Mentoring for LGBTQI-GNC Youth

Introduction

A well-documented body of research has captured environmental risks faced by this diverse group of young people, including stigma, victimization, and rejection.^{2, 3, 4, 5} In tandem with these challenges, many LGBTQI-GNC youth are undergoing phases of identity development unique to being LGBTQI-GNC that are also associated with heightened levels of psychological distress—including feelings of isolation, confusion, depression, and questions about belonging and affiliation.^{2, 6, 7} Given such challenges facing this vulnerable group of young people, mentoring has been suggested as a viable and responsive support that can help to change current trajectories and lower risks.^{1, 8, 9, 10}

In the context of the above definitions, challenges, and limitations, this review examines research that bears on the following questions:

1. What is the documented effectiveness of mentoringⁱⁱ for LGBTQI-GNC youth?
2. What factors condition or shape the effectiveness of mentoring for LGBTQI-GNC youth?
3. What are the intervening processes that are most important in linking mentoring to outcomes for LGBTQI-GNC youth?
4. To what extent have efforts to provide mentoring to LGBTQI-GNC youth reached and engaged targeted youth, been implemented with high quality, and been adopted and sustained by host organizations and settings?

ⁱThe author uses LGBTQI-GNC as an umbrella term throughout this review. This choice is meant to support uniformity and ease of reading. The author recognizes that studies presented here may not have explicitly examined each subgroup contained within this acronym. For example this study by the Williams Institute did not track youth who are gender nonconforming or those that are intersex.

ⁱⁱThis review considers mentoring to be relationships and activities that take place between youth (i.e., mentees) and older or more experienced persons (i.e., mentors) who are acting in a nonprofessional helping capacity—whether through a program or more informally—to provide support that benefits one or more areas of the young person’s development (for further detail, see What Is Mentoring? on the National Mentoring Resource Center website).

What Is the Documented Effectiveness of Mentoring for LGBTQI-GNC Youth?

Risks Faced by LGBTQI-GNC Youth

A growing body of literature has documented risks and challenges faced by LGBTQI-GNC adolescents. For example, substantial percentages of LGBTQI-GNC youth—especially youth of color—report frequent experiences with bullying, verbal and physical harassment, and also describe feeling unsafe in school settings due to their sexual orientation and/or gender identity/expression.^{4, 17} This type of victimization has been closely linked to depression, risks for contracting STDs and HIV, and later adult mental health challenges.¹⁸

At home, many LGBTQI-GNC youth also report challenges with family members. More than 25% of LGBTQI-GNC 13- to 17-year-olds describe family disapproval of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity/expression.¹⁹ Family rejection of LGBTQI-GNC youth is linked with increased attempts at suicide, depression, and use of illegal drugs.²⁰ Family rejection was also linked to increased engagement by gay male youth in unprotected sex and contracting HIV.²¹ LGBTQI-GNC youth are also estimated to comprise up to 40% of all youth who are experiencing homelessness²² and many of these young people are on the streets because they have been kicked out of their homes and/or are fleeing abusive situations.²³

The Importance of Role Models and Nonparent Adults

As sizeable numbers of LGBTQI-GNC youth face bias and rejection from peers and parents, research has begun to examine availability and impact of social support for this population. Such inquiry has been linked to the research-supported premise that resilient youth are likely to possess relationships with nonparent adults.^{24, 25}

There is some evidence, for example, that LGBTQI-GNC youth may benefit from having access to inperson role models.²⁶ A survey of 496 ethnically diverse LGBTQI-GNC 16- to 24-year-olds found that nearly 60% reported having role models, responding affirmatively to the question, “Is there a person or individual you really want to be like (this could be someone you know personally, or someone you have read about or seen on TV or in the movies, or that you know in some other way)?”. Among respondents with a role model, 60% were inaccessible (i.e., someone on TV or in the movies) and 30% were personally known by the youth. Notably, youth who lacked accessible role models also reported increased levels of psychological distress in comparison to youth who described having affirming in-person role models or no role models at all. The findings of this study thus suggest that in-person role models—such as mentors—may play an especially important and beneficial role in the lives of LGBTQI-GNC youth.

Unfortunately, research has also noted that many LGBTQI-GNC youth lack the types of relationships with nonparent adults expected to be most likely to offer protective benefits.²⁷ A study of 175 male youth (54% African-American, 21% Hispanic/Latino, 14% Caucasian; ages: 17–23) indicated that their relationships with nonparent adults typically fell into one of three categories: strictly social (62%), complex (24%), and risky (14%). These findings suggest that whereas many LGBTQI-GNC male youths have relationships with nonparent adults, such relationships may not be optimized to provide needed support. In fact, for a small but notable number of youth, the presence of these relationships may actually indicate negative and harmful attachments. Not unlike what has been observed in other studies on nonparent adults in the lives of older adolescents,²⁸ such considerations point to a potential for some relationships that have mentoring components to nonetheless have adverse effects on LGBTQI-GNC youth.

