Published by Kairos in Soho July 2012

The London LGBT Voluntary and Community Sector Almanac 2nd Edition

(cover has a yellow square, pink triangle and blue circle)

Published by Kairos in Soho July 2012

© Kairos in Soho

Unit 1-2 10-11 Archer Street

London W1D 7AZ

020 7437 6063

Registered Charity Number 1054152

Company Number 3168854

The charity formerly known as Kairos in Soho is now called Centred. However we continue to trade as Kairos in Soho during a transition period.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of Kairos in Soho.

Copies of this document are available in alternative formats.

Please contact Kairos in Soho.

ISBN 978-0-9558780-4-6

(Funder logos for BIG, the City Bridges Trust, Trust for London, and London Councils)

(outlines of yellow square, pink triangle and blue circle)

Foreword

I must confess that I had not read the 1st Edition of Kairos in Soho’s (KiS) London lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) Almanac until I was asked to write the foreword for the 2nd edition. I thought about what I should focus on and many ideas came to mind, such as: the dark times we are in, where hard fought for laws that give us equality protections are now under real threat; the notions of ‘Big Society’ and localism that seem to ignore the many excluded, unheard voices; or the contemptuous rise of nationalism.

After reading both editions what is clear is that the issues that London’s LGBT sectorworks with are wholly analogous to other equality sectors.

Large proportions of organisations listed campaigning as an activity. Additionally many have representation to influence policy as a key purpose.

There is also a disproportionate reliance on volunteers. Many organisations simplycannot afford to pay volunteer expenses, which may be a barrier to the participationof underrepresented groups who conversely cannot afford to pay their own expenses. For me these and the many other issues depicted in this 2nd Edition of the Almanac serve as a stark reminder of the similarities of struggle and strength across the equalities voluntary and community sector (VCS).

I recently went to meet a colleague who manages a VCS organisation that providesmental health counselling and support services on a borough wide basis. Their services are predominantly targeted to and accessed by Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) communities. She shared that there has been a significant increase in demand as the impacts of the recession and austerity take hold. We talkedabout the current changes to the funding environment and the consequences for service provision. Of particular relevance is the current thinking with regards tocommissioning of services, shifting from a model that was cognizant of the need to provide culturally appropriate services to a model that considers such specifics as unnecessary. Arguments against this shift have been deemed as BAME

VCS resistance caused by more of a concern about self preservation, rather than this sector voicing the particular needs of those they represent.

But, as the analysis of the surveys, the testimonials and case studies in this 2ndEdition clearly demonstrate, comprehending the diverse needs and experience(s) ofthe communities we work with and for is absolutely essential to reducing the effectsof prejudice and discrimination and achieving positive outcomes.

This 2nd Edition of The London LGBT Almanac builds on and expands the contentfrom the 1st Edition. It supplies a critical insight of the relevance of the past to thepresent. It is an easy to read ‘must have’ tool that will be used again and again for the policy, planning, development and funding of London’s diverse LGBT VCS.

Elizabeth Henry

CEO, Race on the Agenda

Acknowledgements

Kairos in Soho would like to extend heartfelt and sincere thanks to the following, without whose contributions The London LGBT Almanac 2nd Edition would not havebeen possible: all of the inspiring LGBT organisations who took the time to completethe London LGBT Almanac 2nd Edition Survey; all of the contributors on heritage fortheir insight and hard work; Ajamu; Ingrid Pollard; Lynette Goddard; Elizabeth Henry;

Marai Larasi; Sue Sanders; Dorett Jones; Tom Wilkinson; the focus groupparticipants; Ruben Flores; all of the London LGBT Learning Network participants; Giovanna Speciale; Colin Standing; Fiona Ellis; Cathy Pharoah; Julia Unwin; Julie Fish; everyone who provided feedback on the London LGBT Almanac 1st Edition; Race on the Agenda; the Runnymede Trust; the London Lesbian and Gay Film Festival; colleagues in the equalities sector who helped us to promote the survey toensure it was inclusive of all of London’s diverse LGBT organising; and everyone else who helped to promote and support the London LGBT Almanac 1st Edition.

