total amount donated to charities across England and Wales in 2011/12 was
£9.3 billion, a decrease from 2010/11 of £1.7 billion in cash terms and of £2.3 billion in real terms, after adjusting for inflation. In real terms, the estimated total amount of donated income in the wider sector in 2011/12 is the smallest it has been since the NCVO Almanac research began in 2004/05. In order to establish if there is a similar trend amongst
LGBT/Q/I sector organisations centred looked at a common sample of organisations and
39

their donations for the past four financial years. These are mainly registered charities, and so a useful comparison against the UK Giving figures.
Donations amongst a common sample of LGBT/Q/I organisations between 2009/10 and
2012/13 shows increases between 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12 of up to 45% followed by a quite dramatic fall of 43% in the last year. 57% of organisations that receive donations experienced a decrease in this source of income last year.
Donations repr esent 9% of the sector’s income, which compares to approximately 17% in the wider VCS.
If 55% of the London LGBT/Q/I population (estimated to be 6% of the total population) gave an average donation 5 to LGBT charity, income from donations would be over £7m per annum, compared to the current figure of £400,133.
There are a number of issues that conflate to present particular challenges to community of identity organisations raising funds from individuals. The common prejudice that the community supports itself presents a barrier. Community of identity organisations are often working with less well off people. This assertion itself is often challenged because more visible people within diverse communities are often those who are affluent. It is highly probable that the infrastructure of philanthropy is as discriminatory as any other infrastructure, exacerbated by the higher numbers of upper and middle class individuals amongst major givers. It can reasonably be argued that wealthier individuals are protected from many of the negative influences of oppression and marginalisation, and hence have less appreciation of the issues, less empathy and are less inclined to give.
Community of identity organisations and income from individuals
Taking a sub-sample of LGBT community of identity organisations (n=18) in this and the
Almanac 1 st Edition sample, these organisations have experienced a larger percentage change in income levels than the overall sample of organisations. Some increases occur in income from fundraising events, membership and income from trusts and foundations.
Whilst the amounts are not significant when compared to the wider VCS, this is a positive change in terms of recognition of the resourcefulness and high levels of activity in less financially resourced organisations. Unfortunately, donations to this sub-sample of organisations have fallen over the period.
When asked, two such organisations said they had established specific initiatives in the year to increase income from individuals.
An interesting finding when looking specifically at LGBT community of identity organisations is that none, when asked, said they were in partnership with other organisations. Given these are the least financially resourced organisations this might
5 UK Giving by CAF and NCVO (2012) has derived an average donation for 2011/12 of £27 and a proportion of people in the population who give to charity as 55%
40

suggest that they are either not asked, or do not have resources to respond. In either case, this is significant due to the enormous amount of expertise and relationships in this particular sub-sector.
The same percentage of community of identity organisations (which have an average income of less one fifth of the average income of all organisations) felt they had been able to fulfil their mission to some or to a great extent during the year, as more financially resourced organisations. 27% of organisations however felt they had had to cut back or hold off on new developments due to a lack of funds.
Fundraising
Eleven percent of the sector’s income is derived from fundraising events and activities. In the 2 nd Edition Almanac, the proportion of income from this source (8%) was found to be a higher proportion than in the wider VCS. This is interesting when compared to a lower level of donations to the LGBT/Q/I sector. One explanation is that the lack of engaging social and community spaces within the community results in a positive response to fundraising activities that have a social element.
Anecdotally, there appears to have been a marked increase in social events with a fundraising element across the London sector, including quizzes, treasure hunts, poetry and music nights and walks.
The amounts of income from donations (£400,133) and from fundraising activities and events (£455,275) this year are relatively close. However there has been a 165% increase in income from donations and a 288% increase in income from fundraising events and activities amongst the same 13 organisations across four financial years. Eight organisations have such income this year and had none four years ago.
Pubic sector income in detail
The following shows the distribution of income from the public sector between central and local government:
Source Total (£) Percentage (%)
31 Central government
Local government
585,107
1,297,486
1,882,593 n=17
69
41

The make up of the London LGBT/Q/I sector is such that there are a relatively stable group of resourced registered organisations that have been in existence since the eighties and nineties working around health, mental health, domestic and sexual violence and housing. One might have expected to see a growth in number and size of service delivery organisations following the introduction of the Equality Act, but this has not been the case, though to date these organisations are successfully navigating a difficult economic climate.
The total combined income of organisations formed post 2000 represents just 11% of the sector’s total income.
Sixteen organisations in the sample this year are in receipt of public sector income; twelve are registered organisations.
Given the importance of government funding to a particular service providing sub-sample, an analysis of only these organisations common to both this year’s sample and the
Almanac 1 st Edition sample (n=16) is useful.
There has been a fall in public sector income of £634K representing 34% of total income from this source. In real terms this fall represents 20%.
The ratio of central to local government funding is 31:69, which compares to 38:62 in the
Almanac 1 st Edition sample, three financial years ago.
So this sub-sample of organisations has experienced a fall in central government funding and an increase in local government funding. It is possible that this change relates to devolution of service responsibilities, and supposedly related spend, at a local level, though actual amounts are relatively low.
Where public sector funding once represented 62% of income of this sub-sample of organisations, it now represents 48%.
Further analysis of individual organisations in this group clearly indicates that organisations reliant for the majority of their income on public sector funders have taken real and significant hits. Some organisations have experienced a fall of almost 50% of income from the public sector and yet managed to compensate from other sources. Whilst income to the sector overall is not drastically reduced this year, significant increases in funding from individuals amongst a few organisations is masking real reductions in public sector funds to several service providing organisations.
Total income amongst these organisations has fallen by 4% since the 1 st Edition Almanac, however it is important to note that at least four organisations were in receipt of substantial
Transition Funding, (distributed by BIG on behalf of the Cabinet Office) and therefore the real impact of these reductions in public sector funds may not be seen for a further year.
42

