At the Crossroads Future of the LGBT Movement

7/28/2019 At the Crossroads Future of the LGBT Movement

1/24


2/24

A B O U T T H E A U T H O R S

Frances Kunreuther , is the founder and co-director of the Building Movement Project,which works to strengthen U.S. nonprofits as sites of social change. She is also a seniorfellow at the Research Center for Leadership and Action at NYU. Frances was at the HauserCenter for Nonprofit Organizations at Harvard University for five years after heading theHetrick-Martin Institute for LBGT youth. In 1997, she was awarded a year-long Annie E.Casey Foundation fellowship. She is a writer and presenter on a variety of issues relatedto nonprofits, leadership and social change.

Barbara Masters has spent her career in public policy-related work, having workedon Capitol Hill and in local government, as well as for an advocacy organization. Mostrecently, she served as the Public Policy Director at The California Endowment, the largesthealth foundation in California, prior to starting her own consulting practice. Currently,Barbara assists foundations and non-profits in developing and evaluating policy changeand movement building strategies. She has written extensively on funding and evaluatingpublic policy advocacy, organizational capacity and movement building.

Gigi Barsoum , founder of Barsoum Policy Consulting, focuses on the development and

evaluation of strategies for change that help non-profit organizations and foundationssucceed; with a focus on the role of networks, advocacy infrastructure and movementsin advancing policy and social change. Formerly, a policy Program Manager at TheCalifornia Endowment (TCE), she also worked at the U.S. Governmental AccountabilityOffice (GAO) in Washington, D.C. and has over fif teen years of public policy experienceat the local, state and federal levels.

The authors thank Rebecca Fox, Program Officer at Wellspring Advisors, for her supportand guidance of this project from beginning to end. Also, Sean Thomas-Breitfeld, Co-

Director of Building Movement Project, offered invaluable help in both the content andwriting, and coordinated the final production of this report.

Report layout and cover design by Cortney Cassidy.Cover images are from flickr.com photostreams of Charlie Nguyen and Ted Eytan, licensed in the Creative Commons.


3/24

TA B L E O FC O N T E N T S

2P R E FA C E

3I N T R O D U C T I O N

5F I N D I N G S

12R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

16C O N C L U S I O N

17

A P P E N D I X 1 C h a r t s

19 A P P E N D I X 2

S n a p s h o t o f t h e L G B T M o v e m e n t : A s s e t s a n d G a p s

20 A P P E N D I X 3 M e t h o d o l o g y

21 A P P E N D I X 4

S e l e c t e d B i b l i o g r a p h y


4/24

P R E FA C E

What a difference a year makes! The research forthis report started l ast summer before the Novemberelection, before the Supreme Court hearings, and beforeRhode Island completed the marriage equality blockin New England. Yet, the findings from the survey andinterviews presented inAt the Crossroads: The Future of the LGBT Movement become even more relevant asprogress continues towards marriage equality.

At the Crossroads explores how local, state, andnational policy advocates and organizers see thefuture of the LGBT movement. The findings point toLGBT leaders desire to define movement makingbeyond the marriage moment. The respondents, manyof whom work on marriage equ ality, are aware of thelong road ahead, and there is a deep concern thatthe LGBT movement is not prepared to address a hostof issues that prevent LGBT people from obtainingfull equity and fairness.

Please feel free to let us know your reactions tothe report and your own experiences. We can bereached at the emails bel ow!

Best,

Frances Kunreuther [email protected]

Barbara Masters [email protected]

Gigi Barsoum [email protected]

Rebecca Fox [email protected]


5/24

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Over the past few years, the LGBTmovement has witnessed wins thatan earlier generation would havethought impossible: from the first-

ever statewide popular votes legalizing same-sexmarriage to the U.S. President acknowledging LGBTrights in his inaugural address to the nation. However,as the struggle for leg al equality of LGBT people inthe United States continues to advance, the movement

faces a series of questions abou t the future. How willit capitalize on the current momentum to continue toadvance a broad range of issues and to influencesocial norms in order to make equality both a legalright and a lived reality for LGBT people? What newgoals will the LGBT movement adopt? Who will bethe movements future leaders?

These are not new questions for movements ata crossroads. Any collection of individuals,

organizations and efforts working to achieve broadsocial change will inevitably face such periods of competing issues, priorities, and power dynamics.Movements must constantly balance the need tocreate systemic reforms through public policy andlegal action with their ultimate goal of achievingbroad social change by influencing the hearts andminds of the general public and embedding newnorms that become part of t he social fabric. How theLGBT movement resolves these tensions will determinethe movements direction and fut ure.

