Voices of Pride: LGBTQ Community Needs Assessment 2025

About the Urban Education Research Center (UERC) at UMKC

The UERC is an educational research center located at the University of MissouriKansas City (UMKC) School of Education, Social Work, and Psychological Sciences. The mission of the UERC is to create reliable, usable knowledge with the goal of promoting excellent educational experiences and improving the lives, opportunities, and communities of urban residents. The UERC accomplishes this mission through collaborative, data rich approaches including technical assistance and consultation and rigorous research using a range of methodological tools.

Overview

About the Voices of Pride LGBTQ+ Needs Assessment

The Kansas City Voices of Pride LGBTQ+ Community Needs Assessment was a grant–funded project that took place from January 2024 – March 2025. The project’s overall goal was to provide a snapshot of the current needs faced by Kansas City LGBTQ+ community members. Through two phases of data collection, researchers collected both quantitative and qualitative data, which was then analyzed and interpreted to produce this report. More details about the methods, findings, and strengths and limitations of the project are available below.

This project was made possible by funding from the following entities:

Disclaimer

The following data for the Kansas City Voices of Pride Needs Assessment was collected between April 2024 and November 2024, ending just five days after the U.S. presidential election. We acknowledge that while this data provides an accurate and comprehensive snapshot of the community needs at the time, the assessment may no longer be fully representative of the community’s needs given the rapidly evolving political landscape.

Introduction to the Needs Assessment

Purpose of the Needs Assessment

An estimated 60,000 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer individuals live in the Kansas City metropolitan area (Williams Institute, 2021). Despite the growing body of research about LGBTQ+ people in the U.S. that comes from national and regional studies, little is known about the characteristics and experiences of LGBTQ+ community members, particularly those who live in the Midwest. The Kansas City Voices of Pride Needs Assessment seeks to give voice to the thousands of LGBTQ+ individuals who live, work, and contribute to our Kansas City community.

The Kansas City Voices of Pride Needs Assessment project was designed to evaluate fundamental needs and access to essential services. The research team intentionally focused on what we believe are basic human rights – safety, economic and housing security, medical and mental health care, legal assistance, community connection and social life, and civic engagement. Our comprehensive approach considered barriers, unmet needs, and community strengths and assets. The study also explored differences in experiences based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersectional factors such as race, ethnicity, age, income, ability, and geography.

Our recommendations, drawn directly from LGBTQ+ individuals and advocates, are meant to spark conversation and drive advocacy. We hope that LGBTQ+ community members, nonprofit leaders, activists, donors, and foundation and corporate partners find opportunities for action within this report. While further research is needed, we see this assessment as a starting point for understanding our community's needs, concerns, and strengths

Project Involvement

The Kansas City Voices of Pride Needs Assessment project consisted of two components: the research team and the advisory committee. The research team met weekly to create the Needs Assessment Survey, develop marketing materials, and discuss budgetary considerations during the project. During monthly meetings, the

research team would discuss project updates with the advisory committee and seek their input and guidance throughout the project. Team members were composed of the following individuals:

UMKC Research Team:

o Dr. Angela Cottrell, Director of Research & Institute Programs

o Dr. Karin Chang, Assistant Director of the Urban Education Research Center

o Dr. Laurel Watson, Professor, Psychology & Counseling

o Dr. Todd Wells, Dean of Students

o Brielle White, Research Assistant at the Urban Education Research Center

o Leah Youngren, Senior Research Manager at the Urban Education Research Center

Advisory Committee:

o Beth Breitenstein

o Katie Dixon

o Kelli Doyle

o Ryan Gove

o Starzette Palmer

o Michelle Rowden

o Brandy Williams

o Ashley Williamson

o Meredith Winner

Research

Methods

Phase 1: Research Team Generation and Survey Design

The Kansas City Voices of Pride Needs Assessment project was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 took place from January 2024 to September 2024. After the grant for the project was awarded, the research team began identifying potential advisory committee members. Additionally, the research team developed the Kansas City Voices of Pride Needs Assessment questions and planning for survey data collection. Once the advisory committee was assembled and introduced to the project, the survey underwent several rounds of revisions among all team members before receiving final approval and being translated into Spanish. All research team and advisory committee members identified community partners who could help promote the survey during this time

On April 8th, 2024, the Kansas City Voices of Pride Needs Assessment survey was disseminated to community members, primarily through word–of–mouth recruitment, with the research team and advisory committee members relying on professional and personal networks to share the information. The entire team shared information about

the survey and promoted it through social media, email, media interviews, and event tabling. Responses to the English and Spanish versions of the survey were accepted until September 2024.