Lottery income in detail
This year more organisations (n=8) are in receipt from the Big Lottery Fund than in the past four years. The increase appears to be in grants of under £10,000, which are likely to be Awards for All Funding.
There have been three organisations each year for the past four years with Big Lottery
Fund income of over £100K, which suggests that there is either a limit to the number of applications this sector can manage to complete in any one year, or a limit to the number of LGBT/Q/I applications likely to be funded from this source in any one year.
For the past three years there has been one organisation in the samples that has been in receipt of Heritage Lottery Funding. This year there have been two; it would be a welcome change if this were the beginning of a trend.
Staffing in organisations that are LGBT/Q/I by mission
The majority of organisations in the finance sample (63%) have no paid staff.
The table below shows how many staff of what type work in different types of LGBT/Q/I organisations. These organisations are LGBT/Q/I by mission.
Organisation type
COI
Non-COI
Organisations (n) Part time staff (n) Full time staff (n)
4
18
8
68
3
65
The highest total number of full time staff in any one organisation is 13. The highest number of part time staff in any one organisation is 13. Amongst organisations as a whole the average (mean) number of full time staff is 1.15 (n=59); mode and median are both zero. The average (mean) number of part time staff is 1.29 (n=59); mode and median are both zero.
Staffed organisations have an average number of 3.8 (n=18) full time staff and/or 3.8
(n=20) part time staff.
Narrative from organisations
Some open ended questions solicited the following comments from organisations in the finance sample:
‘Given the small size of the organisation and our limited capacity we have managed to punch above our weight and helped place the cuts in a LGBT perspective in the community and within the anti cuts movement.’
43

‘The Cabinet Office's Transition Fund has allowed us to invest in fundraising and communications strategies to remodel our services and develop new projects.’
Just seven organisations (4%) felt that their financial situation would worsen in the coming year.
It is truly encouraging to see this high level of optimism in a sector that is navigating such a tricky landscape.
44

ENGAGEMENT WITH INFRASTRUCTURE
Case study: Guildhall Art Gallery
Tom Wilkinson
In 2013 the Guildhall Art Gallery exhibited a series of photographic portraits titled ‘Fierce’ by the photographer, archivist, and activist Ajamu. The Guildhall Art Gallery is part of the
City of London local authority, located within the City of London’s Culture, Heritage and
Libraries Department. This exhibition represents an engagement between a mainstream institution and LGBTQ communities. This case study is looking at good practice in how mainstream institutions engage with LGBT and queer issues, projects, and people. It is based on interviews carried out with the artist, Ajamu and the principle curator at the
Guildhall Art Gallery and London’s Roman Amphitheatre, Sonia Solicari.
The findings of this case study will be discussed in relation to findings from the ‘Phase 1
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Infrastructure Development Project (The PIP
Report), published in 2007 by Kairos in Soho (now called centred ). The PIP Report identified five interrelated barriers that prevent effective working between LGBTQ individuals, groups and voluntary and community sector organisations (VCOs), and mainstream organisations and institutions. This case study will first outline these five barriers identified in the PIP report. It will then establish the focus of Ajamu’s art practice and his motivations specifically behind Fierce to give context to the case study. The interview data will then be considered in five themes: first, Ajamu’s ability to engage and organise; second, Ajamu’s perception of barriers to LGBTQ individuals, groups, and organisations accessing mainstream spaces such as the Guildhall; third, how the Guildhall
Art Gallery is reducing or maintaining such barriers; fourth, the decision making process associated with Fierce being accepted onto the exhibition programme; fifth, the positive impact Fierce has had both within an LGBTQ context and on the organising of the
Guildhall Art Gallery.
PIP Report findings
The PIP Report identified five interrelated barriers that prevent effective working between
LGBTQ individuals, groups, and VCOs, and mainstream organisations and institutions relevant to the focus of this case study. These will now be outlined to establish a theoretical framework and point of reference for this case study.
The first barrier identified in the PIP Report is that mainstream organisations tend not to engage with, and/or produce data on LGBT individuals, groups, and organisations relevant to the services or projects they are delivering. Mainstream organisations should identify where there is a lack of relevant data on the LGBT community or groups that are to be engaged and seek to carry out research to better inform their work in that area. It is also important that mainstream organisations have in place effective monitoring and audit of any engagement, and/or project and service delivery with LGBT groups/VCOs to develop relevant data and knowledges for future work.
45