The crossroads facing the LGBT movement reflect thetension between its current priorities and its futuredirection. The movements recent successes are largelythe result of strategic investments in policy changeto secure equal access to t wo of the most traditionalinstitutions in America the military and marriage.More than providing recognition and inclusion of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, breaking down

these institutional barriers has been an importaavenue toward changing social norms.1 The broadepublic has found marriage, with its symbolic ansystemic advantages, a pro- gay policy agenda thecan support. However, marriage has also become sidentified as the movement, especially for non- LGallies, that it threatens to leave out other cruciissues that would ensure full acceptance and jutreatment of all LGBT people. Winning marria

equality, like other single-issue fixes to the right soppressed groups, could mean the sidelining of othimportant LGBT issues and that t he movement reproductive rights and racial equity ma y stall anbecome vulnerable to new backlash strategies frothe opposition, all of which could rollback the harfought progress of today.

The LGBT movement maintains significant aswhich it has been able to leverage for real progress

including engaged donors and funders; strong nationorganizations; and political savvy, visible, aninfluential leaders across a variety of sectors, particulathe entertainment, media, and, increasingly, politicarenas. Strategically, these assets have been deployewith a laser-like focus to address specific policy alegislative wins either nationally or in certain part sthe country. As a result, there is a growing dispariin capacity, leadership, and bench strength betweegroups and regions based on location, activities, anfocus of the work.

Looking to the fut ure, the LGBT movement will nedevelop and invest in a broader vision that supporthe aspirations of a larger number of individuaand organizations to once again make what seemimpossible, possible.

1 The wins in these two areas have largely not included transgeor gender non-conforming people.


6/24

4

T H I S R E P O RT

To better understand its role in supporting the LGBTmovement, the Building Movement Project (BMP), inconjunction with Wellspring Advisors, sent an in-depthsurvey to LGBT organizations from the organizing,policy, and legal advocacy sectors; conductedinterviews with a range of individuals from local, stateand national LGBT organizations, movement expertsfrom within and outside of the LGBT movement, capacitybuilders, and funders who suppor t movement building;

and reviewed relevant literature.2

The findings suggest that LGBT leaders recognizethe important gains made and momentum generated,especially in marriage equality, but even ardentmarriage supporters see the focus on marriage asa double-edged sword. The results indicate that themovement can continue to focus on legal rights,especially marriage, or it can expand its reach toinclude a fuller spectrum of issues preventing full

equality and inc lusion for the LGBT community. Thisfinding was most clearly seen in the respondentsdesire to embrace a new visionone grounded injusticethat builds on the significant and growingnumber of wins but looks forward to a larger goalof attaining fairness and equity for all.

The research and analysis looked at core elementsof movement building, based on social movementtheory and similar movement scans conducted for

other movements.3

The following pages lay out

2 Surveys were emailed to 63 organizations: 43 (69%) filled out thesurvey and 36 (58%) completed every question. We conducted 29hour-long interviews. (see Appendix 3)

3 The research and analysis were conducted using the ve core elementsof movement building (vision, base building, advocacy infrastructure,leadership and alliances) developed by Masters and Osborn. Added tothis core framework were elements related to diversity and connectivity.The movement building approach assumes that these elements and theactivities that implement them are interactive and reect an interconnectedness of people, organizations and issues. (see Appendix 2)

the findings and recommendations based on thinformation collected. Overall, the findings pointfour key areas of focus.

D E F I N I N G T H E N E W V I S I O N :

Shifting the vision of t he LGBT movementfrom equal rights for some to equity andjustice for all.

E X T E N D I N G A N D D I V E R SI F Y IB A S E B U I L D I N G :

Elevating an inclusive approach with afocus on building LGBT leadership in thecommunity and in organizations to reflectthe future and to continu e to embed LGBTequality and justice as a social norm.

S T R E N G T H E N I N G T H EI N F R A S T R U C T U R E :

Building organizational and field capacity,especially in regions beyond the coasts andWashington D.C., to improve conditions for allLGBT people irrespective of where they live.

D E E P E N I N G A L L I A N C E S :

Joining forces within the LGBT community andwith other progressive movements to addressissues of racial, economic, gender, and socialjustice to build power for the fight for deepand inclusive social change.