Mentoring’s Potential to Address Risk Factors for LGBTQI-GNC Youth

The broader literature on mentoring highlights a number of benefits that could be of importance to this population. From a theoretical lens, mentors are seen to offer support for resilience—serving as protective and compensatory influences that reduce deficits and assist youth in gaining assets to overcome challenges they face.²⁹ As they help to bolster resilience, mentoring relationships are posited to offer youth a range of social, emotional, cognitive, and identity development benefits.³⁰ Accordingly, when LGBTQI-GNC youth experience stigma and victimization, mentors might serve in a protective role— helping youth work through their feelings, identifying solutions and resources, fostering positive views of themselves, and attuning to youth needs during phases of identity development and/or gender transitions.

Research that focuses more generally on mentoring has documented a number of benefits that are of significance for LGBTQI-GNC youth. For example, high-risk populations of formally mentored youth were less likely to display signs of depression than non-mentored youth.³¹ In addition, in the landmark Public/Private Ventures study of the Big Brothers Big Sisters of America community-based mentoring program, youth with mentors were found to have improved reports of parent and peer relationships and were less likely to report behaviors associated with delinquency, such as skipping school and hitting others.³² These findings suggest that high-quality mentoring relationships could reduce feelings of distress among LGBTQI-GNC youth, while also supporting improvements in the quality of their relationships within peer and family networks and reducing their susceptibility to involvement in problematic behavior.

Research

In a study using data from Wave III of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) that contains 4,882 cases, researchers compared data between heterosexual youth and subsets of LGBTQI-GNC youth (lesbian females, bisexual females, gay males, bisexual males, youth of color, and white youth).³³ Youth were surveyed in grades 7 through 12 (Wave I: 1994–1995), Wave II (1996) and Wave III (2001–2002) and were asked to describe their sexual identity using the following: 100% straight; mostly straight but attracted to people of the same sex; bisexual; mostly gay but sometimes attracted to people of the same sex; 100% gay; or not sexually attracted to males or females. Measures included presence of teacher mentors and post-secondary participation. Overall findings indicate that LGBTQI-GNC youth were more likely to report informal mentors than heterosexual youth (32% vs. 23%). Of LGBTQI-GNC youth with informal mentors, 36% reported this relationship with a teacher-mentor. LGBTQI-GNC youth—especially males—with teacher mentors were more likely than non-mentored youth to have completed at least one year of college. However, benefits for LGBTQI-GNC youth with mentors as compared to heterosexual youth with mentors were 30% less.

A second study examined experiences of gay male college students participating in formal or informal mentoring relationships with gay mentors. Ross³⁴ conducted interviews with seventeen self-identified gay males at two universities. Mentees participated in one of three potential mentoring environments: 1) university-sponsored program with peer mentors; 2) university-sponsored program with faculty mentors; or 3) participation in a naturally formed mentoring relationship not sponsored by the university. Findings from grounded theory analysis indicated that mentors played a role in fostering identity development in mentees. In addition, mentees also gained a number of described benefits from the relationship, including improved feelings of well-being, success as a college student, and commitment to giving back to the LGBTQI-GNC community.

Conclusions

1. In-person mentoring relationships may serve an important protective role for LGBTQI-GNC youth, helping them to confront challenges such as lack of acceptance from peers and parents; however, available research is too limited to offer more than tentative and very preliminary support for this possibility.
2. Informal mentoring relationships with adults may promote positive educational outcomes among LGBTQI-GNC youth; however, this conclusion is speculative given that this possibility has been examined within only one study.
3. At the college level, it appears that informal and formal mentoring relationships may be linked with improved feelings of well-being, success as a college student, commitment to the gay community, and support for identity development; however, evidence to support this possibility is preliminary.

What Factors Condition or Shape the Effectiveness of Mentoring for LGBTQI-GNC Youth?

These include the youth’s interpersonal history, social competencies, developmental stage, program practices, family context, and neighborhood ecology. In addition, mentor characteristics (e.g., LGBT mentors, mentor approach with youth) and program supports may also serve as potential shaping influences for youth. Research, however, is limited in capturing whether such factors condition (i.e., enhance or diminish) benefits of mentoring for LGBTQI-GNC youth.

Youth

LGBTQI-GNC youth have diverse risk profiles that may limit or enhance the extent to which they benefit from mentoring relationships. For example, youth of color, transgender youth, gender nonconforming youth, youth that have been involved in the juvenile justice and/or child welfare systems, and youth at earlier phases of identity development may have difficulty maximizing opportunities available to them through mentoring relationships due to additional levels of stigma, stress, and challenge experienced reflecting intersections of risks. In contrast, LGBTQI-GNC youth with accepting parents, supportive social networks, and at more advanced phases of identity development might be better positioned to form trusting relationships and to access support and resources targeted at their unique needs.

Gender Nonconforming, Transgender, and LGBTQI-GNC Youth of Color

LGBTQI-GNC youth of color, transgender youth, and gender nonconforming youth appear to experience victimization and stress at higher levels than their peers. For example, LGBTQI-GNC youth of color report more intense levels of bullying and harassment than other subgroups of LGBTQI-GNC youth,¹⁷ are more likely to be involved in the child welfare system,³⁵ and also are significantly more likely to become HIV positive than other peers.³⁶ Gender nonconforming youth are also more likely to report experiences with hostile school climates,³⁷ poor psychosocial adjustment, and suicidality in adolescence.38 Last, transgender youth are more likely to be diagnosed with depression, suffer from anxiety, attempt suicide, and engage in self-harming activities than their cisgender peers.³⁹ These findings highlight important trends of risk that are greater for some populations of LGBTQI-GNC youth than others. Given that 52% of LGBTQIGNC youth are youth of color,¹ these findings also indicate that a majority of LGBTQI-GNC youth are potentially experiencing oppression related to multiple aspects of their identity—including race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation.

Research on gay Latino males from low-income backgrounds illustrates how experiences of oppression based on race, sexual orientation, and poverty may have intersecting impacts on the mental health outcomes of LGBTQI-GNC youth.⁴⁰ Using focus groups, interviews, and survey data, the authors examined symptoms of psychological distress, experiences of homophobia, racism, and poverty, social isolation and low self-esteem, and resiliency. Findings indicated that youth experiencing more encounters with social oppression exhibited larger amounts of psychological distress. These experiences were also associated with isolation and lower feelings of self-esteem. Findings presented in this study offer an example of the magnifying effect of exposure to more than one form of oppression on the negative impacts experienced by youth.

Youth who have experienced marginalization based on multiple aspects of their identity—e.g., homophobia, transphobia, and racism—may also be more disadvantaged in trying to access benefits from mentoring relationships. In general, as noted previously in this review, many LGBTQI-GNC youth are faced with day-to-day experiences of social rejection from peers, family, teachers, their community, and even society. Research has indicated a close connection between these experiences and feelings of anxiety regarding social interactions.⁴¹ In this way, previous rejection or fear of rejection may make relationship building activities that are central to mentoring more difficult for LGBTQI-GNC youth. Further, youth of color may also be experiencing stereotype threat and cultural mistrust, which have also been viewed as potential moderators for developing close and trusting mentoring relationships.⁴² These are only a few of the many potentially moderating influences that could limit how diverse LGBTQI-GNC youth participate in relationship development activities with mentors. These considerations also suggest that mentoring relationships could tend to be of lower quality for LGBTQI-GNC youth with more notable experiences of social rejection and thus, in turn, less positively impactful for this subgroup of youth. Alternatively, high-quality mentoring relationships, when fully accessed by LGBTQI-GNC youth, may offer a milieu for benefits not previously available.

Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare System Involvement

LGBTQI-GNC youth who have been system-involved (e.g. child welfare, juvenile justice) may also have different risk profiles and barriers that could moderate how they participate in and benefit from mentoring relationships. Recent estimates indicate that 50% of LGBTQI-GNC youth (1.6 million) are exposed to one or more risk factors associated with delinquency and juvenile justice system involvement.¹ LGBTQI-GNC youth are estimated to comprise 13% to 15% of all youth who are involved in the juvenile justice system⁴³ with an estimated 300,000 gay and transgender youth arrested each year.⁴⁴ Once inside the system, research has indicated that LGBTQI-GNC youth are likely to experience bias from staff, poorly trained counselors, and disproportionate levels of detention along with policies and practices that do not ensure their safety.⁴⁵

LGBTQI-GNC youth are also disproportionately represented in child welfare systems. In a study of the Los Angeles County child welfare system, 19.1% of youth in out-of-home care were LGBTQI-GNC.³⁵ Of foster care youth sampled, 13.6% self-identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or questioning, and 5.6% identified as transgender. LGBTQI-GNC youth also had higher numbers of placements and were more likely to live in a group home.³⁵ Relative to non-LGBTQI-GNC youth, LGBTQI-GNC youth were also more likely to report being treated poorly by the foster care system and were more likely to have been hospitalized or homeless in their lifetimes.

