Sayward Harrison, Ph.D. & Lauren Pierce, M.A., S.S.P. Needs Assessment for School Support Staff Serving LGBTQ Youth Sayward Harrison, Ph.D. & Lauren Pierce, M.A., S.S.P. ABSTRACT RISK FACTORS FOR LGBTQ YOUTH RESULTS AND SUMMARY A needs assessment was developed to examine the knowledge, training, and experience of student service providers in serving Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and/or Questioning (LGBTQ) youth. Participants consisted of 157 school counselors, school psychologists, and school social workers employed by a large, urban school district in the Southeast. While providers recognized the need for greater awareness and training in working with LGBTQ youth, they also identified a number of perceived barriers and lacked knowledge of resources and supports for this population. . LGBTQ youth face increased risk for a variety of negative outcomes, and are at higher risk than their heterosexual counterparts for experiencing harassment and discrimination, as well as negative social-emotional and academic outcomes4, 5, 6. In a national survey of over 7,000 LGBTQ students, 85% reported being verbally harassed while at school, 40% reported being physically harassed, and 19% reported being physically assaulted within the past year as a result of their sexual orientation1 Of these students, 62% did not report the incident to a teacher or administrator because they believed no action would take place or the situation would worsen. Of the students who did report, over one-third indicated that the schools took no action in response to the harassment. Bullying and harassment can cause students to feel unsafe at school, and ultimately may lead to higher rates of absenteeism. In fact, in a national school climate survey, nearly one-third of LGBTQ students reported that in the past month they had skipped at least one day of school because of safety concerns1. Frequently harassed LGBTQ youth reported grade point averages that are almost a half a grade lower than those who did not experience frequent harassment. Increased victimization is also linked with higher levels of mental health problems, including depression and anxiety, and lower levels of self-esteem. Awareness of Risk Factors The vast majority of student service providers recognized that LGBTQ youth are at increased risk for a number of negative outcomes including suicide attempts, harassment, physical assault, and mental health disorders. Fewer providers were aware that LGBTQ youth face also increased risk of acquiring STDs including HIV, experiencing homelessness, using alcohol and marijuana, experiencing declining school performance over time, being truant, and dropping out of school. Barriers to Service Provision Service providers endorsed several barriers to providing services to LGBTQ youth: Knowledge of Policies 25% of student service providers were not sure if LGBTQ youth are protected by the district’s bullying policy 44% of providers reported that they do not know if their school’s bullying program specifically addresses LGBTQ students 76% of providers indicated there is a need for greater awareness of LGBTQ issues in the district 28% of providers reported that they were unaware of any organizations in the county which specifically provide services to LGBTQ youth 27% were not sure if their own schools had organizations for LGBTQ youth Primary versus Secondary Differences Secondary school service providers (i.e., serve middle and high schools) reported that they feel significantly (p < .05) more competent in providing services to LGBTQ youth than providers who work solely with primary students and reported significantly more experience in serving these students, including intervening in harassment, providing counseling for mental health issues, conducting suicide interventions, identifying themselves as an ally, and providing LGBTQ resources to students and parents. When compared to heterosexual youth, do you believe LGBTQ youth are more or less likely to… SCHOOLS’ ROLE IN SERVING LGBTQ YOUTH ACQUIRE AN STD (INCLUDING HIV)? ATTEMPT SUICIDE? DROP OUT OF SCHOOL? The presence of supportive school staff is linked with a number of positive outcomes for LGBTQ students, including fewer missed days of school, fewer reports of feeling unsafe, increased academic achievement, higher educational aspirations, and a greater sense of overall “school belonging”1. Schools with anti-bullying policies that include protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity/expression have students who report hearing fewer homophobic remarks, experiencing lower levels of victimization, and viewing staff as more likely to intervene with harassment1. Many educational systems currently lack the appropriate resources and supports to create a safe school environment for LGBTQ youth, and there is often inconsistent educator participation in creating supportive school environments2.  Without proper staff development, teacher interpretation and enforcement of school policies designed to create safe climates for LGBTQ youth may be confounded by personal experiences or perceptions2.  PROCEDURE A 68-item multiple choice needs assessment was created in order to assess the knowledge and experience of providers in working with LGBTQ youth. Participants were surveyed regarding their: 1) Awareness of the LGBTQ population, 2) Knowledge of risk factors for LGBTQ students, 3) Personal perceptions towards LGBTQ issues, 4) Experience serving LGBTQ students, 5) Perceived barriers to serving LGBTQ youth, 6) Willingness to participate in a related professional development program, 7) Awareness of LGBTQ supports within the school and community, and 8) Knowledge of district policies, including anti-bullying policies. Researchers received permission to survey full- and part-time school counselors, school psychologists, and school social workers from a large, urban school district in the Southeastern U.S. regarding their knowledge and experience in working with LGBTQ youth. Participation was voluntary and confidential. Researchers attended staff meetings for these service providers to introduce and administer the needs assessment. After completing the survey, participants received a debriefing letter which included resources related to LGBTQ youth. PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT STUDY Youth who identify as LGBTQ face increased risk for a variety of negative outcomes and are at higher risk than their heterosexual counterparts for experiencing harassment and discrimination, as well as negative social-emotional and academic outcomes.4,5,6 However, the presence of supportive school staff is linked with a number of positive outcomes for LGBTQ youth, including fewer missed days of school, fewer reports of feeling unsafe, increased academic achievement, higher educational aspirations, and a greater sense of overall “school belonging”.7 (Kosciw, Greytak, Diaz, & Bartkiewicz, 2009). An initial step in educating staff members and ultimately improving outcomes for LGBTQ students is to determine the knowledge base and needs of student service providers who may often work directly with this population. The present study involved the creation of a needs assessment designed to identify the knowledge , training, and experience of student support staff in working with LGBTQ youth. Ultimately the results of this study will facilitate the creation of professional development programs for the district’s counselors, psychologists, nurses, and social workers, in order to assist them in better supporting LGBTQ youth. The findings from this study will also foster the creation of support systems and programs within the district that aim to establish a positive and safe school climate for LGBTQ youth. DEMOGRAPHICS 157 total participants: 67 school counselors (43%) 46 school psychologists (29%) 44 school social workers (28%) Gender: Female – 89% Male – 11% Schools Served: Ethnicity: Caucasian – 58% African-American – 39% Multi-racial – 2% Asian – 1% Educational Degrees: Bachelor’s (6%) Master’s (62%) Specialist (28% Doctoral (5%) REFERENCES Identify as LGBTQ: No – 95.9% Yes – 4.5% Prefer not to Answer – 0.6% LGBTQ Friend or Relative: Yes – 64% No – 36%   1 Kosciw, Greytak, Diaz, & Bartkiewicz, 2009; 2 Anagnostopoulos et al., 2009; 3 Payne & Smith, 2011; 4 Bontempo & D’Augelli, 2002; 5 D’Augelli, 2006; 6 Ryan & Futterman, 1998; 7 Kosciw, Greytak, Diaz, & Bartkiewicz, 2009