7/24

I . D E F I N I N G T H E N E W V I S I O N

Movements, unlike campaigns, have a vision greaterthan a single policy reform. This vision incorporateschanges at all levels of society, from culture and socialnorms to the distribution of power. An overarching vision informed by a shared analysis of the root causes,challenges, and opportunities guides a movementforward. It unifies the various campaigns, strategies andtactics, and investments.

Having a well-identified vision can also help resolveconflicts inherent in any movement, particularly oneat a crossroads, by clearly articulating how peoplesinterests and fates are tied together. A cohesive visionthat unites the grassroots as well as the insider advocacyorganizations can also lead to better mobilization duringa policy campaign.

The current vision of the LGBT movement is grounded in policy change and marriage, but a more inclusive and expansive vision is critical to accelerat ing the movement

Survey respondents and interviewees overwhelminglydescribed the movements current vision as beingcentered on public policy change to achievelegal, rights-based equality. Marriage equality, inparticular, was cited frequently as a cornerstoneof the current vision, as well as non-discriminationpolicies and anti-violence/bullying-related issues.

Over the last few years, with strong support fromfunders and donors, both proactive and defensivecampaigns have been waged in many states insupport of marriage equality. The pace of progresshas been remarkable by any measure, including the

reversal of state ballot measure losses within fi years. 4 But success comes with a price. We founLGBT leaders concerned that the movement will be positioned to tackle the many barriers that wremain in place when marriage equality is secured

Survey respondents rate d shared values, principleagenda, and vision as the second most importanfactor (out of 14) to accelerate progress of thmovement (see Appendix 1, Chart 1). Moreover, thranked developing a shared vision as the moimportant activity that would help themselves atheir organizations feel more a part of the movemen

4 For example, Maine lost a ballot initiative to legalize same-semarriages in 2009 and then passed one in 2012.

F I N D I N G S

Different people have different priorities and so t here will always

be a tension. If a movement understands what it is about and what it is moving towards then you have less of that tension. But if there is not a shared understanding of what we are trying to build t o, if the policy gain is just for a policy gain and we go on to the next policy,then it exacerbates the tension.

LGBT Funder


8/24

6

law, culture and society. Figure 1 depicts a sideby-side comparison of the major themes identifiby survey respondents when asked to describe th

current vision of the LGBT movement and whatvision should be. As one respondent noted, Oucommunity is bigger and broader than the currevision and if we recognize thatI think we wonly build more power and more voices for equalit y

I I . E X T E N D I N G A N D D I V E R S I F YB A S E - B U I L D I N G

A vibrant and engaged grassroots base creates politica

will for change and helps move the hearts and minof the public. One of the distinguishing elements osocial movementas compared to a policy campaignis the presence of an authentic base, a commitmeto organizing, and the continual emergence of newleaders who represent the diversity of the movemeA strong base informs the movements policy agenand, in turn, can be mobilized for campaigns. Basbuilding is often time- and laborintensive, with resaccumulating over the long-term.

Survey respondents and interviewees described theirdesire for a vision that embrac es a more expansiveview of LGBT issues and that strives for inc lusion of

the full diversity of LGBT people in all aspects of

What the vision should be: The movement should have a more robust vision of full substantive equality,liberty, visibility, and acceptanceincluding equality in outcomes for income, health, welfarethe ability

to live openly and freelyfree from expectations to be closeted or to cover[and] we continue to reach the hearts and minds of Americans until all LGBT children grow up in families free of homophobia.

Survey Respondent

Figure 1.Word Clouds of Survey Respondent s Current and Desired Visions for the LGBT Movement

C U R R E N T V I S I O N D E S I R E D V I S I O N


9/24

There has been significant mobilization of LGBTpeople, as well as straight allies, around th e recentballot measures on marriage. Yet, in the face of anopposition committed to restric ting the rights of LGBTpeople, particularly in states with less supportive politicalleadership, ongoing base building is essential at all levelsin order to sustain and build on the recent policy changes.

The base building capacity of the movement is considered

relatively weak, given the size and breadth of the LGBT population

As discussed earlier, respondents and interviewees feltthat LGBT movement building should reect the issues thataffect the spectrum of racial, economic, cultural, social,generational and geographic diversity present withinthe LGBT community. A strong grassroots base keeps themovement rooted in the expression of those individual andcollective issues. As one funder noted, Its easy to assume

that the agenda for the policy advocacy groups reects thebase. We are not good about asking these groups who theyare accountable to and if they are connected to a base.

Base building means engaging, expanding, and supportingconstituent leadership who can mobilize communityresponses to issues and campaigns. In addition to the issueof accountability, base building is about building powerfor the broader goals of the movement, to embed winsand advance new issues. One interviewee commented,There is a real cost to individuals being bystanders intheir very own movement.

Survey participants spanned a range of national, stateand local policy groups that engage in a wide varietyof advocacy and organizing activities. About thesame percent of survey respondents reported that theyengage in community organizing or base building asin legislative or administrative advocacy. However, theyreported important differences between their advocacy

and organizing capacities. While 76 percent reportedthat their legislative advocacy capacity was very moderately strong, 54 percent of respondents reportethat their base building capacity was very or moderatestrong (see Appendix 1, Chart 2). Similarly, survrespondents ranked community organizing capacity anbuilding a stronger base of support as one of the top fo(out of 14) overall needs of the movement (see Append1, Chart 1).

Interviewees from across the spectrumlocal, staand nationalreported that investments in grassrooorganizing have not kept pace with the developmeof expertise and skills related to advocacy, particularat the federal level. According to a recent report,5 23percent of all LGBTQ funding over the last 40 years hgone to advocacy, while only 5.1 percent supportcommunity organizing.

5 Forty Years of LGBTQ Philanthropy. Funders for LGBTQ I2012. http://www.lgbtfunders.org/resources/pub.cfm?pubID=5

Our leaders are driven by issues,not by people from an organizing background. In fact, there are lots of LGBT people who are professional organizers who are active in other movements reproductive justice,economic justice, t he environment but dont work in LGBT movement because they feel its a movement

that doesnt understand organizing.

National LGBT Advocate


10/24

8

The movement does not currently reflect leadership from the grassroots that embodies the full diversity of the LGBT community

Key informants and survey respondents spoke of theimportance of leadership that reflects the diversityof the movement. They viewed having diverse andtruly representative leadership at various levels of the movement as critical both to developing a moreexpansive and representative policy agenda andto achieving a justice-based vision. An intervieweepointed out that statewide and national LGBTorganizations except those that focus on peopleof color are almost exclusively white-led.

While survey respondents prioritized overallleadership development as the greatest factor foraccelerating progress of the LGBT movement (seeAppendix 1, Chart 1), they identified training pe opleof color as leaders as well as developing leaders

in all parts of the country as the most importantleadership needs (see Ap pendix 1, Chart 3).

One final note on diversity: survey respondentswere asked about the specific population groupswith whom they worked; the highest ranking wentto transgender and gender non-conforming (55%)followed by African-American (50%) and Latino(43%). However, transgender and gender non-conforming populations were rated in the bottom

half of overall leadership needs (see Appendix 1,Chart 3). These paradoxical findings indicate theneed for a more detailed analysis on the concernsand needs of trans people and on their leadershipin the movement.

I I I . S T R E N G T H E N I N GT H E I N F R A S T R U C T U R E

Successful public policy change is generalthe result of long-term efforts to build a stroadvocacy infrastructure and capacity. Advocaccapacity includes various skills, talents, aexpertise such as policy analysis, lobbying, ancommunications, as well the ability to be nimband adapt to rapidly changing circumstances 6

Although policy change has been one of the strongedrivers for the LGBT movement in recent yeprogress has not been uniform across the countrState level policy change has been concentrateon the two coasts, creating a complex patchworof state policies that leave many LGBT individuand families without the protections, programs aservices available to others.

A tale of two regions: wid e var iat io n in organ izat ionand advocacy capacity exists across the country

The majority of the organizations surveyed reporthaving annual operating budgets of less than $million and a little more than half have been existence for 15 years or more. These organizationwere primarily from the Eastern seaboard and WeCoast (mainly California). Fewer organizatiowere from the South and Midwest. This geograph

distribution of advocacy organizations in our sampseems to be indicative of the geographic distributiof the broader LGBT advocacy field, based on othreports on th e LGBT movement.7

6 What Makes an Effective Advocacy Organization: A Framewfor Assessing Advocacy Capacity. The TCC Group. The CaliEndowment (2009) http://www.calendow.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/Policy/General/EffectiveAdvocacy_FINAL.pdf

7 2012 National LGBT Movement Report: A Financial OverviewLeading Advocacy Organizations of the LGBT Movement.(December 2012). Movement Advancement Project. http://wwwlgbtmap.org/file/2012-national-lgbt-movement-report.pdf


11/24


12/24

0

occurring unsystematically it is not being elevatedor coordinated beyond the local setting. In addition, itis not clear that there is interest in or support of theseissues by national groups and funders.

