LGBTQ+ NGO Database

About the LGBTQ+ NGO Database


Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have played an important role in addressing the needs of LGBTQ+ youth, including their experience with homophobic and transphobic bullying in schools.

The Survey of LGTBQ+ Youth-Serving NGOs seeks to document and analyze the work of these NGOs worldwide. We share the data from the survey in a database that (a) helps interested users gain quick access to basic information about LGTBQ+ Youth-Serving NGOs, and (b) facilitates the exchange of information and experiences between NGOs to help them achieve their goals.

Our goal is to keep the information in the database updated and accurate. Please provide relevant organizations or bring attention to any errors via the survey form below. 

Access the database

Contribute to the Survey

Columbia campus lit in rainbow lights

Methodological Note by Oren Pizmony-Levy


My interest in LGBT NGOs began in the early 2000s, when I joined the Israeli Gay Youth Organization. As a young activist, I was always curious to learn from the experience of NGOs in other countries. The main reason was the simple fact that back then, there were no other LGBT organizations in Israel that focused on education or youth. More than a decade later, after I completed my doctoral degree, this curiosity led me to conduct a study of LGBT NGOs working in education. My reading of the literature led me to two research questions:

  1. How do LGBT NGOs challenge schools to be more open to different sexual orientations and gender identities?

  2. To what extent does the work of LGBT NGOs vary across different social contexts (e.g., countries that are more or less accepting of homosexuality)?

The main objective of the global survey was to document the services and programs that LGBT NGOs provide, and to discern patterns based on the social context in which they operate. Therefore, it was important to collect information about NGOs in diverse contexts.

The first task was to define the population. Our research team and I started with examining the “lay of the land.” Overall, the LGBT movement worldwide is remarkably organized. There are many organizations (also known as social movement organizations [SMOs]) and in many places there are well-established networks, such as the ILGA – International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. In some countries there are specialized organizations that focus solely on education and youth. However, this is not the case everywhere. In some countries, depending on resources and social acceptance of homosexuality, individuals work in alternative formats (e.g., groups, collectives, etc.). Thus, we decided to keep the term NGO, but to also include alternative terms for collective action around the issues of LGBT rights and education. 


We then conducted a census of all LGBT NGOs that work in formal and non-formal education. First, we searched websites of international and regional networks for NGOs that gave some indication of working with youth or schools. These included NGO directories and soft (electronic) copies of annual meeting programs/schedules. Second, we used Google to find additional links and references to relevant NGOs. For example, we found documents produced by NGOs and reports by foundations that gave money to LGBT organizations. In addition to English, our research team conducted searches in eight languages: French, Hebrew, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, and Traditional and Simplified Chinese. Although the term LGBT is common worldwide, in some countries activists used other labels, such as sexual minorities and sexual diversity. Therefore, we used different search terms in order to minimize the effect of our search protocol on the census. Third, we conducted searches in two common social media platforms: Facebook and Twitter, using hashtags such as #LGBT and #LGBTyouth. We also created a Facebook page for the project to communicate with NGOs and activists worldwide.

We entered the results of these searches into one, large Excel spreadsheet. For each organization, we entered basic contact information: name, location, website, social media, email, and phone number. Once the search was completed, we cleaned the data by combining duplicate records. These efforts yielded a database with 687 entries.

Our next task was to develop a sampling strategy for this population of organizations. Because our research team had limited resources, we decided to sample only NGOs that had a working email or active social media account. This way we could collect data through an online survey. This sampling approach is not free of limitations, and we had to recognize that our sample would be biased toward NGOs with greater capacity. In the future, we would like to extend the sampling to all NGOs by using alternative forms of data collection including mail surveys and face-to-face interviews in different locations.

To make sure we were not missing other NGOs, we also implemented a snowball sampling protocol. We asked respondents to share with us the names and email addresses of other LGBT NGOs working in education. Most of our respondents shared with us the contact information of one other NGO. In some cases, we already had the information for these additional NGOs in our census. However, overall the snowball sampling protocol yielded information for 152 additional NGOs that we had not previously included in our database.

Data collection (our survey dissemination) took place between July 2014 and July 2015. In the first phase (July-December 2014), we sent out invitations to participate in the survey. We sent two reminders: two weeks after the initial invitation and again one month after the initial invitation. In the second phase (April-July 2015) we contacted remaining NGOs (those from which we had not received a response to our survey) with an individualized message. By doing that we tried to better understand and address any concerns that activists had regarding the survey. We also contacted respondents who submitted partial responses (less than 75% of the questions answered) and invited them to complete the survey. This approach improved the quality of the data we obtained and prevented us from losing cases (due to missing data). In total our survey included full responses from 310 NGOs working in 110 countries.

During the data collection process, we monitored, on a weekly basis, the number of new responses to the survey. After 10 months and many efforts to encourage NGOs to participate in the survey, we observed that the survey reached a plateau. We compared the composition of the sample to the census (database) of organizations and found that overall our sample turned out to closely mirror the census in terms of geographic region, affluence (indicated by membership in OECD), and legal context for LGBT individuals. Therefore, we decided to close the survey and to move forward with analysis and writing.

Back to skip to quick links