Rural Sexual and Gender Minority Experiences of Housing Instability & Community Climate & Belonging

Background and Purpose: This paper examines the associations between perceived community climate and belongingness, fair housing ordinances, and fear of housing discrimination among sexual and gender minority (SGM) Kentuckians who have experienced housing instability at some point during their lifespan. Previous research demonstrates that objective and subjective community climate affects SGM population’s overall well-being (Oswald et al., 2017). This study highlights the impact of community climate on distal and proximal minority stress related to housing and community belongingness.

Methods: Survey data were collected from 121 SGM respondents living in Kentucky in 2019. Participants were recruited through in-person community events and regional SGM social media pages. The analytic sample is predominately White cisgender sexual minority individuals living in rural communities (N=113). Self-reported assessments of community climate, community size, community belongingness, and knowledge of the community’s fair housing ordinance were completed by participants. Survey responses for community assessments were dummy coded for comparisons of climate, community type, and protective policies as follows: hostile (1) or non-hostile (0); rural (1) or non-rural (0); and policy (1) or no policy (0).

Results: We utilized the full sample to compare rural versus non-rural communities in fear of housing discrimination (N = 121). An independent sample t-test showed significant differences in mean fear of housing discrimination scores for those in rural (n=108) versus non-rural communities (n=13) (t (86.617) = -2.679, p = .009), demonstrating that residents in rural communities have heightened fears of housing discrimination compared to those residing in non-rural regions. For the remaining t-test, we included only those living in rural communities. An independent sample t-test found a significant difference in the mean fear of housing discrimination scores of those who perceived their community’s climate as hostile (9.75 ± 6.20) or tolerant (6.75± 5.93) (t (48.687) = -2.17, p = .035), showing that residents in communities rated as hostile had a heightened fear of housing discrimination compared to those in non-hostile communities. Lastly, an independent sample t-test among rural participants revealed a significant difference in mean residential community belonging scores between communities with fairness (12.93 ± 4.15) and those without (10.02 ± 5.86) (t (29.941) = -2.218, p = .034) finding that SGM folks in rural communities that have adopted a fairness ordinance may feel a greater sense of belonging.

Implications: Recent federal-level policies have interpreted sex to include SGM identities as a protected class. However, municipal-level policies may have a more direct day-to-day impact on unstably housed SGM populations, particularly in informing practice and advocacy. A recent deluge of anti-SGM state-level policies has been introduced in the Southeastern U.S., including 11 anti-SGM bills in Kentucky. In communities without municipal SGM-affirming policies, unstably housed SGM populations who perceive their communities as hostile are the most vulnerable. At the local level, identifying specific community characteristics that influence SGM individuals to perceive communities as supportive can improve practice and advocacy that center the SGM community members most disenfranchised.