Serving Sexual Minority Youth in Groups: Social Justice in Practice?

1. Serving Sexual Minority Youth in Groups: Social Justice in Practice? Shelley L. Craig, PhD, LCSW, RSW University of Toronto, Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, Canada Mark S. Smith, PhD, LCSW. Barry University, Miami Shores, FL. Michael Dentato, PhD Loyola University, Chicago, IL.

2. Purpose • This mixed method study sought to identify the effects of school-based groups on sexual minority youth (SMY) self-esteem and self-efficacy, as well as social work providers’ experiences of delivering groups.

3. ”Being part of this group didn’t just change my life, it saved my life” • 16 year old lesbian student, Central High School, Miami, Florida

4. Sexual Minority Youth: Discrimation • Discrimination against SMY is a major human rights issue recognized by professional social work organizations, such as NASW and IASWR, as well as civil rights groups like Amnesty International. • SMY experience extensive victimization in school (Poteat, Espelage, & Green, 2007) ranging from social isolation to physical assault and is considered so widespread that Human Rights Watch (2001) labels it “endemic.” • Such discrimination is experienced by 90% of SMY and contributes to increased depression, suicidality, and poor school outcomes (Kosicow et al., 2009).

5. SMY and School-Based Support Groups • Since youth are 21 times more likely to access school based services, and SMY also regularly seek help from school personnel (Kilman, 2007), schools are at the forefront of this battle. • YET • Unlike many other vulnerable populations, groups for SMY are not frequently offered in schools and when they are, they are often precariously perched within the structure and funded and staffed by outside (usually GLBT) organizations.

6. School-Based Support Groups • As support groups for SMY have been shown to promote social engagement, collective action, mutual aid, social learning, enhance self-esteem, and prevent high-risk behaviors (Walls, Kane, & Wisneski, 2008), school based groups are well suited to address victimization and positively enhance SMY functioning on multiple levels.

7. School-Based Support Groups • Focuses on affirming youths’ identities • Supports youth in defining themselves • Supports youth in identifying homophobic forces in their lives • Considers problems in context of the homophobia & discrimination that youth experience • Access to role models that are GLBTQ or allies • Despite this there really are no “evidence based” group models for SMY

8. Methods • Participants: SMY (n=120) participated in groups delivered at urban schools in Miami, Florida. • Intervention: Groups lasted for 8-10 (45 minute) sessions, had 1-2 SW facilitators with youth directed themes (coming out, stress management) addressed. • Measures: Demographic, self-efficacy (Schwarzer, 1993) and self-esteem measures (Rosenberg, 1989) were used. • Analysis: Quantitative: General linear modeling tested SMY changes over time. • Qualitative: Key Informant interviews with providers generated themes using grounded theory.

9. Quantitative: Youth Outcomes • The majority of participants identified as female (54%), Latino (66%) or African-American/Haitian (32%) and bisexual (39%) or lesbian (37%) with a mean age of 16. • Both self-esteem and self efficacy were significantly improved after group experiences. • For self esteemthe ANOVA indicated a significant main effect across all groups, Wilks’ λ = 0.964, F (2,216) = 8.168, p = .005, multivariate η2=.04 • For self-efficacy the ANOVA indicated a significant effect across all groups, Wilks’ λ = 0. 955, F (2,221) = 10.465, p = .001, multivariate η2 =.05.

10. Qualitative Themes: Facilitators Perspectives • Groups generated empowerment through the sharing of experiences (youth were more likely to challenge their problems). • Increased social functioning (youth became more outwardly supportive of one another and concerned when a member was missing or experiencing stress). • and problem solving (youth jumped in to offer advice or tangible assistance to one another in and out of the group sessions).

11. Qualitative Themes: Challenges • Stigmatization by school staff • Both straight and GLBT facilitators were asked by school personnel why they were trying to “recruit” youth for their team. • Misunderstood professional identities • “it was never about social work or vulnerable kids at all. It was always questions about sex or why we needed to have groups for these kids at all”

12. Qualitative Themes: Structural Challenges • Juggling advocacy with group delivery • “If one administrative person changed we had to re-advocate for why there should be a group for these kids, often fill out so much more paperwork for groups and sometimes they would suspend the groups, not give us even the tiniest office or not allow the kids to get passes out of class to attend groups while they “researched us”. Other groups did not deal with that at all” • “I learned how to run a support group in my MSW but I never thought that I would have to fight to get a school to let me provide one for free. By the time I was ready to facilitate the group, I was exhausted”

13. Clinical Strategies • Use groups to: • Educate: • debunk harmful myths re: sexual and gender minority identities • counter negative stereotypes • Enhance coping skills • Manage stress • Maintain safety & promote health • Practice self-disclosure (if they so desire) • Help youth take into account multiple forms of oppression & categories of difference • Groupsfound to be particularly significant for gay & gender non-conforming Black male youth in urban schools(Talburt, 2004)

14. Strategies to minimize barriers Build social capital/relationships within the school • network with everyone you possibly can • volunteer to help with a project • speak to the parent teachers group • try to work with the paraprofessional workers (security guards have a lot of power over students lives) Be available and open to ridiculous questions Infuse narratives of the risks the youth experience into all of your conversations Generate evidence for the effectiveness of the groups (multiple methods are the most powerful)

15. Conclusion • School-based groups are an effective response to the discrimination experienced by SMY, and comprise a social justice initiative by impacting equitable service access.

16. Thank You! • Shelley L. Craig, PhD, LCSW, RSW • Assistant Professor • Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work • University of Toronto • Shelley.craig@utoronto.ca • Special gratitude to the amazing youth and staff from the Alliance for GLBTQ Youth in Miami, Florida.