What Makes a Community Supportive? Sgm Youth's Perceptions of Community Strengths

Background: Sexual and gender minority (SGM) youth in small towns may be at risk of stigma and victimization leading to poor well-being (Burton et al., 2013; D’Augelli et al., 2007; Gray, 2007; Rosario et al., 2006). Research on rural communities and SGM populations has primarily taken a deficit approach, describing the negative experiences of SGM people in small towns, with a few exceptions (see Gray, 2007; Oswald & Culton, 2003). However, research also suggests that community-level support can mitigate negative outcomes SGM youth experience (Saltzburg & Locke, 2010), yet we know little about what factors SGM youth believe make a community supportive. Community climate is one conceptualization of community-level support or hostility experienced by SGM people (Oswald et al., 2010). While hostile climates are associated with greater suicide attempts among SGM youth, supportive climates, particularly religious support, is associated with fewer symptoms of alcohol abuse and fewer sexual partners (Olson et al., 2006). Drawing on a social work strengths perspective, this study aimed to understand the specific factors that SGM youth perceive as making communities supportive to SGM people. 

Methods: In-depth interviews were conducted with SGM youth (ages 14-18, M=16) across rural and small towns in one Midwestern state. Participants (N=34) were recruited using purposive sampling via fliers, referral, and social media advertisements. Youth were majority White (64%), cisgender female (53%), and bisexual or pansexual (64%). 21% of participants identified as transgender or questioning. Interview questions assessed youth’s perception of community climate toward SGM people, the factors that made their communities supportive or hostile, and their ideas about what would make their community more supportive toward SGM people. Multiple analysts engaged in an iterative coding process involving open, axial, and selective coding to develop and refine coding categories and ensure consistency with the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

Results: Findings revealed four major categories that youth linked to communities being supportive of SGM people: supportive people, resources and education, visibility, and policies. Supportive people included being open to talking about SGM people and issues and community members standing up for SGM rights and equity. Resources and education included the presence of SGM supportive organizations and groups such as SGM community centers and SGM-specific training for school counselors and other professionals. Visibility encompassed youth seeing signs of SGM support in their community such as rainbow flags or ally stickers. Additionally, youth expressed that a supportive community has out SGM people who are visible to youth. Finally, youth indicated that a supportive community would have pro-SGM policies such as SGM-inclusive non-discrimination policies and gender neutral restrooms, reflecting just and equitable treatment of SGM people.

Conclusions and Implications: These findings reveal important potential strengths of rural communities and how they can be harnessed to promote the well-being and equity of SGM youth. Future research should test the associations between these factors and SGM youth well-being. Practice and policy implications directly map onto the findings and indicate ways in which social workers can intervene at the community level to promote well-being.