Introduction
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) people aged over fifty are a significant minority of the UK ageing population. Age UK (Age Concern, 2002) estimates that one in fifteen of its service users will be LGB. Meanwhile, Almack et al. (Reference Almack, Seymour and Bellamy2010) cite other sources (for example, Department of Trade and Industry Women and Equality Unit, 2003; Price, Reference Price2005) that suggest that 5–7 per cent of the UK population are LGB and that 545,000 to 872,000 of those are aged over sixty-five. Estimates for the number of older trans people are more problematic due to a lack of publicly available statistical information and because trans is an umbrella term for all those people who cross conventional gender boundaries in some way, including people who identify as transsexual and/or transvestite (Whittle et al., Reference Whittle, Turner, Al-Alami, Rundall and Thom2007; Age UK, 2011a).
Research, discussed in detail later, indicates that older LGBT people face a number of challenges in their use of services provided by or on behalf of local government authorities, which must be addressed by policy makers and practitioners. The principal aim of this article is to reflect on a knowledge exchange (KE) project, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), which built on existing research and engaged a local government authority (LA), academic researchers, service providers and other stakeholders to improve services and policy provision for older LGBT people. The article begins by framing the project in terms of wider LGBT equality work within local government, existing studies and initiatives related to older LGBT people and the coming of austerity and its impact on LGBT communities. The first two frames provided the impetus for the project, whereas the latter, it is argued, affected its implementation. The article then explains how the KE project developed, including how impact was generated and measured. Subsequently, a more reflective section considers how austerity may have affected the project: provisional thoughts rather than definitive answers. The ramifications are discussed in the concluding section.
Framing the project: local government LGBT equality work
The KE project can be framed within the wider context of LGBT equality work in local government, which has a somewhat troubled history. Carabine and Monro (Reference Carabine and Monro2004) argue that despite some growth during the 1980s, mostly among left-leaning metropolitan authorities, there followed a political backlash in the form of Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, which forbad the so-called promotion of homosexuality, a piece of legislation that continued to affect LGBT equality work well into the 1990s. Although new initiatives were developed during this period, paradoxically with greater success amongst authorities not encumbered by the legacies of the 1980s, it was the arrival of the New Labour government in 1997 that led to significant, if sometimes contradictory, changes. Drivers for change included: the repeal of Section 28; (re)organisation practices, such as modernisation and managerialism; evidence-based policy and performance measures; and a raft of legislation, notably the Gender Recognition Act (2004), the Civil Partnership Act (2004) and the Equality Act (2010). New Labour reoriented LGBT equality work into more mainstream diversity and equality initiatives, encouraging and requiring local government organisations and their associated service providers to engage with LGBT citizens (Carabine and Monro, Reference Carabine and Monro2004; Cooper, Reference Cooper2006; Mitchell et al., Reference Mitchell, Howarth, Kotecha and Creegan2009; Richardson and Monro, Reference Richardson and Monro2013). It is now illegal, for instance, for organisations to discriminate in the provision of services on the grounds of sexual orientation, or to disclose information about a person's acquired gender identity.
Recent evaluations of LGBT equality work in local government over the past decade suggest that despite such legislation and a changed political climate, implementation of LGBT equalities initiatives and policies is inconsistent (Monro, Reference Monro2010). They can be reliant on organisational and managerial factors, such as the role of senior staff in championing LGBT equality and the good-will of LGBT employees themselves (Colgan et al., Reference Colgan, Creegan, McKearney and Wright2007). LGBT equality work is sometimes viewed as less urgent or significant than other strands of diversity and equality work, such as that associated with faith, race, gender and disability (Monro, Reference Monro2006).
