Annual Assessment Survey

Compiled By QTPS

Introduction

QTPS Chair: Luke Smith

Vice Chair: Lily Barr
Secretary: Riley Evans
Statistician: Heather Montgomery
QTPS was created as a round table between the Pride Groups and Centers. They consist of the Ottawa University Pride Center, Carleton Universitys GLBTQ Center, Algonquins QSA and St Pauls Pride Group The Annual Assessment was an initiative introduced by the chair to asses the programming requirements across all of the pride centers/groups in order to identify areas for cooperation and collaboration across the city. This report is intended to demonstrate what areas are already receiving appropriate levels of programming in the different Centers and what areas need improvement. The report is divided according to each school, and then finally it will examine overarching themes and connections.

The Survey

Vital Statistics: The survey holds some specific demographical questions. These were included in order to get an understanding of the age variance of the people who attend the centers and groups. Further the survey seeks to get an understanding of the acceptance and engagement of people who are international students, racialized people or the Trans* and Gender Queer1 community. Safe Space: Several questions were geared around the allocation and use of a safe space this section was important to establish if the students felt that they had access to a safe place on campus and how safe and welcome they felt there or in general. Volunteer Training and Engagement: QTPS has included this section to get a clear picture of the rates of volunteerism in the community of those who completed the survey. We also wanted to compare preferences for volunteer within the community and without it. Most importantly this section includes questions regarding training. Programming Provided: It was requested that we gather a statistical understanding of the type and frequency of programming that is already provided by QTPS members services but also what programming people would like to see provided. The final question in this section relates to if individuals felt enough programming was provided. QTPS Cooperation: For the round table it is important to identify areas for further cooperation. This section relates to the question regarding knowledge of QPTS. Also it includes the question about motivators for joining other QTPS events. The Survey also will serve as a template for the Advanced Training planned for September. Feedback: We had a large number of the sample provide specific feedback to the members and QTPS.

For the purposes of this survey the Trans* Community is defined by someone whos biological sex does not correspond with their gender identity or expression, or those who identify as such.

Carleton University GLBTQ Center

Carletons GLBTQ Center is the most comprehensive case to study from the assessment survey. The respondents who identified with the GLBTQ Center equal 60% of the total, citing 44 individual respondents. This allows an indepth analysis of the respondents, as well as programming, and QTPS collaboration. The results found at the GLBTQ Center may be indicative of the other Centers, but any correlation will be noted at the end of the report. The Center is also predominantly young with over half under 19 years of age. The GLBTQ Center is predominantly identified as white with 76% of the population. The largest ethnic groups were South Asian (4.8%) and Black (4.8%) Aboriginal identified participation was on par with the smallest demographic with Latin American at 2.2%. The majority of respondents at the GLBTQ Center self-identify as homosexual, with an overwhelming 60% of respondents, next was Bisexual with a high of 18% and then Pansexual at 11.4%. Heterosexual respondents only came to 1.4%. Another 8% otherwise identified themselves as: Homoromantic Asexual, mostly Homosexual, Queer, Queer/Pansexual (prefer queer).

It is apparent that awareness of the GLBTQ Center from those who completed the survey was very high at 92%. When asked about how often they use the space 46% said they go often, 34% said seldom or never, and the remaining 19% said sometimes. Safety doesnt appear to be a salient issue as 89.5% said they felt moderately safe or greater with 12% feeling extremely safe. A more prominent reason for less than half of respondents going often could be related to feeling welcome only 62.5% answered yes, with the remaining 37.5% being unsure or not feeling welcome. Of the Carleton respondents a high 73% said they were aware of the Safe Space policies however a much lower 59% were actually trained on the policies. When asked if the respondents would like to see More Safe Space 68% said yes. Of the respondents, 10% chose to comment, one respondent said I'd like the one's we have brought up to par first. This is echoed by another who replied I'd like to see improvements to the current space in terms of better policies and better attitude from those who frequent it and a third said It needs to be more trans/gender-queer inclusive. A few people would like to see the safe space expanded but, to specific areas such as one who said more spaces as safe, the current space is good but spreading the love to classroom/other settings is better. We also had someone state In general, the more safe spaces, the better - especially across faculties. One responded without fee increases, maybe. In the survey there was a question looking at the volunteer rates of the participants within the GLBTQ Center. Of those who answered the survey only 32% said they volunteered regularly or more, with 40% saying they never volunteered at the Center. The reasons for a lack of

engagement appear to fall into two different streams. One is a critical lack of opportunities; when needed, but opportunities are seldom, Whenever humanly possible, but opportunities are limited due of lack of programming. and There is no volunteering to be done. There are no services or political activities. The other stream appears to be the lack of availability have not yet but plan to in the future and have not yet but plan to in the future The Carleton GLBTQ Center respondents also have a low rate of external volunteerism with 17.1% volunteering with a queer organisation in the city, most notably PTS with 8.7% of respondents; other organisations include Fierce Ottawa, Ottawa U, Jers Vision, QTPS and Ten Oaks. Only 9.4% of respondents volunteer at a non Queer-Trans organisation which marks a tendency towards queer organizations. The non-queer organizations included; Men for Equality, Ecology Ottawa and Planned Parenthood. As previously mentioned 59% of respondents said they were trained on safe space policies. Of the overall GLBTQ Center respondents 64% said they were trained on Peer Support, a lower 58% were Office Trained (answer phones etc), only 35% of those who responded said they were trained on public outreach, and only a third were trained on safer sex. 27% said they had received other training. This is compared to 79% of people who would be interested in Public Outreach training, 83% were interested in crisis intervention training, and 74% were interested in Active Listening. The largest gap in training was with sexual health, with 35% saying they had been trained compared with 87% saying they would be interested in being trained on sexual health. Programming: The respondents were asked what programming the GLBTQ Center conducts, or has provided, this reflects to a degree awareness of the programming being done by the Center over the past year. The most commonly voted programming that respondents believed the GLBTQ Center provided was Trips to Montreal or Toronto with 89.5%, this is the same volume of people who voted yes, that they provide a resource library. Second most voted were meeting and greet opportunities at 71% followed by Drag Shows at a lower 68% and just

over half voted that the GLBTQ Center conducted a Pride at 57%. Only 35% thought there were Games nights, or Movie Night, a slightly higher 41% believed there was panel discussion held. Less than a third of people thought guest speakers were invited, and only 21% believed there to be academic support. Only 31% thought that any Trans training was provided, and just over half that at a very low 15.8% thought there was any training on Sexually Transmitted Blood Bourne Infections. Others options were negligible.

Many people outlined their reasons regarding the question on what activities/programming is conducted by the GLBTQ Center, some people seemed unsure with one saying Do not attend, so do not know and another I don't know? It's not very well advertised, especially for those who do not visit the centre regularly. Three respondents gave more detail one detailed I don't know. It's hard to get involved. There Is like this invisible barrier set up and not many people feel welcoming to myself, even though I just came out and am

not known to be gay. They should offer something to get random shy GLBTQ people involved who havent been, the second said There may be some things offered during Pride week, but one discussion panel or drag show isn't something accessible. And finally These types of programming, while they technically occur, ate to say the least both poorly promoted and infrequent. A disconnect between the programming wanted, and provided is apparent, for example where programming on Pride had the support of 77.2% of respondents, programming on queer issues in the City of Ottawa had an overwhelming support of 91.9% of respondents agreeing. The second was a tie at 91.4% of support for programming on Queer Sex, and also Academic Support. The Intersections of Sexuality with Race, Class etc had support of 88.6% and programming brought in from outside organizations had the support of 86.5%, with over half strongly agreeing (59.5%). Pride was in fact ranked 11/12 beating only Queer Olympics (54%) and programming on Trans issues was also tied with World Aids day 86.1%. Despite the earlier demand for sexual health training only 82.4% agreed there was a want or need for more programming ranking it 9th out of 12. One of the questions that QTPS asked respondents looked specifically at the barriers that respondents might face in attending the programming being done by the GLBTQ Center. The most commonly cited barrier to attending events was poor advertising or short notice with 80.6% of respondents citing that cause. The second leading reason was that they didnt know anyone else that was going to the events at 52.8% of respondents. Half of the respondents cited the price as being a key barrier and nearly a third cited their Age being a barrier. Other barriers included transport (27.8%), Safety (11.1%) and Accessibility (11.1%), some were further specified including: feeling intimidated, not identified as a Safe Space for people with Dis/abilities and Organised during a time of year that was very busy academically. The respondents were posed the question Do you agree with the following statement? My Service Center/ Pride Group puts on enough events or activities The percentage of people who agreed was merely 20.6% (10.3 strongly agree, and agree) which is compared to the number of people who disagreed that the GLBTQ

Center put on enough events or activities which reached 53.8%, with nearly as many people who agreed at all, strongly disagreeing (20.5%).

Specific Feedback: Carletons GLBTQ Center had substantial feedback which will be outlined below. Much of the feedback is less than complimentary, although most of it is constructive. Due to the volume of comments specifically for Carleton and in order to maintain the original intent posted by the respondents they have been listed below.
Good luck! In particular, while I identify as GLBTQ, I also identify as a person with a dis/ability. I do not attend my Carleton GLBTQ center because I do not feel safe

there as a person with a dis/ability. The center has not made an explicit commitment to providing a safe space to persons with disability or GLBTQ individuals with disabilities. I feel this survey should provide the opportunity for individuals to give feedback about why they might not feel safe in their campus centers based on other identify factors such as race, gender, disability, ability, etc. I am very busy academically speaking and would appreciate more regular programming as it would allow me to volunteer and meet new people without having to sacrifice grades. It is alienating, this survey in its inability to use language properly and focus on issues. Though I find the fact that it is attempting to creating Service centers actually serve people. Because the service, at least at Carleton, is atrocious. If you wished to identify trans people, you could've asked "do you identify as trans?". Attitudes like this are part of the reason why I don't feel safe at Carleton's GLBTQ Centre and have avoided the space recently. A lot of these questions would have benefited from another middle answer, such as "already taken" for the types of training. The reasons I answered "maybe" for all of the things in question 26 is because I know where to go... but I'm not sure it'd be helpful in the slightest. Carleton campus is stymied by bureaucratic bullshit at every turn, so turning to a Carleton-run or Carleton-supported service isn't likely to do anything positive soon. I find that whenever trans issues are discussed it is always from either the drag perspective or the transitioning prospective. I feel that tansgendered (but not transsexual) activities and workshops are lacking. I also feel that discussions of the relationship between transgenderism and the way one expresses sexuality should also be explored a lot more. Sometimes it feels as though the center looks so hard for professionals they miss people within the community who would like to speak up for themselves and are trying to. The co-ordinators of Carleton's GLBTQ Centre have done a remarkably inadequate job of providing any form of educational programming, or even recreational programming outside of Pride Week. This is something I hope to see remedied by next year. Finally, there should be more accountability of the coordinators for their office hours. I have witnessed countless times when there were office hours posted, yet no one was in there. If they are paid to be there, they should be there... If I don't show up to my job I get fired, what is their consequence? The biggest obstacle for me is just getting up the courage to attend events. I think my centre actually runs a lot of them, I just need to make a friend and it will be easier.

Like many queer spaces, I find it less trans-inclusive then it could be. Tends to focus on gay/lesbian (not intentionally exclusionary, but not intentionally inclusionary either. It's great that the Centre has such a welcoming space for so many people, but whenever I've tried to check the place out, I never feel like I really "fit" and one person told me that I was "trying too hard" just because I'm pretty masculine and don't act fem, which is just how I am. Haven't been back since. Currently the emphasis is on special events and trips. I disagree with this strongly for various reasons. A service centre should focus first on ongoing services and activities and establish itself as a reliable source. The only events so far have been Pride and the Montreal trips. The focus on trips to Montreal emphasize and perpetuate the negative notion that Ottawa is an inadequate community not worth investing oneself into, and that the best thing for a Queer person in Ottawa to do is to leave. The focus on Pride is a financial drain which puts too much focus on transient events which largely attract people who are not in need of support (public queer events generally only attract out and confident individuals), and takes time and resources away from ongoing services which support those who are too afraid or disempowered on their own. I don't really go to any events at the LGBT center at Carleton, but i have seen their posters around before and I've past by a few times. I mostly just don't go because none of my friends go there. I've definitely noticed posters and events happening a lot more this year in particular, but that might just be because i wasn't really looking for them as much in past years. I think that events between the different centers would be great to see! Carleton needs more events and more collaboration with the greater Ottawa Queer community. I feel like I get enough sex/race/class/gender stuff in class but I would definitely enjoy more sex-positive stuff, how to's etc. as well as more fun stuff. I feel that the centre is very exclusive and if you don't know anyone in the centre, then you can easily feel alienated. As much fun as the Montreal Bus Trip is, it would be even more fun if we had club nights within Ottawa too (Wednesday Mercury night or Friday Lookout, Saturday Edge). Even if these were only every so often, it would be fun to party with other queer students and meet new people. There could even be club nights on campus at Ollie's - I'm sure that wouldn't be hard to put together. I think it would be good to have more free, all ages events. The sex positive event that recently happened is a great example of what I would like to see more of. I would like to have more discussion panels. A bigger emphasis on enforcing safe space would be good.

Q
Carletons Engineering and Science Queer Group

The Q group was a remarkable and unpredicted phenomena that emerged during the compilation of the survey. There was a large number of respondents (13.7% of total) who refused to identify with the GLBTQ Center at Carleton but specified the Q group. Demographically the group is different from the GLBTQ Center for example 66% white, compared to 76%, The Average Age is over 21 Compared to Carleton which is much younger. Also the Sexuality identification is less diverse with it overwhelmingly homosexual however they have a more substantial number of heterosexuals. As Q is within Carleton University it is incredibly difficult to discern to what the respondents are referring too, for example when asked if they have a safe space, half said yes, and half said no. However when asked if they felt safe in their space 83.3% said they felt very safe or more and only 16% said that they didnt feel welcome. Only 40% were aware of any safe space policies, and only 40% also said they were trained on any of the safe space policies however an overwhelming 90% said that they would like to see a/more safe space.

Only 20% of the Q specified respondents said they volunteered, and only 10% said they volunteered at a Queer Organisation which, happens to be the Carleton GLBTQ Center. That is different from the GLBTQ Center, with 22% having volunteered in non-queer organizations such as Carleton Industrial Design Students Association and NGOs in International Development. There appear to also to be a markedly lower level of training within Q; Peer support (50%), Office Training (37%) and Public Outreach (25%) compared to the GLBTQ Center, about ten percent more people in Q are trained in safer sex 37.5%. The highest demand for training by Q members was in regards to sexual health (80%), First Aid training (77.7%) and Suicide Prevention (66.7%).

When asked what programming was offered the two groups differed significantly. Where Carleton only had 36% and 34% identify movie nights and games nights, within Q that number jumped to 88.9% for both. Overall, there was a significantly lower volume of programming identified within the Q group for example 44% identified Pride, compared to 57.9% of the GLBTQ Center. It should be noted that the Q group is a also a volunteer group without and direct funding by the Carleton University Student Association as is the case with the GLBTQ Center. The most popular programming that Q would like to see are: Sexually Transmitted Blood Bourne Infections (88% compared to 82% at GLBTQ Center), Queer Sex (77% compared to 91.4%), Queer Legal Rights (66% compared to 80%) and Pride (66% compared to 77.2%).

The Q group suffered similar pitfalls to the GLBTQ Center with 77.8% citing low advertising, and an unfamiliar peer group attending events as being barriers to them attending events. Unlike the GLBTQ Center where a third cited their age as a barrier, no one who identified as a Q respondent faced that particular barrier as compared to the GLBTQs 50% who faced barriers of price with only 33% in Q comparatively . There were also no reported barriers regarding safety, and transport came in at 20%. For Q around 44% disagreed that they were doing enough events or activities, however this is substantially lower than the 53.8% at the GLTBQ Center. There may be lessons that can be drawn from Q.

Specific Feedback for Q Love, that is all

Carleton Combined

There was one question that was specific to the overall school so it is necessary to analyse the results from Q and Carleton together in order to have accurate statistics. The question was about if the respondent knew where to report certain things within Carleton. When asked if the respondents at Carleton knew where to go for Counselling Services an encouraging 70% said yes, with a higher percentage in the GLBTQ Center. When asked if they knew where to report a homophobic attack, only half of the respondents knew where to seek services, and 35% having no idea where to report a homophobic/transphobic attack in Carleton. When asked if they knew where to report a complaint about a homophobia and/or transphobia from staff, students or administration, only 41% said yes. Nearly as many, at 39.5% have no idea where to report it. For Sexual Assault, just under half knew where to report it in the GLBTQ Center with more people in Q being aware of it.