Phase 2: Focus Groups and Report Dissemination

Phase 2 of the Kansas City Voices of Pride Needs Assessment project occurred from September 2024 to February 2025. After collecting the Kansas City Voices of Pride Needs Assessment survey data, the research team analyzed responses to identify key findings. Based on these key findings and conversations with community leaders and advocacy organizations, focus group questions were developed

Members of the advisory committee identified community members to participate in one of six focus groups. Participants were selected for their knowledge and lived experience with issues uniquely affecting the Kansas City LGBTQ+ community. Research team members and community members co-facilitated focus groups to deepen understanding of the current needs of the LGBTQ+ community members. After the focus groups concluded, findings from both project phases were further analyzed and consolidated.

Strengths

The Kansas City Voices of Pride Needs Assessment project was conducted by a multi–disciplinary team carefully selected for their expertise and experience in their respective fields. The research team included members with backgrounds in LGBTQ+ research, implementation and evaluation, and social work, ensuring an intentional focus on equity and inclusion. Additionally, the advisory committee consisted of individuals with diverse identities, professional roles, and lived experiences within the community, which created a collaborative approach that enriched the project’s depth and impact. The project’s extended timeline allowed the team to collect quantitative survey data over five months, leveraging community connections to promote the Kansas City Voices of Pride Needs Assessment survey across various events and settings. As a result, more than 1,100 LGBTQ+ community members participated, providing the dataset for analysis.

The research team intentionally designed the survey, carefully selecting questions based on best practices and existing literature. The research team also had the opportunity to consult with the Horizons Foundation in San Francisco, which conducted a similar project and community Needs Assessment for the Bay Area LGBTQ+ community in 2016. The San Francisco collaboration allowed the research team to incorporate valuable insights from past research, significantly enhancing the quality and effectiveness of the Kansas City Voices of Pride Needs Assessment project.

Limitations

While the project team prioritized ensuring that survey responses reflected the diverse population of the Kansas City metro area, the final dataset was less racially and ethnically diverse than desired. Collaborations with community leaders and local organizations to increase participation among Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) community members did not yield the desired number of responses. As a result, the data analysis related to racial and ethnic identities was limited. The research team acknowledges the unique needs of different racial groups and the associated challenges with collecting representative data. Thus, the research team encourages future studies to explore this issue more deeply and partner with BIPOC organizations to collaborate on survey design and execution. Additionally, because data collection occurred primarily before election day, conducting the project during an election year introduced unique challenges. With shifts in policy and legislation under the current administration, the critical needs and concerns of the LGBTQ+ community may have evolved since the data was gathered.

This project aimed to provide a broad snapshot of the unmet needs of the LGBTQ+ community in the Kansas City metro area. While the research team achieved this objective, the analysis does not offer an in-depth exploration of specific issues or present actionable next steps for the community. Instead, this project serves as a foundation for future research and community initiatives to build upon, fostering a deeper understanding of the challenges and needs identified.

Acknowledgments

This project represents a year-long, collaborative effort to capture the needs, aspirations, and challenges faced by the LGBTQ+ community in the Kansas City metropolitan area. Rooted in the belief that data can drive meaningful change, this work aims to dispel false narratives, foster a shared understanding, and highlight key issues impacting our community.

The significance of this project extends beyond data collection. Our findings are more than numbers, words, and statistics; these results represent the lived experiences of thousands of individuals and serve as a collective call for action.

To every person, organization, and community member who placed their trust in us and openly shared their experiences – some of the most personal and difficult experiences associated with your LGBTQ+ identity – we extend our deepest gratitude. Our research team was blown away by the outpouring of support. While we would have loved to acknowledge each and every one of you by name, we instead send our collective appreciation. Your voices, stories, and perspectives have been instrumental in shaping this report and deepening our understanding of the community’s needs. Together, we laid a foundation for understanding the fundamental needs of our community.

We would like to thank Dr. Viviana Grieco, who translated the Spanish version of the Needs Assessment survey.

We also want to recognize the mental health professionals and community advocates who played a crucial role in co–facilitating focus groups and community conversations:

o Nyla Foster

o Jacob Germain

o Michaela Puryear

o Celia Ruiz

The insights drawn from these conversations were essential in identifying critical areas of need. The co–facilitators’ expertise and deep connection to the community made this work possible.

Finally, we extend a special thanks to Dr. Francisco Buchting at the Horizons Foundation in San Francisco, California. The Voices of Pride project greatly benefited from his team’s knowledge, guidance, and wisdom.

This report is not just a reflection of data but a testament to resilience, community, and the shared commitment to building a more inclusive and equitable future.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

The current section shared an overview of respondent characteristics from the Needs Assessment survey conducted by the Kansas City Voices of Pride Needs project. The population sample included respondents from the 14–county Kansas City metropolitan statistical area, including counties in both Kansas and Missouri. The survey was available in both English and Spanish and took approximately 10 minutes to complete. The survey was available for community members to complete beginning in April 2024 and closed in September 2024. Survey questions addressed access to basic needs such as food, medicine, and shelter, as well as experiences with violence, discrimination, and barriers to healthcare. A total of 1,156 individuals completed the survey. A breakdown of survey respondent characteristics can be found below.

