HIV Advocacy Must Apply Denver Principles for Trans Communities

By: Jen Laws, Board Member, ADAP Advocacy Association, and HIV/transgender health advocate 

In July of this year, Terrance Higgins Trust issued a statement of unequivocal solidarity in support of rights for transgender people, representing the position of numerous HIV advocacy and service organizations located in the United Kingdom. The statement focuses on the health disparities transgender people face and the necessity to address these in order to meet public health goals of ending the HIV epidemic in the UK by 2030.

I often like to say, “integrity is the integration of stated values in action.” Over the last several years large, queer umbrella organizations have taken up the banner of both transgender advocacy and, more recently, HIV advocacy as pillars of their activities, rather than back burner issues. This mirrors certain advocacy from legacy HIV organizations and service entities taking up activities of transgender advocacy and community specific programming. Much of this shift can be attributed to a greater national spotlight on transgender people (often centered on bigoted policy moves from the previous administration) or because of any number of reports with newly released data finally being gathered on our population pointing toward extraordinary disparities requiring address. Numerous domestic HIV organizations have issued similar statements, mostly independently of one another, as that of the Terrance Higgins Trust.

As it turns out, all of this attention is quite profitable for advocacy and service organizations, regardless of their mission orientation (HIV or LGBTQ issues). Both public and private funders have issued notices of funding opportunities and grants focused on assessing and addressing the health needs of transgender people and extending cultural competency trainings for service providers. While these funds and their intended activities are absolutely necessary, they are a sore replacement for consistent, operations funding to by-for transgender and non-binary organizations – of which many would be greatly served by these funds and, likely, more affectual than offering funding to organizations with limited experience or token personnel.

Artwork provided by The Feminist Farmwife

That’s the problem, isn’t it? For a community of advocates and providers who have trumpeted the core values of the Denver Principles, HIV organizations have largely failed in integrating these principles in terms of advocacy and programming for transgender people. More importantly, these same organizations have few if any transgender or non-binary people in positions of program leadership or administration or on the boards of these organizations. Indeed, if we are to realize “nothing for us, without us” as critically necessary in order to adequately address the needs of a very diverse population of people living with HIV and AIDS, organizations seeking to represent our interests and meet our needs must include us in every stage of decision making – not just community advisory boards. 

Recently, Black AIDS Institute has provided an excellent example in ensuring leadership reflects the needs of combating the epidemic in appointing Ms. Toni Newman as interim chief executive officer. And funders should absolutely prioritize those organizations reflecting this value up and down their “food chain” including integration of these values in terms of compensation, plans of succession, hiring practices (ie. prioritizing lived experience over that of college experience), and human resource policies (including benefit designs – ie. if an organization does not ensure vocal training or comprehensive medical and pharmacy formularies in their benefit design, they are not “culturally competent” in their compensation offerings). In addition, funders should consider 5- and 10-year commitments of operations funding to by-for transgender and non-binary organizations equal to or exceeding that of shorter-term funding being offered to broader LGBTQ and HIV organizations.

Similarly, private funders – specifically foundations with massive granting power – should not prioritize funding larger, well-funded LGBTQ umbrella organizations based on their calls for HIV advocacy unless and until those organizations include partnership and shared funding to existing HIV organizations for these activities. 

Ultimately, lack of funders integrating the values behind the Denver Principles in their funding choices risks pushing out interests in advocacy wholesale. If those impassioned enough to take on these fights cannot pay their bills, feel respected for their expertise, see a path to promotion, and can realize their priorities in success through funder support, they will simply leave the field. Our funders should also readily recognize our interests intersect – our success is theirs – and, while some may argue the advocacy pipeline is broken, it can be fixed.

Lastly, coalition statements are more than welcomed. They signal an intention and frankly, we need more of them – across broader interest organizations. 

Integrity, like love, requires more than words. Integrity, like love, cannot exist in the absence of action. We need to see some integrity from HIV and umbrella queer organizations and funders.

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates.