Forced teaming for me but not for thee? Who benefits from the Victorian Government’s LGBTIQA+ grants rounds?

These days, it is highly unusual for funding to be set aside for the benefit of lesbian, gay or bisexual Australians alone. Virtually all “rainbow” funding streams from government and philanthropy are now branded as “LGBTIQA+” or similar. This means they are supposed to meet the needs of more than half a dozen different groups of people. Indeed, the “plus” symbol at the end – rapidly becoming ubiquitous – means the money in question becomes available, at least in theory, to virtually anyone.   

This is not just semantics. It has real ramifications for the size and type of resourcing available to meet the needs of lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals. As such, we decided to examine several public grants rounds to see where the money went.1  

 We focused on Victoria, a state which has made a strong public commitment to support diversity, equality and inclusion, as encapsulated in Pride in our Future: Victoria's LGBTIQA+ Strategy 2022-32. We looked at three high-profile public grants streams which, altogether, have directed over $6 million in funding to different organisations and groups.  

 What we found caused us significant concern.  

 We could not identify any funding allocated to projects focused specifically on the needs of lesbian or gay Victorians, while funding for bisexual initiatives was scant. The majority of funded projects were branded “LGBTIQA+” or similar, setting up an expectation that the needs of LGB Victorians can only be met in combination with other groups.  

 However, that same “inclusive” approach – sometimes called “forced teaming” – was not applied equally to other cohorts. Across the three grants streams combined, over a million dollars in funding was directed to gender identity themed projects. More than a quarter of a million dollars was allocated to projects focused on DSDs or “intersex” issues, while almost a quarter of a million went to projects focused on the (virtually undefinable) category of “queer”.  We break down the findings below.  

Which community groups are supported to grow?  

 Between 2016-23, the Victorian Government dedicated over $4 million to Organisational Development Grants to support LGBTIQ+ organisations and groups to build capacity and viability. As the title implies, most of this funding (approx. three-quarters of grants allocated) went to projects framed as “LGBTIQ+” or similar.  

 We could not identify any funding directed to projects focused specifically on lesbian or gay issues. However, funding was directed to the following:  

• 16 projects focused on transgender / gender diverse issues, equating to $560,569 in funds overall. 

• 2 projects focused on “trans and queer” issues equating to $100,000 overall, and one project focused on “trans, queer and intersex” issues at $80,000. 

• 8 projects focused on “queer” issues (i.e. framed as “queer”, not “LGBTIQ+”) equating to $182,120 overall.  

• 5 projects focused on DSD or “intersex” issues equating to $261,780 overall.   

• 2 projects focused on bisexual issues, equating to $90,000 overall. 

Which celebrations are funded?  

 Between 2018-23, Victoria’s Pride Events and Festivals Fund paid for 186 events, representing an overall investment of more than $1 million. Most funded projects were framed as “LGBTIQA+” or similar.  

 Again, we could not identify any funding directed to lesbian - or gay-specific projects. But funding was directed to the following: 

• 13 projects focused on transgender / gender diverse issues, equating to $71,930 overall. 

• 12 projects focused on “queer” issues (i.e. framed as “queer”, not “LGBTIQA+”) equating to $48,200 overall. 

• 5 projects focused on “trans and queer” issues equating to $18,343 overall. 

• 2 projects focused on DSD or “intersex” issues equating to $7,500 overall. 

• 3 projects focused on bisexual issues equating to $21,950 overall.  
  

 How is youth wellbeing supported?  

 Victoria’s HEY (Healthy Equal Youth) Grants have provided well over $1 million in funding to support more than 100 organisations over a decade, with the aim of strengthening LGBTIQA+ youth mental health and wellbeing. Most of the funding was allocated to projects which promised to meet the needs of “LGBTIQA+” (or similarly described) young people.  

 Once again, we could not identify any projects focused specifically on lesbian, gay or bisexual issues, although one project was funded at $9,878 to “assist people with intellectual disability to understand same sex attraction”. The following projects were also funded:  

• 18 projects focused on transgender / gender diverse issues equating to $213,221 overall.  

• 2 projects focused on “trans and queer” issues equating to $20,000 overall. 

• 2 projects focused on “queer” issues (i.e. “queer”, not “LGBTIQA+”) equating to $15,000 overall. 

 Why such an unequal approach?  

 To some readers, the amounts of money in question will seem minor. But to small or volunteer-run community groups, even a few thousand dollars can make a huge difference. These groups rely on small grants to enable them to provide support to their communities.  

 As such, it is a matter of deep concern to us that the needs of lesbian, gay and (to some extent) bisexual Victorians are not being met through dedicated, specific funding. Rather, the needs of same-sex attracted Victorians are supposed to be met by broad-based grants which also promise to serve other cohorts – “LGBTIQA+”.  

 At the same time, several of these other cohorts have benefited from specific, targeted projects funded just for them.  

 We doubt this is a coincidence. Victoria’s Pride in our Future strategy contains no discussion of lesbian issues and only very brief references to gay and bisexual issues. None of the strategy’s action commitments relate specifically to lesbian, gay or bisexual matters. Its lengthy “Definitions” section does not define “lesbian”, “gay”, “bisexual”, “homosexual” or “same-sex attraction”. A word search of the 48-page document found 6 mentions of “lesbian” (typically grouped with other cohorts), 6 mentions of “gay” and 4 mentions of “bisexual”.  

 Meanwhile, Pride in our Future makes one action commitment specifically about transgender issues, one specifically about DSD or “intersex” issues, and one about the decriminalisation of sex work. It provides detailed definitions of “trans”, “cisgender”, “gender”, “gender diverse” and “intersex variations”, and a word search found 43 mentions of “transgender”/ “trans” / “gender diverse”, 41 mentions of “intersex”, 11 mentions of “queer” and 11 mentions of “gender identity”.  

 The direction of public funding through grants seems to mirror these priorities.  

 LGB Alliance does not oppose other community groups benefiting from public grants. But under the circumstances, we think it is reasonable for LGB Victorians to ask: why is allocation of funds so inequitable and unbalanced? Where is the public commitment to us?