Second, engagement with LGBT individuals, groups, and organisations by mainstream organisations and institutions can be experienced by those that they engage with as superficial, impacting on success and jeopardising future work (Kairos in Soho 2007: 96).
Perceptions of engagement being superficial can stem from a number of bad practices.
These are: mainstream organisations having a narrow focus or understanding of the LGBT community which does not engage with the LGBT community’s diversity; working and consulting in a way that isn’t representative of all those groups the mainstream organisation seeks to represent; engagement with LGBT individuals, groups, and organisations without substantive exchange and learning.
Third, a significant barrier to engagement can be an innate heteronormativity within the policy and practice of a mainstream organisation which assumes heterosexuality. This can work to render LGBT individuals, groups, and organisations invisible from the viewpoint of the mainstream organisation. Exclusion of LGBT groups in this way is compounded by the often low levels of organisational capacity available to LGBT individuals, groups, and organisations, making this form of exclusion harder to overcome.
Fourth, the low level of capacity often available to LGBT individuals, groups, and organisations is a barrier in itself. This is because a lack of capacity often hinders the use of skills and knowledges already held by LGBT individuals, groups, and organisations that could otherwise facilitate successful and substantive engagement with mainstream organisations and institutions (Kairos in Soho 2007: 97). For example, this can be an issue for pan-London LGBT organisations that need to engage with the 32 separate local authorities to consult on policy development (98).
Fifth, the LGBT voluntary sector does not have a cohesive voice. This of course is not a barrier in itself; however, mainstream organisations and institutions create a barrier when those LGBT individuals, groups, and organisations that they do engage with are assumed to be representative and/or accountable to the LGBT community (Kairos in Soho 2007:
98).
The focus of Ajamu’s practice and Fierce
Ajamu’s work originally developed through resistance to the dominant representations of
Black men around the early 1990s:
‘A lot of my work, historically, has been around ‘what does it mean to be Black and male and gay within a UK context?’, so a lot of my work during the early nineties was around B lack masculinity and sexuality […]. A lot of the work that I saw around Black men was either framed within fear, threat, desire, fascination and basically I felt that a lot of the images were highly sexualised around the
B lack male body. […] So my work challenged that or moved outside of that narrow frame of reference around that kind of B lack male experience. […] I thought that there was a space to have a different kind of dialogue around identity and sexuality from a Black UK queer perspective.
’ [Ajamu]
Fierce, a series of large format, black and white photographic portraits is Ajamu’s first large body of work consisting of only portraits. Fierce seeks to catalogue and archive
46

‘another generation of young people; movers and shakers, your arts activists, and cultural producers
’ [Ajamu interview]. Fierce is a body of work about Black British queer experience that celebrates young people. For Ajamu, Fierce is
‘a body of work that I wish I saw when I was an 18 year old, a Black gay man in Huddersfield looking for something that looked like me ’ [Ajamu interview].
Ajamu as an organiser
Ajamu’s interview indicates that he is highly engaged in organising and activism, especially arts activism. He recognises that he has some form of authority through the fact that some people value what he has to say, especially around his archivist work and work with rukus!
Federation (a programme of community based work with Black LGBT artists, activists and cultural producers). However, he notes that this is partly because ‘there’s very few of us who are Black and queer actually talking about heritage and history [in the UK]
’ [Ajamu interview]. As well as authority, Ajamu discusses his ability and intention to create and inhabit spaces that are relevant and resonant with LGBTQ experiences. This commitment, he feels, has enabled him to have some influence on the thinking of other LGBTQ groups and organising. Additionally, this work and approach to creating spaces ‘that a whole range of people can enter’ has enabled him to build relationships with organisers in the UK and the US linking him into arts infrastructure.
Ajamu’s high level of engagement is also evidenced through his influence outside of
LGBTQ organising and experiences through his working within an LGBTQ context:
‘In 2006, when we did the exhibition Fire This Time: Queering Black History
Month
[…], from then we started to make sure that there was a Black queer experience within Black History Month, and then the following February we would always have a celebration of LGBT History Month and Black History Month USA and then actually since then we have found that a few organisations are now acknowledging that actually there is LGBT history month as well as Black History
Month happening at the same time. […] I’ve seen that there’s kind of shifts happened of things that we’ve put forward or kind of suggested’. [Ajamu]
In t erms of Fierce, the breadth of Ajamu’s organising and engagement has significantly contributed to his ability to bring the first Fierce exhibition to fruition. Ajamu explains that the delivery of the exhibition has been a community effort through the participation of others in the project and it’s fundraising. This has happened alongside Ajamu securing support and engagement from two mainstream institutions, the Arts Council and the City of
London. Gaining the support and engagement from these mainstream institutions can be attributed to Ajamu’s ability to navigate certain normative and perhaps bureaucratic frameworks. This better ensured the eventual success of his mainstream engagement:
‘So in terms of what drew the gallery’s attention to Ajamu’s work [...],when
Ajamu’s proposal sort of dropped on the mat, it was a breath of fresh air because we get a lot of exhibition proposals and they’re in varying states of, you know, professional presentation shall we say, and Ajamu’s was just so wonderfully laid out and professional, there was a show there that we could
47

have confidence in and trust the artist was keen on doing a good job with his work
’. [Sonia]
The interviews with Ajamu and Sonia show that Ajamu has a substantive ability to engage, influence, and organise within and outside of the LGBTQ community. Ajamu and Sonia both provide evidence that the Guildhall Art Gallery did not contribute to Ajamu’s financial capacity to produce such a high quality exhibition. Nevertheless, Ajamu’s personal capacity to mobilise resources and to influence contributed, in this instance, to him negating the fourth barrier identified in the PIP report: that LGBT individuals, groups, and organisations often have a low level of capacity. This barrier can be seen as particularly severe when considered with other complexities and barriers on the part of the Guildhall
Art Gallery that will be discussed below. Despite this, high levels of commitment and ability on
Ajamu’s part made this particular project possible.
Ajamu’s perception of barriers to engagement between LGBTQ groups and mainstream institutions, including the Guildhall Art Gallery
Ajamu perceives a level of exclusion within many mainstream institutions that is incongruous with their stated aims:
‘The policy of places like the Guildhall, The British Museum, The National
Portrait Gallery, and a whole range of institutions is that ‘we are open to all’, which they are, however, if you look at who actually then uses those spaces, then actually there’s sections of the community or of groups who don’t actually go to those spaces, so basically, what then, is going on there?
’ [Ajamu]
Ajamu also specifically felt that the Guildhall space marginalises particular groups of people. These barriers perceived by Ajamu formed part of his motivation to engage. As such, Fierce is an effort to prove that there is an audience who
‘will come if they see images on the wall that look like them or reflects part of their experience ’ [Ajamu interview]. Ajamu explains that he set out to create a dialogue around why particular groups, including Black, queer, and LGBT people tend not to enter the Guildhall:
‘Normally lots of Black work and lots of gay work tend to be pushed somewhere towards the margins, yeah, it’s very rare that Black and queer work actually appear within mainstream spaces, and so part of my challenge was to break down those barriers and apparent barriers around the Guildhall.
’ [Ajamu]
Ajamu feels that mainstream institutions and organisations arguing that
‘Black LGBT communities are hard to reach and invisible
’ creates a barrier [Ajamu interview]. For Ajamu this argument from mainstream organisations is problematic because the reality is that these communities are not hard to reach or invisible, there just needs to be a different approach to looking and engaging. The Fierce exhibition included this different approach, for Ajamu the exhibition contained a
‘dialogue about how spaces are accessible or are inaccessible physically, politically, or culturally
’ [Ajamu interview].
48

