Community Coping and Help-Seeking in Lgbtqia+ Youth: The Role of State-Level Policy Environments

Background: LGBTQIA+ adolescents experience intimate partner violence (IPV) at higher rates than their cisgender-heterosexual peers. Despite heightened vulnerability, they experience more barriers to accessing support following IPV victimization due to various intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional factors. While some research has explored how urbanicity and geographic context are associated with LGBTQIA+ wellbeing, the connection between IPV victimization, help-seeking behaviors, and state-level LGBTQIA+ policy environments remain understudied. Given the increasing number of restrictive policies targeting LGBTQIA+ populations, there is a critical need to investigate how these policy climates may shape help-seeking behavior among LGBTQIA+ adolescents who experience IPV.

Methods:
The sample consisted of American youth ages 13-17 who identified as LGBTQIA+. Participants received gift cards for completing the survey. Items from the IPV GBM were adapted for a broad LGBTQIA+ youth audience as well as items on LGBTQ Coping developed by the study team. State policy environments were assessed using the Movement Advancement Project (MAP) overall tally scores. MAP calculates a state’s overall policy tally by summing up scores for over 50 LGBTQ-related laws, marking protective as positive and harmful as negative. MAP scorecards from May 2023 to November 2024 were retrieved and standardized relative to the maximum possible at each timepoint, and categorized as High, Medium, Fair, Low, or Negative. Participant survey data were then time-matched with MAP scores to ensure accuracy between survey response dates and state policy climates. Multinomial logistic regression determined differences in help-seeking by state policy categorization.

Results:

State LGBTQ+ policy climate was significantly associated with several forms of community-based coping. Compared to participants in “High” policy states, those in “Negative” states had higher odds of reporting never spending time with the LGBTQ+ community (OR = 2.65, p < .001) and lower odds of attending Pride events (OR = 0.53, p < .001). Participation in LGBTQ+ clubs was significantly lower among those in “Negative” (OR = 0.30, p < .001) and “Low” policy states (OR = 0.32, p < .001). Seeking new knowledge or using online resources was not significantly associated with policy climate. While most IPV-related outcomes showed no policy effect, participants in “Low” policy states had higher odds of receiving services for IPV (OR = 2.60, p = .032).

Conclusion:

Findings suggest that state policy climates significantly influence some forms of community-based coping but have a mixed or limited impact on help-seeking behaviors related to IPV victimization. Anti-LGBTQIA+ policy environments might contribute to a lack of access to affirming spaces and participation in LGBTQIA+ related activities, such as attendance at Pride events or involvement in LGBTQIA+ clubs. These results demonstrate the importance of affirming policies; aside from providing legal protections, they enable access to community care, a possible protective factor for this vulnerable population. While there were no significant differences in utilizing online resources across policy climates, future research may investigate how the internet serves as an accessible resource for those who have experienced IPV victimization and live in states with increasingly restrictive policies with a lack of in-person, identity-specific resources addressing their needs.