LGBTQ+ Inclusion and Support: An Analysis of Challenges and Opportunities Within 4-H.

Joseph J Rand,Sloan Okrey Anderson,Megan S Paceley,Jessica N Fish

doi:10.5195/jyd.2021.1072

Abstract

LGBTQ+ youth experience health disparities compared with heterosexual and cisgender youth. Community-based, positive youth development organizations are an important resource to support and affirm LGBTQ+ youth. This study aimed to identify the opportunities and challenges in supporting LGBTQ+ youth within 4-H. The study took place in one state in the United States within a 4-H program and employed qualitative, community-based methods using SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analyses and focus groups of 4-H staff, support staff, volunteers, and youth participants. The majority of participants were White and middle class with direct connections to the 4-H program. Thematic analyses were conducted by multiple analysts until consensus was reached. Challenges and opportunities emerged in 3 themes: (a) organizational climate; (b) policies and procedures; and (c) training, education, and resources. Two additional themes included opportunities only: (a) community engagement and (b) youth-specific resources. This study has important implications for the 4-H program, rural community practice, and research, including strategies to improve LGBTQ+ inclusivity through education, programs and policies, hiring, and community partnerships. Additionally, this study highlights the opportunity and unique positionality of the 4-H program to amplify youth voices in the creation of youth-specific resources.

Highlights

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ+) youth are both a resilient and uniquely vulnerable population (Fish et al, 2020; Russell & Fish, 2016)
With each new release of the Youth Risk Behavioral Surveillance Survey (YRBS), findings continue to highlight the profound differences in mental health, substance use, and victimization between heterosexual, cisgender youth and their LGBTQ+ peers (Johns et al, 2018, 2019)
In research on rural communities and LGBTQ+ youth, Paceley (2020) suggests that this balance is an essential step toward making changes in a community; we advocate for this balance within organizations

Summary

Introduction

Gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ+) youth are both a resilient and uniquely vulnerable population (Fish et al, 2020; Russell & Fish, 2016). When LGBTQ+ youth experience hostility based on their sexuality or gender within their community they have an increased risk of suicide (Hatzenbuehler & Keyes, 2013) These experiences with stigma and rejection help explain the differences between nonLGBTQ+ and LGBTQ+ youth mental health (Day et al, 2017; Goldbach et al, 2014; PerezBrumer et al, 2017; Russell & Fish, 2016). Family acceptance and LGBTQ+-specific school protections are associated with better mental health and less substance use among LGBTQ+ youth (Hatzenbuehler, 2009; Ryan et al, 2010; Snapp et al, 2015) This suggests that affirming and accepting environments and interpersonal networks—perhaps not surprisingly— are a necessary support for positive youth development for this population and may foster resilience in the face of adversity (e.g., Toomey et al, 2018). PYD (Benson et al, 1998; Silbereisen & Lerner, 2007)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion