Lgbtq Organizing Beyond "Low-Hanging Fruit": A Qualitative Examination of Safe Schools Coalitions in the Southern United States

Background and Purpose:  Safe schools coalitions (SSCs) are community-based organizations that aim to change school policy to be more responsive to the needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth through education and advocacy.  Currently, SSCs exist in 23 of the 50 states in the United States.  Despite the prevalence of these coalitions, little is known about their formation, barriers and successes to their work, and how surrounding cultural context informs their work.  This study sought to answer the following research question:   what are the strengths and challenges that safe schools coalitions experience in the Deep South?  

Methods:  Using case study methods, researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with nine (n = 9) safe schools coalition leaders in three states in the Deep South.  These coalitions were the only coalitions that existed in this geographic area.  Researchers contacted participants via email through their official organizational email addresses and consented to participate in the study.  Interviews were audio-recorded and transcripts were recorded verbatim and de-identified.  Three researchers independently coded the data for themes, and agreement of codes was reached by consensus amongst the research team through two cycles of coding.  

Findings:  Five themes were identified through data analysis:  1)  Formation and goals; 2) Organizational barriers and challenges; 3) Southern cultural context; 4) Work with national organizations; and 5) Innovation.  Participants described the formation of their organizations (all between 2007-2009) and the key role that state-wide organizations played in providing initial support.  Participants discussed limited financial resources, “burned out” volunteers, and a lack of paid staff as major barriers to their work.  The theme of Southern cultural context as influencing their work revealed the following themes:  lack of public transportation, religion as a strength and barrier to LGBTQ organizing, a shared sense of Southern culture, and a lack of national investment in LGBTQ organizing work in the South. Relationships with national organizations seemed ambiguous, with some participants reporting that national LGBTQ organizations provided much-needed research and support, and other participants describing national organizational staff that were “out of touch” and “stereotyped the South.”  Finally, analysis of this data revealed a level of innovation regarding how organizations implement policy and use language (in particular, with use of the word “queer”).

Conclusions and Implications:  Findings suggest best practices when working with SSCs in similarly conservative and under-resourced contexts that include 1) national organizations become or strengthen their culture competence prior to forming partnerships in the South; 2) these organizations recognize the great need and strengths of the culture; and 3) organizations work to empower insiders in order to enact sustainable social change.  Social workers engaged in policy and organizing with LGBTQ youth may benefit from the experiences when work has been successful and when work has been contained in this context.