Even GLENs funders have found problems http://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/sites/default/files/uploads etc ...
The nature of its role as a policy and strategy organisation, which by definition means interacting with senior people at government level, has contributed to a perception of GLEN as slightly arrogant, somewhat elitist, slightly paternalistic (in terms of knowing what's best for LGB people) and Dublin-centric. It is also viewed by some LGBT organisations as concerned more with gay issues than lesbian issues and also representing older people.
GLEN has not communicated proactively with LGBT organisations and people on its preferred position and approach. While its focus on the centre may partially explain this, there is also a perception by LGBT organisations that GLEN has been reticent to engage and communicate.
Figure 5.4 shows that LGB people are a key constituency for GLEN but its communication is not having the desired impact.
The biggest consequence for GLEN has been confusion about its stance and preferred position among LGB people. In the case of the Civil Partnership Bill it was not clear to other LGB
perspectives that GLEN's preference was for full marriage. This may now have become somewhat academic given that the legislation has passed all stages but it highlights an important issue for
GLEN in the future.
GLEN's model of working means that it risks being perceived by the LGB community as being 'coopted' by the establishment. How can it work as a quasi insider while not being perceived as 'coopted' by its core constituency? What does this mean for how it engages with other LGBT