Algonquins Queer Student Alliance

The Algonquin QSA is significantly different from Carleton as it is a collage and has in general a much higher student turnover compared to the universities. The Algonquin Age average was notably between the younger group and the older group as the QSA has a more balanced age diversity. Information on demographics demonstrates, that Algonquin also had a high percentage of white respondents. When compared to Carleton, they had a higher percentage of Aboriginal identified respondents with 25% of the total. The Algonquin respondents make up 12% of those who did the survey. What is most unique to Algonquin is its lack of designated space, only 22% of those asked thought that Algonquin had a designated space which is echoed in the attendance with 80% saying they seldom or never attended the space. However for space safety over all 60% felt it was moderately safe, with the remaining 40% believing it was very safe or more, also 85.7% said they felt welcome.

An astounding 100% of those who answered from Algonquin said they would like to have a/more designated space. Training and volunteering at Algonquin is on the whole much lower than its Carleton counterpart. Only 22% were trained on safe space, and the same amounts were aware of the safe space policies. Around 66% said they never volunteered with the QSA, only 22% volunteered with other queer organisations (Jers Vision & PTS) where as no one volunteered in non queer organisations. The more extensive questions on training also revealed low numbers for Algonquin; Office training was undertaken by 40% of respondents the same as Safer Sex. Only 20% said they had office training, and no one reported being trained outreach, however 60% said they had other training Programming:

Algonquins seemingly most successful programming appears to be the drag shows with 87.5% of Algonquin respondents identifying it. The same percentage also identified meet and greet opportunities. Algonquins other popular programs are discussion groups and movie nights, both coming in at 62.5%. The QSA has a very strong mandate for some forms of programming, in one case, queer sex there was 100% support for programming, although 66% support for STBBI programming, which is still higher than the 12.5% who identified that programming as already existing there was also 100% support for programming on Pride with 77.8% strongly agreeing. The other highly mentioned programs include in joint third; Trans programming (88.9%), Issues in the City, Queers in the Media, Academic Support, the Intersection of Race and Class etc with sexuality and outside programming also at 88.9%.

The barriers most commonly faced by students at Algonquin was not knowing anyone else going with 88.9% citing this as a reason, this is compared to 52.8% at Carletons GLBTQ Center, however in a

reverse only 55.6% of QSA respondents cited advertising as a barrier compared to 80.6% of GLBTQ Center respondents. Price as a barrier was at 33% compared to 50% and they were also about 10% lower than the GBLTQ Center on Age as a barrier at around 22% of respondents. What is also encouraging about the QSA is that only 22% of respondents felt that not enough events and activities were being conducted compared to 44% at Q and the higher 53% at Carletons GLBTQ Center. Specific Feedback for Algonquins QSA Algonquins QSA has had only positive support in its specific feedback, with both referring to the need for support for the QSA group. Algonquin College needs a safe space! A center set up similar to the Mamidosewin Centre would be wonderful (perhaps even repurpose the room when they move to the new building?), somewhere small where students can go to study or meet friends. Its desperately needed, I hear homophobic and transphobic slurs all the time while I'm walking through campus. If we had an actual space, we could focus on educating the student body that it's just not right to do stuff like that! It is a great organization good job guys! Just wish the school would back you more!

University of Ottawa SFUO Pride Center/ Le Centre de la fiert de la FUO Universit de Ottawa

The Pride Center at the University of Ottawa was remarkably disappointing in its response to the survey. The Pride Center had been of vital support during the passing, and vetting of the survey and was one of the key supporters and architects during the final consultation on the survey. One of the main reasons why the Pride Center had such a low turnout in the survey (Only 2 respondents) is that the survey was not released on any of the Pride Centers lines of communication with its members, this is primarily due to the delay in the French translation of the survey. Although QTPS had commissioned a translation to be done by a volunteer, it was in need of significant correction. The Pride Center was in possession of the French version for over two weeks, however that was also during their Pride week and the exam period. What this has demonstrated is that the QTPS team is in dire need of a French, of bilingual member of the team. Because the Pride Center only had two respondents it would be essentially unethical for the QTPS to do any analysis because there are no significant numbers and it would waver the assurance of anonymity. Therefore due to the lack of response of the survey by Pride Center respondents there is very little to no information available regarding the University of Ottawa in this report.