Framing the project: the needs and experiences of older LGBT service users
The project was also framed by research concerning older LGBT people, indicating some key challenges faced by this group. Surveys show that social isolation, social rejection, institutional mistreatment and service provider prejudice are of paramount concern (MetLife, 2006; Guasp, Reference Guasp2011). Older LGBT people are often framed by service providers in accordance with stereotypical representations and understandings of sexuality and gender identity. In the area of health and social care, research has demonstrated that service providers often ignore issues of sexuality and gender identity or fail to fully consider the needs of older LGBT people (Willis et al., Reference Willis, Ward and Fish2011). This has a negative effect on quality of life and indeed end-of-life support (Robinson, Reference Robinson1998; Cook-Daniels, Reference Cook-Daniels2002; Hunt and Minsky, Reference Hunt and Minsky2005; Emlet, Reference Emlet2006; Almack, Reference Almack2007; Almack et al., Reference Almack, Seymour and Bellamy2010). Other services, such as housing and leisure (Addis et al., Reference Addis, Davies, Greene, MacBride-Stewart and Shepherd2009; Carr and Ross, Reference Carr and Ross2013), demonstrate the deleterious effects of institutional heterosexism. Overall, it is argued that inclusive, affirmative policies and practices need to be developed to challenge heterosexism and bi, trans and homo-phobias within a range of services (Harrison, Reference Harrison2006; Heaphy and Yip, Reference Heaphy and Yip2006; Concannon, Reference Concannon2009; Fish, Reference Fish2009).
Third sector and activist organisations have led the way in developing initiatives to tackle this discrimination. In the UK, for instance, Age UK (formerly Age Concern) has developed its Opening Doors programme (Age Concern, 2006) to provide community information/support services and training for service providers. Polari/Age of Diversity (Davies and River, Reference Davies and River2006) has conducted small-scale research projects and training for service providers. More recently, Stonewall (Guasp, Reference Guasp2011; Taylor, Reference Taylor2012) have sought to highlight the need for more inclusive services and to showcase existing good practice.
Collaborative research projects, comprising a range of stakeholders, including academics, LAs and older LGBT community members, have been conducted to try to promote inclusive services for older LGB people. Important examples include the Grey and Gay project in Dorset (Fannin et al., Reference Fannin, Fenge, Hicks, Lavin and Brown2008), which emphasised the importance of developing appropriate and gay-friendly services, including education and training for social work professionals. Additionally, work conducted by the Polari in Partnership project with LAs in Westminster, Kingston-upon-Thames and Hackney (Davies and River, Reference Davies and River2006), focused on housing, health, care, help to stay independent, and community safety. In so doing, it engaged local older LGB people and brought them together with professionals and service users.
Whilst the KE project discussed in this article was directly framed by the wider context of LGBT equality work in local government and drew on existing studies of older LGBT people noted above, it was also framed by a further, unanticipated factor: austerity.
Framing the project: the coming of austerity
Formed in May 2010, just as the KE project was awarded funding, the UK Coalition Government has enacted a radical programme of austerity measures, including cutting a quarter of the local government budget (Crawford and Phillips, Reference Crawford and Phillips2012). In such austere times, issues of value for money and outcomes-based measures have been emphasised across many sectors. Local authorities, their associated service providers and organisations that rely on their funding have been faced with difficult decisions regarding policy initiatives and service provision, whilst simultaneously having to fulfil statutory requirements to ensure equality and diversity. However, evidence is beginning to develop that austerity measures are affecting services used by LGBT people and older LGBT in particular. This evidence ranges from anecdotal, soft evidence, to empirical, hard evidence.
Firstly, there have been cuts in services provided by LGBT third-sector organisations, particularly small organisations not covered by the wider voluntary and community sector infrastructure and local authorities themselves (Dangerfield, Reference Dangerfield2011; Kairos in Soho, 2011; Reid-Smith, Reference Reid-Smith2012). Indeed, past evidence suggests that in times of limited availability of resources LGBT equality work is affected, being viewed as less important than other frontline services (Monro, Reference Monro2006).
Secondly, it has been suggested that funding cuts are also seriously affecting services and benefits for older people, especially in social care (Adetunji, Reference Adetunji2011; Age UK, 2011b; Ginn, Reference Ginn2013). As older LGBT people's services lie at the intersection of ageing services and those related to equality and diversity, it is arguable that they are under significant pressure. Furthermore, with suggestions by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of more cuts to local government budgets in years to come, these pressures are likely to increase (Smulian, Reference Smulian2013). While there remain legal parameters to ensure equality in service provision, finding ways to achieve this will be increasingly difficult.
The KE project emerged against this austere backdrop; although it was not anticipated in the project design, its effects became more obvious as the project unfolded. Before discussing these effects, the following section details the project development and implementation.
Putting policy into practice
The ESRC Knowledge Exchange follow-on fundFootnote 1 enables researchers to work in conjunction with non-academic partners to share knowledge and make existing research have an impact on both policy and practice. The KE project built on original research the author conducted, which had been commissioned by an inner-city LA. The LA wanted to understand the needs and experiences of its older LGBT citizens and was responding to a number of equality drivers for change suggested earlier: performance indicators, entry into the Stonewall Equality Index, the need to develop equality strands and to produce a sexuality equality scheme.