Contents

Foreword

Acknowledgements

Introduction

Context

Methodology

ORGANISATIONS

Purposes and motivations of LGBT organisations

Activities

Policy and campaigning

Experiences

Structures

Geography

Premises

PEOPLE

The people involved

LGBT volunteering and activism experiences

HERITAGE

Editorial by Marai Larasi, Director of Imkaan

Documenting black women’s political activism by Dr. Beverley Duguid

Ajamu interviewing Helen Deane and Savi Hensman about the Black Lesbian and Gay Centreby Ashlee Christoffersen

Artistic women: The diverse histories within the Interarts Project 2010by Dr. Catherine McNamara, Gendered Intelligence

“We Are Here” – Black feminist newsletter, 1983 – 1986 by Anne Hayfield

Barbara Burford (1944 - 2010) – reflections on her life and works by Sue Sanders

Camden Lesbian Centre and Black Lesbian Group by Glasgow Women’s Library

A conversation with Barbara Flintham, interpreted by Julie Hornsby: Dahlingby Jane Standing

Photo spread by Ingrid Pollard

Lesbian and Gay Employment Rights, 1983 – 2004 by Anne Hayfield

Regard by Kath Gillespie Sells MBE

Dusting off the SAD Access Code by Kirsten Hearn

Theatre activism from autobiography to stage fiction by Mojisola Adebayo

Queer community building in DIY music scenes by Francis Ray White and Tamsin Bookey

Staying visible: Conversations with queer South Asian womenby Nazmia Jamal with Camille Kumar, Melissa Rakshana Steiner and Sita Balani

Poem by Jael Townsend-Marrett

Lunch with Dorothea by Jay Bernard

Appreciation by Dorett Jones, KiS Board member

FINANCE AND FUNDING

Finance and funding

Organisations in the finance sample

Overview

Conclusions

Organisations included in the sample

References

Introduction

The London LGBT Almanac 2nd Edition contains key, up-to-date statistical information about diverse LGBT organising in London, a special section on LGBT volunteering and activism, and contributions from a wide range of people on the theme of heritage and diverse LBT women’s organising.

This second edition is presented in a distinctly different format from the Almanac 1stEdition. In order to create a more accessible picture of London LGBT organising andalso highlight and celebrate the range and diversity of activists and organisers past and present, the printed Almanac has a graphic and visual style.

The Almanac aims to provide a strategic information base for diverse London LGBT organisations to plan and develop; and for funders and infrastructure organisationsto be better equipped to understand the experience of, and offer support to, diverseLGBT organisations.The Almanac was conceived after the publication of the PiP Report (KiS 2007), which was the first in depth look at London LGBT organising and infrastructure in light of the government’s review of infrastructure development at that time. The work is also part of KiS’s wider work with London LGBT organisations and individuals.

The London LGBT Almanac 1st Edition, published by KiS in April 2011, provided an important benchmark to measure changes in the London LGBT organising landscape year on year, in a rapidly changing climate (Available at It has been reported that the 1st Edition has been instrumental across diverse LGBT organising in raising awareness about each organisation’s work, in preparing funding bids and in influencing policy. In particular, the provision of a hard copy report highlighting the range of organisations has been useful in the face of limited visibility and understanding of their diversity, number and impact.

Positive reviews of the first edition were published for instance in Third Sector (

presenting-information.Cathy Pharoah also reviewed the Almanac 1st Edition for Charity Times).

Julia Unwin of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation writes: ‘organisations that havenever established a strong foothold on the increasingly shaky funding ladder willfeel even more insecure inthese very difficult times…that is why this new Almanacfrom KiS is so important. Instraightforward and clear languageit describes the fundingenvironment, focusingon practical and achievableopportunities while making acompelling case for change.The LGBT community is wellserved by a publication suchas this which enables a sober,grounded, and evidencebasedanalysis of the fundingneeds, and requirements, ofa very important set of voluntaryand community organisations.’

Both feedback about the Almanac1st Edition, and someof its important findings, setthe direction for this edition.

Exploring diverse LGBT experience,at both an individuallevel and an organisation level,has been key this year. TheAlmanac 1st Edition findingswere explored at the LondonLGBT Learning Networkevents in May and September2011. These events looked indetail at issues that stood outfor attention. The first editionfindings made clear that LBTwomen are underrepresentedacross current ‘LGBT’ organising,

and also that it is essentialto better understandexperiences of ‘giving one’stime for free’ in order to supportsustainable, independent,diverse LGBT organising.The extent of activity aroundpolicy and campaigningwithin the sector was alsoremarkable in the first year.Therefore this year attentionhas been paid specifically to:policy and campaigning collaboration;LGBT volunteeringexperiences; heritage andlesbian, bi and trans women’sorganising; and diverse fundraising.Subsequent editionswill focus on other issues thathave arisen in the 1st and2nd Editions, and update themore detailed statistical information.

