1. Lessons from School: LGB Students
& the Oregon Healthy Teens Survey
Del Quest, LCSW
Ben Anderson-Nathe, PhD

2. Purpose
 Literature reveals that LGB youth face significant relational
challenges at school and elsewhere.
 OHT asks self-identified sexual orientation in the 11th grade
survey.
 Understanding how LGB youth report relational factors (self-
concept, emotional health, safety, and sexual/intimate
behavior) differently from straight peers gives a snapshot of
how adults can help.
 Circle of Courage provides a framework to contextualize and
support youth.

3. Presentation Overview
 Wisdom from research and practice
 Theoretical foundation (Circle of Courage)
 OHT context and content
 Methods
 Findings
 Implications for practice

4. What do we already know?
 LGB youth face ridicule from teachers, violent
harassment from peers, and administrators’ refusal
to enforce anti-bullying protocols (van Wormer &
McKinney, 2003)
 Anti-gay harassment and bullying at school
contribute to academic, social, and emotional
problems for LGB students (Fisher, et al., 2008)
 LGB youth are often emotional distressed, evaluate
themselves negatively, or withdraw to avoid
disapproval and rejection (Wilkinson & Pearson, 2009)

5. What we know, cont.
 LGB youth connect their distress from homophobia
to suicide attempts, self-harm practices, risky sexual
practices, and excessive drinking and drug-taking
(McDermott et al., 2008)
 LGB youth have fewer social supports or fewer
resources for coping with victimization experiences
(Almeida et al., 2008)
 LGB youth contemplate suicide more often than their
straight peers; the disparity seems to be increasing
(Saewyc et al., 2007)

6. Theoretical Foundation
 The Circle of Courage (Brendtro, Brokenleg, & Van
Bockern)
 Framework for development and relational health
 Drawn from Lakota Sioux tradition, reflects Western
notions of self-esteem, self-efficacy, and development
(Coopersmith, 1967)
 Based on notions of:
 Belonging
 Independence
 Mastery
 Generosity
 We reap the seeds of the ground in which we grow

7. Belonging
 (Young) people need to know they matter, to
belong, and to experience significance within their
communities.
 Indicators of healthy Belonging:
 Attached, loving, friendly, intimate, cooperative, trusting
 Indicators of distorted or absent Belonging:
 Isolated, distrustful, lonely, rejected, guarded

8. Independence
 (Young) people need to feel powerful and
independent, supported to make decisions, solve
problems, and show personal (and collective)
responsibility.
 Indicators of healthy Independence:
Confident, assertive, responsible, inner control
 Indicators of distorted or absent Independence:
Inferiority, helpless, manipulative, bullying

9. Mastery
 (Young) people need to be recognized and see
themselves as capable and able to take risks, make
mistakes, and work toward successes.
 Indicators of healthy Mastery:
Creative, successful, competent, motivated
 Indicators of distorted or absent Mastery:
Risk avoidant, compulsive, failure oriented, arrogant

10. Generosity
 (Young) people need to be invited to meaningfully
contribute to their communities and relationships.
Healthy development results in part from willingly
giving to healthy relationships.
 Indicators of healthy Generosity:
Altruistic, caring, empathic, prosocial, supportive
 Indicators of distorted or absent Generosity:
Selfish, narcissistic, antisocial, exploitative

11. Circle of Courage in OHT Context
 OHT asks questions related to young people’s
physical, mental, emotional, relational, and sexual
health.
 Specific to Circle of Courage, we looked at:
Self concept (Mastery/Independence)
Emotional health (Belonging/Independence)
Safety (Belonging/Independence)
Sexual and intimate relationships (Generosity/Independence)

12. Methods
 Background of OHT: Developed to learn more about
risks to students’ health and safety. Surveys are
administered annually to more than a third of 8th and 11th
grade Oregonians
 Sample: Schools randomly selected each year;
participation is voluntary (some opt out because of
questions about sex, suicide, drug/alcohol use)
 Subsample: We only looked at 11th grade data
 Analysis presented here is very preliminary and basic.

13. Methods cont.
 Ran descriptives for sample: race, gender, age,
sexual orientation
 Chi squares sig. to .01 (did not include those
questions/ variables which were not sig.)
 Created subsample of 11th graders and split file by
gender so we could look at differences by gender

14. Self Concept
102.0%
100.0%
100.0%
98.0%
95.6%
96.0%
94.0%
92.0% 92.3%
92.0% 91.5% 91.4%
Males
90.0% Females
88.6%
88.2%
88.0%
86.0%
84.0%
82.0%
Hetereosexual Bisexual Gay/lesbian Not sure

15. Self Concept
94.0%
91.8%
92.0%
90.0%
88.0% 87.4%
86.0% 85.5%
Males
84.8%84.8%
83.6%83.6%
84.0% Females
84.0%
82.0%
80.0%
78.0%
Heterosexual Bisexual Gay/lesbian Not sure

16. Safety at school: skipping
25.0%
19.5%
20.0% 18.9%
15.0%
12.5%
11.0% Males
10.0% 9.2% 9.1% Females
5.0% 3.7%
3.0%
0.0%
Heterosexual Bisexual Gay/lesbian Not sure

17. Safety at School: Harassment
40.0%
36.4%37.0%
35.0%
32.0%
30.0%
25.9%
25.0% 23.3%
20.0% 17.6% Male
Female
15.0%
10.0%
7.2%
5.0% 3.7%
0.0%
Heterosexual Bisexual Gay/Lesbian Not sure