The Guildhall Art Gallery reducing barriers
The interview with Sonia, the principle curator at the Guildhall Art Gallery, suggests that there is a shift within the institution, reducing barriers, including those discussed by Ajamu.
Sonia feels that she has brought a more flexible process of arranging the exhibition programme that enables the gallery ‘to try different processes and different shows’. This is not explicitly about diversity, engaging LGBTQ and other marginalised groups, nor social justice but it does indicate an effort to change within the mainstream organisation. Sonia explicitly describes how the gallery did not want Ajamu’s exhibition to form part of a superficial effort on its part in its engagement with a Black, queer project:
‘I would say that the only concerns were really that the gallery didn’t want to be seen as being tokenistic and doing something that was outside what it usually did in order to, you know, attract new audiences and all those sort of tick box things. We didn’t have an agenda and then try to source a show to try and suit an agenda; it was literally that Ajamu’s proposal came to us along with many other proposals and his was the most professional and inspired the most confidence. It’s true that we’ve always got an eye on attracting new audiences, all galleries have, that’s our remit, we want to make the works that we hold in trust for the public available to the widest possible audience.
’
The suggestion that the Guildhall Art Gallery did not want to engage outside of its normative programme on a superficial basis is positive. However this implies that having a strategy to engage with LGBTQ communities and combat marginalisation within mainstream heritage and culture is conflated with taking a ‘tick box’ approach. Sonia implies that the Guildhall Art Gallery has an equal opportunities approach to choosing exhibitions that does not actively seek out marginalised groups to improve the diversity of their content. In other words, the Guildhall Art Gallery has an explicit concern to engage meaningfully with non-mainstream groups, but has no intention to strategically seek out programme content from them. This approach contains a conflict between a potentially barrier-reducing awareness of a need for authenticity and a position that potentially upholds the status-quo, which may render their effort superficial nonetheless. This appears to uphold the second barrier identified in the PIP Report, but needs more data to understand the extent to which this approach is experienced as authentic. It also amounts to an invisibility of LGBTQ groups identified in the third barrier in the PIP Report, representing a continued innate heteronormativity despite the concern regarding superficiality.
As will be discussed below, the Fierce opening was a particularly successful event for the
Guildhall Art Gallery. Sonia suggests that Fierce was successful in part because it was treated as a mainstream exhibition and gained access to the full infrastructure of the gallery to make it happen. However, the fact that Fierce was placed within the gallery’s mainstream programme was not by virtue of an explicit LGBTQ engagement strategy:
‘So if I could get to the crux of why and how the Ajamu/Fierce exhibition worked in terms of the whole infrastructure of the gallery, it would be the fact that it entered our mainstream programme, and therefore all the usual things that
49

would kick in for a mainstream exhibition kicked in. S o it wasn’t something that we had a strategy for, which we segmented and decided to separately commission and do
’. [Sonia]
However, this also suggests that there were other factors in the success of the exhibition that were not part of the Guildhall Art Gallery’s approach to engaging with the project. Indeed, it was notable that at the late view the Guildhall Art Gallery did not employ a photographer, and significantly for a gallery such as this, there was no subsequent mainstream reporting or press coverage. The other factors that determined the success of the exhibition arguably entirely result from Ajamu’s ability to organise and engage.
There is, however, an intention to build on the success of Fierce. Sonia suggests that there is an aim to now maintain continued dialogue, learning, and exchange of knowledges, and to work with ‘communities’:
‘My real concern with this exhibition is that it doesn’t sort of stand alone within a programme, as a sort of, as a one off. I think that the thing is how one takes the relationships that we’ve built from this and start to develop them in a natural and not so forced way, so I think that over the duration of the exhibition and following it I’ll want to talk, […] you know, in some detail with Ajamu about what he feels he’s got out of the exhibition […], how he feels the space has worked. […] erm whether he feels that there are any ways of building on this show; it might not be with another exhibition, it might be an event, it could be with online content, it could be about work we do with communities from the gallery space, but I think with any exhibition now we want to look at the on-going effects of that show
’
[Sonia]
If this concern manifests then some of the major determinants of the second barrier of perceived superficiality identified in the PIP report could be addressed. For example, this learning could expand understandings of LGBTQ experiences and better enable representative working and consulting on behalf of the Guildhall Art Gallery.
Sonia argues that the local authority is more open to an exhibition orientated from a queer perspective than it was in the past, making the fostering of this engagement easier than it might have been. There has also been wider engagement within the local authority with the language of Fierce. There is now openness for some form of on-going agenda that engages with artists in a way that continues to challenge the mainstream position:
‘I think the City is very keen that the gallery continues to ask questions with its exhibition programme, in terms of what should we do and what’s relevant, and where do we go with our exhibition programme ’ [Sonia]
This can be seen in contrast to the problematic ‘equal opportunities’ approach discussed above, and as an undermining of a heteronormative policy framework and practice at the
Guildhall Art Gallery, making ongoing engagement between the gallery and Ajamu more likely. It also undermines the third barrier of innate heteronormativity rendering LGBTQ groups invisible. Looking at the Guildhall Art Gallery website 7 months after the end of
50