The LGBT Almanac 2nd Editionis also a snapshot of aparticular grassroots sub-sectorof voluntary and communityaction. This year it alsocaptures a historic momentin which acclaimed photographersIngrid Pollard andAjamu capture each other inportrait. A set of portraits byAjamu of all the contributorsto the heritage section, likelypresented together for thefirst and only time, is also included.

As will be discussed furtherin the methodology section,the sample of the Almanac

2nd Edition looks quite differentfrom the first. Twentyadditional organisations havebeen included in the Almanacresearch this year. New participantsare primarily organisationswith social and artsand culture aims. We activelysought inclusion of thesegroups in order to exploreand promote their importanceto LGBT community developmentand positive engagementof diverse LGBT people.The sample also includesthree exclusively bisexual-ledorganisations, where nonethat were London-based wereincluded last year. About 40%of the sample is LGBT communityof identity organisations(LGBT organisationsthat work around a specificequalities area, e.g. race, disability).As a constant themethe publication highlights thespecific experience of LGBTcommunity of identity organisationsbecause it is evidentthat these organisations havedifferent experiences acrossmany issues.

A list of all of the organisationsthat participated is includedin the publication.

Profiles of all of the organisationsthat have been part ofthe London LGBT Almanac

1st and 2nd Editions can befound and edited in the LondonLGBT Almanac wiki (

(large yellow square)

Context

The London LGBT Almanac2nd Edition is published in aclimate of ‘equalities recession’:defined as a curtailmentof institutional support for thepursuit of equality. ‘There area number of developments inrecent months that suggesta weakening of governmentcommitment to equality asa core value. The first signof a different perspective onequality was a change in language…we have seen a shiftin the political rhetoric wherefairness has increasingly replacedequality’ (Jackson and

Speeden 2012). Equality isabsent from the principles ofthe ‘Big Society’. The RunnymedeTrust, in its report ‘Fair’sFair’ published in July 2011,finds that BAME people fearthat the big society will fuelracial tensions, and that thisgovernment’s flagship policies,such as free schools,will only increase segregation(Francis 2011).

The community cohesion,localism and big societyagendas are impacting negativelyon equality organisinggenerally and LGBT organisingspecifically. Within theseagendas, people are encouragedto think about samenessrather than difference.

At a time when local authoritiesare legally obliged tothink more broadly aboutequality, incorporating ‘new’protected characteristics, thenotion of community cohesionaltered, and in somecases, confused the frameworkentirely. The conceptof ‘community cohesion’emerged in the UK in 2001with the Cantle Report’ (The Cantle Report drew attention to ‘polarised and segregated communities’, in which people led ‘parallellives’ and made some 67 recommendations. Whilst still highlighting the need to tackle inequalities, the recommendations were much more wide ranging and amounted to a new approach to race and diversity). Thisreport has been criticised bySouthall Black Sisters: ‘althoughsocial and economicinequalities were touchedupon, the focus of the enquirywas largely on the culturalmanifestation of segregationrather than structuralinequality’ (2010: 14). As apolicy driver this notion hasundoubtedly informed theacceleration of attention tolocalism and the gradual‘mainstreaming’ of equalitiesfocussed work into generalprovision. During the periodof implementation of cohesionpolicy, between 2001and 2011, there has been aneleven fold increase in thenumber of people voting forfar right parties (Institute ofCommunity Cohesion 2011).

There is something specificabout LGBT organisingwithin this wider policy context,and the demise of politicalwill towards an equalsociety, which is its age andthe minimal extent of its integrationinto wider equalitiesinfrastructure.

The Almanac also emergesamidst a nationalist anddeeply heterosexist fervourthat is somehow neatlycaptured in the Coalitionfor Equal Marriage’s campaign

video, imbued withmilitarism (Produced by the Coalition for Equal Marriage, directed by Mike Buonaiuto). Interestingly, theAlmanac highlights that ifpeople could change onearea of policy immediately,many say it would be to createequal marriage; however,this is a wish expresseddisproportionately amongstmainstream LGBT organisations,and this is not, by andlarge a desire expressed bythe community of identityLGBT organisations in London (In a policy context these are often referred to as ‘protected characteristic’ organisations or ‘equalities’ organisations).