As is often the case, one of the bigg est challenges isconnecting local base building groups to state andnational groups in ways that are mutuall y informing;communication channels were often described astop- down, and national organizations were criticizedfor parachuting in to states and localities withoutnotification and coordination with local groups.

State and locally-based LGBT organizations have begun to develop alliances with other issues and movements, but it takes commitment, resources,leadership and time

Throughout the survey and interviews, participants inthis study voiced strong interest in alliance building with

other movements and across issue areas. Partneringwith other movements or organizations that work onissues other than LGBT-specific issues was ranked thirdoverall (out of 14) in terms of the most critical needsof the LGBT movement going forward (see Appendix1, Chart 1).

The data also indicate that this type of alliance buildingis already occurring, but it occurs primarily at the localand state level. Overall, state and local LGBT groups had

a broader social justice policy agenda and engaged inan array of policy- related partnerships. More local andstate-based survey respondents reported developingsuch partnerships with organizations that work onimmigrant rights, economic justice and labor/workersrights movements, compared to national organizations(see Appendix 1, Chart 4).

Despite a growing awareness and interest in alliancbuilding by a number of leaders, many inter viewereported that there is not widespread support founderstanding of, nor funding for alliance-buildieffor ts. One state advocate noted that racial justicgroups bring different perspectives...but LGorganizations dont always have the infrastructuto have stakeholders like that at th e table. Anothadvocate observed that some of the group

begrudgingly do this bec ause they have to but Im nsure there is a deeper level of understanding of thpower that can be gained from building alliancesSurvey respondents also identified learning hoto build alliances with non-LGBT organizationsan important leadership need, out of 13 potentialeadership needs, while leadership skills to wowith non- LGBT leaders was ranked third overall (Appendix 1, Chart 3).

Similarly, although some LGBT funders hsupported alliance building, intervi ewees noted moleadership on how to work with funders from othmovements could help organizations participate alliance building on the ground.

Weve gone as far as we can go on

our backs alone. Only way is with alliances which is a two-way street.

LGBT Funder


13/24

C R O SS - M O V E M E N T A L L I A N C E B U I L D I N GF O R S O C I A L J U S T I C E

Interviewees c ited t wo recent ball ot measure campaigns as examples of alliance-building. Although the fight against a constitutional amendmentbanning marriage equalit y lost in North Carolina in 2012, the campaignengaged a wide range of organizations. Groups ranging from the NAACPand those working on immigrant rights joined the campaign to take astand against discrimination of any kind. Alliances were built acrosseconomic justice and racial justice organizations, and, in the words of one activist, it has changed the way North Carolina will forever work interms of coalitions and alliances.

Similarly, in Mississippi, a national LGBT advocate reported that theyworked with the reproductive justice movement to defeat the so-calledPersonhood Amendment, which sought to ban all abortions and manyforms of cont raception. We saw it as critical to our work around HIV,but more broadly to change views to meet the needs of young people.We may have different angles but we recognize that its about allpeople having con trol over their bodies.


14/24

2

The LGBT movement is at a criticaljuncture. There have been hard-foughtpolicy victories on the state, nationaland international levels, but there is

still much work to be done. The current momentumin the fight for legal marriage equality presents anopportunity to strengthen and build the power of the movement. While continuing the fight on specificpolicy and legal issues, like marriage, the movement

can start to broaden and deepen its focus and toembed the successes already in place. Staying onthe current course that focuses on significant butlimited policy wins makes the movement vulnerableto future tactics that would undermine legal gains.As a result of our findings, we offer the followingrecommendations and examples that we hope willhelp set a direction for the future.

I . E X PA N D T H E C U R R E N T V I S I O N

Create Opportunities to Develop a Shared Vision

Expanding the current vision of the LGBT movementis a key to setting the agenda for the future andtransforming hard-fought policy wins into newlyestablished norms. The most powerful tool forenabling the development of a movements visionis convening. As one funder described, It takestime and a deliberate convening process. You haveto help folks understand why a shared vision isimportant. Funders can give people the space toallow people to dream t ogether and share t ogether.Strategically designed convenings can also lift upnew policy priorities, catalyze new relationshipsand collaborations, promote learning and strategydevelopment, and foster a greater sense of cohesionacross the movement.

