The Role of Lgbtqia+ Resource Availability and Engagement in Shaping Social Support Among Sexual Minority Adolescents in Rural, School, and Community Contexts

Background and Purpose: Peer, family, and community-specific social support plays a critical role in buffering the proximal and distal stressors experienced by sexual minority (SM) youth. While existing research highlights the protective effects of social support, linking it to reduced risk of sexual violence and self-harm, less attention has been paid to how these supports differ across geographic contexts and in relation to the availability, accessibility, and actual use of LGBTQIA+ specific resources. For SM youth in rural areas, social support is especially vital, showing strong associations with improved mental health and educational outcomes. Resources such as Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs), LGBTQIA+ community centers, and affirming school staff contribute to creating safer, more inclusive environments that support youth well-being. However, it remains uncertain whether the mere presence of such resources is sufficient or if active engagement is necessary to fully realize their benefits.

Methods: Using data from the Adolescent Stress Experiences over Time Study (ASETS), this study (N = 1,076) analyzed responses from a cross-sectional, national sample of SM adolescents aged 14–17 to assess perceived social support across multiple contexts using The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Key predictors included geographic location (urban vs. rural), access to and attendance at LGBTQIA+ community centers, GSA presence and participation, and the presence of LGBTQIA+ affirming school staff. Three linear regression models were conducted to analyze social support: overall, family, and friend support.

Results: Across geographic settings, the presence of at least one LGBTQIA+ supportive school staff member (β = .326, p < .001) and regular access to an LGBTQIA+ center (β = .298, p = .001) significantly predicted higher overall perceived social support (R² = .041, p < .001). SM youth of color reported lower overall perceived social support (p = .023), underscoring persistent disparities for these intersectional identities. The family-specific support model (R² = .046, p < .001) similarly identified supportive school staff (β = .256, p = .02), GSA presence (β = .168, p = .04), and LGBTQIA+ community center access (β = .487, p < .001) as significant predictors. SM youth of color reported less family support (p = .015). Friend-specific social support (R² = .023, p = .005) was significantly associated with LGBTQIA+ supportive school staff (β = .337, p = .001), though other factors, including GSA presence or attendance, were not predictive.

Conclusions and Implications: SM youth in rural settings did not report significantly lower levels of perceived social support compared to their urban peers, suggesting that affirming relationships can exist independent of geographic context or formal resource availability. Contrary to expectations, presence or participation in GSAs was only a significant predictor in one social support model, raising questions about how GSAs are implemented and utilized across different school environments. Findings reinforce the critical role of LGBTQIA+ affirming adults in schools and the importance of access to community-based support. Future work should further investigate the mechanisms by which support is accessed and perceived across geographic and sociocultural contexts.