An equalities agenda enableshealthy dialogue across andbetween different groups,about meaning. This is perhapsdespite the increasinginstitutionalisation ofequalitiessectors. A cohesion andmainstreaming agenda, promotesan ideal that is abouteverybody getting alongwhilst discouraging peoplefrom reflecting on differenceand the structural inequalitiesthat exist. Essentially, such anagenda divides, and omitscritical conversations aboutinequality, poverty and power.

There have been some successfulchallenges to governmentby the voluntaryand community sector (VCS)on the grounds of equality (For example, Southall Black Sisters against Ealing Council; Roma Support against London Councils),but these significant politicalvictories are countered bythe wider observation thatspecialist housing, refugeand health services are beinggradually absorbed intomainstream organisations.

This ‘mainstreaming’ is bothpolitical and economic, withlarger organisations biddingfor and winning contractson the basis of cost. In justover a decade, and after amajor focus of attention onthe state of equalities anddiscrimination in the UK (Rapid disintegration of the Commission for Racial Equality, Disability Rights Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission to form the Equality and Human Rights Commission; the Discrimination Law Review and the Equalities Review (2007), undertaken by an independent panel to ‘set out findings on the extent of chronic and persistent inequalities in the UK; offer some conclusions…and propose a framework for determination of priorities for action’), theteeth within the Equality Act,to oblige local authorities toassess equality implicationsof policy, are not sharp, andare broadly inaccessible tochallenge.

The Equality Act 2010 meansthat sexual orientation andtransgender identity have enteredthe legislative equalitiesframe. However, the extent towhich thinking around theseissues exists within the plethoraof institutions forming‘government’, is extremelylimited. Wherever and wheneverLGBT issues are tabled,it is as though this were theirfirst ever coming out. In particularin local governmentpolicy, the extent to whichintersectionality and equalitywere unable to find a placeat the table during the riseof cohesion discourse, anddespite legal changes, wasremarkable.

The cohesion agenda attemptsto drive a move awayfrom funding single equalitywork. In the interests of‘everyone getting along’, theCommission on Integrationand Cohesion reiterated theCantle report’s recommendationagainst ‘single groupfunding’, i.e. funding communitygroups organised on thebasis of identity (Haq 2008).Moreover, commissioning,the contract culture and theresulting focus on measurableoutputs and outcomes meanthat it is increasingly difficultto fund equalities workwhere measurable outputscan only be achieved overa significant period of time.The outcome focus fuels adrive toward quick solutionswhich often fail to challengethe institutionalised natureof heterosexism. The specificsof equalities work makecertain funding frameworksfundamentally inhibiting tothe course, creativity and independenceof the work.

The continued gradual unfoldingof the impact of outcomefunding is intensifyingwith the significant cuts inpublic spending. There isless and less questioning ofthe disappearance of singlestrand funding. ‘ProtectingIndependence – the VoluntarySector 2012’ report, publishedin January this year,identifies that ‘statutory funding,and the way that publicservices are commissioned,[is] the source of much concern’and raises issues suchas: ‘an inability for the sectorto influence design, deliveryand funding models; the increasingblurring of boundariesbetween private, publicand voluntary sectors; therisk of self-censorship andchallenges to the sector’sindependence of voice; thepressures on independentgovernance; and the need forregulations and safeguardsthat protect, and do not hinder,independence’. InclusionLondon has found that manyDeaf and Disabled People’sOrganisations in London ‘reportedconcerns with currenttendering and procurementpractices that appeared tobe tailored in favour of largeorganisations’ (2012: 3). ‘ProtectingIndependence’ callsfor urgent action in the comingyear, in particular the importanceof ‘understandingthe diverse needs and valueof different parts of the sector,including those of smallervoluntary organisations’.

Quoted in the original PiPReport (KiS 2007): ‘The operatingenvironment for VCOshas changed substantiallyover the last ten years, andto the extent, some wouldargue, that an increasinginterest from governmentis posing a serious threatto its independence andits role in advocacy and socialreform’ (Ball and Unwin1998).Some might arguenow, more than then, thatthe major players in voluntarysector infrastructure donot keep sufficient distancebetween government agendasand their own. Despiteno analysis or reference tothe existence of hundreds,possiblythousands, ofequalities organisations, theNational Council for VoluntaryOrganisations’ Civil SocietyAlmanac 2012 claimsto provide a full andcomprehensiveanalysis of ‘civilsociety organisations’ in theUK (NCVO 2012). The reportundoubtedly providesa major foundation for thedevelopment of policy andfunding year on year, andyet is absent of equalitiescontent and context.