Running Head: LGBT YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCES

LGBT Youth Development and Gay-Straight Alliances:

Improving the Development of Gender and Sexual Minority Youth

Alastair D. McCabe

Arkansas Tech University

LGBT YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCES

Abstract

Gay-Straight Alliances (sometimes referred to as Gender-Sexuality Alliances) have been formed

within schools for more than two decades, and they have provided support in the form of safe
places and providing resources for sexual and gender minority youth within this timeframe
(ACLU, 2015). For this reason, they have provided a phenomenal aid in the development of
LGBT youth in their school years. The support and resources that these groups give to sexual
and gender minority adolescents should not be overlooked. Gay-Straight Alliances are
foundational in beginning to balance the development of sexual and gender minority populations
with heterosexual and gender conforming populations in public school settings. These resources
have had trouble being implemented in school settings due to their club status and start-up. By
reviewing the risks LGBT youth face, the differences in these risks in Gay-Straight Alliance
schools and schools that do not have a Gay-Straight Alliance, and the process of implementing
Gay-Straight Alliances this paper seeks to provide advice to policy makers on matters
concerning the implementation of Gay-Straight Alliance resources to the public-school domain.
LGBT YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCES

The political atmosphere before and leading into 2018 has brought a mass of awareness

to the LGBT population in the workplace, in the law, and in schools. Several studies have made

the risks that LGBT face salient through repetitive measures to compare the heterosexual

population with the sexual minority population as well as the gender conforming population with

the gender minority population. In order to approach the topic of these populations, the paper

will first define directly what defines being within the sexual minority or gender minority. Sexual

minority and gender minority both respectfully categorizing any instance in which one’s

sexuality or gender identity do not fall within the heterosexual or normative gender standards.

This population includes lesbians, gay individuals (men or otherwise), bisexuals, transgender

men, transgender women, transgender nonbinary people, and many other labels not directly

addressed within the LGBT acronym. Anyone who does not fall under either heterosexual,

cisgender (aligned with a gender assigned at birth), or both is within either the sexual minority or

gender minority population.

With the atmosphere in mind, this paper will seek to address concerns the author has with

the current developmental outlooks for LGBT students in the school atmosphere. Several risks

are associated with LGBT development through the school years. Developmentally, LGBT

students are challenged by a risk for developing mental illnesses (such as depression and

anxiety), a reduction to academic performance, and a general decline in self-esteem (Galliher,

Rostosky, & Hughes, 2014; Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network [GLSEN], 2017;

Hatchel, Espelage, & Huang, 2018; Jones, Robinson, Oginni, Rahman, & Rimes, 2017;

Weinhardt et al., 2017). For these reasons and many more, the author will address the current

school climate and its contribution to risk in LGBT development.

LGBT YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCES

GSAs (Gay-Straight Alliances) have emerged from the late 1980s in order to combat the

risks LGBT adolescents face in the school climate. The author seeks to address what these

organizations are and what their purpose is before discussing what they have empirically

provided to the development of LGBT youth. After addressing the concerns with the studies

currently available about GSAs (such as the trouble of defining GSAs), the author will address

the implication for an association between school climate and GSAs that should be researched

further. Other factors of GSAs that have not been properly researched will be addressed before

proposing advice to policy makers going forward.

The author seeks to argue the place for GSAs as a school resource rather than a club

activity through the baseline of support there is that suggests GSAs improve developmental

outlooks for LGBT adolescents. This improvement in LGBT youth development is addressed

through the reduction of risks found throughout the literature across several domains of concern

that research currently has with school climate’s effects on LGBT youth.

LGBT Youth and School Climate

School climate is defined through the attitudes and feelings there are attributed to the

physical, social and academic environment within the school (Loukas, 2007). The school climate

has been unfavorable to LGBT youth in the past, and in many locations the climate continues to

be unfavorable. Negative school climate experiences for LGBT youth could be a simple

contribution in the social environment where “gay” is used in negative contexts. In GLSEN’s

(2017) survey 98.5% of the 23,001 LGBT students surveyed reported hearing this usage of gay

within their school, and 70% reported hearing it frequently. 91.8% reported that they felt
LGBT YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCES

distressed because of this language. Within the same survey, 95.3% heard homophobic slurs such

as “dyke” or “faggot” with some 60% reporting hearing these words frequently. Comments that

were specifically harmful to transgender and gender nonconforming students such as “tranny”

were reportedly heard by 87.4% of students within the same study with about 50% reporting this

language being used frequently. Hearing this language throughout the school not only creates

feelings of distress for the LGBT youth hearing them, but it is also indicative of a growing

anti-gay bias. In fact, simply negatively using the word gay or being exposed to this usage affects

implicit anti-gay bias (Nicolas & Skinner, 2012). This holds true even when the negative use of

the word gay does not necessarily have any anti-gay motive behind it.

The school climate itself contributes to the current problem of bullying, and in this case,

it contributes to the bullying of LGBT students. Bullying occurs twice as frequent among sexual

minority adolescents than in heterosexual adolescents (Kann et al., 2016). Studies have also

found that transgender youth report being bullied based on their gender identity at a rate of

44.8% (Goldblum et al., 2012). In GLSEN’s (2017) national survey for LGBT students 70.1%

reported experiencing verbal harassment based on their sexual orientation, and 53.2% reported

experiencing verbal harassment based on their gender. 28.9% reported physical harassment (like

being shoved) based on their sexual orientation, and 22.8% reported physical harassment based

on their gender. Reports of physical assault averaged around 10% based on a student’s sexual

orientation. This was the same for those within the gender minority who reported assaults

occurring based on their gender. Other dimensions of harassment and bullying that the survey

explored included online harassment and sexual harassment. 48.7% of LGBT students reported

online harassment, and 53.7% of LGBT students reported sexual harassment within the past year
LGBT YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCES

at school. These continued peer-to-peer aggressions make school a negative experience for

LGBT youth.

Further, it isn’t only the peers that contribute to this unsupportive environment for LGBT

students. A little over half of the LGBT students surveyed by GLSEN (2017) reported hearing

homophobic remarks from faculty in the school. The point at which teachers provide a negative

environment for students turns the instances of victimization to clear discrimination. 55% of

students did not report instances of harassment because of the lack of confidence that

intervention would occur or that the method in which intervention would occur would make

matters worse. Of those who did report, 60% were told to ignore the incident or nothing was

done to intervene with the issue. LGBT youth also felt discriminated against during school

procedures concerning public displays of affection, dress code, classroom participation, and

extracurricular activities. Roughly 30% of the students surveyed reported being disciplined for

public displays of affection when heterosexual students were not. Some 20% were prevented

from wearing clothes “not acceptable for their assigned sex”. Roughly 18% of students were

prevented from writing about LGBT topic or including those topics in assignments while another

10% were prohibited from bringing a same-sex partner to prom. Roughly 15% of students

surveyed reported that they were restricted from forming or promoting a GSA in their school as

well.

LGBT Youth and Risks

This anti-LGBT school climate contributes to the growing risks and concerns for LGBT

students as they are developing. Risks that contribute to costs in LGBT students’ academic
LGBT YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCES

development, mental development, social development, and even physical development have

been reported across several studies. Academically, LGBT students report lower GPAs, a lower

likelihood to plan for further education, and a tendency to skip school all together (GLSEN,

2017). Mentally, LGBT students tend to develop lower self-esteem, have higher rates of

depressive symptoms, have higher rates of anxiety disorders, have higher rates of suicide

idealization, and have higher rates of suicide execution (D’Augelli et al., 2005; D’Augelli,

Hershberger, & Pilkington, 2001; Galliher et al., 2014; GLSEN, 2017; Grossman & D’Augelli,

2007; Hatchel et al., 2014; Jones et al., 2017; Testa et. al, 2017; Weinhardt et al., 2017). Socially,

LGBT students are more likely to have less peer support, have a lack of school integration, and

to perceive themselves as having less support from faculty (Diamond & Lucas, 2004; GLSEN,

2017; Joyce, 2015; Martin-Storey, Cheadle, Skalamera, & Crosnoe, 2015; Williams, Connolly,

Pepler, & Craig, 2005). Physically, LGBT students have a higher rate of risky sex behavior,

substance abuse, and again, suicide execution. (D’Augelli et al., 2005; Everett, Schnarrs,

Rosario, Garofalo, & Mustanski, 2014; Goldbach, Tanner-Smith, Bagwell, & Dunlap, 2013;

Grossman & D’Augelli, 2007; Johns et al., 2018).