Fierce, there is no explicit mention of some form of ongoing agenda to engage with individuals, groups, and organisations outside of the mainstream. However, the current exhibition includes work from artists who engage with issues around gender, sexuality and colonialism.
The Guildhall Art Gallery’s decision making process
When proposing the exhibition Ajamu had described explicitly that it was the intention of the exhibition to address the lack of spaces for Black queer artists in spaces such as the
Guil dhall Art Gallery. In the Guildhall Art Gallery’s decision making process the curator is the gatekeeper to the art gallery. Ajamu suggested in the interview that S onia was ‘bowled over’ by this argument and the content of the work in the proposal and so was initiated through the gallery’s decision making process.
For Ajamu’s exhibition to be given the Guildhall Art Gallery space there was an extensive approval process beyond the standard level of scrutiny most potential exhibitions go through. The curator explicitly says that Fierce was not presented in this additional arena for exceptional scrutiny, though the reality is that this is what Ajamu’s work received:
‘So in terms of how the decision was made to stage Fierce, Ajamu presented a very professional proposal […]. I looked at the schedule, […] and we could fit it in the spring slot of 2013. That suited Ajamu so it meant that could then go to the next stage, which was me going to the exhibition board here which consisted of the Head of Public Engagemen t […], and then also the head of
Culture, Heritage and Libraries and we decided whether or not that was a show that we wanted in the programme, and it passed that level of the board, and then I did actually present it to our elected members as well because I just happened to be presenting the whole future programme, so it wasn’t presented to them for approval as such, it was more presented to them so that they knew what was coming up in the coming eighteen months, and that passed without a problem.
’ [Sonia]
This exceptional level of scrutiny formed another potential barrier that was ultimately not realised.
A positive event:
Ajamu’s efforts to engage with a mainstream cultural institution and the fruition of Fierce have had a highly positive wider community impact. Generally, Ajamu sees his work as having impact beyond his own experience through its representation of diversity beyond the normative space. As Ajamu argues:
‘I always believe that we as a BME LGBT community constantly have to create images that look like us and reflect who we are in all our complexities, our fabulousness, our fierceness, and so actually I think that does something when a group of people come and see something, or portraits, that looks like them, be that in some shape or some form.
’ [Ajamu]
51

The delivery of this particular exhibition within the mainstream space of the Guildhall Art
Gallery has enabled the work to become a medium to extend the agency of those it represents:
‘There had been an excitement about what this work can do, and I guess kind of how far a body of portraits of young Black LGBT people can actually travel ’.
[Ajamu]
The engagement between the Guildhall Art Gallery and Ajamu has also been successful and positive for the Guildhall Art Gallery. For example, Sonia describes how Fierce also impacted on the experiences of the ‘City of London hierarchy’:
‘I suppose I wasn’t expecting any comments at all really I thought it would go under the radar for the City of London hierarchy, but it really hasn’t people have taken notice, and people from the City who attended the late view really enjoyed it, and thought that we should do more events which were sort of so lively and atmospheric. It was brilliant to get that vibe in the gallery space.
’ [Sonia]
Another measure of Fie rce’s success can be seen through the Guildhall Art Gallery’s routine practice of recording the footfall and ‘stay-rate’ of those attending the exhibition.
This is largely for reasons of health and safety, but it is also used to indicate popularity and success of individual events and overall exhibitions. Numbers from this monitoring show that Ajamu’s exhibition and queering of the Guildhall space was particularly successful:
‘The late view was one of our most successful, we had 458 I think it was, people coming through the doors between the hours of 6 and 10. Which has put it up there with our most successful late views; it’s probably the second most successful late view that we’ve had in terms of numbers’ [Sonia]
The footfall and ‘stay-rate’ data on Fierce suggests that Ajamu’s exhibition at the
Guildhall was one of their most popular events and is relevant to Ajamu’s argument that there is an audience; it is simply that this audience requires authentic engagement and communication. Though this data is not particularly involved or informative, it could be seen to be in contrast with the barrier identified in the PIP report that mainstream organisations tend not to produce data on LGBTQ individuals, groups, and organisations that they work with. However, the substantive impact of recording this information and the extent to which it improves future work that the
Guildhall Art Gallery embarks on with LGBTQ groups and projects depends on how the data is considered; whether the data is considered in the context of improving and furthering work with LGBTQ groups and projects in the context of social justice or considered in terms of organisational growth and market share.
In summary, there is no doubt that this exhibition had a major community impact and one that is continuing. The extent to which it alters the Guildhall Art Gallery itself is something that would have to be subject to greater scrutiny over time.
52

