Community Psychosocial Supports for Sexual Minority Youth: A Cross Site Comparison

Background and Purpose: Limited research examines community supports that buffer GLBTQ youths' negative experiences. Few studies give prominence to youth voice in identifying specific types of emotional and social supports needed (c.f., Mufioz-Plaza, Quinn, & Rounds, 2002; Nesmith, Burton, & Cosgrove, 1999; Snively, 2004). This study explores the psycho-social needs of sexual minority youth from their own perspectives to identify (1) community supports needed for GLBTQ youth well being, (2) the importance of identified supports for meeting youths' psychological/emotional and social needs, and (3) related gaps in services and supports. The study further advances cultural competence with a vulnerable population of youth.

Methods: Concept Mapping with group implementation processes (Kane & Trochim, 2007) was used with youth served by GLBTQ-focused youth centers in two U.S. locales (Midwest and Northeast). Participants included a total of 33 youth, ages 14-23; average age was 18 (Midwest) and 19 (Northeast). Total sample included 24% youth of color (Black African American or Biracial), 76% White; 64% Female, 27% Male, 6% Transgender, 1% Other; 18% Bisexual, 36% Lesbian, 21% Gay, 24% Other. Data were gathered through modified focus groups, participant sorting, and rating questionnaires. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) and hierarchical cluster analyses (HCA) produced cluster maps for each site. Likert-scale rating data produced pattern match comparisons between scales and participant groupings within sites. Subsequent secondary analyses of qualitative data (Thorne, 1994) examined similarities and differences across sites.

Results: Each community generated a separate set of needed supports; Midwest included 58 ideas among 5 clusters and Northeast included 66 ideas among 11 clusters. Needs ranged from familial to school to public policy. Participant group comparisons of social and emotional importance ratings differed based on youth age, gender, involvement with a mental health professional, geographic residence, and race/ethnicity. Secondary data analyses resulted in 61 unduplicated combined statement ideas across communities from which 14 primary themes emerged; 12 reflected ideas across communities. Unduplicated ideas include 22 common across communities, 21 unique to Northeast, and 18 unique to Midwest. Overall, Midwest youth viewed all primary themes as more important for meeting social needs than emotional needs. In contrast, Northeast youth viewed all but three primary themes as more important for meeting emotional needs than social needs.

Conclusions and Implications: Ideas generated clearly reflect implications for developing services for this vulnerable population across micro, mezzo, and macro levels, a research need identified by Elze (2005). Four primary areas for programming were identified: developing protective supports, age-based programming, mental health related supports, and culturally relevant programming. Youth feel support needs are not being met by responsible adults. Rating differences between youth under and over age 18 suggest multiple programming pathways to meet youths' developmental needs. Differences between youth who had and had not talked with a mental health professional suggest needs for increased mental health resources. Findings further suggest needs to consider the cultural relevance of programs, as only one prior study (Snively, 2004) using youth voice reports differences based on cultural factors.