Homelessness Amongst LGBTQIA Youth Solution, Research Paper Example

When a child or a teen realizes that he or she is not heterosexual, as customarily presumed, and comes out to his or her legal guardian, family, or friends, the moment is unforgettable. It is usually a long-awaited relief to finally show the world one’s true self. However, for some, this relief may come at a price. One severe and yet common repercussion is homelessness. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, and Asexual (LGBTQIA) youth become homeless for various reasons, but the most commonly reported reason is that youth are kicked out of their homes, revealing their sexual orientation to their family members. Studies have found that up to approximately 20% of youth leave home because their family members disapprove of or are uncomfortable with their sexual orientation. It often means that parents or guardians of LGBTQIA youth treat them in such a way that they feel they have no other choice but to leave their homes. Some LGBTQIA youth even run away from home without disclosing their sexual orientation to their families to avoid the stress and fear of rejection or, worse, eviction. Still, others, who may not even be living with the family when they come out to them, are financially cut off and ignored, which can also result in homelessness (Ridwan 2018).

Finally, substance abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, mental health issues, early development of sexual orientation, family poverty, aging out of the foster care or juvenile justice systems leads to homelessness. Financial or emotional neglect from family members is also a common reason why LGBTQIA youth may become homeless. Furthermore, since many homeless youth are forced out of their homes, they are often unaccompanied, meaning they live on the streets or in homeless shelters without the presence of an adult. Currently, LGBTQIA youth are disproportionately impacted by homelessness compared to the national percentage of youth homelessness and the national percentage of LGBTQIA youth. A

According to the latest research done approximately 1.6 million to 2.8 million homeless individuals who are young in the United States, and estimates disproportionate numbers of those youth are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender (Peck, 2010). These huge numbers are as a result of LGBTQIA youths not being able to stay with their parents, relatives or any state funded institutions due to discrimination

Meanwhile, of the 3.5 million people in the United States who experience homelessness each year, 42% of them are black, and 20% are Hispanic (even while each group represents just over 12% of the U.S. population), indicating that minorities make up well over half of the national homeless population in a given year. Unfortunately, few statistical studies specifically focus on the percentage of LGBTQIA homeless youth who are also of a racial minority. Yet, in the few studies that have addressed racial diversity amongst LGBTQIA homeless youth, LGBTQIA homeless youth tended to be disproportionately people of color (Rood et al., 2016). The comment argues that when a minority sexual orientation is compounded with a minority race, youth exhibiting both minority identities have a higher risk of becoming homeless and staying homeless for more extended periods than those with majority identities (white heterosexuals). Racial and sexual minorities are more likely to become homeless because of their higher likelihood of poverty, lower exposure to education, and other adverse situational circumstances. These factors also make their homelessness harder to correct (Rood et al., 2016). Accordingly, state legislative strategies combating youth homelessness must account for the relevant intersection of race and sexuality, or else “legislative invisibility” or “legislative blindness” will perpetuate LGBTQIA youth homelessness. Legislative invisibility is the phenomenon that when certain classifications of people, like LGBTQIA, are not explicitly addressed in a statute, they reap no benefit from it even though it is meant to benefit everyone. The type of invisibility is a consequence of implementing overly generalized policies, which lack nuance, to extend to homeless youth on a national scale. Laws based solely on one identity group’s experiences, when members within the group are also members of varying subgroups, can only provide a limited amount of support.

Both federal and state laws fail to classify certain identity groups, preventing individuals in these groups from getting help. For example, courts have held Title VII does not protect against sexual orientation discrimination, even if pursued under sex-based discrimination. It leaves LGBTQIA people vulnerable and without a remedy for sexual-orientation-based discrimination. The same issue occurs under many state employment non-discrimination statutes where sexual orientation is not an explicitly recognized category of discrimination (O’Brien et al., 2016). Consequentially, some LGBTQIA employees in certain states fail to receive the same benefits and legal remedies as heterosexual employees due to the narrow applicability of Title VII despite its broad policy goal. It is happening exactly today to homeless LGBTQIA youth of color under the major federal anti-homelessness statute. There have been many articles written such as Center for America progress together with human rights law and studies conducted on homeless LGBTQIA youth. Still, few address the experiences of LGBTQIA youth of color who, as a result of their compounded minority identity, experience homelessness differently than white LGBTQIA youth. For LGBTQIA youth of color, the costs of homelessness are unique and predominantly more devastating. When statutes trying to combat homelessness instances fail to address race and sexuality explicitly, many homeless youth with distinct needs, such as the availability of free counselling services, for example, fall through the cracks. The LGBTQIA youth of color are unique compared to there counterparts due to the strict religious backgrounds of most of these families (Huckle, 2020). Since a formal legal analysis of life on the streets for LGBTQIA youth of color has yet to be conducted, it is a topic of both concern and significance. In an ambitious attempt to correct the problem of widespread homelessness amongst LGBTQIA youth of color, particularly amongst black LGBTQIA youth, this comment will explore the intricate dynamics of homelessness related to minority identities. Because of different dynamics, fixing the problem of homelessness through social policy becomes extremely difficult (Mallon, 2009).

