Creating ChangeJanuary 27, 2012

Juan Battle, PhD – Jessie Daniels, PhD - Bishop Tonyia Rawls

CUNY-Graduate Center

GMHC /House of Latex Ball Supplemental Survey

< Our Purpose >

< document & celebrate >

< not pathologize >

< a jailhouse promise>

< sociopolitical mosaic >

< SJS Study >

< 5 Groups >

< 5 Topic Areas >

Research Methods

Piloted Multiple Times

Venue-based Sampling

• Phoenix Pride• Long Beach Pride• DC Black Pride• Portland Latino Pride• Orlando Black Pride/Gay Days• Austin Pride• New York Queens Pride• Boston SPYCE & Boston Pride• Central Alabama Pride (Birmingham)• Milwaukee Wisconsin Pride• Honolulu Pride• Denver Pride• New York Pride

Respondent-Driven

• Phoenix Pride• Long Beach Pride• DC Black Pride• Portland Latino Pride• Orlando Black Pride/Gay Days• Austin Pride• New York Queens Pride• Boston SPYCE & Boston Pride• Central Alabama Pride (Birmingham)• Milwaukee Wisconsin Pride• Honolulu Pride• Denver Pride• New York Pride

Snowball Sampling

• Columbia South Carolina Black Pride• New York Harlem Pride• Miami Beach Bruthaz Bash• Charlotte North Carolina Black Pride• Michigan's Womyn's Festival• Market Days• GMHC House of Latex Ball• Pueblo, CO Gay Pride• Twin Cities Black Pride & South Central MN

Pride• World Gay Rodeo Finals, Laughlin, NV

• Columbia South Carolina Black Pride• New York Harlem Pride• Miami Beach Bruthaz Bash• Charlotte North Carolina Black Pride• Michigan's Womyn's Festival• Market Days• GMHC House of Latex Ball• Pueblo, CO Gay Pride• Twin Cities Black Pride & South Central MN

Pride• World Gay Rodeo Finals, Laughlin, NV

Quota Sampling

Internet

all 50 states

Survey Reach

Survey Reach

and Puerto Rico

Our Partner Organizations

N=600+ N=397

<Supplement>

Multiple health concerns caused by homelessness

Demographics

Age 17-71, mean = 31

Demographics

Age17-71, mean = 31

Average Education Some college, no degree

Demographics

Age 17-71, mean = 31

Average EducationSome college, no degree

Average IncomeBetween $20,000-$30,000

Demographics

Gender

Male

Female

Gender Variant

58%30%

12%

Age 17-71, mean = 31

Average EducationSome college, no degree

Average IncomeBetween $20,000-$30,000

Black/Hispanic/Mixed Race

Other

Demographics

Gender

Male

Female

Gender Variant

58%30%

12%

Age 17-71, mean = 31

Average EducationSome college, no degree

Average IncomeBetween $20,000-$30,000

80%

20%

Race/Ethnicity

QG7: Current Living Situation?

GHMC Supplement

shelter

on streets

other

from place-to-place

with other family relatives

with significant other

with parents/guardian

with friends/roommate

alone in house/apartment

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

Yes No0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

GHMC Supplement

QG1

49% 51%

QG1: Ball Community?

Yes No0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

GHMC Supplement

QG1: Ball Community?

49% 51%

QG2: Mobile Phone?

Yes

No

QG2

87%

13%

* Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2010

<Civic Engagement>

Civic Engagement and LGBT Communities

Q2a

Non-discrimination/economic issues

Other

Equality/Acceptance (does not include family)

25%

9%

19%

Civic Engagement and LGBT Communities

Q2a Q2b

Mean score = 2.55

Non-discrimination/economic issues

Other

Equality/Acceptance (does not include family)

25%

19%

9%

Civic Engagement and LGBT Communities

Q3a

Discrimination

Other

HIV/AIDS/Sexual Health

21%

18%

17%

Civic Engagement and LGBT Communities

Q3a

Discrimination

Other

HIV/AIDS/Sexual Health

21%

18%

17%

Mean score = 2.51

Q3b

Civic Engagement and LGBT Communities

Q3a

Discrimination

Other

HIV/AIDS/Sexual Health

21%

18%

17%

Mean score = 2.51

Q3b

No difference between National sample and GMHC smaple

Q4d

(-) GMHC sample is less likely to see homophobia as a problem in their racial/ethnic community,

neighborhood or in all communities of color than the national sample.

Civic Engagement and LGBT Communities

[Q5 composite]

National sample: 4.24; GMHC sample: 3.99***

Civic Engagement and LGBT Communities

[Q6 composite]

National sample: 4.11; GMHC sample: 3.78***

(-) GMHC sample is less likely to feel connected

to local LGBT community than the national sample.

<Spirituality & Religion>

Spirituality and Religion

[Q11 composite]

National sample: 2.60; GMHC sample: 2.72*

(+) GMHC sample more likely to be spiritual than the national sample.

Spirituality and Religion

[Q12c scale & Q12d scale]

Q12c, Q12d: No difference between national and GMHC sample.

GMHC respondents and national respondents are equally influenced

by religious tradition and spiritual practice.

<Sexual, Racial/Ethnic Identity>

Sexual, Racial and Ethnic Identity

[Q13scale]

Q13scale: No difference between national and GMHC sample.

GMHC respondents were no different than national sample in the importance of their sexual

orientation.

Sexual, Racial and Ethnic Identity

[Q14 composite] :

National sample: 3.68; GMHC sample: 3.35***

(-) GMHC sample is less likely to be “out” to their various communities than the national

sample.

Sexual, Racial and Ethnic Identity

[Q15b scale]

National sample: 2.47; GMHC sample: 2.74**

(+) GMHC sample is more likely to feel uncomfortable in the LGBT community because of their race/ethnicity than the

national sample.

Sexual, Racial and Ethnic Identity

1. Q15a: GMHC respondents and national

respondents feel equally supported by family.

No difference between national and GMHC sample on:

Sexual, Racial and Ethnic Identity

1. Q15a: GMHC respondents and national respondents feel equally supported by

family.2. Q15c: There is no difference in comfort level of GMHC respondents

and national respondents in their racial and ethnic communities because of sexual identity.

No difference between national and GMHC sample on:

Sexual, Racial and Ethnic Identity

1. Q15a: GMHC respondents and national respondents feel equally supported by family.

2. Q15c: There is no difference in comfort level of GMHC respondents and national respondents in their racial and ethnic communities because of sexual identity.

3. Q15d: There is no difference in the ages of GMHC respondents and national respondents when they “came out” to themselves.

No difference between national and GMHC sample on:

Sexual, Racial and Ethnic Identity

1. Q15a: GMHC respondents and national respondents feel equally supported by family.

2. Q15c: There is no difference in comfort level of GMHC respondents and national respondents in their racial and ethnic communities because of sexual identity.

3. Q15d: There is no difference in the ages of GMHC respondents and national respondents when they “came out” to themselves.

4. Q16b: GMHC respondents and national respondents feel equally that their race/ethnicity is an important part of their identity.

No difference between national and GMHC sample on:

<Health & Health Care>

Health & Health Care

[Q25 scale]

National sample: 3.62; GMHC sample: 3.82***

(+) GMHC sample more likely to feel generally in better physical health than the national sample.

[Q24 composite]

National sample: 3.24; GMHC sample: 3.12***

Health & Health Care

(-) GMHC sample less likely to feel hopeful about the future, and less likely to report

feeling happy.

GMHC

National

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Not at allSome days

23c***

GMHC sample is more likely to smoke some days.

71%

65%

22%

14%

Health & Health Care

Q17aGMHC sample and national sample are equally likely to have health insurance.

Health & Health Care

Q17aGMHC sample and national sample are equally likely to have health insurance.

Health & Health Care

GMHC

National

Q17b*

77%

82%

GMHC sample also more likely to have health care provider than the national sample.

<Implications for LGBT Progamming>

<Performer vs. Participant>

<Programming around Spirituality>

<Money & Financial Programming>

<LGBT youth of color grow up ‘policed’>

<Mobile Technology Matters>

Shift awareness from HIV “community”

…to HIV “communities,”

…racial/ethnic, gender, and age-specific “communities”

that celebrate our mosaic

Thank you! www.socialjusticesexuali

ty.com@SJSProject