Other movements at similar crossroads are engagingin systematic visioning processes. For example,

the reproductive rights and justice movement isa process to engage a wide range of groups inorder to create a new vision that will refresh anreenergize the movement. Begun as an effort align disparate sectors, CoreAlign an independenproject seeking to build a network of leaders catalyze a 30-year plan is focused on creatina new unifying vision for the movement. Based months of research, convenings, and discussion, t

vision for a renewed movement is:A future wherall people have the resources, rights, and respect tomake their own sexual and reproductive decisionsCoreAlign will use this vision as a starting plato engage new people and organizations, provideongoing opportunities to build on and refine thvision, and create a 30-year strategy to implementhe vision.

Movement Vision and Cam paign Strategy: Bot h/A

Campaigns for policy change are critical to advancinand codifyin g social change, but they must align wiand move toward the broader vision of the movemenFunders and activ ists alike encouraged a both/andapproach to help ensure campaign efforts achievpolicy winsan d are in service to the goal of buildina movement for longer-term social change. Such

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

[It] gets back to both/and rather than either/or. We need movement building and campaign organizingWithout movement building, we are not building long term political power.

LGBT Advocate


15/24

approach is not simply defined by the timeline of a policy campaign but rather by the vision of themovement. The LGBT movement can build and expandon policy efforts and victories while also buildingand expanding the movement and its power.

I I . STRENGTHEN THE INFRASTRUCTUREBuild Organizational Capacity with an Emphasis on the Fly Over States

Targeted capacity building support is needed in theSouthern and Midwestern parts of the country. Asmomentum for equality grows, LGBT organizationsin those and other overlooked regions will needmore support to build the infrastructure for futuresuccess and sustainability of the movement. Effortsto strengthen and build the capacity of the fly overstates should consider the operating needs of theseorganizations such as board development, leadership

and management training, and development suppor t.Efforts should also focus on building advocacycapacity, which can include a range of activitiesfrom linking them with peers in other states who canact as coach es, to targeted trainings and convenings,to more systematic efforts to strengthen capacit y ona regional level.

The Public Welfare Foundation used a regionstrategy in the South to build health policy advoc acThe Foundation fostered systems of advocacy strategically aligning organizations at the state levacross the region. Each system had a flagshiporganization that served as a hub to coordinatthe work. Legal and health advocates, organizersand fiscal policy groups were regularly convento foster the development of the regional syste

Funding supported capacity building for the region fiscal analysis, communications, organizing anhealth policy.10

Enhance the Overall Movements Advocacy Capa

Movement capacity building support must aligned with the stage and needs of the movementdevelopment. All movements have shared collective advocacy capacities necessary f

advancing their work and vision. These capacitimay include communications and messaging, polianalysis, legal advocac y, legislative advoc acy, anresearch and data. Key informants raised concernthat advocacy capacity building was focused in few organizations and was not benefiting the fielMovement capacities should be identified and builtensure their utility and accessibilit y to organizatiowithin the movement.

The LGBT movement has numerous hubs that can seas platforms for facilitating greater connectivitythe movement. These organizations provide technicassistance, resources, coaching, capacity buildinand convening support to other groups in thmovement. Building on existing anchor or huorganizations can facilitate and support informatioexchange and connections ac ross the movement, li

10 A National Foundation Undertakes a Regional Strategy in thSouth. Terri Langston, Ria Pugeda. GIH News From the Fiel

Were constantly pushing on issues

without building the strength of our organizations. Lots of leaders who are issue-oriented, but dont realize that to build power to win on those issues, weve got to build the strength of organizations.

National Advocate


16/24

4

grassroots and state organizations, and strategicallybring groups together based on policy opportunities,shared issues and interests, as well as advocacy andcapacity needs.

The Security and Rights Collaborative, a fundercollaborative, provided an effective approach tobuilding the communications capacity for the field of national securit y and human rights. By creating a newCommunications Hub, they were abl e to c entralizeand coordinate all advocacy communicationsactivities and build the communications capacity of all the organizations in the field.112

Promote Greater Inclusion of Communities of Color and Cultivate Diverse Leadership

The limited attention given to the particular needsand concerns of LGBT communities of color hasbeen a long-standing concern of many movement

leaders. Increasing the focus on and investment inLGBT communities of color can give voice to thesecommunities and increase their ability to shape themovements agenda. This can be done by supportingthe non-profit and organizing infrastructure in thesecommunities, building alliances with other non-LGBT organizations serving communities of color,and developing individuals of color as leaders atall levels of the movement.