GLSEN’s (2017) survey covers a large portion of how this unsupportive climate damages

LGBT students’ academic development with 34.8% of participants stating that they had missed

an entire day of school because they felt unsafe or uncomfortable. 10.5% stated they had missed

four or more days for the same reason. Overall, those who experienced victimization and

discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender expression where roughly three times as

likely to have missed school in the past month. LGBT students in the same survey had lower

grade point averages if they reported higher levels of victimization based on their sexual

orientation or gender expression. Post-secondary education was reported to not be in the

LGBT YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCES

future-plans of LGBT students at a rate that is two times that of the majority. A large portion

(42%) of those who indicated they were considering dropping out of school stated they would be

doing so because of harassment within the school. Another hand full of LGBT students (34%)

who were considering dropping out stated that this decision was because of the gendered policies

the school possessed that fostered a hostile environment for LGBT students.

The mental health of LGBT youth has many risks throughout the developing school

years. One mental health risk of LGBT youth comes with reference to self-esteem where

self-esteem takes a toll from victimization and harassment faced by LGBT students. Participants

who were within the sexual minority reported lower self-esteem in Galliher, Rostosky, and

Hughes’s (2014) interviews. Compared to typical self-esteem measures, gender minority

respondents tend to score as having low self-esteem (Weinhardt et al., 2017). Backing these

studies, GLSEN’s (2017) survey provided a comparison of self-esteem between LGBT students

who experienced higher levels of victimization and discrimination to LGBT students who

experienced lower levels of victimization and discrimination. Those who were subject to higher

levels reported much lower scores on self-esteem. With victimization towards sexual minority

and gender minority youth high in many school environments, it’s important to note that

depressive symptoms tend to be higher among these students in relation to their experiences

being victimized (Hatchel et al., 2018). Adolescents belonging to the sexual minority are also

more vulnerable to the development of anxiety disorders through the victimization they face

(Jones et al., 2017). Suicidal idealization has been a known problem for sexual and gender

minorities for quite some time. Nearly half of sexual minority youth consider suicide sometimes

or often, and about one-third of sexual minority youth report having attempted suicide before

(D’Augelli et al., 2001). Varying studies have found a similar prevalence for suicide attempts
LGBT YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCES

among transgender youth. Grossman and D’Augelli’s (2007) study found half of transgender in

their study reported suicide idealization and half of those participants reported their idealization

to be related to their transgender identity. One-quarter of the transgender youth reported at least

one suicide attempt, and all the youth who had attempts attributed at least one or more attempts

to their transgender identity. For those non-heterosexual youth that did have some type of suicide

attempt in the past, their sexual orientation was addressed as a contributor or reason for the

attempt for half of the males and one-third of the females (D’Augelli et al., 2005). Through

online surveying, gender minorities reported suicidal idealization and suicidal attempts one out

of every two respondents. Over half of the respondents stated that they were seriously

considering killing themselves (Testa et al., 2017).

Sexual minority students tend to be more vulnerable to being less socially integrated in

their school in small, not very diverse schools (Martin-Storey et al., 2015). LGBT students from

school climates where heavy LGBT victimization takes place report less school belongingness

than those who are exposed to lower levels of victimization (GLSEN, 2017). With perception of

faculty support in mind, sexual minority youth were more likely to report poor perception of

their relationships with teachers (Joyce, 2015). Sexual minority students reported that they felt

teachers did not care about them and that they treated them unfairly. Sexual minority youth were

also found to report less peer social support than heterosexual youth (Williams et al., 2005).

Sexual minority youth in Diamond and Lucas’s (2004) study also had smaller peer networks and

more anxiety about losing friends.

The risks LGBT adolescents have that are physical in nature are those related to

substance abuse, suicidality, and sexual risks. As stated before, suicidality is a serious concern

for LGBT adolescents, and suicide attempts are commonly attributed to sexual minority or
LGBT YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCES

gender minority status (D’Augelli et al., 2005; Grossman & D’Augelli, 2007). Substance abuse

is more likely among sexual minority students than heterosexual students (Johns et al., 2018).

Victimization is a heavy contributor to substance abuse in sexual minority adolescents (Goldbach

et al., 2013). Sexual minorities were also more likely to engage in risky sex behavior by not

using condoms with partners (Everett et al., 2014).

Gay-Straight Alliances (Gender-Sexuality Alliances)

Gay-Straight Alliances (or Gender-Sexuality Alliances) were established in middle

schools, high schools and colleges to provide group support to sexual and gender minority youth.

According to GSANetwork there are three typical functions of GSAs: “Support, Social, and

Activist”. GSAs can create their own goals and missions depending on the needs of members,

and GSAs vary widely in how they are executed inside of schools. Social GSAs and support

GSAs are primarily concerned with the safe space aspect of GSAs while activist GSAs serve to

challenge policies and practices within the school to make the environment a better place for

LGBT students. The primary difference between support and social GSAs is the function of

emotional support versus creating social networks with others.

Starting a GSA

GSANetwork provides an open access toolkit for students seeking to create a safe place

in their school by establishing a GSA. This toolkit is very basic. The first rule of establishing a

GSA is to follow guidelines within your school for establishing a club. Depending on the school

the student may be required to be granted permission from an administrator. Students are then

advised to find an advisor for their GSA. After informing and getting an administrator on their
LGBT YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCES

side, students are expected to inform guidance counselors. From that point the rules lay out the

beginnings of setting up a club meeting space.

LGBT Youth Development and Gay-Straight Alliances

This direct victimization of sexual minority adolescents and gender minority adolescents

contributes to the growing concern of mental health development among LGBT youth. It is

undeniable that school environment has a large contribution to this development. In combating

the rates of suicide idealization and bully victimization some schools have had groups of students

establish Gay-Straight Alliances (or Gender-Sexuality Alliances). GSAs are affective in

combating the bullying problem and have been associated with less victimization of sexual

minorities in schools. Marx and Kettrey (2016)’s meta-analysis of studies measuring

homophobic victimization, fear for safety and homophobic remarks reported among LGBT

students found the rates of LGBT specified bullying to be less prominent in schools with GSAs

in place. Heck, Flentje and Cochran (2011) found similar results in their assessments of LGBT

adults reflecting on their high school experiences. Additionally, their study found a higher rate of

school belonging with those GSA participating schools and a more positive community climate.

GLSEN’s (2017) survey found anti-LGBT remarks occurred less frequently in schools with

GSAs, and LGBT students felt safer as well as less severe victimization based on their sexual

and/or gender minority status. In a series of interviews with recent high school graduates, Fetner

and Elafros (2015) found that graduates who had GSAs in their schools felt more support from

their school faculty. GLSEN’s (2017) survey also backs this with over half of the LGBT students

within GSA schools reporting multiple sources of faculty support while only a mere 20% of

LGBT students without GSAs reported multiple sources of faculty support. While harassment
LGBT YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCES

stories were told by graduates from both GSA and non-GSA schools, the stories told from

non-GSA schools provided an element of unsafety. Participants who talked about the harassment

in schools without GSAs stated that instances of harassment pushed them back into hiding their

identity or into avoiding certain parts of the school (Fetner & Elafros, 2015).

Whether or not sexual minority students are involved with their GSA or not, sexual

minority students within GSA schools have lower depressive symptoms, suicidality, and

substance abuse issues (Walls, Wisneski, & Kane, 2013). The presence of a GSA within schools

(rather than membership within the GSA) has been associated with less victimization in schools,

lower rates of adulthood depression post-high school for LGBT students, and lower rates of

suicide attempts across the lifetime for LGBT students (Toomey, Ryan, Diaz, & Russell, 2011).