Figure 1. Age of Respondents

Figure 2. County of Residence

The largest age group to complete the survey was individuals between the ages of 18 and 29, while those aged 60 or older had the lowest response rate Most respondents were residents of Jackson County.

The research team aimed to include all 14 counties within the Kansas City metropolitan statistical area: Jackson County, Johnson County, Clay County, Wyandotte County, Cass County, Platte County, Leavenworth County, Lafayette County, Miami County, Ray County, Clinton County, Bates County, Linn County, and Caldwell County. However, responses from rural counties were limited.

Figure 3. Sexual Orientation

Figure 4. Gender Identity

Three-quarters of survey respondents identified as bisexual, lesbian, or gay when asked about their sexual orientation. Among the 16% who selected “Other,” write-in responses included: queer, asexual, pansexual, and asexual biromantic.

Additionally, 64.3% of respondents identified as either a cisgender man or cisgender woman. Of the 5.9% identified as “Another Identity,” responses included agender, genderfluid, trans-masc non–binary, non–binary femme, and trans femme non–binary.

Figure 5. Household Income

Figure 6. Disability Identity

Most survey respondents reported an annual income of over $50,000 Within this group, approximately 46% earned between $50,000 and 100,000 per year, 19% earned between $100,000 and $200,000 per year, and 2% reported earning over $200,000 per year. The salary distribution results align with regional income data reported by the U.S. Census Bureau (2023). Respondents were also asked if they identified as a person with a disability. Most respondents stated that they did not, while a quarter of respondents identified as having a disability.

Figure 7. Racial Identity

Figure 8. Ethnic Identity

Most respondents identified as white for their racial identity. Among the 3.2% who selected “Other” as at least one of their racial identities, respondents wrote in “Latino” as their response. While the sample is predominantly white and not of Latino/a or Latinx origin, this racial identity distribution aligns with the Kansas City area population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023).

Kansas City LGBTQ+ Community Needs

This section highlights the key areas of need identified through the Kansas City Voices of Pride Needs Assessment and focus group data. The research team used thematic analysis and descriptive statistics to identify five areas:

o Need for political advocacy and local engagement

o Need to address violence toward the LGBTQ+ community

o Need for safe and accepting public spaces

o Need for improved access to healthcare

o Need for improved LGBTQ+ community connection

The list of Kansas City LGBTQ+ Community Needs is not exhaustive. Respondents reported various challenges, including the high cost of living, limited affordable housing opportunities, and employment and educational discrimination. The Supplemental Data section provides the complete set of responses to survey questions. The current section of the report is intended to highlight the key themes from the collected data and serve as a starting point for further investigation, discussion, and advocacy.

Each area of need includes a description, supporting data, and a list of proposed solutions from community members. We provide disaggregated data when responses differ by gender, sexual orientation, age, or county of residence

Need for Political Advocacy & Local Engagement

A major need identified through data collection efforts was the current lack of political representation and the need for LGBTQ+ advocates to become involved in the local political landscape.

Dissatisfaction with Local Representatives and Policies

Almost a third of respondents (32%) reported distrust in their representatives. Comparable findings were reported when respondents were asked if their local laws and policies supported LGBTQ+ people.

Respondents expressed similar dissatisfaction when sharing their deep concerns about policies and legislation that could negatively impact LGBTQ+ individuals (36%), particularly transgender people. When asked what fear or worry was most concerning for individuals, one community shared that “anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ legislation” was among their top concerns.

"As a citizen of Missouri, I worry about the ongoing battle with the state and transgender rights and how this can expand to the rights of the entire LGBTQ+ community."

Many respondents indicate some degree of dissatisfaction with local representation:

32% of respondents do not believe that even one local elected official has their best interest at heart.

36% of respondents do not feel that their local laws and policies support LGBTQ+ people.

14% of respondents do not believe there is even one LGBTQ+ organization or advocate in their county that would speak up for issues that affect them

Concern regarding anti-LGBTQ+ legislation may feel even more exacerbated when LGBTQ+ community members think there is no person or organization currently advocating for them. While few respondents reported feeling this way, there were still 14%

“Kansas City is a sanctuary for LGBTQ+ people. I am most concerned about the erosion of local control that has prevented KC from enacting local gun laws, controlling its own police department, and the possibility its protections of trans and nonbinary people will be stripped.”

of respondents who believed there were not currently any LGBTQ+ advocates speaking up for community members.

