Schools have become safe places for adolescents to explore their identity and interact with teachers, mentors and peers outside of their immediate family (Russell and Fish, 2016; Fetner and Elafros, 2015). Sexual and gender minority (i.e., LGBTQ+) youth in particular may experience school as a safe place to explore their identity and find affirmative social connections that support their identity development. However, educational settings may also be a source of trauma for LGBTQ+ youth who experience bullying and discrimination by their peers (Colvin et al., 2019). As such, school closures may allow for a relief of traumatic experiences for those affected by bullying by peers, but present a new source of trauma related to increased isolation with potentially nonaffirming family members (Fish et al., 2020). School closures related to the COVID-19 pandemic limit access to resources that LGBTQ+ youth obtain from schools. Therefore, it is important to consider mental health of LGBTQ+ youth at home and with limited access to resources. Promotion of ongoing support services for this vulnerable population in the face of school closures and subsequent school reopenning is also vital.
LGBTQ+ youth and mental health
LGBTQ+ youth experience significant mental health disparities compared to non-LGBTQ+ youth (Toomey et al., 2017). Research suggests that LGBTQ+ youth of color report more cumulative risk for negative mental health outcomes and suicide risk due to increased experiences with adverse childhood events (Craig and McInroy, 2013). Young Black and Latino males who are a part of the LBGTQ+ community in particular may experience greater mental health concerns because they may feel the need to be perceived as more masculine or conceal their sexual orientation given cultural gender roles (Fields, et.al., 2015). Moreover, many youth experience fear of disclosing their sexual orientation to family because of potential rejection (Ryan, Huebner, Diaz and Sanchez, 2009), and as a result, may be less likely to disclose their sexual orientation (Mustanski et al., 2011). In addition, data suggest that LGBTQ+ youth who experience parental rejection are six times more likely to be depressed and eight times more likely to attempt suicide than those who experience parental acceptance (Ryan, et al., 2009), emphasizing the severity of potential co-occurring trauma due to school closures.
Research also suggests that school based mental health services are more likely to be utilized by intersectionally marginalized LGBTQ+ including racial and ethnic minorities, undocumented immigrants, and those experiencing financial hardship (Golberstein et al., 2020). Therefore, school closures may be especially grave for those LGBTQ+ youth who rely on schools for mental health support.
Quarantine measures & LGBTQ+ youth
COVID-19 related school closures produce additional limitations on resources, space and supportive networks available to LGBTQ + youth compared to the heteronormative population. LGBTQ+ youth, and those of racial minorities, are significantly more likely to live in group homes, shelters and foster care where their identity may or may not be accepted. Furthermore, they are more likely to experience homelessness due to family rejection and other factors (Choi et al., 2015).
Likewise, LGBTQ+ youth are more likely to experience repeated trauma related to homophobic remarks, being misgendered, and physical and emotional abuse compared to their heterosexual counterparts in many social contexts such as school and home (Choi et al., 2015; Russell et al., 2018). In recent research of LGBTQ+ youth and their reactions to social distancing measures, Fish and colleagues (2020) found that LGBTQ+ youth express concern about being “stuck at home with unsupportive parents” who may express religious ideals and homophobic beliefs that result in discomfort for this population when at home (p. 2). The current pandemic adds layers to existing trauma as LGBTQ+ youth are likely to be quarantined with the individuals who may engage in this behavior both intentionally and unintentionally.
Schools and LGBTQ+ youth: Safety vs. trauma
It is important to acknowledge that although educational settings can provide a sense of safety for sexual minority youth, they can also serve as a locale for trauma. That is, on one hand, schools can be major source of resources and positive experiences including affirming adults, supportive peers and freedom of self-expression, while on the other hand, school can be a central locale of bullying and trauma faced by LGBTQ+ youth. A recent survey pertaining to LGBTQ+ youth of color (Zongrone et al., 2020) indicates that many students experience harassment or assault at school on the basis of personal characteristics including sexual orientation (69.2%), gender expression (60.2%) and race/ethnicity (49.5%). Furthermore, they found that those who face increased victimization based on sexual orientation at school are more likely to skip school and less likely to obtain a four-year degree.
Moreover, a majority of LGBTQ+ youth who experience harassment and assault in school are unlikely to report victimization to school authorities because of beliefs that staff would not engage in action to rectify the issues (Greytak et al., 2016). This is not a surprise given that less than one third of teachers report receiving training on LGBT issues, and do not feel comfortable working with LGBTQ+ students who have experienced harassment and assault (Greytak et al., 2016). Thus, a majority of teachers are not trained to create a safe and inclusive environment for LGBTQ+ youth and are likely to have difficulty creating such a space in a virtual setting among pandemic related school closures.
Although LGBTQ+ youth report negative experiences at school such as bullying (Moyano and Del Mar Sanchez-Fuentes, 2020) and lack of adequate staff intervention to prevent victimization, educational institutions can also be a source of positive experiences and support. Schools can provide resources that benefit LGBTQ+ youth including protective factors such as social connection, supportive educators, inclusive curricula and in school programming (Fetner and Elafros, 2015), as well as school-based mental health providers. Supportive school environments and presence of affirming personnel are associated with lower anxiety and depressive symptoms among LGBTQ+ youth (Colvin et al., 2019). Research has examined school climate and student wellbeing in schools with and without LGBTQ+ supportive structures such as “Gay Straight Alliances” or “Gender and Sexuality Alliances” (GSA’s) and findings indicate that schools with GSA’s promote mental health and wellbeing of LGBTQ+ students by increasing the amount of perceived support from educators and increasing the size and quality of friendship groups between LGBTQ+ youth and their classmates (Fetner and Elafros, 2015). The current pandemic resulting in school closures creates barriers in accessing these benefits.
Best practices in education and recommendations
In light of this limited access to organizational resources, schools are tasked with identifying, promoting or even facilitating supportive and affirming programs that bolster the mental and emotional wellbeing of LGBTQ+ students. LGBT young people view online spaces as safe places to receive support from friends (Greytak et al., 2016) and report that the Internet is sometimes a safer place for them to socialize than in-person (Hillier and Harrison, 2007). In fact, sexual minority youth are more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to have friends they only know through online forums, and to rate these friendships as more supportive than their in-person friendships (Hillier and Harrison, 2007), suggesting that the Internet can be a safe haven for some LGBTQ+ youth. As such, utilizing virtual platforms to validate and normalize experiences of LGBTQ+ youth and provide affirmative resources and counseling options is strongly encouraged. In addition, collaborating with school-based health centers and community programs to provide a breath of necessary services is recommended.
Significant challenges in provision of such supportive services include issues of confidentiality and “coming out” to family, lack of family support of identity exploration or psychoeducation on LGBTQ+ topics, and even increased risk for negative mental health outcomes during quarantine contexts. Youth may decide not to disclose their identities to family for safety reasons. In this case, educators and providers can promote wellbeing of LGBTQ+ youth in several ways. For instance, it is important to continue to validate LGBTQ+ identity and their decision to not disclose their sexual orientation to family. One best practice in affirmative care is for educators and providers to keep a spreadsheet of the young person's preferred name, personal pronouns (i.e., she, he they, zir, etc), and the name to use when communicating with parents or guardians. Such interventions allow educators and providers to be affirming, while keeping important information confidential, and avoid outing youth to parents or guardians. Encouraging LGBTQ+ youth to set and maintain interpersonal boundaries such as avoiding discussions on contentious topics (i.e., LGBTQ+ rights, etc), or promoting self-care strategies is also helpful.
Furthermore, helping LGBTQ+ youth identify spaces, both physical and virtual, where they may feel safe being their authentic self and exploring their identity—such as watching movies or reading books with LGBTQ+ themes, or joining online forums supporting the LGBTQ+ community—can be beneficial. Educators and mental health professionals are encouraged to consider text-based platforms as an additional tool to reach out to LGBTQ youth that may have concerns about being overheard or “outed” to family members (Fish et al., 2020). Such interaction would allow LGBTQ youth living in unsupportive homes an opportunity to express themselves without the fear that they will be ostracized by family members.
Along with identifying current means of safe identity exploration and LGBT affirmative interaction with others, educators and providers are encouraged to reassure LGBTQ+ youth that quarantine and social distancing measures are temporary to promote hope for a future sense of safety. All those supporting LGBTQ+ youth are encouraged to be aware of measures of safety planning and community resources available to individuals who are at serious physical and emotional risk due to quarantine measures.