Nevertheless, federal policy on youth homelessness does exist. The single most dominant policy serving homeless youth since 1974 is the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA or the Act). RHYA was initially enacted to deinstitutionalize status offenders (minors who commit an offense that is only prohibited during minority, such as consuming alcohol, truancy, or running away from home). It was primarily used to control youth in danger of going to jail for minor offenses by intervening first. Homelessness was not added as a component of the Act until three years later. It became clear that many status offenders were also in danger of becoming homeless or were already homeless. Presently, the Act serves a variety of functions. Under RHIA, youth jailed for running away can enter a runaway youth program to prevent homelessness’s reoccurrence upon release. The Act also recommends establishing services and programs for youth who have become homeless to prevent self-endangerment from living on the streets. Since the purpose of RHYA is to provide programs and services to homeless youth. It can also be used as a social change vehicle for a sexual and racial minority homeless youth.

I have examined the statute’s positive and negative aspects and propose amendments that would be more inclusive and beneficial to LGBTQIA youth of color. Because LGBTQIA youth of color have multiple intersecting minority identities (including sexual orientation and race or ethnicity), they have different social needs than non-intersectional youth. RHYA presently overlooks these needs (Nadel, 2016). In response, Congress should alter specific provisions of RHYA to incorporate language addressing these realities such high rates of prostitution among the Young individuals of color LGBTQIA, discrimination from peers, problems in school, verbal and physical abuse, and violence. RHYA already has the foundation to addresses all the needs of runaway and homeless youth. However, if legislators understand the social reality of minority homeless youth and incorporate the solutions proposed, RHYA would better assist homeless LGBTQIA youth of color by providing systemic support and minimizing the factors contributing to their homelessness., RHYA will reduce homelessness rates among LGBTQIA youth of color if it tailors services more to their needs such as providing free counselling and health services for those engaging in prostitution and affected by STDS (Nadel, 2016). This Comment proceeds in three parts. Part I has two sections. Section A explains the unique social identity of LGBTQIA youth of color by examining the intersectionality theory related to sexuality and race. Section B outlines the structure, purpose, and effectiveness of RHYA. Part I also gives context to the subsequent discussion on why viewing youth homelessness from the lens of minority identities can improve conditions for homeless LGBTQIA youth of color.

Part II describes and analyzes the general problems with creating legislative change for homeless LGBT youth of color. It examines why LGBTQIA youth of color should be evaluated separately from non-minority homeless youth in the race and sexual orientation. For instance, homeless LGBTQIA youth of color withstand racial discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination, higher rates of sexual deviance, prostitution, higher risk of STDs, including HIV, and mental illnesses like depression and anxiety. Such issues require highly tailored and unambiguously stated policy solutions that directly addresses issues faced by homeless LGBTQIA youth of color (Herman, 2013). Part II also goes into greater depth on the phenomenon I call “legislative blindness,” an outcome of what Valerie Purdie-Vaughns & Richard P. Eibach call “intersectional invisibility,” which shows why a comprehensive policy must be initiated to protect homeless racial and sexual minorities. Finally, Part III proposes specific additions to RHYA that incorporate LGBTQIA youth of color’s unique policy needs. Presently, RHYA provides extensive assistance to runaway and homeless youth, specifically in the areas of education, street outreach, temporary and permanent shelter, employment, physical health care, mental health care, and family reunification or sustainable independent living. Although these assistance programs are comprehensive and seemingly encompass the needs of LGBTQIA youth of color, without statutory language identifying and validating these youth’s specific problems, there is no way to ensure enforcement and coverage (Herman, 2013).

Furthermore, based on the statistics regarding homeless youth, it appears that many are not reaping the benefits of RHYA. If specific provisions within the statute solely regarding issues of minority youth were added, not only would the percentage of homeless minority youth drop by a half and it would stay low (Page, 2017). To ensure the protection of the homeless minority youth LGBTQIA the following should be added to to RHYA: the category of “at-risk youth” to the statute with a definition that includes language about race, sexuality, and intersectionality; ensuring that eligibility for program funding is conditional upon the implementation of individual action plans for each homeless youth;  mandating staff sensitivity training for program workers, such as educators, administrators of state programs, housing providers, doctors, and counselors;  creating specific guidelines for how to support minority youth, especially regarding housing placement and counseling services.