The research included interviews and focus groups with thirty-eight self-identifying LGB adults: fourteen men and twenty-four women, aged between fifty and seventy-eight years. Participants came from a range of socio-economic backgrounds, although more than half identified themselves as middle-class. All participants identified as White, apart from one gay man who identified as Mixed White/Black African-Caribbean. Previous research has also experienced these sampling issues (Davies and River, Reference Davies and River2006) and future research needs to address these occlusions. None of the participants self-identified as transgender. Whilst this does not preclude the possibility that older trans people participated, a separate study was recommended. To contextualise the research, a literature review drawing on many of the studies noted earlier in this article was included, together with interviews of three senior staff at the LA, two older LGBT activists and two people who had previously conducted research with older LGBT people.
The resulting report made a number of recommendations to the LA to incorporate into its Sexuality Equality Scheme, notably to ensure that service providers: acknowledge that older people are sexual beings and that not all older people are heterosexual; avoid homogenising the life experiences of older LGBT people, i.e. recognise intra-group diversity; show an awareness of language and how to raise issues of sexuality and gender identity with individuals; provide inclusive services and do not make moral judgments; have clear codes of conduct, which are followed and that complaints about heterosexism, homophobia, biphobia or transphobia are investigated immediately.
The LA promoted the report and their Sexuality Equality Scheme via events in the borough and on its website. However, senior managers at the LA felt that a more pro-active, training-based initiative for service providers was needed. In discussion with the researchers, senior members of the LA took the decision to create a KE project and apply for ESRC funding. Hence, as previous studies have suggested (Monro, Reference Monro2006), drivers for change for this KE project came via performance indicators, champions within the organisation and its partners. Additionally, a direct policy initiative addressing sexual and gender diversity was needed, since the LA was working towards implementation of the personalisation agenda, designed to enable service users to tailor care and other support services to their own individual requirements (Carr, Reference Carr2010).
The project received some funding from the LA, both monetary and in-kind, which was supplemented with ESRC monies. Indeed, although the LA was committed to LGBT equality work in its corporate strategy, it is unlikely the project would have developed as it did without the ESRC funding. Similarly, obtaining the ESRC funding meant that the academic researchers would receive dedicated institutional support for the project from their respective universities.
This year-long KE project represented, in part, a top-down initiative of the type noted by others (Richardson and Monro, Reference Richardson and Monro2013). It was principally initiated by a small group of managers, key advisors and the researchers. Yet in its methodology it also sought to follow previous research (Fenge, Reference Fenge2010; McNulty et al., Reference McNulty, Richardson and Monro2010) by incorporating the voices/experiences of frontline service providers, LGBT advocates and older LGBT people in a more participatory manner, as will be outlined in the following section.
Methodology
Design
The project incorporated elements of action research (AR), which is aimed at influencing and changing practices (Robson, Reference Robson2011). AR does not provide generalisable conclusions, but rather local solutions to specific problems through a cyclical process of problem identification, intervention design and implementation, evaluation and review (McNiff and Whitehead, Reference McNiff and Whitehead2002; Stringer, Reference Stringer2007). The key problem identified from the original research, noted above, was that service providers do not necessarily understand the needs and experiences of older LGBT people and, consequently, their service practices and policies do not reflect these needs. The project was therefore intended to: raise awareness of older LGBT service users amongst service providers, change policies and practices and measure durability of change. A three-stage model of KE was designed.
Stage one, an awareness-raising and dissemination day conference, enabled service providers and other stakeholders within the LA borough to understand the needs and experiences of older LGBT service users. Presentations from the original project researchers, Polari/Age of Diversity, International Longevity Centre and the Beaumont Society, a leading trans advocacy organisation, were supplemented with an afternoon workshop, enabling participants to discuss the issues raised and produce posters to represent their learning and their thoughts on future directions. Although the project design was determined in advance, reflections from these participatory elements influenced the activities of stage two.
Stage two was intended to focus on a smaller group of service providers in two knowledge exchange workshops in depth. To facilitate the generation of impact, in the form of changed practices and policies, a workbook, the SAFE framework, was developed for use in the first workshop. This asked participants a series of questions about their organisational policies and practices and how these could be improved for older LGBT service users. Set around four themes, strategies and supervision, awareness and acceptance, fairness and friendliness and evaluation and effectiveness, developed from the original research and the posters from stage one, participants answered these questions individually and then discussed their answers in small workgroups. Subsequently, participants had to create two action points, or things they would attempt to change. The aim of using this method was to empower service providers to reflect on their practices and policies in relation to the needs of older LGBT people and then formulate their own responses. It was not intended as a didactic tool for castigating them about what they did not know. Participants were also supplied, upon request, with electronic resources, such as reports about good practice with older LGBT people to help them initiate their action points.
The second workshop, some three months later, was designed for those involved to regroup and reflect on their action points. It enabled them to discuss what had worked and what problems they had encountered.
The third stage was an end of project showcase conference designed to raise awareness of the project nationally. It included presentations from four of the service providers involved in stage two, who spoke about their experiences on the project. There were also presentations from academics, Age UK, Age of Diversity, an LGBT advocacy organisation and Press for Change, a leading trans rights group. An afternoon workshop enabled participants to debate and think through the issues raised in the presentations.
Participatory elements
Some AR projects are more participatory than others (Stringer, Reference Stringer2007; Silver, Reference Silver and Gilbert2008). Arguably, the design of the KE project was only partially participatory, especially in its development. For instance, participatory AR, where participants effectively set the parameters of the research design and agenda, was not used, although it has been used successfully in other research with older lesbian and gay people resulting in attempts to improve social worker training (Fannin et al., Reference Fannin, Fenge, Hicks, Lavin and Brown2008). The KE project did not do this, partly because of temporal and financial constraints during project development, and because it was necessary to provide a detailed methodology when applying for ESRC funding. However, the project was partially participatory; it had a steering group composed of the researchers, members of the LA scrutiny and equality team, a senior commissioning manager in the borough, members of the local LGBT Forum and a member of the local NHS trust. In addition, older LGBT activists and community members were involved at all stages of the process, particularly during the two knowledge exchange workshops, where they were positioned as workgroup advisors, a position reflected on later in the article.
Sampling
Convenience, snowball and purposive sampling (Bryman, Reference Bryman2004) were employed to attract participants across all stages of the project. Those purposively sampled included service providers in housing services, occupational therapy, the local NHS trust, leisure services and residential and day care: all areas where the literature and original research suggested older LGBT people may experience significant heterosexism and homo/bi/trans-phobia.
Organisations working with older people, such as Age UK, the General Medical Council, the Salvation Army and Alzheimer's Society, were also sampled, together with LGBT advocacy organisations such as Stonewall, the Beaumont Society, Press for Change, Age of Diversity and local LGBT groups. The aim was to involve both LGBT specific and mainstream organisations. The showcase conference was also advertised to academics. Because previous research indicated the importance of individuals who can promote change in organisations (Monro, Reference Monro2006; Colgan et al., Reference Colgan, Creegan, McKearney and Wright2007), both senior managers and frontline staff were sampled. Actual figures for participants at each stage of the project were as follows, with predicted figures in brackets: stage one n = 75 (100), stage two n = 24 (50) and stage three n = 101 (100–200).
Creating and measuring impact
ESRC KE projects must create, measure and maximise impact (ESRC, 2013). The steering group decided that impact should be measured via questionnaires, consisting of both closed and open questions. These were designed by the academic researchers, in consultation with the steering group. Attitudes towards older LGBT people and knowledge of their service needs were measured at all stages. Participants’ assessment of what the legacy of the project would be was assessed at stages one and three. At stage two, the degree of success of putting action points into practice was measured. Six months after the project finished, all participants were re-contacted and surveyed again to assess the durability of impact: for example, to assess how much change, if any, had occurred for those involved at stage two since the project ended and to ascertain if others who had attended at stage one or stage three, but not stage two, had effected changes as a result of the project.
Prepared for impact?
Having outlined the methodology, this section of the article reflects on impact, including issues that arose during the project and those that subsequently emerged. The first part reflects on the impacts that appeared to have occurred as a result of the project: successful and intended impacts; the second considers barriers to impact, especially those that were unintended and associated with austerity.
Successful impacts
The impact questionnaires collected after each event did indicate that participants left with a greater understanding of issues faced by older LGBT service users. Qualitative comments suggested that some had not considered older LGBT service users before the events. Similarly, answers to closed questions also indicated that a majority of participants, particularly those who participated in the KE workshops, had learned about older LGBT people's lives, challenged their own perceptions and changed their own work practices. There was a sense, therefore, that whatever a service provider's own work experience, the project had provided a platform for finding allies and developing a network of colleagues who could support each, which other research indicates is essential for facilitating practical change (Brooks and Edwards, Reference Brooks and Edwards2009).
When asked to specify what the nature of impact had been, 75 per cent of participants felt that knowledge gained during workshops would have a lasting legacy on the policy, practice and ideas of their organisation. The questionnaires at stage three also asked participants to specify areas where they felt the impact of the project would be in the future: policy (65 per cent), practice (73 per cent), economic, in terms of better, more effective services (50 per cent) and ideas (58 per cent). In short, participants rated impact in terms of changes in practice as most significant.
Specific impacts that took place as a result of the project included: introducing the recording of clients’ sexuality in a sheltered housing service; using the Age UK older LGBT Health and Social Care checklist in a medical setting; discussing sexuality and gender identity with care home staff; ensuring staff in a housing organisation had an awareness-raising session provided by Opening Doors London; running a training session for leisure service staff; and acting as an organisation's first LGBT champion.
Participants were also asked to provide qualitative comments on areas that should be developed in the future. These indicated that further training, service directories and engagement with BME communities were considered important. Indeed, these reflections concur with the findings of previous research that emphasise the importance of thinking across equality strands in an integrated way (McNulty et al., Reference McNulty, Richardson and Monro2010).
The impact data noted above suggests that the project successfully raised service provider awareness and changed practices. However, a number of factors appeared to temper and lessen this, and it is here that the consequences of austerity were evident. These barriers to impact are subdivided into organisational and interpersonal factors, and were unanticipated at the outset of the project.
Barriers to impact: organisational factors and austerity
Shortly after the project started it emerged that participants, although enthusiastic, had to balance competing organisational roles and pressures in order to attend events. Initial responses to sampling indicated that some of those who had hoped to attend were unable to do so because of staffing resources at work, with the suggestion from some that there were no longer enough people to cover their job, or that recent restructuring meant that newer members of staff could not be left alone for such long periods.
Other participants had not been fully supported by their organisation and had attended during their own time; that is, they either had attended outside of their hours of employment or they had taken annual leave in order to attend. Additionally, some participants were unable to attend for the full day and so missed the afternoon impact generating sessions. Thus, the ability of the project to make an impact, and indeed to measure it, was somewhat circumscribed by these organisational factors, particularly the need to maintain strained staffing levels.
Whilst the above examples refer to soft, mostly anecdotal evidence, they should not be ignored, since they reflect organisational problems found in similar research: that LGBT equality work is regarded as less important in a hierarchy of needs when compared to keeping frontline services staffed (McNulty et al., Reference McNulty, Richardson and Monro2010). Or as Monro (Reference Monro2010) has noted, as sexuality, and indeed gender identity, are viewed as private issues, they are more prone to being marginalised.
It is difficult to ascertain the degree to which these factors were exacerbated by austerity. Similar research conducted before austerity began to take effect suggests that LGBT equality work is sometimes regarded in a cursory way, despite legal requirements to promote it (Monro, Reference Monro2006). Although such initiatives are now regarded as obligatory by managers (Colgan and Wright, Reference Colgan and Wright2011), employees may see adherence to these as more equivocal, especially when frontline services are squeezed. Hence, austerity and the organisational restructuring that it brings may reinforce existing barriers.
The project had aimed to bring both managers and frontline workers together; to address issues raised by other researchers about who drives organisational change (Colgan and Wright, Reference Colgan and Wright2011). However, the extent to which those who engaged in the workshops were able to implement change in their organisation was variable. One social care worker explained in her response to the six-month follow up survey that whilst her line manager recognised the importance of improving their service for older LGBT people, actually taking practical steps, such as producing a set of guidelines for other members of staff, was proving difficult to enact. Competing pressures, including temporal, but particularly financial resources, were lessening the impact.
The question concerning where impact is most effectively generated remains contentious: at the top, senior management level, which then trickles down an organisation; or at a practitioner, grounded level, which then creates the climate for wider organisational change (Monro, Reference Monro2006; Colgan and Wright, Reference Colgan and Wright2011). Like previous research, the project found that a significant amount of impact was dependent on goodwill and good communication between different groups/individuals within an organisation, and the personalities and values of those involved (Richardson and Monro, Reference Richardson and Monro2013). Here again, these drivers may be adversely affected in times of austerity when organisational restructuring/redundancies disrupts staff relationships and networks built over a period of time. The cursory, tick-box approach to equality work noted by others (Colgan et al., Reference Colgan, Creegan, McKearney and Wright2007; Richardson and Monro, Reference Richardson and Monro2013) may be encouraged under such circumstances, as more strategic, developmental work is fragmented.
Barriers to impact: the interpersonal in times of austerity
Given the importance of relationships in driving change in organisations, it is also important to consider the affective experiences of participants engaged in the project. During a stage two workshop one participant explained that although glad to have participated, the project had generated a number of conflicting emotional responses for her. She was pleased to be undertaking something positive, improving her service for older LGBT clients, but this caused her some discomfort too. She was acutely aware that other people within her organisation, particularly her line manager, dismissed the action points she was attempting to undertake because of her own sexuality; in other words, whilst she fulfilled a role, her identity as a lesbian meant that this was then reduced in importance as a consequence. It was viewed as personal rather than professional. Such experiences are reminiscent of those found in the work of Colgan and colleagues (Colgan et al., Reference Colgan, Creegan, McKearney and Wright2007; Colgan et al., Reference Colgan, Wright, Creegan and McKearney2009; Colgan and McKearney, Reference Colgan and McKearney2012), and others (Humphrey, Reference Humphrey1999), who have highlighted how LGBT employees are often compelled to negotiate personal and professional identities and how organisations consequently diminish their equality work. Here again, austerity may emphasise these problems. In responding to the six-month follow-up survey, one (non-heterosexual) home care worker indicated that she had volunteered to be an LGBT champion because there were no resources for the role/work and it would not have happened otherwise.
There are also ramifications when considering the role of older LGBT community members who participate in KE projects of this kind in austere times. Some older LGBT volunteers clearly relished the opportunity to explain to service providers how their needs were currently not met. But others expressed a more tenuous involvement. This is not unusual, since other researchers have commented on the different reasons and contributions of older LBG people engaged in participatory AR (Fenge et al., Reference Fenge, Fannin, Armstrong, Hicks and Taylor2009; Fenge, Reference Fenge2010). Indeed, there is always a danger that certain voices are privileged in the process and others remain muted: for example, older LGBT people from ethnic minorities or working-class groups might not volunteer for cultural and/or economic reasons (Ward et al., Reference Ward, River and Fenge2008). However, there is another aspect to this when viewed through the prism of austerity. Arguably, knowledge exchange work in times of limited funds requires the affective, economic and social resources of older LGBT people whose sexual citizenship is then appropriated, transformed and potentially turned into a commodification of self that is tied to a politics of development (Bell and Binnie, Reference Bell and Binnie2000). Or, as this relates to older people, to a discourse of active ageing that emphasises the importance of volunteering in later life (Walker, Reference Walker2008). Therefore, researchers must consider how KE work engages members of the older LGBT community; although it can be positive it may simultaneously be manipulative.
Conclusion
This article has argued that a KE project to improve services for older LGBT people was framed by issues associated with wider LGBT equality work, studies and initiatives concerning older LGBT people and to an extent by the coming of austerity. It has shown how the KE programme of the ESRC requires the generation and measurement of impact and has detailed how this was undertaken and what benefits were achieved. In reflecting on both the successes and challenges of knowledge exchange, however, the shadow of austerity cannot be ignored. Whilst the project certainly concurs with the findings of other similar projects in the context of LGBT equality in local government, that it is uneven and its success strongly associated with a number of organisational and interpersonal factors, this project points to how these factors are emphasised during a period of austerity.
The article does not provide definitive proof of the kind many of us may wish to see in this respect. The relationship between knowledge exchange to improve services for older LGBT people and the current economic and political climate is not straightforward. However, the article provides further indication that this relationship exists and that it warrants further attention. Indeed, it is significant that a research study is currently underway to assess the impact of austerity on LGBT public sector workers and service users (NatCen, 2013). Certainly, it is important that future KE projects of the kind outlined here consider the impact of austerity in their design and implementation. To prepare for impact is not simply to consider the mechanics of such projects, but the wider economic and political context in which they are undertaken.