Additionally, GSA presence within a school is positively associated future academic attainment

beyond high school for LGBT students (Toomey et al., 2011). GSAs have been successful in

combating issues among sexual minority students and have been associated with lower rates of

risky sex, drug use and suicide attempts (Poteat, DiGiovanni, Russell, Sinclair, & Koenig, 2013).

When LGBT students were asked about their attempts in the past year there was a significant

difference found between those students who attended schools with GSAs and those who

attended schools without GSAs. This difference indicated that students had less attempts when

attending schools with GSAs. (Poteat et al., 2013) Similar results were found for truancy,

smoking and risky sex in the same study.

LGBT YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCES

Problems with the Current Literature

There are a few issues with the current research conducted over Gay-Straight Alliance

influence on school climate and LGBT development that should be addressed before continuing

further. As seen earlier, the functions of a GSA are diverse and subject to change by the students

or staff conducting its activities. The only clear function a GSA provides is a safe place. Many

studies do not take in consideration that some GSAs may be more impactful than others by being

more policy involved, whereas some GSAs may not make as big as an impact as indicated. GSAs

do not have a simple function of support in every context that a GSA is put within. This makes it

difficult to pinpoint what it is about a GSA that promotes a healthier school climate for LGBT

youth or what functions are more effective. Literature should be clearer going forward about

categorizing the types of GSAs they are looking at to determine what functions are more directly

related to favorable outcomes with LGBT adolescents.

Current literature also continues to put a focus on the issues of sexual minority youth

which makes it hard to find all the similar problems the gender minority face. While LGBT

encompasses the two, the two are still separate and should not be treated as the same. This is a

problem in locations where GSAs are still called Gay-Straight Alliances. Gender-Sexuality

Alliances has become the new name on GSANetwork for GSAs and in many schools where the

gender minority has been given more consideration. In order to benefit both the sexual minority

and the gender minority within LGBT youth, it is important to look at the two separately as much

as it is important to include inclusive language to invite them into support networks. This is a

within community discussion that continues across social media platforms and within LGBT

spaces. Aside from studying GSAs and all their different types and to keep in mind the variety of

functions and definitions a GSA can have, it is also important to consider the gender minority
LGBT YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCES

more actively in the research going forward. Considerations on the affect of what the acronym

means in the school’s context can be given going forward also.

Conclusion

Although many schools have successfully started GSAs through the functions of their

students, many other schools have failed to reach the point where a GSA has been established.

This is a cause of the voluntary enactment of GSAs backfiring once students cannot find the

resources they need to push the movement forward. While some articles have proposed that

advisors and teachers make the movement to establish GSAs instead, this paper seeks to push for

the movement of GSAs or GSA-like-resources to be a public school must. The benefits of GSAs

in public schools cannot be ignored nor can the disparities sexual and gender minorities face in

the usual public-school environment.

While all clubs within a public-school setting can contribute to the positive development

of youth, a GSA is important for at risk youth who are among the gender and sexual minority.

Lambda Legal makes an argument for the process of denying the formation of a GSA to be

illegal, but this doesn’t stop the formations of GSAs from being turned away. 15% of LGBT

students from GLSEN’s (2017) survey reported being restricted from forming or promoting

GSAs within their school. Rather than a direct administrative shut down, some GSAs have been

unable to start simply because students are unable to follow the guidelines set out to start the

club. Unfortunately, every school environment does not have access to faculty that are willing to

aid students or to participate in their GSA as a founding advisor. This is an issue GSAs face in

their establishment in public schools.

LGBT YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCES

Knowing that GSAs are at risk for being restricted in certain school contexts makes the

argument that they should be a provided resource stronger. Literature has shown that despite the

variety of functions, missions, and goals GSAs possess that the baseline of providing a safe place

improves the school climate for LGBT youth and in turn the development of LGBT youth.

Policy makers and administration moving forward should begin to explore the concept of

implementing GSAs as a school resource much like counseling. The resource is as voluntary as a

club activity, but it may provide more anonymous membership for the safety of students.

Membership has been addressed to potentially be not as impactful as the mere presence of a

GSA, therefore just providing resources and a space for students improves their development

phenomenally. GSAs as a school resource would not only change the support network and

resources that LGBT students have, but they would also foster a supportive faculty by providing

them with information and instruction for LGBT students who need assistance.

Although it is greatly dependent on the context of the school, sexual minority and gender

minority students are at risk for a great deal of issues as they develop throughout school. GSAs

help to buffer these risks by reducing accounts of victimization and by increasing support.

Regardless of if a GSA is social, support, or activist in nature, this baseline is true across

contexts. In order to do what is best for the development of LGBT students GSAs should be

more easily accessible and should be mandatory within schools. More widely, bullying is a

problem across schools in general and by reducing the prevalence of bullying in even just one

context the school climate improves universally. These studies should not be ignored, and there

should be more done to ensure the practice of GSAs in schools continues going forward.
LGBT YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCES

References

(2018). Gay-Straight Alliances. Lambda Legal: Making the Case for Equality. Retrieved from

https://www.lambdalegal.org/know-your-rights/article/youth-gay-straight-alliances

(2015). GSA Court Victories: A Guide for LGBT High School Students. ACLU. Retrieved from

https://www.aclu.org/other/gsa-court-victories-guide-lgbt-high-school-students

(2018). What is a GSA. GSANetwork. Retrieved from

https://gsanetwork.org/what-is-a-gsa/?_sft_keyword=gsa-development

D’Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., Salter, N. P., Vasey, J. J., Starks, M. T., & Sinclair, K. O.

(2005). Predicting the Suicide Attempts of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youth. Suicide &

Life-Threatening Behavior, 35(6).

D’Augelli, A. R., Hershberger, S. L., & Pilkington, N. W. (2001). Suicidality Patterns and Sexual

Orientation-Related Factors Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youths. Suicide &

Life-Threatening Behavior, 31(3).

Diamond, L. M. & Lucas, S. (2004). Sexual-Minority and Heterosexual ‘Youths’ Peer

Relationships: Experiences, Expectations, and Implications for Well-Being. Journal for

Research on Adolescence, 14(3), 313-340.

Everett, B. G., Schnarrs, P.W., Rosario, M., Garofalo, R., & Mustanski, B. (2014). Sexual

Orientation Disparities in Sexually Transmitted Infection Risk Behaviors and Risk

Determinants Among Sexually Active Adolescent Males: Results from a School-Based

Sample. American Journal of Public Health, 104(6).

LGBT YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCES

Fetner, T. & Elafros, A. (2015). The GSA Difference: LGBTQ and Ally Experiences in High

Schools with and without Gay-Straight Alliances. Social Sciences; Basel, 4(3), 563-581.

Galliher, R. V., Rostosky, S. S., & Hughes, H. K. (2004). School Belonging, Self-Esteem, and

Depressive Symptoms in Adolescents: An Examination of Sex, Sexual Attraction Status,

and Urbanicity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33(3), 235-245.

Goldbach, J. T., Tanner-Smith, E. E., Bagwell, M. & Dunlap, S. (2013). Minority Stress and

Substance Use in Sexual Minority Adolescents: A Meta-analysis. Prevention Science;

New York, 15(3), 350-363.

Goldblum, P., Testa, R. J., Pflum, S., Bradford, J., Hendricks, M. L., & Bongar, B. (2012). The

Relationship Between Gender-Based Victimization and Suicide Attempts in Transgender

People. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 2012, 43(5), 468-475.

Gossman, A. H. & D’Augelli, A. R. (2007). Transgender Youth and Life-Threatening Behaviors.

The American Association of Suicidology, 37(5), 527-537.

Hatchel, T., Espelage, D. L., & Huang, Y. (2018). Sexual Harassment Victimization, School

Belonging, and Depressive Symptoms Among LGBTQ Adolescents: Temporal

Headlights. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 88(4), 422-430.

Heck, N. C., Flentje, A. & Cochran, B. N. (2011). Offsetting Risks: High School Gay-Straight

Alliances and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Youth. School

Psychology Quarterly, 26(2), 161-174.