There is no question that the phenomenon of LGBTQIA homelessness has been widely discussed. Federal agencies have even published findings on homelessness that specifically single out LGBTQIA youth as “representing a larger proportion when compared to the overall population” of homeless youth. Life as a homeless youth, regardless of sexual orientation, is complicated. Youth are at an age where less supervision is required, the need for social recognition and approval is high, there is a higher likelihood of peer influence. Above all, the feeling of “being grown” is widespread. “Being grown” is when a child or youth believes he or she is old enough to make his or her own decisions because he or she feels like an adult —“a grown-up”—even though he or she is legally still an adolescent. Therefore, in addition to desiring to escape harassment and ridicule, youth may also leave the foster system and try to survive independently because they feel they are old enough to do so (Dietert et al., 2017). However, many who have decided to try and make it on their own soon realize that adulthood, if not just a feeling, comes at a price.

Homeless LGBTQIA people have a high risk of succumbing to extreme survival strategies. For instance, some are forced to sexual exploits to provide for their basic food and shelter needs. Homeless LGBTQIA youth also experience harassment, victimization, and stigmatization. Commonly, LGBTQIA youth are harassed by their peers, families, and other adults because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Homeless LGBTQIA youth are also more severely victimized compared to homeless youth who is attracted to the opposite sex. As a result, they experience more problems with sexual assault, physical abuse, and mental health problems than heterosexual youth. Many LGBTQIA youths also fear rejection and isolation in their group homes and peers at work or school because of their sexual orientation. Because of these fears, LGBTQIA youth have more school-related problems like fights, poor grades, and high dropout rates. It causes added stress which can lead to unhealthy coping mechanisms. As mentioned, homeless LGBTQIA has a higher tendency to have run-ins with the law, take drugs and drink alcohol excessively, turn to prostitution, contract HIV, and commit suicide compared to those attracted to the opposite sex. To illustrate, LGBTQIA youth have reported using more drugs more often than heterosexual youth. According to Sherer et al. (2020) LGBTQIA homeless youth 13 to 21 years are more likely than non-LGBTQIA homeless youth to use cocaine, crack, or methamphetamines. They also exhibit mental health problems like depression and psychopathy at higher rates than heterosexual youth.131 53% of LGBTQIA homeless youth and street youth have attempted suicide. Finally, STDs are higher amongst LGBTQIA youth because they tend to have intercourse at earlier ages, have more unprotected sex, and have more partners than heterosexual youth.

References

Dietert, M., Dentice, D., & Keig, Z. (2017). Addressing the needs of transgender military veterans: Better access and more comprehensive care. Transgender Health, 2(1), 35-44.

Huckle, K., & Silva, A. (2020). People of Color, People of Faith: The Effect of Social Capital and Religion on the Political Participation of Marginalized Communities. Religions, 11(5), 249.

Herman, J. L. (2013). Gendered restrooms and minority stress: The public regulation of gender and its impact on transgender people’s lives. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, 19(1), 65.

Mallon, G. P. (Ed.). (2009). Social work practice with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. Routledge.

Nadel, K. L. (2016). Addressing Trauma Among Gay, Bisexual, and Queer Boys of Color. CLAGS: The Center for LGBTQ Studies, City University of New York.

O’Brien, K. H. M., Putney, J. M., Hebert, N. W., Falk, A. M., & Aguinaldo, L. D. (2016). Sexual and gender minority youth suicide: understanding subgroup differences to inform interventions. LGBT health, 3(4), 248-251.

Page, M. (2017). Forgotten youth: Homeless LGBT youth of color and the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy, 12(2), 17.

Peck, A. (2010). Gay and Transgender Youth Homelessness by the Numbers – Center for American Progress. Retrieved 30 March 2021, from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbtq-rights/news/2010/06/21/7980/gay-and-transgender-youth-homelessness-by-the-numbers/

Ridwan, R., & Wu, J. (2018). ‘Being young and LGBT, what could be worse?’Analysis of youth LGBT activism in Indonesia: challenges and ways forward. Gender & Development, 26(1), 121-138.

Rood, B. A., Reisner, S. L., Surace, F. I., Puckett, J. A., Maroney, M. R., & Pantalone, D. W. (2016). Expecting rejection: Understanding the minority stress experiences of transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals. Transgender Health, 1(1), 151-164.

Sherer, J., & Levounis, P. (2020). LGBTQIA: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning, Intersex, Asexual or Allied. In Absolute Addiction Psychiatry Review (pp. 277-287). Springer, Cham.