Assessing the Cost of Cuts in Welfare Spending for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual People

Abstract

The current austerity in government spending has far reaching implications, not only for individuals but for the context in which a welfare state is perceived. The position has been reached at the same time as equality legislation makes some groups more visible. This article is an early attempt at drawing out the relationship between lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people and welfare spending cuts, made observable because of legislation requiring impact assessment. This article draws on research into impact prepared by the author, in affiliation with the Bradford LGBT Strategic Partnership, and considers LGB claims to welfare and to citizenship.

Where are all the gay fathers?: Reflections on recruiting gay fathers as participants in leisure research

“…An integral component of the austerity drive has been a complete review of welfare spending 12 . Since 2010, there have been profound changes to many aspects of the welfare system including the introduction of the 'benefit cap' and radical changes to household benefit, council tax benefits, child and non-dependent benefit, tax credits, disability living allowance and incapacity benefits 13 .…”

Learning from international experiences – developing older LGBT affirmative housing and care options in England

“…This "one size fits all" approach to equality duty has created gaps in the way the LGBT staff are supported and in the way LGBT individuals are cared for (Guasp and Stonewall, 2012). Alongside some of the largest public sector cuts seen in a generation, where a range of specialist and mainstream services used by LGBT communities have been cut or specific services have been subsumed by other more mainstream services (Beckett, 2015) as part of the current Government's austerity programme (Gulliver et al, 2014). A lack of equality in choice for LGBT individuals leads to further marginalisation and invisibility of the community within mainstream society.…”

“…The Equality Act and the public duty contained means "public authorities are required to assess impacts of policy on people with protected characteristics" (Beckett, 2015) and question -If their needs are met, why not? The answer may also affect the way mainstream care is provided ensuring all benefit from greater personalisation of service provision through individual engagement.…”

“…Mostly LGBT people want at least some choice, either within mainstream services linking into LGBT communities, or by obtaining services that meet their needs more specifically in the form of a specialist LGBT provider, either through public funding or personal budgets. Austerity has disproportionately affected LGBT people choices of different specialist and mainstream LGBT services (Gulliver et al, 2014;Beckett, 2015). A lack of options or even visibility within mainstream services sends the message to older LGBT people that their needs do not matter, are not relevant to their sexual orientation or gender identity, are not valued or understood, or are not worthy of investment, promotion and provision.…”

“…This results in older LGBT people fearing engagement with mainstream housing and care providers, or if they do engage, survival is to hide any indication of sexual orientation or gender identity (if possible). As a respondent in Beckett explains: "they will assume I'm heterosexual and if I tell them any different, they will be shitty with me" (Beckett, 2015).…”