Surveying GLBT Elders: Methods That Work

Purpose: Interest in GLBT elders has surged in recent years. However, researchers have struggled to find effective methods for reaching this population. Most studies to date have relied on small samples, often recruited through clinical settings or a single gay-friendly event with little representation from lower income groups or people of color. Presented here are data collected through a multi-method survey including an Internet-based questionnaire. The results were a diverse sample with comparable findings from online and hardcopy respondents.

Methods: An Area Agency on Aging and an undergraduate social work research class partnered to conduct a state-mandated needs assessment of older gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered (GLBT) people. A survey design was used that included an online link from the agency's web site, and questionnaires delivered to or left at GLBT social and religious venues, events of interest to GLBT people, and general public sites where there might be older people. Additionally, networking calls were made to known older GLBT persons in the community and an email was sent to the campus community describing the Internet-based survey and how to access it. The option of a telephone interview was also publicized. Questions included actual or expected needs in areas previously found to be prominent the service area and that could be problematic for GLBT elders. Also examined were impressions of degree of gay friendliness of various services.

Results: In a very brief, three-week period, thirty-eight surveys were returned. Half were from the Internet access site, one quarter were done in person by students, and one quarter were self-administered hard copies. The sample included both gay men and lesbians, who were White, Latino, and African American. Their ages ranged from 60 to over 76 and their education and income were likewise varied. The level of unmet need reported was considerably higher than that found in other similar assessments, ranging from 45 to 80 percent and few participants (0% to about 16%) thought that existing services like senior centers or nursing homes would be very GLBT friendly. Most important regarding the methods used was that no statistically significant differences were found between online and hardcopy responses.

Implications: The modest success of this brief, unfunded project suggests that a multi-method data collection process, including an Internet option and student volunteers, is viable for assessing the needs of this hidden and stigmatized population. Further, online responses that were comparable in all ways to those from other approaches, suggest that it should be possible to collect a large, diverse, and representative sample through links on one or more of the national web sites that now exist for GLBT elders.