Community Input on Local Issues & Legislation

One out of three respondents reported being unaware of how to contribute their input on local laws, policies, and decisions (Figure 9). The finding presented in Figure 9, in conjunction with a percentage of LGBTQ+ community members who cannot identify other advocates within the community, has left a feeling a sense of hopelessness.

Figure 9. Awareness of Local Engagement Opportunities

I know ways to provide my own input into local laws, policies, and decisions.

"I

have no hope, I can't move anywhere else. The majority of Missourians will vote for government officials that enact laws to make things worse for the LGBTQIA community."

As stated in the figure above, a third (33%) of all respondents reported not knowing how to provide input into local laws and policies . When considering this breakdown from a socioeconomic standpoint, it was found that 36% of these respondents reported making less than $50,000 a year, and 35% of respondents reported making between $50,000 – $100,000 annually. Looking at respondents by county of residence, 34% from Jackson County, MO, and 29% from Johnson County, KS, reported being unsure how to get involved with local issues at the individual level.

Information regarding local input into laws and policies is relevant to better understand how and where to target educational efforts to encourage more individuals to get involved with local politics and discourse. One participant shared that helping more people understand this process might bring about positive policy change: “Being able to reach people who want to support the community generally, but they don't know how to is another way [to address] it."

Proposed Solutions to Address Political & Advocacy Needs

Through the survey and focus groups, participants were asked to share their perspectives on addressing the most urgent challenges facing the LGBTQ+ community. Their responses have been consolidated into key themes, reflecting the collective priorities and proposed solutions identified during data collection. Representative quotes and summaries from project participants can be found across the themes below

Organize and Create More Civic Strategies

Respondents would like to see a central council that facilitates organization and strategic planning while enabling individual organizations to operate independently, yet in a more coordinated manner.

Elect More LGBTQ+ Individuals

More people from within the LGBTQ+ community, as well as allies, should be elected to office more frequently.

Offer Incentives for Advocacy Organizations

Policy makers could create programs that offer incentives for organizations that are advocating for the LGBTQ+ community.

Pass Legislation to Protect Trans People

Respondents wish to see laws passed to protect transgender individuals, along with strong opposition to the notion that transgender people are scapegoated or blamed for societal issues in the U.S.

Enact a Non–Discrimination Policy in Missouri

Respondents wish to see Missouri implement a non-discrimination act that would make discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation illegal in the state.

Offer Educational Opportunities for Public Officials

Respondents want opportunities for legislators and other public officials to enhance their awareness and education on LGBTQ+ issues, which could, in turn, help more LGBTQ+ individuals get elected.

Need to Address and End Violence to the LGBTQ+ Community

The second key area of need identified through the Kansas City Voices of Pride Needs Assessment project was to address and eliminate the violence faced by the LGBTQ+ community in the Kansas City metro area. This area of need includes not only reducing the ongoing harm that is caused to LGBTQ+ community members but also addressing violence that has been endured in the past by community members and creating opportunities for healing.

Perceptions of Safety Across Locations

While the Kansas City Voices of Pride Needs Assessment project focused on individuals 18 and older, many participants expressed concern for queer youth. Violence in schools and a general lack of safety emerged as prominent themes in both conversations and surveys. Many community members believe that providing a safe and inclusive educational environment for LGBTQ+ youth remains an unmet priority

"The biggest thing personally in our family is schools, school safety, antibullying programs that are actually effective. We've had to pull our children from public schools. There’s not really any sort of place that we can go and know that the teachers are going to be educated."

Safety concerns extended beyond schools. Nearly half of respondents (49%) reported that they do not feel safe interacting with police or law enforcement officials. Among transgender men, 93% reported they do not feel safe interacting with police or other law enforcement.

Table 1 highlights perceptions of safety in various locations for LGBTQ+ community members. Survey respondents reported feeling most unsafe when interacting with law enforcement officials, on public transit, and in public settings. Safety concerns in public settings are even more pronounced within specific groups. For example, 69% of bisexual respondents reported feeling unsafe interacting with law enforcement officials. Similarly, 64% of respondents who identified as Black, Indigenous, or a Person of Color (BIPOC) expressed the same concern.

Table 1. Feelings of Safety Across Locations

Instances of Violence within the LGBTQ+ Kansas City Community

Of the 468 individuals who reported experiencing instance(s) of violence in the last 12 months, 76% stated they had been subjected to verbal abuse. Focus group participants expressed concern that the hateful rhetoric surrounding a Trump presidential win could further fuel acts of violence, including hate crimes.

“I think that the threat level is just off the charts now. And, of course, the election is fueling that.”

Individuals who reported experiencing violence in the past year were also asked to identify the perpetrator Among those who felt comfortable sharing, responses were as follows:

o Stranger: 36%

o Romantic Partner: 11%

o Family Member: 10%

o Acquaintance: 8%

o Coworker: 7%

o Friend: 3%

o Other: 25%

"There is a constant worry of always being involved in hate crimes or mass shootings directed at LGBTQ+ individuals when I'm out in public, whether I am simply running errands, or going to gay bars."

Figure 10 below provides an in-depth breakdown of violence types across gender identities. The data in Figure 10 underscores the impact on the LGBTQ+ community and the need for meaningful action.

Figure 10. Instances of violence by violence type and gender identity

Proposed Solutions to Address Violence & Safety Needs

Increase Sensitivity Training for Law Enforcement

Respondents shared that sensitivity training varies across law enforcement units. In places where it already exists, it should be expanded to include more comprehensive content.

Increase Consistency in the Prosecution of Hate Crimes

Some participants noted that law enforcement and prosecutors inconsistently handle hate crimes and requested more consistent prosecution and sentencing for hate crimes and violent acts.

Need for Safe & Accepting Public Spaces

The third area of need focused on safe and accepting public spaces. Many community members expressed dissatisfaction with the limited availability of safe public spaces to gather in the Kansas City metro area. Respondent feedback highlighted two distinct concerns: the first was a logistical need for more inclusive “third spaces,” which refers to a physical location outside the home and the workplace where people can gather. The second concern was a need for greater acceptance by non-LGBTQ+ individuals in existing public spaces.

Expressed Need for Physical Gathering Spaces

One in three respondents reported feeling uncomfortable being openly out in their city. The need for physical gathering spaces is even more evident among BIPOC community members and families seeking spaces to form community connections outside of existing bars and nightclubs. The lack of accessible, inclusive spaces for everyday interaction remains an unmet need for the LGBTQ+ community. Several focus group participants recounted former gathering places that no longer exist, emphasizing that the only active spaces widely perceived as welcoming to LGBTQ+ individuals are nightlife venues.

"I feel like if we had spaces that we could go to where you can, like, go and meet people, you can build community, you can learn about the community that aren't just clubs. I think clubs are important. That's a huge part of our culture, but we also know that part of our community struggles with substance abuse, and so having spaces that aren't seen around alcohol, where we can get those resources, we can build community, we can learn from each other."

Participants noted that although the Kansas City metro area has non–profit and advocacy organizations providing spaces for community gatherings, these spaces can be challenging to learn about for those new to the city. Additionally, individuals reported feeling unsure about how welcoming certain spaces genuinely are for the LGBTQ+ community. The uncertainty regarding safety in public settings poses additional challenges for LGBTQ+ individuals who are new to the area and looking for opportunities to connect

"There are no places for really, the, you know, the Black queer community to be able to gather, you know, amongst themselves."

A lack of safe and public spaces is especially prevalent in the suburban and rural parts of the Kansas City 14-county metropolitan area. One participant shared: “There is a lack of visible LGBTQ spaces or organizations in rural and suburban areas outside of Kansas City.” Other individuals mentioned they often drive into the city to have the opportunity to engage with other queer individuals or queer families. Overall, participants emphasized a need for more accessible, inclusive physical spaces for community members to connect.

Feelings of Acceptance from Non–LGBTQ+ People

As previously mentioned, the need for safe and accepting places has two components. The second component involves feeling accepted by heterosexual and/or cisgender neighbors in public settings. While creating physical gathering spaces for LGBTQ+ people is an essential step, other existing public spaces, such as schools and churches, must also feel safe and welcoming for LGBTQ+ community members. Only half (50%) of survey respondents believed someone would help them if they had trouble in a public space.

Many respondents indicate some degree of feeling uncomfortable in public spaces:

33% of respondents do not feel comfortable being as openly out as they want to in the city where they live.

29% of respondents do not believe they would be helped if they were having trouble in a public space.

Respondents reported the issue of safe public spaces may be intensified in suburban and rural areas of the city, where LGBTQ+ individuals often feel less accepted and, consequently, less safe. Participants emphasized the importance of establishing visible, inclusive spaces in central areas of the city and across the broader metropolitan region. Community-oriented locations in the Kansas City area can and should serve as a safe space that promotes community connection and interaction among residents of all sexual orientations and gender identities

Photo by Toni Reed on Unsplash

Proposed Solutions to Address Lack of Safe & Accepting Spaces

Increase the number of third spaces

Respondents expressed a need for more third spaces, which refers to a physical location outside of the home and the workplace where they can gather.

Create LGBTQ+ friendly spaces across public settings and locations

Respondents expressed a need for safe, public spaces across the Kansas City metro, including suburban and rural areas (spaces such as churches, schools, and community buildings).