Youth in general, and especially marginalized populations such as LGBTQ+ youth, benefit from having supportive adults and mentors in their life. Identity development continues in times of global crisis and therefore, schools are encouraged to continue to find ways to promote healthy identity exploration and create affirmative environments for LGBTQ+ youth.
Conclusion
Pandemic-related school closures have impacted the lives of all students; however, the authors argue that LGBTQ+ youth may be subject to unique effects of school closure. These effects include but are not limited to loss of identity affirming spaces and adults, potential for increased stress related to family rejection, and lack of peer support such as GSAs and other LGBTQ+ affirming groups. Mental health professionals and educators alike working with gender and sexual minority youth are encouraged to educate themselves on pandemic related effects for this marginalized population and employ best practices to improve mental health and foster identity development whenever possible.
References
Choi, S.K., Wilson, B.D.M., Shelton, J. and Gates, G. (2015). Serving our youth 2015: The needs and experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth experiencing homelessness. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute with True Colors Fund.
Colvin, S., Egan, J. E. and Coulter, R. (2019). School climate & sexual and gender minority adolescent mental health. Journal of youth and adolescence, 48, 1938–1951. DOI: 10.1007/s10964-019-01108-w
Craig S.L. and McInroy, L (2013). The relationship of cumulative stressors, chronic illness and abuse to the self- reported suicide risk of Black and Hispanic sexual minority youth. Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 783–798. DOI: 10.1002/jcop.21570
Fetner, T. and Elafros, A. (2015). The GSA difference: LGBTQ and ally experiences in high schools with and without gay-straight alliances. Social Sciences, 4, 563-581. DOI: 10.3390/socsci4030563opens in new window
Fields, E.L., Bogart, L.M., Smith, K.C., Malebranche, D.J., Ellen, J. and Schuster M.A. (2015) .“I always felt I had to prove my manhood:” Homosexuality, masculinity, gender role strain, and HIV risk among young Black men who have sex with men. American Journal of Public Health, 105, 122–131. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301866
Fish, J.N., McInroy, L.B., Paceley, M.S., Williams, N.D., Henderson, S., Levine, D.S. and Edsal, R. N. (2020). “I’m kinda stuck at home with unsupportive parents right now:” LGBTQ youths’ experiences with COFIC-19 and the importance of online support. Journal of Adolescent Health (article in press). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.06.002.
Greytak, E.A., Kosciw, J.G., Villenas, C. and Giga, N.M. (2016). From teasing to torment: School climate revisited: A survey of U.S. secondary school students and teachers. New York: GLSEN.
Golberstein, E., Wen, H. and Miller, B. F. (2020). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19 and mental health for children and adolescents. JAMA Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.1456opens in new window
Hillier, L. and Harrison, L. (2007). Building realities less limited than their own: Young people practising same-sex attraction on the internet. Sexualities, 10, 82-100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460707072956opens in new window
Moyano, N. and Del Mar Sanchez-Fuente, M. (2020). Homophobic bullying at schools: A systematic review of research, prevalence, school related predictors and consequences. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 53. DOI: 10.1016/j.avb.2020.101441opens in new window
Mustanski, B., Newcomb, M.E. and Garofalo, R. (2011). Mental health of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: A developmental resiliency perspective. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 23, 204–225. DOI: 10.1080/10538720.2011.561474
Russell, S. T. and Fish, J. N. (2016). Mental health in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth. Annual review of clinical psychology, 12, 465-487. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093153
Russell, S. T., Pollitt, A. M., Li, G., Grossman, A. H. (2018). Chosen name use is linked to reduced depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation, and suicidal behavior among trangender youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 63, 503-505. DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.02.003
Ryan, C., Huebner, D., Diaz, R.M. and Sanchez, J. (2009). Family rejection as a predictor of negative health outcomes in White and Latino lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults. Pediatrics, 123, 346–352. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2007-3524
Toomey, R.B., Huynh, V.W., Jones, S.K., Lee, S. and Revels-Macalinao, M (2017). Sexual minority youth of color: A content analysis and critical review of the literature. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health, 21, 1, 3-31. doi:10.1080/19359705.2016.1217499.
Zongrone, A.D., Truong, N.L. and Kosciw, J. G. (2020). Erasure and resilience: The experiences of LGBTQ students of color, Latinx LGBTQ youth in U.S. schools. New York: GLSEN.