St Pauls SPUSA Pride Center/ Centre de la fiert AEUSP

Unlike the Pride Center at the University of Ottawa which was contingent on the French Translation which wasnt completed in time that isnt the case with the Pride Center at St Pauls. One reasonable explanation for the negligible turnout from St Pauls (1 respondent) is likely to be that they are a incredibly new Pride Center less than one year old, which is compared to Carleton which was created in the 80s. This would likely explain the lack of channels of communication between the Pride Center executives and its members. This possible reason looses ground however when compared to the Q group, which is only a year or so older than the SPUSA Pride Center and was still able to have a stronger presence than Algonquin. The QTPS group has continually had minimal cooperation from the St Pauls Pride Center and there is a clear mandate for the QTPS administrative group to better improve the channels of cooperation and communication with the Pride Center. Although St Pauls Pride Center is a sitting member of the QTPS group its attendance and cooperation has been limited, as is exemplified with its participation in this joint project.

The Queer Trans Post Secondary Round Table of Ottawa is only a year old, having been created in January of 2011. The round table has worked to pass information between the different member organisations. From the survey it is apparent with 69% of respondents not being aware of QTPS that the collaboration between the schools may not yet be apparent. There is however a strong mandate to continue with 87% of respondents saying that they would be more likely to attend an event at a different collage or university if it was a collaborative effort between more than one Center or Group a further 88% would attend an event at another member organisation if it was a group outing. There are other commonalities between the centers and groups such as the training opportunities. There were 85% of people who said they would like to receive Suicide Prevention Training and a further 81% who wanted to receive First Aid training, with over half definitely interested. For Sexual Health there was a demand of 82% of those who responded and a further 80% interested in legal rights. It would be most opportune for the member organizations to collaborate on this training, as well as on the training for things such as; active listening (67%), Advanced Trans Issues (69%) and Crisis intervention (73%) in order to ensure high numbers of attendance. The Annual Assessment Survey itself was not without controversy, it was not only released one month behind schedule, was not effectively translated and was highly criticised for two of the demographic questions. In the final consultation on the survey in the QTPS meeting, it was passed following minor edits and was passed contingent on a French Translation and the inclusion of a race question. The Chair of QTPS had originally been reluctant to include a race question in order to avoid any potential controversy however the members and community partners insisted citing the need for

comprehensive information on inclusion of racialized people. The Chair then added what he believed to be the Canadian Census race question to the survey and released the English language survey to the public. The Race question which was originally included was quickly revealed to have been full of spelling errors and was missing a mixed race option, and several people took offence to the other please specify option. One person noted Why am I unable to select more than one Race? It would have been an easy fix. (There were honestly some embarrassing spelling errors for other "races") other criticisms included;
While this survey is good, it does not provide the opportunity to collect the experiences and opinions of GLBTQ students who many not feel safe in their campus GLBTQ centers. The survey seems to assume that one attends or frequents the centers by default. quite a few leading questions, a lot of questions that should have been worded differently, I felt like it wasn't sufficient. The demographic questions were pretty invasive. Nobody needs to know my biological sex. If you wished to identify trans people, you could've asked "do you identify as trans?". Attitudes like this are part of the reason why I don't feel safe at Carleton's GLBTQ Centre and have avoided the space recently. A lot of these questions would have benefited from another middle answer, such as "already taken" for the types of training. Use Grammatically correct words please "were" not "where". Also some of the questions at the beginning were a little uncomfortable to answer. The questions concerned were personal and should have an option asides from "other". This survey asked a lot of personal questions right from the start. I would suggest rearranging your surveying so these question appear later and making it very clear to people who are taking your survey that they do not have to answer any question that makes them feel uncomfortable. I'm a grad student and I feel like there are different issues that weren't necessarily covered. Also a lot of issues that were missed.