Photo by Tong Su on Unsplash

Need for Improved Access to Healthcare

The fourth key area of need pertains to healthcare access. Specific concerns included medical insurance or legislative barriers preventing individuals from accessing genderaffirming care, as well as a shortage of qualified healthcare professionals serving the LBGTQ+ community.

Access to Healthcare

For some LGBTQ+ community members, even accessing a healthcare provider has proven challenging Barriers such as lack of insurance, financial instability, and long wait times have prevented LBGTQ+ individuals from meeting their basic healthcare needs. Tables 2–3 provide a breakdown of community members who reported experiencing at least one barrier to healthcare access

Table 2. Respondents reporting at least one barrier to healthcare access in the past 12 months by county

Commonly mentioned barriers included: financial, lack of providers in the area, no insurance, limited or unavailable specialists in the area, long wait times to be seen for care, concerns about facing discrimination and/or being treated by providers who are not knowledgable about the unique gender and sexual health needs of community members.

Table 3. Respondents reporting at least one barrier to healthcare access in the past 12 months by gender identity

"We need more compassionate care. We need more available care. We need more awareness of resources…”

Several participants noted challenges finding affirming healthcare providers, especially for LGBTQ+ individuals new to the area. One individual shared, “There is not a great way to figure out who will be an affirming provider in all spaces.” Barriers like these prevent LGBTQ+ individuals from accessing even the most basic healthcare services.

Lack of Qualified & Affirming Healthcare Professionals

"Provider knowledge, like, we can talk about access all day, but the reality is that most people, when they do have access, they are having traumatic experiences because people don't know how to serve them."

Unfortunately, accessing a healthcare provider is only the beginning of some community members' challenges. Participants reported that the limited number of LGBTQ+–affirming practitioners leaves them unsure where to seek reliable care Even providers who advertise as LGBTQ+–friendly are not always competent in addressing the specific healthcare needs of the community, creating ongoing barriers to adequate treatment.

Additionally, when LGBTQ+ community members identify affirmative and competent providers, patients often face significant delays due to high demand. Some LGBTQ+ community members reported waiting an average of six months for an appointment with qualified providers in the Kansas City area.

"[Provider] is where I go, but they're so busy and they're so exhausted with so many patients that you know, sometimes it's really hard to keep up with the support that they can provide."

Healthcare providers themselves are feeling the strain from heavy client loads in a region with few qualified LGBTQ+–affirming providers The issue of few affirming healthcare

providers is even more pronounced in the suburban and rural parts of the metropolitan area, where participants reported traveling up to two hours to receive basic care. Respondents also expressed concerns about what they would do in a medical emergency.

After seeing a medical provider, some LGBTQ+ community members reported additional barriers when attempting to receive recommended treatment. Insurance coverage challenges are particularly evident regarding approval for gender–affirming care and procedures, with some participants describing insurance denials that feel discriminatory, even when they find an affirming provider.

Furthermore, an increasingly political landscape, marked by anti–LGBTQ+ rhetoric, exacerbates concerns among LGBTQ+ community members about the future accessibility of approved healthcare services.

Figure 11. Gender identity and sexual orientation experiences with medical providers

My medical provider is sensitive to my needs as a queer person/to my gender identity

Medical Provider Sensitivity to Needs as a Queer Person

Medical Provider Sensitivity to Gender Identity

Barriers to Mental Healthcare

Although therapists and mental health providers appear to be more accessible, the number of qualified professionals specifically trained to treat LGBTQ+ individuals, children, and families remains limited One participant explained that they have not been able to find a mental healthcare provider who is sensitive to LGBTQ+ issues.

Some respondents reported that they had luck finding a mental healthcare provider that specialized in serving LGBTQ+ community members, only to realize they would be unable to afford to receive treatment from them. Like the barriers faced when trying to receive physical healthcare, mental healthcare does not seem to be as widely accessible to LGBTQ+ community members in Kansas City.

"Just getting mental health care [is difficult] in general because of a lack of providers and then a lack of access to those providers is a problem that exists everywhere, particularly in a world where not every provider will well serve queer folks."

Figure 12. Respondents reporting visiting a mental healthcare provider in the last 12 months by gender and sexual orientation

Have You Visited a Mental Health Counselor in the Past Year? (Gender Identity)

Have You Visited a Mental Health Counselor in the Past Year? (Sexual Orientation)

Proposed Solutions to Address Barriers to Healthcare

Increase the Number of LGBTQ+ Health Advocates

More LGBTQ+ community health workers that assist in fighting insurance denials for medically necessary care are needed in the Kansas City area, according to respondents.

Improve Access to Mental Health Care

According to respondents, free or reduced therapy for LGBTQ+ individuals would make mental health care more accessible and have a positive impact on their mental health.

Advocate for Universal Healthcare

LGBTQ+ community members promoted the idea of universal healthcare and the ability to receive/afford healthcare regardless of one’s ability to pay.

Expand Gender–A

ffirming

Care

Respondents recognized a few high–quality providers and advocated for additional support, as well as the recruitment of more experts in gender–affirming care.

Need for LGBTQ+ Community Connection

The fifth key area of need focuses on community connection within the LGBTQ+ community and the advocacy organizations that serve them Like the need for safe and welcoming public spaces, the community connection need emphasizes opportunities for LGBTQ+ members to unite The distinction is that this need area is based on connection and organization within the LGBTQ+ community through advocacy organizations. Participants observed that advocacy organizations in the Kansas City area appear very siloed in the services they offer and the LGBTQ+ community members they serve. The current section highlights LGBTQ+ individuals’ desire for increased collaboration across these organizations so connections with other LGBTQ+ community members can be strengthened, and individuals can create and nurture these relationships.

"I have a hard time identifying strengths in the Kansas City LGBTQ+ community. It seems very disjointed, cliquish, and not supportive of one another."

Many respondents indicate some degree of dissatisfaction with their LGBTQ+ community connection:

14% of respondents do not feel that they have someone within the LGBTQ+ community to confide in.

15% of respondents report not having anyone within the LGBTQ+ community to get together with for fun.

29% of respondents shared they do not have anyone within the LGBTQ+ community to ask for help with daily tasks if they were sick.

34% of respondents said they do not have a sense of connection to the LGBTQ+ community where they live.

Increased Cohesion & Collaboration

Kansas City LGBTQ+ community members expressed awareness and pride regarding existing advocacy organizations and services. However, there is a perception that these entities are not working collaboratively, potentially contributing to a sense of disconnect within the community.

Despite advocacy group and organization positive intentions, these entities are sometimes perceived as competing for limited resources. The competition dynamic can create an impression that community members need to choose sides (or an organization) rather than encouraging unity and collaboration. As a result, some organizations meant to serve the broader community may feel “off limits” or unwelcoming to specific LGBTQ+ individuals.

Reducing Isolation

Some participants described feeling isolated within the Kansas City LGBTQ+ community. Of those surveyed, 14% indicated they did not have anyone within the local LGBTQ+ community to confide in or talk to about their problems. Similarly, 15% reported not having another member of the LGBTQ+ community to get together with, and nearly half (42%) did not think they had anyone that they could ask for help with daily tasks if they were sick.

“I feel very removed from the LGBTQIA community in the area that I live in. I worry about our younger queer community with new legislation.”

Many respondents who shared their stories and experiences expressed pride in the vibrant LGBTQ+ culture and numerous community engagement opportunities Isolation remains a significant challenge for some community members. Additional efforts are needed to bridge the gap for those who feel unseen or unwelcome. As illustrated in Figure 13, geographical location and age seem to influence feelings of disconnection.

13. Feelings of disconnection to the LGBTQ+ community by location

Figure

Figure 14. Feelings of disconnection to the LGBTQ+ community by age

Proposed Solutions for Advocacy Organizations to Increase Community Connection

Improve Event Communication

Respondents want there to be enhanced organization and accessibility of event information, so community members are well informed of upcoming opportunities to connect with one another

Strengthen Community Relationships

Respondents believe organizations should prioritize building connections across diverse backgrounds and fostering collaboration across advocacy organizations to strengthen community cohesion.

Diversify Event Offerings

Advocacy organizations should provide year–round, alcohol–free events that are focused on family, art, education, and other interests.

Create Free and Accessible Community Spaces

Respondents want to establish gathering spaces for LGBTQ+ individuals to connect without financial barriers and offer inclusive events that welcome all community members, regardless of organizational ties.

Encourage More Organizational Collaboration

LGBTQ+ community members request that advocacy organizations in the area work more collaboratively with one another to contribute to better cohesion and community.

Offer Events Focused on Inclusion

Respondents want to see more events offered from advocacy organizations that are open to all individuals within the community, and not just a small group with close ties to the organization.

Supplemental Data

While this report focused on the most prominent needs that emerged from the data collection efforts, the Kansas City Voices of Pride project asked additional questions using the Needs Assessment survey. The following section contains aggregated data from those questions. If you or your organization is interested in seeing the data at a disaggregated level for a specific subgroup, please get in touch with the Urban Education Research Center (UERC) at uerc@umkc.edu. Copies of the Needs Assessment survey and focus group protocol are also available for dissemination by contacting the UERC. Information about the Kansas City Voices of Pride project can be found on the following website: https://info.umkc.edu/voices–of–pride/

Basic Needs

Have there been times in the past year when you did not have enough money to buy food that you or your family needed? (n=1140)

Have there been times in the past year when you did not have enough money to afford healthcare (such as medicine) that you or your family needed? (n=1112)

Have there been times in the past year when you have had your water and/or electricity services shut off because you could not afford to pay the bills? (n=1110)

Have there been times in the past year when you have stayed in a car or on the street overnight? (n=1097)

Are you aware of a food pantry or food resource center in your area? (n=312)

I am

Have there been times in the past year when you did not have enough money for transportation? (n=1112)

Are you aware of utility assistance resources in your area? (n=52)

but I am unable to use them.

