Do Anti-Bullying Laws Reduce in-School Victimization and Fear-Based Absenteeism for LGBQ Youth?

Background/Purpose: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning (LGBQ) youth are more likely than heterosexual youth to experience in-school victimization, including bullying, harassment, and physical violence. Research demonstrates that state anti-bullying laws (ABLs), now present across the U.S., help reduce victimization among general populations of students. Enumerated ABLs that include sexual orientation as a protected class exist in 19 states, with the intended purpose of protecting LGBQ students. Yet, research about ABLs’ effects on LGBQ students tends to have serious methodological limitations (e.g., convenience samples).

The present study uses Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) data from 2005-2015 alongside state policy data to study whether the presence of general or enumerated ABLs decrease risks for victimization and fear-based absenteeism among LGBQ high school students. Our first hypothesis is that presence of either general or enumerated ABLs will predict lower victimization of LGBQ students. Based on past research, our second hypothesis is that ABLs’ impact will be stronger for younger LGBQ students and for GBQ boys.

Methods: This study involves secondary data analysis using difference-in-difference regression models. The primary source of data, the state YRBS, is a biennial survey of public high school students that uses complex sampling and has weighted data that is generalizable to U.S. public high school students. We analyze data from 22 states that asked the sexual identity question at least once during 2005-2015. We focus on three outcome variables: bullying victimization (past year), skipping school due to fear (past month), and being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property (past year); we also include student age, sex, and sexual identity (LGBQ or heterosexual) as demographic variables. For our ABL variables, we gathered public data indicating when, if ever, each state implemented each type of ABL. We also include year effects and several state-specific, time varying controls to account for linear time trends by state, with a multiplicative interaction term (LGBQ x ABL) to capture the effect of ABLs for LGBQ students.

Results: Unlike hypothesized, neither type of ABL had a significant impact on outcomes for LGBQ youth overall. However, for our second hypothesis, we found differences when examining policy impact by student sex and age. As hypothesized, among GBQ boys aged 15 or younger, those living in a state with a general ABL experienced 16% less bullying (p<.05), 9% less fear-based absenteeism (p<.05), and 17% fewer experiences of being threatened or injured in school (p<.05), while those in a state with an enumerated ABL experienced 12% less bullying (p<.01). Among GBQ boys 16 and older, presence of a general ABL predicted 17% less bullying (p<.05) and an enumerated ABL predicted 4% less fear-based absenteeism (p<.05). Neither type of ABL had an impact for LBQ girls, including younger girls, the latter of which was contrary to our hypothesis.

Conclusions/Implications: State ABLs predict less in-school victimization and fear-based absenteeism for GBQ boys, especially younger boys. This presentation will identify implications for social work practice and research, as well as discuss possible reasons for the non-significant results for LGBQ girls.