LGBT & Questioning Youth:

1. LGBT & Questioning Youth: Competency in Housing and Service

2. Goals of Training • Understand the pervasiveness of oppression, even in the 21st century, and how gender, race, sexuality and class intersect. • Begin to define “competency” when working with LGBT+ youth. • Provide data regarding experiences of LGBT+ youth who have been homeless. • Provide basic information about what you can do, immediately, that will begin to address the problems faced by LGBT+ youth.

3. Limitations of Training Alone • Training often builds the competency of those participating, temporarily. • Agency culture and existing policies and procedures reinforce the status quo, which is highly resistant to change unless everyone involved (staff, volunteers, stakeholders, board) is invited to participate in addressing an issue. • Training is most effective when it is integrated into an overall agency goal, such as to build the foundation of competency in serving particular populations.

4. The Normalization of Oppression • Exercise • Discussion

5. “Competency” • What does competency mean to you, as a service provider? • What does competency mean to LGBT+ youth?

6. Assessment of LGBT Youth In San Diego (2003) • Identify the housing needs of the target population • Identify availability of and/or gaps in housing services for target population • Identify the degree of cultural awareness and sensitivity of current housing providers

7. Purpose of Needs Assessment • Confirm suspicions that LGBTQ youth were experiencing prejudicial treatment in current housing services • Confirm absence of cultural competency on the part of San Diego housing providers • Gather evidence necessary to leverage appropriate public and private funding for the project

8. Youth Participants • N=400 • Persons, between 12-24 years of age, who self-identify as GLBTQ+, and who are living outside of their home: • foster care • group homes • juvenile justice facilities • Shelters • couch surfing • on the streets or in public spaces anywhere within the area of San Diego County

9. 17% Psychiatric Diagnosis 13% Hospitalization Juvenile Justice 45% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Youth Participants-History of Risk Psychiatric

10. No Residential Placement 36% Residential Placement 64% Youth Participants-Previous Residential Services

11. Youth Participants-Reasons for Homelessness Of the youth who had been homeless: • 8% emphasized abuse as the major contributing factor to their homelessness. • 39% stated that they had been “booted out” of their home or placement because of their sexual orientation.

12. Youth Participants-Street Survival Methods

13. Findings Key Informants

14. Findings: Key Informants 20% of service providers reported that they had “never thought about” or “had no idea” how many of the youth they have served were LGBTQ+. “We never talk about it”- Service Provider

15. Findings: Key Informants 90% of respondents shared that their agency did not have a policy regarding LGBTQ+ youth “I think it goes back to that we don’t have a policy, we don’t have anything in place except for, if if comes up, we’ll try to talk to someone about it.” -Service Provider

16. Findings: Key Informants 100% of respondents shared that they had insufficient training regarding the target population

17. in their own words… “I think we should be really ashamed to be saying this, because we are social services, that we really are ignorant over what services are really out there for the gay and lesbian youth… with regards to the County themselves, I’m not sure of any programs that we actually do.” -Service Coordinator “I feel like we don’t do a good job.” -Service Provider

18. Findings: Key Informants 85% reported a general lack of knowledge about LGBTQ+ youth, commenting forcefully upon their agencies’ poor performance with the population and lack of cultural awareness

19. in their own words… “I had a young lady who came and asked for services. I guess her counselor there…almost did that deprogramming thing with her.” -Key Informant (referring to a faith-based organization)

20. Findings The Youth

21. Findings: The Youth • 100% stated that they often did not share their sexual orientation due to fear of judgment, retaliation, or refusal of services. • 74% of the youth who did disclose believed that they experienced prejudicial treatment that included harassment, and/or threats.

22. in their own words… “When I went to stay at (Name of Facility), they told me I had to stay with the boys and that I better take my dress off or the other boys…they called me a boy…would kick my ass. I did it. But they wouldn’t leave me alone anyway. I had to leave.” -Homeless 17 year old TG M to F Youth

23. Findings-Youth • LGBTQ+ youth consistently reported that they did not feel safe accessing many of the services currently available in San Diego County • Per youth report, service providers encouraged them not to disclose their sexual identity, gender status, or HIV status to other service recipients

24. Findings: Youth-Adult Discrepancies “Safety” • Many youth emphasized the need for safety • Less than 20% of key informants identified safety as a need

25. Findings: Youth-Adult Discrepancies “Safety” • Definitions of safety: • Youth: internal cultural competency of program • Key Informants: external issues, such as location, threat of harassment, or “gay bashing”.

26. in their own words… “It is unsafe (shelter), you can’t be yourself, there’s no association between them and you…you just move from one bad environment to another.” -gay male youth

27. Numbers of LGBT youth in foster care and the juvenile justice system • LGBT youth are estimated to make up 4-10% of youth population • LGBT youth are overrepresented in populations likely to be involved in state systems • High rates of violence and rejection after coming out • 25-40% of homeless youth are LGBT

28. LGBT youth: Entrance to foster care • Abuse or neglect because of SO or GI • Runaway/throwaway • Status offenses (truancy, incorrigible) • Grew up in foster care • Abuse or neglect, not related to SO or GI

29. Experiences of LGBT Youth in Foster Care • VICTIMIZED • 70% LGBTQ youth reported violence based on SO or GI while in group home • DISPLACED • 78% removed or ran away from placement because of hostility to SO or GI • SEGREGATED • Segregated from other youth of same sex • PUNISHED • Punished for expressing SO or GI • Punished for engaging in behaviors that are OK for heterosexual youth

30. Experiences of LGBT Youth in Foster Care • CRIMINALIZED • Classified as sex offenders • Arrested for engaging in age appropriate activities • PATHOLOGIZED • Subjected to reparative therapy • ISOLATED • Not allowed access to LGBT supportive programs • RESTRICTED • Not allowed to dress or groom as they prefer

31. Conclusions The needs of the LGBTQ+ homeless youth population far exceed existing service competencies and capacities.

32. Conclusions Data from existing non-LGBTQ identified youth services agencies substantiate the reality of the barriers to care experienced by youth and indicate the overwhelming need for policies, training, and dialogue regarding the needs of the LGBTQ+ youth population.

33. Basics for Creating Safety • Environment • Language • Knowledge of competent referrals

34. Environment • What environmental cues can convey competence is serving LGBT+ youth? • Forms that collect information about gender identity/expression as well as sexual or affectional orientations • Posters in your waiting room that embrace diversity • “Safe Zone” signs • Policies that explicitly prohibit discriminatory language and practices • Visible enforcement of anti-discriminatory policies • Rules that embrace gender identity/expression and sexual orientation

35. Language • According to social cognitive theory, language helps to shape our reality. • Effects of intolerant speech. • Effects of inclusive speech. • Appropriate pronouns.

36. Knowledge of Resources • Even if you create safe, competent environment within your own agency or workgroup, what do you do to ensure the safety and competency of your referral network?

37. Continuing the Dialogue • Given what we’ve covered, what do you think your responsibility is, as a service provider, in serving LGBT+ youth? • What do you think is the responsibility of your organization? • What are next steps?