Have there been times in the past year when you have stayed with friends/family because you did not have a place to sleep? (n=1113)

During the past year, about how often did you feel restless or fidgety? (n=1053)

During the past year, about how often did you feel hopeless? (n=1051)

During the past year, about how often did you feel so depressed that nothing could cheer you up? (n=1054)

During the past year, about how often did you feel that everything was an effort? (n=1053)

During the past year, about how often did you feel nervous? (n=1056)

Please select the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: I can easily access the mental health counseling/therapy services I need. (n=553)

During the past year, about how often did you feel worthless? (n=1053)

Please select the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: The mental health counseling/therapy provider(s) I have seen are sensitive to my needs based on my gender identity/expression. (n=557)

During the past year, about how often did you feel isolated or alone? (n=1053)

Have you had thoughts of suicide in the past year? (n=1023)

Safety

I feel that my educational and/or employment opportunities have been negatively impacted by my gender identity/expression. (n=885)

In the past year, please indicate which, if any, instances of violence you experienced? You may select more than one option. (n=469)

Please select the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: I feel safe with the person or people I date or am in a relationship with. (n=986)

I feel that my educational and/or employment opportunities have been negatively impacted by my sexual orientation (n=937)

If you feel comfortable doing so, please indicate who committed the violent act(s). You may select more than one option. (n=460)

Please select the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: I feel safe at my school. (n=986)

My school and/or employer respects members of the LGBTQIA+ community. (n=986)

Please select the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: I feel safe in my neighborhood. (n=989)

agree

Please select the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: I feel safe in public settings (restaurants, concert venues, etc.) (n=988)

Please select the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: I feel safe interacting with police or other law enforcement officials. (n=987)

Please select the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: I feel safe where I work. (n=989)

Please select the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: I feel safe on public transit. (n=986)

Healthcare

Do you currently have health insurance? (n=947)

In the past year have you experienced barriers trying to access to healthcare you need? (n=970)

Please select the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: I can easily access the healthcare I need. (n=970)

Please select the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: I have access to substance use treatment if I ever needed it. (n=966)

agree

Political Engagement

Please select the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: There is at least one LGBTQ+ organization or group of advocates in my county who speaks up for the issues that personally affect me. (n=924)

Please select the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: In general, I feel that the laws and policies in the city where I live support LGBTQ people. (n=924)

agree or disagree with the following statements: I believe at least one of my local elected officials has my best interest at heart. (n=927)

agree

Housing

What option best describes your current living situation? (n= 903)

I own my own home/condo.

I rent my home/apartment.

I stay with friends or family.

I live in transitional housing. 0.6%

Have you had trouble affording housing in the last year? (n=933)

Have you needed housing assistance (including help with finding a place to stay and/or using shelters) in the last year? (n=933)

Do you have access to safe shelters in your area? (n=69)

Do you have access to gender affirming homeless shelters in your area? (n=68)

Have you experienced an eviction in the last year? (n=934)

Safe Spaces/Community

Please select the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: I comfortable being as openly out as I want to be most of the time in the city where I live. (n=897)

Please select the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: I have someone within the LGBTQ+ community to confide in or talk to about my problems. (n=896)

Please select the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: If I were in trouble in a public space, I think someone would help me. (n=896)

Please select the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: I have someone within the LGBTQ+ community I could ask to help with daily chores if I were sick. (n=893)

Please select the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: I have a sense of connection to the LGBTQ+ community where I live. (n=893)

Importance of Issues LGBTQ+ Individuals Face

Participants were asked to rank what they believed to be the most important need for LGBTQ+ individuals where they lived, with #1 being the most important (n=887). The results of these rankings can be found below.

Basic Needs (food, shelter, clothing)

Mental Health and Wellbeing

Employment/Educational Opportunities

Access to Healthcare (Including Substance Use Treatment)

Housing Services

Political and Policy Needs

Legal Information and Advocacy

LGBTQ+ Community Awareness and Connection

References

Conron, K.J., Luhur, W., & Goldberg, S.K. Estimated number of US LGBT adults in Large Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA). (December 2020). The Williams Institute, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.

U.S. Census Bureau (2023). American Community Survey 1–year estimates. Retrieved from Census Reporter Profile page for Kansas City, MO–KS Metro Area http://censusreporter.org/profiles/31000US28140–kansas–city–mo–ks–metro–area/