Assessing Lgbtq-Inclusive and Affirming Practices in Homeless Youth Programs

Background: Service access and acquisition are often complex and sometimes dangerous for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) young people experiencing homelessness, who frequently face stigma and discrimination and contend with systemic barriers including sex segregated programs and institutional practices that deny their own understanding and articulation of their identities. Though at high risk of violence and negative physical and behavioral health outcomes, LGBT youth experiencing homelessness may be less likely to seek services for these reasons. The True Inclusion Assessment was developed to assist homeless youth service providers in creating and maintaining safe and inclusive spaces for LGBT youth in their care. This study utilized secondary data collected from homeless youth serving organizations via the True Inclusion Assessment to 1.) assess the existence of LGBT-inclusive policies, practices, and programming, and 2.) examine the impact of these policies, practices, and programming on staff reported knowledge about LGBT topics and comfort working with LGBT youth.

Methods: Surveys were developed based on existing tools and feedback from service providers and formerly homeless LGBT youth. Two surveys were distributed via Survey Monkey to 7 organizations seeking technical assistance to improve their care of LGBT youth – the first to assess organizational level policies and practices and the second to assess individual staff knowledge and comfort level.  Organizations spanned a variety of geographic locations, including urban and suburban locales. The final sample included 207 individual staff members from 7 organizations. The organizational survey assessed the physical environment, policies, programming, and training. The staff level survey assessed individual staff knowledge (i.e., gender identity development, sexual health) and comfort working with LGBT youth (discussing specific topics, asking about pronouns) and actively challenging bias within the organization.

Findings: Findings revealed inconsistencies between the organizational reports and staff reports, including varied information regarding the percentage of LGBT homeless youth served. Key findings at the organizational level include: 1) client information regarding gender/sexual identity is rarely collected at intake; 2) a need for LGBT competency training exists (3 of the agencies scored 0 out of 6 indicators); 3) agencies perceive their environments to be affirming of LGBT youth in spite of having no documented policies or specific programming for addressing the unique needs of LGBT youth. Key findings at the staff level include: 1) a need for formal training - staff reporting the most knowledge also reported more comfort in their interactions with LGBT youth; 2) lack of staff level knowledge about existing policies related to LGBT youth and community based resources for LGBT youth; 3) mental health professionals, case managers and residential staff were more knowledgeable and comfortable in topics related to LGBT youth.

Conclusion/Implications: Findings reveal a need for organizations to develop policies that are more supportive of LGBT youth, to communicate these policies to staff, and to offer training in best practices for working with LGBT youth experiencing homelessness. Further research is needed to operationalize LGBT affirming environments so these environments can be intentionally created in homeless youth serving programs.