Barriers and Facilitators to Utilization of LGBT Community Organizations Among Nonmetropolitan LGBT Youth

Background: LGBT youth are at risk of mental and physical health problems (Russell, 2005) and educational disparities (Birkett et al., 2009) due to growing up in a society that stigmatizes and marginalizes their identities. Nonmetropolitan LGBT youth are at comparable or greater risk than urban LGBT youth (Palmer et al., 2012; Poon & Saewyc, 2009). Positive youth development theory purports that when the strengths of adolescents are combined with positive resources in their community, positive development and well-being occurs (Lerner et al., 2005). LGBT community organizations may be a resource that can mitigate risk and improve well-being via supportive programming and safe spaces for LGBT youth (Centerlink & Movement Advancement Project, 2014). Little is known, however, about their role in the provision of support for LGBT youth, such as how youth access these organizations in smaller communities. The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine the barriers and facilitators to LGBT youth accessing and utilizing LGBT community organizations in nonmetropolitan communities.

Methods: A concurrent mixed methods design was implemented with 14-18 year old LGBT youth in one state. Surveys (n=338) were administered online and included measures of demographics, perceived climate (Oswald & Holman, 2013), and the Involvement in Gay-Related Activities index (Rosario et al., 2001). In-depth interviews (n=34) assessed needs and options for LGBT community support, perceptions of the LGBT community climate, and factors influencing utilization of LGBT community organizations. Survey data were analyzed using logistic regression; qualitative data were analyzed using grounded theory methods (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Mixed method analysis procedures included typology development (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

Results: Interview data revealed four conditions acting as barriers or facilitators to utilization of LGBT community organizations. Accessibility included the availability of LGBT organizations in a community. Congruence included whether a program met the needs of youth. Emotional readiness included youth’s level of disclosure of and comfort with their LGBT identity. Stigma included the perceived climate of the community toward LGBT youth. Logistic regression analyses tested the association between these conditions and utilization of LGBT organizations using survey data. Significant associations were found for accessibility and stigma (X² (14)=39.255, p<.001). Having an LGBT organization in one’s community was associated with five times greater odds of utilization. As perceived climate moved from supportive to tolerant or supportive to hostile, participants had more than 4 times greater odds of utilizing an LGBT organization.

Conclusions and implications: The findings of this study suggest that intervening to improve the accessibility of LGBT community organizations may help LGBT youth have additional sources of support to access. The findings further support the conclusion that LGBT organizations may be needed in towns with more hostile climates toward LGBT individuals, yet these towns may be less likely to have LGBT organizations (Centerlink & MAP, 2014). As this study was exploratory, future research should examine the identified barriers and facilitators as moderators between LGBT youth’s needs and their utilization of LGBT community organizations, as well as the association between well-being and utilization of LGBT organizations.