Johns, M. M., Lowry, R., Rasberry, C. N., Dunville, R., Robin, L., Pampati, S., … Kollar, L. M.

M. (2018). Violence Victimization, Substance Use, and Suicide Risk Among Sexual
LGBT YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCES

Minority High School Students—United States 2015-2017. MMWR: Morbidity &

Mortality Weekly Report, 67(43), 1211-1215.

Jones, A., Robinson, E., Oginni, O., Rahman, Q, & Rimes, K. R. (2017). Anxiety Disorders,

Gender Nonconformity, Bullying and Self-esteem in Sexual Minority Adolescents:

Prospective Birth Cohort Study. Journal of Child Psychology, 58(11), 1201-1209.

Joyce, H. D. (2015). School Connectedness and Student-Teacher Relationships: A Comparison

of Sexual Minority Youth and Their Peers. Children & Schools, 37(3), 185-192.

Kann, L, Olsen, E. O., McManus, T., Harris, W. A., Shanklin, S. L., Flint, K. H., … Zaza, S.

(2016). Sexual Identity, Sex of Sexual Contacts, and Health-Related Behaviors Among

Students in Grades 9-12—United States and Selected Sites, 2015. MMWR Surveillance

Summaries, 65(9), 1-202.

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Zongrone, A. D., Clark, C. M., & Truong, N. L. (2017). The 2017

National School Climate Study. GLSEN.

Loukas, A. (2007). NAESP: What Is School Climate? Leadership Compass, 5(1).

Martin-Storey, A., Cheadle, J. E., Skalamera, J., & Crosnoe, R. (2015). Exploring the Social

Integration of Sexual Minority Youth Across High School Contexts. Child Development,

86(3), 965-975.

Marx, R. A. & Kettrey, H. H. (2016). Gay-Straight Alliances are Associated with Lower Levels

of School-Based Victimization of LGBTQ+ Youth: A Systematic Review and

Meta-analysis. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 45, 1269-1282

LGBT YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCES

Nicolas, G. & Skinner, A. L. (2012). “That’s So Gay!” Priming the General Negative Usage of

the Word Gay Increases Implicit Anti-Gay Bias. Journal of Social Psychology, 152(5),

654-658

Poteat, V. P., DiGiovanni, C. D., Russell, S. T., Sinclair, K. O., & Koenig, B. W. (2013).

Gay-Straight Alliances are Associated with Student Health: A Multischool Comparison

of LGBTQ and Heterosexual Youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23(2),

319-330.

Testa, R. J., Bliss, W., Balsam, K. F., Michaels, M. S., Rogers, M. L., & Joiner, T. (2017).

Suicidal Ideation in Transgender People: Gender Minority Stress and Interpersonal

Theory Factors. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126(1), 125-136

Testa, R. J., Sciacca, L. M., Wang, F., Hendricks, M. L., Goldblum, P., Bradford, J., & Bongar, B.

(2012). Effects of violence on transgender people. Professional Psychology: Research

and Practice, 43, 452– 459.

Toomey, R. B., Ryan, C., Diaz, R. M., & Russell, S. T. (2011). High School Gay-Straight

Alliances (GSAs) and Young Adult Well-Being: An Examination of GSA Presence,

Participation, and Perceived Effectiveness. Applied Developmental Science, 15(4),

175-185.

Walls, N. E., Wisneski, H., & Kane, S. (2013). School climate, individual support, or both?

Gay-straight alliances and the mental health of sexual minority youth. School Social Work

Journal, 37(2).
LGBT YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCES

Weinhardt, L. S., Stevens, P., Xie, H., Wesp, L. M., John, S. A., Apchemengich, I., … Lambrou,

N. H. (2017). Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Youths’ Public Facilities Use and

Psychological Well-Being: A Mixed-Method Study. Transgender Health, 2(1).

Williams, T., Connolly, J., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (2005). Peer Victimization, Social Support,

and Psychosocial Adjustment of Sexual Minority Adolescents. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 34(5), 471-482.