Case study: Funder Infrastructure
Ashlee Christoffersen
ACF Meeting: ‘Interested in learning more about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues?’
23 May 2013, ACF
In May 2013, centred co-created and participated in a seminar for representatives of trusts and foundations that was hosted by the funding infrastructure organisation the
Association of Charitable Foundations (ACF). centred ’s participation built on relationships and engagement with funders over a sustained period of time .
This period of engagement with funders has been a complex process. For instance centred posted copies of the London LGBT Almanac 1 st Edition to all London-based funders that it could gain contact information for, and in some cases experienced hostile reactions. These were particular to funders as a group (there was some suggestion that the marketing approach was not liked, however centred also posted the Almanac to a variety of frontline voluntary organisations and infrastructure organisations, for the most part without negative reactions). On the other hand, several funders bought multiple copies and the reviews and contributions some funders made to the text have been very positive and insightful. centred’ s decision to print in hard copy was also controversial, understandably. However centred remains committed to producing hard copy publications concerning diverse LGBTQ matters; this relates to issues of in/visibility and creativity.
The Almanac 1 st and 2 nd Editions were a major impetus to the meeting; as one of the funder organisers commented ‘the Almanac was the starting point and a key resource for
[the] se minar’. It is notable that the PiP report (Kairos in Soho 2007) recommended that mainstream organisations identify gaps in relevant data and carry out research to support effective engagement between LGBT and mainstream organisations. However, since the high point of activity around development of the Equality Act, it is not common to see resources being applied to research concerning LGBTQ experience or organising.
It seemed essential to centred that thorough statistical analysis of LGBTQ organising in
London should be available for organisers to better argue for resources and for funders and policy makers to better understand the context for any collaboration.
Building a strong evidence base prior to engagement, particularly with voluntary funders, was essential. However as one representative of the funder infrastructure organisation commented, in this case the lead had to come from the infrastructure organisation members (who are funders themselves)
– i.e. the infrastructure organisation would not have initiated or facilitated the seminar unless their non-LGBT organisation members led it. This seemed to particularly be the case with equalities issues as opposed to health and social care issues; with the infrastructure organisation seemingly concerned about being seen to be partial.
53

In 1999, the ACF published ‘Reaching Out: A guide for Trusts and Foundations on the
Charitable Needs of Lesbians and Gay Men’. Several funders contributed financially and practically to bring this publication in to being. This meeting represented a chance to return to the issues some fourteen years later.
The co-chairs of this meeting were Sara Llewellin (who was also a driver for the original publication), Barrow Cadbury Trust; and Robert Dufton, Paul Hamlyn Foundation.
The speakers were: Jane Standing, centred ; Ben Summerskill, Stonewall; Paul Roberts,
The Consortium of LGBT VCOs. centred made a strong case during the planning for a more diverse panel of speakers.
centred is committed to diverse LGBTQ equality and sees representative structures as fundamental to this goal. A barrier identified by the PiP report to effective engagement between LGBT and mainstream organisations is that much of the ‘representation’ of
LGBTQ issues is undertaken by people who are not incorporating cross-cutting equalities issues such as racism and disablism into their work; much of it is not diverse or representative of broader difference.
The event was attended by seventeen delegates, representing thirteen grant making trusts and foundations.
Ben Summerskill spoke first. He said that their organisation has prioritised legal change and sought to build an evidence base about inequalities experienced by LGB people. He also argued that LGB young people experience a particular isolation in terms of their families, perhaps in contrast with Black and ethnic minority (BME) young people.
A short discussion by the panellists followed, with other speakers asked to respond. Jane
Standing suggested that people at the intersection i.e. BME LGBT people can feel alienated when one makes distinctions between ‘LGB’ and ‘BME’ in this way; and that it inhibits the potential depth of understanding and connection across LGBTQ communities.
But further, that making statements about the experience of BME people as somehow easier, when arguing for LGBTQ equality, is divisive and questionable.
Paul Roberts spoke next. He said that we do not know for certain how big the LGBT voluntary and community sector is nationally; he estimated there may be around 3000
LGBT organisations. The majority of these have no paid staff. Amongst the Consortium’s membership of 200 organisations, one third has no income. He argued that the LGBT sector is still ‘emerging’, and that LGBT organisations on the whole are moving to a more holistic approach, for instance there are fewer organisations focused exclusively on sexual health. He argued that the sector is in a particular point of growth at the moment, with people setting up new organisations; and that the difference between urban and rural is not as large as might be imagined: there are many LGBT organisations in rural areas.
Paul commented that the London LGBT Almanac is well used by the sector.
54

Jane Standing spoke third. Jane went through some findings from the London LGBT
Almanac 2 nd Edition, about the financial situation of London-based organisations, focusing in particular on the position of LGBT community of identity organisations (LGBT organisations that also work on another equality issue, such as race or disability). These organisations have a lower average income than the sector overall; their average income is roughly 10% of the average income of the sector as a whole. Jane pointed out that 83% of the income of the sector is amongst ‘social service’ organisations; and that there are particular barriers in acquiring funding for work that might be considered to be ‘community development’, aspirational, and celebratory, as opposed to work which focuses on ‘need’/a deficit model of the LGBT community.
The Almanac 2 nd Edition saw a drop in the average amount of income from trusts and foundations, from £47K to £38K. In looking at three large trusts and foundations, it was found that grants to LGBT organisations amounted to between 0.005% and 0.02% of their total grant making since 2008.
Finally Jane commented on the Almanac 1 st Edition findings on representation within the sector – with gay men making up the majority of staff and service users; these are predominantly white gay men. This finding makes no claims about the quality of work or engagement amongst white gay men, but simply highlights the ongoing challenges in attempting to support a more diversely representative sector.
An open discussion followed the speaker presentations.
One funder suggested that one issue is a lack of applications from LGBT organisations.
They also pointed out that it can be difficult for funders to raise this issue within their own organisations.
It was suggested that it is helpful when funders give feedback on why applications are unsuccessful.
It was pointed out that difficulty acquiring trust funding is spread across the sector, affecting both larger and smaller organisations.
In closing the event, Sara Llewellin summarised some of the issues that came up. She said there is a need to move away from a deficit based approach to funding LGBT work, to fund holistic work, and work around heritage, as a specific example.
There is a need for unrestricted and core funding, which is in tension with a deficit/needs focussed model. The leadership in the sector is being squeezed; funders need to do more in recognition of this.
There is a continuing need to add to the evidence base.
55