The LGBT movement has programs such as the PipelineProject to ultimately increase the level of diversity inmovement leadership, but more efforts are neededto maintain and advance this leadership as well ascultivating youth, people of color and individualsfrom under-represented parts of the

11 Building a Field-Wide Communications Hub: Lessons Learned.Security and Rights Collaborative. http://www.proteusfund.org/src/reports

country. Additionally, key informants spoke of importance of leadership that values the grassrooand comes from the grassroots. Such leadershengenders a deep understanding of the needs othe LGBT community and creates leaders who driven by peo ple and n ot by issues.

I I I . CONNECT WITHIN THE LGBTMOVEMENT AND WITH ALLIES

Foster Grassroots Treetops Connections Withinthe Movement

The LGBT movement needs a concerted effort to bgrow and connect the grassroots through base buildinand community organizing. Local grassroots grouare typically small and fragile and need operatinsupport to enable them to stabilize and engage in basbuilding over the long term. Ideally, these efforts wolead to the development of alliances with other soci

justice effor ts on the ground. In addition, existing dirservice groups, including LGBT community and hecenters, are well positioned to play an important roin base building.

Movements need real grassroots engagement to take hold. They cant

be engineered. But you can seed relationships, capacities, and sparks to bring forth movements.

Movement Building Expert


17/24

The second step in supporting grassroots efforts isto link them to state and national policy advocates.Relationships between these groups should bereciprocal and mutually informing. This can befostered by supporting collaborative opportunitiesto work together, creating an on-going means toelevate and incorporate the voice of the grassrootsinto state and national advocacy discussions, andpromoting opportunities for interaction and mutual

engagement. This requires state and nationaladvocates supporting local advocacy efforts andbeing informed by local issues, as well as workingwith the grassroots to mobilize them on state andnational advocacy issues.

Promote Cross-Movement Alliance Building

The LGBT movement can be made stronger if it continuesto build alliances with other social change movements.

This requires time, relationships, and resources. Manystrategies to catalyze, promote and strengthen alliancesalready exist; these include identifying shared interestsacross issues for collaboration, funding cross-movementprojects, using leadership development programs andtrainings to promote relationships across movementleaders, and designing conferences and conveningsthat identify common ground among organizationsworking on different issues.

One approach is the establishment of the StrategicOpportunities States within the State Equality Fund, acollaborative supported by the Gill Foundation, Evelynand Walter Haas Jr. Fund, an anonymous donor, andFord Foundation, in conjunction with Tides Foundation.Among other things, the investment provides two stateswith additional resources to create alliances withother powerful forces in that state, such as the AfricanAmerican and Latino communities, and labor unions.

Alliance building also requires developing new kinof leadership skills that emphasize collaboratioand an outward-looking perspective.123 Followinthe passage of several anti-gay ballot measurcampaigns and similar attacks on immigrants ancommunities of color, Basic Rights Oregon (BRembarked on a long-term effort to build solidaramong allied communities. One of BROs three mprograms is the Racial Justice and Alliance Build

program, which is structured around two activitilifting up LGBT leadership who are people of coand engaging more white LGBT Oregonians on issuof concern to people of color. That commitment hled BRO to support policy accountability work by the African American community and participin immigrant rights campaigns. BRO was able access training through the Western States Centthat emphasized the skills needed to partner wiorganizations of color. Subsequently, the Basic RighEducation Fund developed an anti-racist toolkit LGBT Equality groups, entitled, Standing TogethComing Out for Racial Justice.13 4

12 Catalyzing Networks for Social Change: A Funders Guide.Monitor Institute & Grantmakers for Effective Organizationshttp://docs.geofunders.org/?filename=Catalyzing_Networks_fSocial_Change_2011.pdf

13 This resource can be downloaded from the Basic Rights Oreg websit e a t h ttp ://www.basi cri ghts.o rg/wp-con ten t/uploads /2011/09/StandingTogether.pdf


18/24

6

C O N C L U S I O N

The remarkable progress and momentum of campaignsfor marriage equality has brought the LGBT movementto a crossroads. It can continue to have a laser sharpfocus on policy wins only or it can integrate a long-termmovement-building strategy. We hope this report extendsthe conversation and spurs actions to ensure lastingequality for all LGBT people including social, economic,and political equity. From our findings, movementadvocates and organizers are ready to deepen and

expand their work, both separately and together.We are not the first group to call attention to theseissues; however, these findings and the movementscurrent momentum indicate the time is right to moveforward in new ways.