The QTPS team reacted quickly to the criticisms and closed the English language survey once it was made aware of the issues with the Race and Sex questions. They closed it around midnight, and the following morning logged the responses of those who had already taken the survey. The QTPS team then deleted the questions which had caused the issues and had them replaced. In order to be more politically correct the Race question was changed from a list, to a simple text box where people could place the race or ethnicity with which they identified if they chose. Also the Sex question, which had been originally included under the Gingerbread Framework, along

side gender expression, gender identity and sexual orientation, it was removed and replaced with a Do you identify as Trans? although the new question was more direct, and not surreptitious it would not adequately capture the members of the population who had trans experiences but may not identify as a trans person. The change to the sex question risked revealing a smaller number of the population in question however was more respectful of the community at large by being direct and less covert in its wording. The Chair accepts complete responsibility for the controversy over the race question, and apologised to those who raised the complaints to him directly and would like to apologise to anyone else who had been insulted by the wording of the original question. It became apparent that further consultation was required in particular with the community partner PTS who was absent in the final consultation as they would have more than likely identified the errors in the report prior to its release. The content of the survey other than the sex and race question however was limited in scope on purpose as it was meant to examine volunteering and programming in particular. If there is a repeat of the survey in the 2013 year it is likely that it would be considerably more in-depth and undergo a more rigorous approval process.

Further Analysis and Key Findings

Trans* Analysis Ten of the respondents who did the survey were identified as trans which is approximately 13.6% of the total population who did the survey. 50% identified as gender queer, 20% as male, and 10% as female and the remainder more specific. 60% of the trans population were female by sex with the remainder male. Homosexuals made up 50% there was also bisexual, pansexual, queer and homoromantic asexual. Most of the respondents were identified with going to Carleton. Only 40% said they felt welcome in their safe space. The majority of those identified wanted to see more Trans issues programming with 60% strongly agreeing and another 30% also agreeing. However what is encouraging is that no one identified thought that safety or accessibility was a barrier to any of the events or programming offered. Overall there is a demand of 66% for basic Trans 101 training and a further 69% demand for advanced Trans training. Only 3.97% of the respondents recorded there being any Trans workshops being held by their Pride Center/Group however 79% of those asked would like to see more programming on the topic.

Sexual Health It is well known that there is a sexual health crisis in Ottawa, the City has some of the highest rates of HIV/AIDS and other STBBIs in Canada and one of the most at risk categories are youth who fall firmly into the collage and university population. Despite the increased risk only 17.76% of those asked reported having any training on sexual health and safer sex, there was also only 2.27% of respondents who recorded any sexual health programming. The lack of programming on the issue is very difficult to explain as there is an incredible demand for the topic, training on safer sex had the support of 82% of those asked and 84% want to see programming on queer sex with 76% who want to see programming on STBBIs in particular.

What is also a worrying statistic to emerge is that only 49% of those asked would know where to report a sexual assault. With less than half knowing exactly where to report, and 39% have no idea at all this is a topic that is in clear need of further examination.

Cooperation The Queer Trans Post Secondary Round Table of Ottawa depends on cooperation in order to be able to function to the best of its ability. This cooperation was significantly challenged by the absence of its biggest member the University of Ottawa from the Assessment survey and also from the absence of the St Pauls Pride Center. There is however still a strong mandate for cooperation, with 87% citing that they would be more likely to attend an event at another location if it was a collaborated event. There are also differences in the results between the different members which demonstrates areas for learning for example Carleton has a higher rate of people citing lack of advertising as a barrier to events, where as Algonquin doesnt, but in the reverse to Carleton has a larger barrier with people not knowing each other. There is also a clear indication of support for outside community partners, with 18% of respondents volunteering in the queer community there is a strong connection from within the members Centers and Groups with community partners. There was also 84% support in favour of programming on issues in the city and 77% were in support of programming opportunities within the City from community partners etc. There is also a considerable gap between what training is offered by the members and what level of training the respondents would like to receive, there is on average a gap of over 50% of respondents who would like to get trained compared to those who are trained on all forms. There is also a shortfall in the amount of programming offered with less than 20% believing that the Centers and Groups provide enough programming, which can be aided by the community.