18. Safety: trusted adult at school
82.0%
80.7% 80.6%
80.0%
78.0% 77.1% 77.1%
76.0% 75.5%
74.6%
Males
73.8%
74.0% 73.4% Females
72.0%
70.0%
68.0%
Heterosexual Bisexual Gay/lesbian Not sure

19. Emotional Health: sad/hopeless
60.0%
50.7%
50.0% 47.3%
40.0% 37.8%
31.3%
30.0% 26.1% Males
23.0% Females
20.0% 17.4%
12.8%
10.0%
0.0%
Heterosexual Bisexual Gay/lesbian Not sure

20. Emotional Health: unmet MH needs
45.0%
41.4%
40.0%
35.0%
29.7%
30.0% 27.1%
25.5%
25.0%
Males
20.0% 17.2% 17.8% 18.0%
Females
15.0%
10.0% 8.9%
5.0%
0.0%
Heterosexual Bisexual Gay/lesbian Not sure

21. Emotional Health: diagnosis
50.0%
45.0% 43.2%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0% 28.7%
25.0%
25.0% Males
20.2%
20.0% 17.6% Females
15.1%
15.0%
10.0% 6.6% 6.6%
5.0%
0.0%
Heterosexual Bisexual Gay/lesbian Not sure

22. Suicide Attempts
25.0%
22.7%
21.1%
20.0%
16.6% 16.3%
14.8%
15.0%
10.7% Male
10.0% Female
5.6%
5.0%
3.0%
0.0%
Heterosexual Bisexual Gay/Lesbian Not sure

23. Adult violence
60.0% 56.6%
50.0%
45.0%
41.1%
40.0%
31.9%
30.0% 28.4%
26.3% Males
24.4%
Females
18.8%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Heterosexual Bisexual Gay/lesbian Not sure

24. Sexual behaviors: multiple partners
20.0%
17.7%
18.0%
16.0%
14.0%
12.2% 12.1%
12.0%
10.0% Males
8.0% Females
6.4% 6.8%
5.6% 5.7%
6.0%
4.0%
2.6%
2.0%
0.0%
Heterosexual Bisexual Gay/lesbian Not sure

25. Sexual behaviors: condom use
40.0%
36.4% 35.8%
34.7%
35.0%
30.2%
30.0% 28.1% 27.9%
25.0%
20.0% Males
Females
15.0%
10.0% 7.3% 6.8%
5.0%
0.0%
Heterosexual Bisexual Gay/lesbian Not sure

26. Sexual behaviors: partner violence
16.0% 15.1%
14.0% 13.3%
12.0%
9.7%
10.0% 8.9%
9.3%
8.0% Males
6.5%
5.7% Females
6.0%
4.0%
2.0% 1.5%
0.0%
Heterosexual Bisexual Gay/lesbian Not sure

27. Sexual behaviors: pressured to have sex
45.0%
41.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
24.2%
25.0% 22.2%
20.5% Males
20.0% 18.3%
Females
15.0%
10.0%
10.0%
6.8%
5.5%
5.0%
0.0%
Heterosexual Bisexual Gay/lesbian Not sure

28. Sexual behaviors: forced to have sex
30.0%
27.9%
25.0%
20.0%
15.6%
15.0% Males
12.8%
10.9% Females
10.0%
10.0% 8.0%
7.2%
5.0% 3.0%
0.0%
Heterosexual Bisexual Gay/lesbian Not sure

29. Implications
 Clearly, LGB (and specifically, bisexual) youth face
challenges at rates substantially higher than their
straight peers.
 Schools are not adequately addressing these
challenges.
 The Circle of Courage offers a framework for schools
to develop institutional cultures affirming of and
welcoming to LGB youth, attending to all youths’:
Belonging
Independence
Mastery
Generosity

30. Implications, cont.
 Specific to the concerns identified by this review of
OHT data:
 Self-concept
INTERVENTION IDEAS
 Emotional and mental health
INTERVENTION IDEAS
 Safety
INTERVENTION IDEAS
 Sexual and intimate relationships
INTERVENTION IDEAS

31. Questions

32. Contact Information
 Del Quest
 Portland State University
 adq@pdx.edu
 Ben Anderson-Nathe
 Portland State University
 banders@pdx.edu

33. References
 Almeida, J., Johnson, R.M., Corliss, H.L., Molnar, B.E., & Asrael, D. (2009).
Emotional distress among LGBT youth: the influence of perceived discrimination
based on sexual orientation. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 38, 1001-14.
 Fisher, E.S., Komosa-Hawkins, K., Saldana, E., Thomas, G.M., Hsiao, C., Rauld, M.,
& Miller, D. (2008). Promoting school success for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,
and questioning students: primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention and intervention
strategies. The California School Psychologist, 13, 79-91.
 McDermott, E., Roen, K., & Scourfield, J. (2008). Avoiding shame: young LGBT
people, homophobia and self-destructive behaviors. Culture, Health, and Sexuality,
10(8), 815-829.
 Saewyc, E.M., Skay, C.L., Hynds, P., Pettingell, S., Bearinger, L.H., Resnick, M.D., &
Reis, E. (2007). Suicidal ideations and attempts in North american school-based
surveys: are bisexual youth at increainsg risk? Journal of LGBT Health Research,
3(2), 25-36.
 Van Wormer, K. & McKinney, R. (2003). What schools can do to help
gay/lesbian/bisexual youth: a harm reduction approach. Adolescence, 38(151) 409-
420.
 Wilkinson, L. & Pearson, J. (2009). School culture and the well-being of same-sex
attracted youth. Gender and Society. 23, 542-568.