There are three areas that can help extend this workand contribute to future direction setting.

Although this report focused on those workingon policy change and organizers, we believethat hearing from more people working on abroader array of LGBT issues would give a fullerpicture of the landscape and opportunities toextend the vision for change. This includesLGBT service providers who have a deepreach into the community and could be sites of base building and mobilization, LGBT activistgroups that are not formal organizations,and LGBT-focused work within progressive

organizations that address multiple justice issues.

The LGBT movement has traditionally drawnand compared itself to other progressive socimovements. However, there is little research the relationships between p rogressive movemenincluding an analysis of the opportunities work together. It is important to document neand established collaboratives among LGBT aother movements as well as to develop a deepeunderstanding of how to bridge these movemen

in ways that create long-term alliances. To move forward, it would be useful to have furth

investigation of the obstacles to implementing ttypes of activities we recommend, such as trelative absence of leaders of color, the neeto broaden the vision of the movement, and thlimited capacity of organizations in the middof the country to extend the movement.

The current energy in marriage equality has helpe

spur so many important changes in action, opinioand acceptance. Now we need to plan for t he nextwenty years as we move towards a just and equitabsociety for all people.


19/24

A P P E N D I X 1

Chart 1. Top Six Critical Factors for Accelerating Progress of the LGBT Movement

Chart 2. Self-Assessment of Advocacy Capacity

FACTORS TO ACCELERATE PROGRESS

SELF-ASSESSMENT OF ADVOCACY CAPACITY

Base Building/Organizing

Communications

Public Education

Legislative Advocacy

Coalition Building with LGBT Groups

Coalition Building with Non-LGBT Groups

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

70%

60 %

50 %

40 %

30 %

20 %

10%

0%

Leadership

Vision

Partnering with other movements

Community organizing

Presence throughout US

Advocacy Capacity

Very Strong

Moderately Strong

Somewhat Limited

Limited


20/24


21/24


22/24


23/24

A P P E N D I X 4

Selected Bibliography

Barsoum, Gigi. GCI Rs California Counts! 2010 Census Campaign:A Network Approach to Funder Collaboration. Sebastopol, CA: Grantmakers Concernedwith Immigrants and Refu gees, 2012.

De Guzman, Ben, Glenn D. Magpantay, and Mala Nagarajan.Queer AsianCompass: A Descriptive Directory of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBTQ) Asian American, South Asian, and Pacific Islander (AAPI) Organizations. Washington, DC: National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance, 2009.

Grant, Heather McLeod.Transformer: How to Build a Network to Change a System- A Case Study of the RE-AMP Energy Network.San Francisco, CA: MonitorInstitute, 2010.

The Headwaters Group.Advocacy Capacity Training Assessment: An Overview of the Field . Rep. New York, NY: Atlantic Philanthropies, 2009.

Khan, Surina. Case Studies: Tying the Not: How the Right Succeeded in PassingProposition 8.Resisting the Rainbow: Right-Wing Responses to LGBT Gains. Ed.Pam Chamberlain. Somerville, MA: Political Research Associates, 2012. Section2, 1.

Masters, Barbara, and Torie Osborn. Social Movements and Philanthropy: HowFoundations Can Support Movement Building.Foundation Review , Vol. 2:2,2010: 12-27.

Sen, Rinku, Seth Wessler, and Dominique Apollon.Better Together: ResearchFindings on the Relationship between Racial Justice Organizations and LGBT Communities. New York, NY: Applied Research Center, 2010.

Siegel, Loren, ed.Public Opinion and Discourse on the Intersection of LGBT Issuesand Race . New York, NY: Opport unity Ag enda, 2012.

U.S. Foundation Support for LGBTQ Communities of Color . New York, NY: Funderfor LGBTQ Issues, April 2010. Online:http://lgbtracialequity.org/publications/RacialEquityCampaignUpdate2008.pdf

Vaid, Urvashi. Now You Get What You Want, Do You Want More?NYU Review of Law & Social Change , Vo l. 37:101, 2013: 101-11. On lin e: http://socialchangenyu.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/37-1-vaid.pdf.

Woodwell, William H ., Jr.Bolder Together . San Francisco, CA: Califor nia CivicParticipation Funders, 2012.


24/24

2

220 Fifth Avenue2nd Floor

New York, NY 10001

buildingmovement.org

Documents

At the Crossroads Future of the LGBT Movement