“Having Rainbows Everywhere”: Exploring Perceived and Objective Community Climate and Lgbtq Community Resources Among Nonmetropolitan Lgbtq Youth

Background: Community climate is the degree of community acceptance for LGBT individuals (Oswald et al., 2010). A hostile climate is associated with poor mental health, risky behaviors (Olson et al., 2006), and suicidality (Hatzenbuehler, 2011). Positive youth development theory posits that well-being, including risk reduction, is achieved when adolescents engage with community resources; little attention has been paid to LGBTQ youth, especially in nonmetropolitan areas. Understanding LGBTQ youths’ community climates, as well as options for accessing support through community resources, are essential in promoting positive development.

This study asks: Is community climate associated with perceived needs and availability and utilization of LGBT community resources among nonmetropolitan LGBTQ youth?

Methods: This study utilized an online survey, public records, and qualitative interviews. Participants were recruited via social media, print advertisements, and LGBT groups. The survey included a perceived community climate measure classifying communities as hostile, tolerant, or supportive (Oswald & Holman, 2013) and the Involvement in Gay-Related Activities scale (Rosario et al., 2001). Participants (n=109) were 14-18 year old LGBTQ youth in the nonmetropolitan region of one Midwestern state; White 85%, Latino/a 9%, African-American 9%; female 68%, male 20%, queer 7%, questioning 7%, transgender 4%. Community climate was objectively assessed using public records (e.g. voting patterns, presence of LGBTQ organizations) using an index measure (Oswald et al., 2010). Data were assessed for normality and analyzed using Chi-Square and Kruskal-Wallis statistical tests.

Interviews explored perceptions of LGBTQ community climate and resources among 14-18 year old nonmetropolitan LGBTQ youth (n=30). Participants were White (40%), multiracial (40%), or African-American (20%); female (50%), male (30%), transgender or questioning (20%). Interviews were analyzed using grounded theory procedures.

Results: Among surveyed youth, perceived supportive climate was associated with greater awareness of available LGBTQ resources [H(2), p<.05] and utilization of two resources: gay-straight alliances [X²(2) = 9.7 (p<.01)] and LGBTQ theater programs [X²(2) = 7.3 (p<.05)]. An objective supportive climate was associated with more available LGBTQ resources [X²(1) = 6.0 (p<.05)], including Pride festivals, community centers, social outlets, and theater programs. The number and types of needs for community resources did not differ by perceived or objective climate. 

Qualitative coding illuminated a climate continuum rather than static categories of climate. Youth described this continuum as directly relating to their options for community-based support: communities on the hostile side of the continuum were perceived as lacking LGBTQ-specific resources and presented more risks for youth utilizing available resources; supportive communities were perceived as ones with LGBTQ resources and visibility and minimal risk to participation. Youth identified LGBTQ social outlets, supportive mental health services, increased education around LGBTQ issues, and LGBTQ visibility as ways to foster community support.

Implications: Community climate among nonmetropolitan LGBTQ youth is associated with their options for obtaining support in their communities. Future research on LGBTQ youth and positive youth development should explore this relationship with community climate and how it impacts their well-being. Practice implications include attending to the factors that influence community climate and as the provision of supportive resources for LGBT Qyouth across geographic contexts.