Finally, funders can build good relationships with LGBT organisations for instance through giving feedback.
In conclusion, the event was successful in raising awareness of LGBT issues and needs amongst funders. In the lead up to it and in comments afterward centred has identified what we perceive as an absence of acknowledgement amongst funders that they have
‘learned’ anything, or that they experience learning as mutual with VCOs. It is not suggested that this is an issue unique to funders, however it is thought to be specific to work around LGBT issues. centred would like to explore this issue further in the future, and indeed might have chosen to make this more the subject of a discussion with funders.
centred has expressed interest in carrying this meeting forward, in particular with reproducing the ‘Reaching Out’ publication. Whilst the meeting was captured in an article in
Trust and Foundation News by a Northern Rock attendee, there is no immediate follow up process identified. The PiP report identified a barrier to effective engagement between
LGBT and mainstream organisations, and references to the engagement being perceived as superficial; in this case whilst the seminar itself was successful our understanding is that to truly reach funders, centred would need to work in close collaboration with a highly respected funder.
56

Case study: Barking and Dagenham CVS
Carl Blackburn and Jane Standing
Infrastructure and LGBTQ activism
– a positive working example
This article explores the benefits and challenges of the Barking and Dagenham (B&D)
LGBT Network. It makes an interesting case study because some of the complexities are ongoing and because local authority driven networks, particularly equalities networks, often face insurmountable challenges concerning representation. The project is a work in progress and the CVS director, Carl Blackburn, who participated in the interview, suggests that reflection and development will continue. At some point in the future a similar set of questions will be explored with LGBT communities in the borough.
In 2009 centred (formerly Kairos in Soho) published Borough by Borough: Analysis of
Local Authority Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equalities Policies and Equalities
Initiatives (2009). Some of the challenges and opportunities presented with local borough organising and forums identified in that report have been considered in exploring this particular borough’s experience.
The decision to apply for a Council tender to administer the LGBT Network was not taken lightly. B&D CVS were concerned that some people may feel they lacked the expertise that an LGBT-specific organisation may have. They were concerned that they may not be taken seriously within the community. The director was mindful of the need for a genuinely independent LGBT Network and the ethos of self-determination which he and the CVS passionately believe in. The former host organisation closed, leaving no database of members or former contacts. The CVS had to start from scratch. The Network had been in decline for some time before the CVS applied for funding to take it on and reinvigorate it.
Perhaps most importantly, there was distrust and animosity towards the Council amongst former network activists, much of it understandable.
Barking & Dagenham is a relatively poor and run-down borough, and its facilities and demographics have more in common with many northern towns than a London borough, though the latter is gradually changing. At the same time, transport links to central London are good and it is often easier for people to meet in central London than to meet in the borough itself. For some LGBT communities, with little social opportunity locally, a trip into central London can feel more attractive than engaging locally. There are not many places for LGBT communities to meet in a friendly and non-threatening atmosphere within the borough.
With these reservations in mind, and no active LGBT administration/communities wishing to apply for the tender, the CVS undertook the coordination to achieve their own goals of equality in community engagement and representation in local political and community processes. Further, from the outset, the CVS made clear their intention to ultimately establish a fully independent LGBT Network. They recognised that they would need to start a process to engage the local LGBT community. In a case such as this, with a CVS so passionately committed to independent action, and no other body wishing to organise
57

in this way, this approach could be seen as a positive step towards raising LGBT issues in the borough. Whilst the Council undoubtedly had their own agenda for financially supporting such a Network, the CVS made it clear that if they won the tender they would take their lead from the communities concerned.
The pre-existing Network had a focus on policy, and meetings tended to be focussed on discussing consultations or issues with the Council or police. This put off many members of the community. It was recognised by the CVS that there is little social and community space in the borough that is made welcoming and inclusive of LGBT communities. It was also recognised that a great deal of policy that is produced is largely unconscious of the
LGBT experience. So it seemed important to the CVS to recognise that there is an enormous challenge in identifying an informed, representative sub-group of LGBT people, within the borough, to undertake the bureaucratic challenge involved in ‘informing Council and community processes’. In some ways this has been seen as a distinct and separate challenge to getting an active Network up and running. A decision was taken to start with emphasis on social community building work alongside any formal engagement processes.
The CVS started to organise regular network meetings and produced a newsletter that went in libraries and other public spaces as well as being mailed out to existing and new
Network members. They also mailed this newsletter to all local organisations and contacts on the main CVS database, as a way of mainstreaming LGBT issues and attempting to engage more widely. It seemed important to portray the LGBT community in a rounded way and to present issues that may be presented about any of the different communities in the borough.
Importantly, they organised a specifically social event in the local theatre which attracted nearly 100 people (LGBT and friends) to be able to engage in an informal setting. The social event worked well. It brought together a lot of different people who did not previously know each other, and created the feeling of an inclusive, supportive and vibrant community. As a result of this event a new LGBT group formed which wanted to continue to run these kinds of events, and the CVS is currently offering organisation and development support to enable this to happen. This kind of response is on the one hand a much hoped for result of network support. On the other, perhaps, it could be seen as a frustration if the end goal of the CVS is to see the community take on the Network itself!
Awareness across the wider sector of LGBT issues has increased and this is largely as a result of the CVS insisting on raising issues through existing mainstream channels as well as through the LGBT Network itself.
Whilst the CVS does not want to bureaucratise the LGBT Network, they do still wish to establish it as a legal entity so that it can fundraise more effectively and deliver more events and services and thereby increase its profile, engagement and effectiveness. This has proved more difficult than they anticipated since many people are put off by the idea of being on a committee. Those that are not are already too busy to be willing or able to
58

commit. This is one of those interesting challenges created when voluntary and community infrastructure sees the need for a structure which is not necessarily recognised from within specific communities.
The fact that the CVS is a mainstream organisation is thought to have been both a help and a hindrance. It has meant that LGBT issues have been included in mailings going to all organisations, which has raised awareness amongst the wider sector. This has also meant that isolated people who may not engage in community spaces as LGBT get to hear about things and receive useful information and signposting without having to first identify themselves as LGBT.
Interestingly, when there have been disputes between the Network and Council/police, rather than intervene to ‘rein-in the LGBT Network’, as the CVS states some had perhaps hoped they would, the CVS has encouraged the Network to voice its opinions and disappointments to the relevant officers and to be more impatient of poor service.
The CVS involvement has also helped raise the fact that LGBT issues affect and should be the concern of everyone, regardless of their own gender and sexuality. Some people still think that anyone raising these issues must themselves be a member of the LGBT community; some people have asked the director if he is; the assumption being that he must be for the CVS to be supporting the Network to such an extent. The CVS believes that this perception is rapidly breaking down, helped in part by the CVS championing all equality issues and openly challenging all forms of discrimination.
From the outset, the CVS has offered to make available practical development support to establish the Network more formally, to register it with the Charity Commission and offer support with fundraising. Unfortunately, to date it has been difficult to find sufficient people willing to act as officers; this will remain
‘in the pipeline’. This offer will continue even though the funding ended in March 2013. The CVS has also offered free use of training rooms for workshops, meetings and surgeries, and still print and distribute editions of the newsletter and maintain and B&D LGBT Facebook page.
With the Council funding ending, the CVS is hoping that this will free the Network from some of its older history and associations and encourage community members to engage and create a Network that is more independent, challenging and ambitious. However, they also hope that having stepped in to create the Network, despite the challenges; they have begun the lengthy process towards greater engagement and awareness amongst LGBT and non-LGBT communities.
59

does.
Conclusions
The London LGBTQ organising environment is composed mainly of organisations that self define as community organisations, with a minority that are registered charities or otherwise formally structured. A small majority (57%) of organisations that are not formally structured do not desire to become so. Many organisations, 42% of the current sample, work intersectionally with and for diverse LGBTQ people who are also Black, Deaf, disabled, of faith, younger, older, women, parents, or seeking asylum. The number of organisations that work explicitly at the intersection of more than one identity is growing.
This third edition of the Almanac has included the results of new research on volunteering and activism as well as case studies of volunteering in different kinds of organisations; and case studies of LGBTQ engagement with mainstream infrastructure organisations, spanning arts, funding, and local infrastructure. It is hoped that this information, together with the sector analysis, will support diverse organisations to reflect, plan, develop and celebrate achievements in the diverse sector. This third edition also provides a snapshot of an equalities sector at a particular point in time, and examines changes since research began in 2006. Many of the findings will be relevant across equalities and intersectional work. Finally the Almanac makes visible the inspiring work that the London LGBTQ sector
60

References
Brewis G, Hill M and D Stevens (2010) Valuing Volunteer Management Skills. London:
IVR.
Charities Aid Foundation and National Council for Voluntary Organisations (2012) UK
Giving. London: CAF and NCVO.
Hall D, Hall I, Cameron A, and Green P (2004) Student volunteering and the active community: Issues and opportunities for teaching and learning in sociology. Learning and
Teaching in the Social Sciences, 1 (1): 33-50.
Holdsworth, C (2010) Why Volunteer? Understanding Motivations For Student
Volunteering. British Journal of Educational Studies 58 (4): 421.
Hustinx, L (2010) The organizational behavior of volunteers revisited? Explaining differences in styles of volunteering i n the Red Cross in Flanders. In Freise M, Pyykkönen
M, and Vaidelyte E (Eds.), A Panacea for All Seasons? Civil Society and Governance in
Europe (p. 239-260) Baden Baden: Nomos.
Hutchinson R, Buckley E, Moran B, and N Ockenden (2009) The Governance of Small
Organisations. London: IVR and IVAR.
Kairos in Soho (2012) The London Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Voluntary and
Community Sector Almanac 2 nd Edition. London: Kairos in Soho.
Kairos in Soho (2011) The London Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Voluntary and
Community Sector Almanac. London: Kairos in Soho.
Kairos in Soho (2009) Borough by Borough: Analysis of Local Authority Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual and Transgender Equalities Policies and Equalities Initiatives. London: Kairos in
Soho.
Kairos in Soho (2007) PiP: London’s lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender voluntary sector infrastructure project Phase One
– Report. London: Kairos in Soho.
Machin and Ellis Paine (2008) Management matters: A national survey of volunteer management capacity. London: IVR.
National Council for Voluntary Organisations (2013) Civil Society Almanac 2013 (financial year 2010/11); Quick guides; Regional data. London: NCVO.
Ockenden N and Hutin M (2008) Volunteering to lead: A study of leadership in small, volunteer-led groups. London: IVR.
61