Social Networks of LGBTQ+ Young Adults Experiencing Homelessness

Background/Purpose: Research suggests that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ+) individuals constitute 40% of the population of young adults experiencing homelessness (YAEH) and are more than twice as likely to experience homelessness than their non-LGBTQ+ peers. Yet, few studies have examined the social capital and social networks of this population. This is important, as homelessness disrupts existing social networks and increases psychological distress. Social capital is vital for positive mental and physical health outcomes for YAEH; however, the social networks of YAEH, particularly those who identify as LGBTQ+, remain understudied. Informed by social capital theory, this study examined a) social support core network composition for LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ YAEH and b) factors associated with having any social support core network members among LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ YAEH.

Methods: The study sample included a subset (n=1,292) of YAEH (age 18-26) who participated in a larger 7-city cross-sectional study, which employed the Homeless Youth Risk and Resilience Survey (HYRRS). Analyses included chi-square tests and logistic regression on LGBTQ+ (n=403) and non-LGBTQ+ (n=889) samples separately. Any correlate that was significantly associated with having any social support members in one sample and not the other, was tested as an interaction term (with LGBTQ+ status) on the full sample.

Results: Significant chi-square tests indicated that more LGBTQ+ YAEH, compared to non-LGBTQ+ YAEH, reported having any social support (81.88% vs. 76.96%) and were more likely to have any social support from homebased friends (24.47% vs. 19.29%), street-based friends (26.12% vs. 18.25%), and partners (30.59% vs. 20.65%). LGBTQ+ YAEH were also more likely to report three or more social network supports (54.12% vs. 45.78%). The mean number of social network members providing social support for LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ YAEH was 2.7 (SD=1.80) and 2.4 (SD=1.82) respectively.

Within the LGBTQ+ sample, variables significantly associated with having any social support members included: any childhood abuse or neglect (OR=4.14, p<.001), current homelessness episode lasting more than one year (OR=0.34, p<.01), and having any network member who is a relative (OR=2.99, p<.01) or friend (OR=2.21, p<.05). Within the non-LGBTQ+ sample, the following factors were significantly associated with having any social support members: any street victimization, (OR=1.47, p<.05), a lifetime diagnosis of mental illness (OR=1.86, p<.01), and current PTSD (PHQ-9 score) (OR=2.61, p<.001). The interaction effect of any childhood abuse or neglect with LGBTQ+ status was significant (OR=2.95, p<.01) in the full sample, such that LGBTQ+ YAEH with a history of abuse/neglect had 62% greater odds of having any social support members compared to non-LGBTQ+ YAEH with an abuse history.

Conclusions/Implications: This study explores variation in social capital among LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ YAEH. Social capital varied across these subpopulations, with LGBTQ+ YAEH facing greater odds of having any social support across all YAEH with histories of abuse or neglect. Perceived need for support and chosen family (Weston, 1997) among LGBTQ+ groups may help explain these findings. Further research is needed to assess differences in social capital and test interventions that prioritize the unique needs and build upon the strengths of LGBTQ+ YAEH.