Findings from research on juvenile justice and child welfare hint at potential ways that youth experiences within these setting might moderate benefits of future mentoring relationships. Many LGBTQI-GNC youth describe negative—and even traumatic—experiences within the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. Research has highlighted exposure to abuse, attempts at conversion, placement into isolation, and harassment from peers and staff.⁴⁵ LGBTQI-GNC youth with previous traumatic experiences in these settings may understandably feel mistrust of other social service programming. As such, previous system involvement could moderate the development of trust with formal mentors assigned through programs, thus attenuating benefits of program participation.

Identity Development

Phase of identity development may also be a potential moderator for effectiveness of mentoring for LGBTQI-GNC youth. Research has indicated that the average age that young people “come out” has dropped over the last thirty years—from youth in their late teens/early twenties in the 1980s⁴⁶ to youth who are 16 or 17 years old more recently.^{2, 47} In the last decade, gay males, on average, report same-sex feelings at age 10, self-label at age 15, and disclose to others for the first time at age 16.² Lesbians follow similar trends, reporting same-sex feelings, on average, at age 11, self-labeling at age 16, and disclosing for the first time at age 17.² As youth come out at earlier ages, they are likely to fall under the custodial care of their parents or guardians and thus to experience the unique difficulties of understanding, accepting, and sharing an identity within this context, in addition to all of the risks and challenges more generally associated with the transition to adolescence.

Research has also noted that heightened feelings of internalized homophobia that may often be present in those at earlier stages of identity development are linked to greater risk-taking behavior.⁴⁸ Conversely, youth who are “out” appear to have acquired strengths associated with resilience and have shown to possess higher levels of self-esteem and lower levels of depression than those that have not disclosed to others.³⁷ Although evidence is limited, such studies hint that questioning youth may be experiencing greater levels of psychological distress while also lacking access or experiencing barriers to resources most targeted to their needs and circumstances.

Mentor Background and Approach

Research on the moderating influence of mentor similarity (e.g., shared sexual orientation between mentor and mentee) and mentor approach is lacking. However, counseling literature offers clues as to which relationship qualities appear most beneficial to LGBTQIGNC populations. Studies on parent and peer rejection also hint at notable risks for LGBTQI-GNC youth matched with unsupportive mentors.

Research on the benefits of similarity of sexual orientation in counseling relationships is inconclusive. One study of 83 male-male client counselor dyads recruited from LGBT affirming practices examined session experiences, client/counselor perceptions of similarity, and counselor self-reports of universal-diverse orientation to diversity.⁴⁹ Findings indicate that the perceived quality of the counseling sessions was closely linked to factors such as working alliance between counselor and client, session depth, and smoothness of time spent together. A measure of perceptions of similarity based on sexual orientation was not linked to any counseling-related variable. In addition, client religious commitment and counselor reports of low levels of universal-diverse orientation were negatively associated with client perceptions of improvement. Such findings hint that mentoring relationship quality for LGBQTI-GNC youth may be influenced by a number of considerations, including personality dimensions and how time together is spent, that go beyond shared sexual orientation. Accordingly, matching mentors and mentees based only on sexual orientation or shared gender identity/expression may serve to optimize outcomes for this population of youth.

Literature from counseling also provides key suggestions for how to create supportive and beneficial milieus for LGBTQI-GNC youth. In general, person-centered approaches⁵⁰ have been recommended for LGBTQI-GNC youth.⁵¹ Such an approach consists of providing the youth with unconditional positive regard, congruence, and empathy; adopting the youth’s perspective; emphasizing the notion of self-concept; highlighting the youth’s potential for growth; and taking a youth-directed growth process. Counselors working with LGBTQI-GNC youth are also encouraged to explicitly validate the youth’s identity, work with youth to assess risks regarding disclosure to others, and help youth access and gain exposure to positive socialization to LGBTQI-GNC communities.⁵¹ This type of mentor approach, although not confirmed by research, appears well-equipped to extend benefits—giving LGBTQI-GNC youth new types of social, emotional, cognitive, and identity development benefits that are seen as critical to positive outcomes in mentees.

In contrast, research also offers caution about potential harm for LGBTQI-GNC youth matched with mentors who are unsupportive of their mentee’s sexuality. As noted, family rejection is closely linked to risk-taking behavior in LGBTQI-GNC youth.²¹ In addition, youth who experienced rejection from peers during disclosure were more likely to attempt suicide.⁵² Although evidence is lacking, mentor rejection during youth disclosure may also hold similar outcomes. Therefore, additional inquiry may well yield findings that highlight the need to create matching strategies that protect youth—whether out or not—from mentors that may be unsupportive of their sexuality.

Research

Gastic and Johnson,³³ for example, noted differences in how LGBTQI-GNC females of color participated in mentoring relationships with teachers. LGBTQI-GNC females of color were significantly less likely than white LGBTQI-GNC females to report having teacher-mentors (20% to 35%). Further, youth with teacher-mentors were seen to engage in post-secondary participation at higher rates than youth with other types of mentors (71% to 54%). Such findings note that LGBTQI-GNC females of color may not be receiving mentoring and its benefits at the same level as other youth. However, this study examined only the presence and type of mentor and did not account for mentor approach or similarity to youth.

Ross³⁴ also identified benefits available for gay mentees matched with gay mentors—offering clues as to how similarity in background may help to promote social, emotional, and cognitive benefits more widely associated with mentoring, along with targeted support for identity development—features closely linked to positive outcomes in this population. However, this study did not include any comparison groups and no research appears to have examined ways in which straight mentors may be able to provide similar levels of support. Further, this study also lacked a discussion of criteria used, if any, to match mentors and mentees.

Conclusions

1. Some subpopulations of LGBTQI-GNC youth—including youth of color, gender nonconforming youth, transgender youth, youth at earlier phases of identity development, and systems involved youth—may experience intersections of risks that hinder the development of trust and for this reason make it more challenging for them to experience high quality, effective relationships with mentors; research directly examining this possibility, however, is lacking.
2. Existing research suggests that mentors who take youth-centered approaches inclusive of the experiences and needs of LGBTQI-GNC youth may foster greater benefits for this population of youth; in contrast, mentors who are experienced as unsupportive—especially with respect to disclosure of feelings or questions regarding sexual orientation —pose the potential to create harm.
3. There is indirect and preliminary evidence that the use of criteria that are inclusive of—but not limited to—shared sexual orientation and gender identity/expression between youth and mentors may be important for enhancing the quality of mentoring relationships for LGBTQIGNC; other relationship features with indicated potential to be influential (e.g., amount of time spent together) are similar to those identified as important for mentoring relationship quality among youth more generally.

What Processes are Important in Linking Mentoring to LGBTQI-GNC Youth Outcomes?

The Importance of Supporting LGBTQI-GNC Youth Through Phases of Identity Development

Research has shown that youth who are open about their sexuality report lower levels of stress, anxiety, and depression^{53, 54} and may also possess higher levels of self-esteem and be less likely to engage in risky behaviors than those who are in earlier phases of identity development.¹² Many of these young people appear able to access supports that specifically address their needs as a marginalized minority, potentially demonstrating greater resilience than present in earlier phases of identity development.¹⁶

Because of robust links between identity development and resilience in LGBTQI-GNC populations, intervention strategies for this population that involve supporting youth as they navigate through this process have been theorized to be beneficial.⁵⁵ Underscoring the potential significance of such support is the idea that LGBTQI-GNC youth may feel unprepared and unsupported in trying to find congruence and meaning in complex and changing affects, behaviors, and cognitive processes that lie outside the defined societal norm of heterosexuality.⁵⁶

In line with these considerations, identity development has been conceptualized as both an internal (individual) and a social (group membership/affiliation) process in the Inclusive Model of Sexual Minority Identity Formation.⁷ This model includes the following individual and group membership phases: awareness, exploration, deepening/commitment, and internalization/synthesis. Individuals are seen to have internal and relational experiences that can help them move forward or backward between these phases—with the resolution consisting of a sense of synthesis between public and private selves, a recognition of belonging to a group that is marginalized, and also that this belonging is only one part among many that constitute an individual’s identity.

In related research, youth participating in programs such as gay-straight alliances in school have reported feeling more comfortable with their sexuality, described improvements in relationships with peers and family members, and expressed feeling supported during their coming out process.⁵⁷ Youth participating in programming within community centers also reported important benefits such as feeling safe and feeling connectedness to other LGBTQI-GNC individuals in their group activities.⁵⁸ Such findings are consistent with the idea that targeted, safe, and responsive support constitutes an important pathway through which LGBTQI-GNC youth can explore their identity while also forming bonds and connection to others, thus fostering both individual and social components of identity development.

Mentoring

The indicated importance of social processes of support for LGBTQI-GNC youth suggests that supporting youth as they question, explore, accept, and share their identity could be a salient pathway through which mentoring can promote positive outcomes. In general, mentors who are empathetic and have positive regard for a mentee are most likely to form bonds that can be used to facilitate change.⁵⁹ These bonds appear to be strengthened when mentors and mentees have similarities of interest and experiences60 and when mentors take developmental and/or instrumental approaches (i.e., taking the time to get to know the youth and working to support achievement of goals) instead of prescriptive approaches (i.e., telling the mentee how to behave and act).^{61, 62} In addition, mentors that play advocacy roles in their mentee’s lives also appear to facilitate positive benefits in youth.⁶³

There are a number of important pathways through which mentors are posited to provide intervening support to LGBTQI-GNC mentees as they navigate through external risks and internal identity development phases. First, matching LGBTQI-GNC youth with positive adult role models that are LGBT may be a way to connect young people with others from their community, helping them learn from others that have navigated through the tension and difficulty associated with identity development. Second, mentors—regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression—might be able to serve in advocacy roles, helping youth access community and counseling resources while also working with them to navigate challenges at home and at school. The next section describes the few research studies that highlight how these activities can serve to yield benefits for youth.

Research

In addition to identifying a range of benefits for gay mentees, Ross³⁴ also examined ways in which the mentoring relationship offered support for identity development. The author identified strategies through which mentors worked with mentees to support identity development—e.g., gay male youth worked with their mentors to unlearn previous negative beliefs held about their sexuality and learned new ways of thinking about their possible selves through their mentor’s example and encouragement. Mentors also helped their mentees with the coming out process, provided opportunities to help mentees meet other people from the LGBTQI-GNC community, offered advice about dating and relationships, and supported students when they had conflicts. These activities were noted to closely align with support at the group and individual levels, with mentors having served as cultural guides who also helped students learn more about and explore their identity.

Another qualitative study looked more closely at the characteristics and benefits present within a long-term formal mentoring relationship between an adult and a youth from the LGBTQI-GNC community.⁶⁴ Using data collected during in-depth interviews at the 17- and 22-month point in the mentoring relationship, several key themes highlighting the unique role that the mentor played in the youth’s identity development were detailed. Findings suggested that the 1:1 format of a formal mentoring relationship provided a safe space for identity exploration and allowed mentees to feel comfortable sharing more about their experiences and challenges growing up LGBTQI GNC. This positive relationship was different from those previously experienced in group and peer programming in which fears of rejection felt inhibiting to the mentee. The mentor also took a responsive mentee-centered approach (i.e., a milieu for support that was individualized to the needs of the youth), key features of which consisted of introducing the mentee to LGBTQI-GNC community resources, helping the mentee talk to his family about his sexuality, and problem solving with the mentee about dating and relationships.

A third qualitative study examined processes of support within natural mentoring relationships experienced by LGBTQI-GNC male youth.⁶⁵ Analysis of interview data collected from 39 self-identified gay, bisexual, and questioning male youth between the ages of 15 and 22 suggested that mentors offered diverse types of support to the youth, including social support, emotional support, informational support, self-appraisal support, and unconditional support. Mentees viewed emotional support as one of the most important features of their relationship. Findings also highlighted potential ways that natural mentors might be able to offset identity intolerance by helping LGBTQI-GNC youth learn new and more positive ways of appraising themselves.

Conclusions

1. Support for identity development and gender identity/expression may be a critical pathway through which mentoring relationships are able to promote positive outcomes for LGBTQI-GNC youth; however, research directly addressing this possibility is extremely limited and thus inconclusive.
2. Processes that involve mentors taking an advocacy role and offering emotional, informational, and social forms of support may be significant in contributing to positive outcomes for LGBTQI-GNC youth, but existing research is only broadly suggestive of this possibility.

Have Mentoring Supports and Services for LGBTQI-GNC Youth Been Implemented with High Quality and Sustained?

Given such a strikingly small number of mentoring efforts reaching and engaging this targeted population, research regarding high-quality program implementation is extremely limited. Therefore, background literature contained in this review focuses more closely on research and practitioner-identified practices linked to improving access and quality of services for LGBTQI-GNC youth.

Accessibility Barriers and Promising Practices

With so few mentoring programs intentionally providing services to LGBTQI-GNC youth, research on accessibility offers clues as to challenges that may prohibit bringing this type of support to scale. For example, a study of 29 youth-serving program staff identified four broad types of barriers that were noted to impede LGBTQI-GNC youth access to support services: 1) societal barriers, 2) provider-related barriers, 3) youth-related barriers, and 4) resource-related barriers.⁶⁶ Societal barriers included prejudice and discrimination directed at LGBTQI-GNC youth, such as lack of social support, stereotypes, and lack of parental or societal acceptance. Provider-related barriers included requirements that LGBTQI-GNC youth “come out” to access services, lack of provider knowledge of gay-affirmative practices-resources, and lack of confidentiality. Youth-related barriers consisted of a safety (LGBTQI-GNC are afraid for their safety) and awareness issues (LGBTQI-GNC youth are unaware that services are available or feel that services don’t apply to them), a lack of self-acceptance, and uncertainty about sexual orientation and/or gender identity(questioning). Last, resource-related barriers included lack of health resources in public schools, lack of transportation, and financial issues faced by LGBQT youth. Such findings offer insight into the great difficulties experienced in attempting to create programming that is responsive and inclusive.

Program staff in this study also identified provider level approaches believed to increase LGBTQI-GNC youth accessibility,⁶⁶ including creating safe/open environments for all youth, offering ongoing diversity education of providers and program staff, allowing LGBTQI-GNC youth to contribute to programming, partnering with other organizations to increase capacity to serve all youth, educating providers on LGBTQI-GNC youth service needs, allowing LGBTQI-GNC youth to receive services without parental consents, providing training in specific LGBTQI-GNC advocacy skills, and providing one-to-one sessions for LGBTQI-GNC youth.

Such accessibility and inclusion suggestions are closely related to the Ten Standards of Care for LGBTQI-GNC Youth.⁶⁷ These standards describe research- and practitioner-informed practices for creating inclusive programming for LGBTQI-GNC youth and include the following recommendations: 1) conduct regular needs assessments to understand staff capacity and guide/monitor improvement efforts; 2) establish and enforce nondiscrimination policies; 3) build staff awareness, knowledge, and skills by providing training and professional development opportunities; 4) incorporate appropriate intake and data collection processes; 5) promote safe, supportive, and culturally competent environments; 6) implement practices that support preferences and affirm identity; 7) promote healthy, supportive peer connections; 8) strengthen family connections; 9) promote access to affirming services and supports; and 10) collaborate and foster relationships with other supportive youth and family organizations.

The U.S. Department of Education⁶⁸ also released examples from school districts across the country—offering suggestions for schools to create a welcoming, accessible, and responsive environment for transgender students. Policy examples from this document offer guidance that supports student transitions, establishes policies for privacy and confidentiality, ensures equal access to facilities and activities, and creates an inclusive school climate.

Emerging support from funders and policy-makers

Although efforts to create targeted and formal mentoring programming for LGBTQI-GNC youth have been limited, funding opportunities are beginning to emerge indicating that policy-makers are recognizing the importance of extending the reach of mentoring to address the risks faced by this population. For example, in 2015 the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) released a solicitation to fund mentoring programming for underserved populations of youth, including those that are LGBTQI-GNC. In 2016, OJJDP also identified LGBTQI-GNC youth as a target population for funding national mentoring programs. Foundations are also beginning to fund various initiatives to help bring mentoring to scale for LGBTQI-GNC youth. In 2016, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America received funding to initiate a pilot program at five sites to identify and implement inclusive practices for LGBTQI-GNC youth—including screening and intake, matching, training, support, and case management (H. Bardwell, personal communication, May 15, 2016). Such opportunities hint at growing concern that this population of young people may be struggling to access benefits and support associated with mentoring.

Research

These figures describe a significant mentoring gap for this population—LGBTQI-GNC youth are participating in formal mentoring relationships at very low levels. This report also raised questions about the quality of mentoring relationships available for this population, recommending updates for nondiscrimination and confidentiality policies, inclusion of LGBTQI-GNC identity-affirming language on website and other materials, creating training to improve mentor competence when working with LGBTQI-GNC youth, creating opportunities for LGBTQI-GNC youth to develop relationships with LGBT affirming mentors, and conducting outreach and building partnership with LGBT community organizations.

Conclusions

1. Few formal mentoring programs appear to exist that provide mission-driven mentoring services to LGBTQI-GNC youth; however, research documenting the prevalence of such programs or the success of mentoring programs, more generally, with engaging LGBTQI-GNC youth is lacking.
2. A number of promising practices for providing services to LGBTQI-GNC youth are emerging, offering initial clues as to how to create safe climates and responsive programming for this population.
3. Funding for mentoring programs and initiatives focused on LGBTQI-GNC youth is starting to appear.

Implications for Practice

One of the more interesting aspects of these National Mentoring Resource Center (NMRC) population reviews is seeing exactly how much high-quality research the youth mentoring field actually has to draw from to improve the quality and quantity of mentoring services. This particular review has highlighted the paucity of rigorous research on the impact of mentoring on LGBTQI-GNC youth—needless to say that four studies is not exactly a treasure trove of actionable information. What makes this all the more frustrating from a research-to-practice angle is that there are LGBTQI-GNC youth being served by pretty much every mentoring program in the United States that works with adolescents, especially if we are honest about including the q of questioning. Many of the youth served in our programs are not “out” in the traditional sense. Rather, they may be exploring their sense of identity and questioning their orientation, but have not divulged this information to parents or other caring adults, let alone a new mentor in their lives. This explains, in part, why the research has lagged behind a bit with regard to these youth: they can be hard to identify and may not even identify themselves as being part of this group.

Given the substantial risks experienced by this group, as detailed in the review, practitioners must understand that ignoring this need, or worrying about pressure from certain religious or community groups, is potentially doing harm.

So how can practitioners make sure that they serve this population well? Even taking into account the limited research to directly inform mentoring for this population, the overall body of available knowledge points to several things practitioners would do well to keep in mind as they attempt to build responsive, evidence-based services for this population:

References

1. Mallory, C., Sears, B., Hasenbush, A., & Susman, A. (2014). Ensuring access to mentoring programs for LGBTQ youth. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Access-to-Youth-Mentoring-Programs.pdf
2. D’Augelli, A. R. (2006). Developmental and contextual factors and mental health among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. In A. M. Omoto & H. S. Kurtzman (Eds.), Sexual orientation and mental health: Examining identity and development in lesbian, gay, and bisexual people (pp. 37–53). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
3. Gallegos, A. White, C. A., Ryan, C., O’Brien, K., Pecora, P. J., & Thomas, P. (2011) Exploring the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning adolescents in foster care. Journal of Family Social Work, 14, 226–236. http://doi.org/10.1080/10522158.2011.571547
4. Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Palmer, N. A., & Boesen, M. J. (2014). The 2013 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York, NY: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network. Retrieved from http://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/2013%20National%20School%20Climate%20Survey%20Full%20Report_0.pdf
5. 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, 175–185. http://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2011.607378
6. Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4, 219–235. http://doi.org/10.1300/J082v04n03_01
7. McCarn, S. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Re-visioning sexual minority identity formation: A new model of lesbian identity and its implications for counseling and research. The Counseling Psychologist, 24, 508–534. http://doi.org/10.1177/0011000096243011
8. Alexander, C. J. (1999). Mentoring for gay and lesbian youth. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 10, 37–41. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J041v10n02_05
9. Barajas, J. (2004). Mentoring gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender youth. Folsom, CA: Center for Applied Research Solutions. Retrieved from https://rhyclearinghouse.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/docs/13719-Mentoring_Lesbian_Gay_Bisexual_and_Transgender.pdf
10. Jucovy, L. (2000). Technical assistance packet #1: Mentoring sexual minority youth. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
11. D’Augelli, A. R., & Patterson, C. J. (2001). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities and youth: Psychological perspectives. New York, NY: Oxford.
12. Savin-Williams, R. C. (2005). The new gay teenager. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13. Singh, A. A. (2013). Transgender and intersex students: Resilience and empowerment. In E. Fisher & K. Hawkins (Eds), Creating school environments to support lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning students and families: A handbook for school professionals (pp.57–72). New York, NY: Routledge.
14. American Psychological Association. (2011). Answers to your questions about transgender people, gender identity, and gender expression. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx
15. Elze, D. E. (2003). 8,000 miles and still counting…: Reaching gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents for research. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 15, 127–145. http://doi.org/10.1300/J041v15n01_09
16. Hershberger, S. L., & D’Augelli, A. R. (1995). The impact of victimization on the mental health and suicidality of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. Developmental Psychology, 31, 65–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.1.65
17. Burdge, H., Hyemingway, Z. T., & Licona, A. C. (2014). Gender nonconforming youth: Discipline disparities, school push-out, and the school-to-prison pipeline. San Francisco, CA: Gay-Straight Alliance Network and Tucson, AZ: Crossroads Collaborative at the University of Arizona.
18. Russell, S. T., Ryan, C., Toomey, R., Diaz, R., & Sanchez, J. (2011). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender adolescent school victimization: Implications for young adult health and adjustment. Journal of School Health, 81, 223–230. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2011.00583.x
19. Human Rights Campaign. (2018). Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey report key findings. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://www.hrc.org/resources/2018-lgbtq-youth-report
20. Ryan, C., Russell, S. T., Huebner, D., Diaz, R., & Sanchez, J. (2010). Family acceptance in adolescence and the health of LGBT young adults. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing: Official Publication of the Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nurses, Inc, 23, 205–213. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x
21. Bird, J. D. P., LaSala, M. C., Hidalgo, M. A., Kuhns, L. M., & Garofalo, R. (2016). “I had to go to the streets to get love”: Pathways from parental rejection to HIV risk among gay and bisexual men. Journal of Homosexuality, 1–22. http://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1179039
22. Ray, N. (2006). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth: An epidemic of homelessness. New York, NY: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for the Homeless. Retrieved from https://www.thetaskforce.org/lgbt-youth-an-epidemic-of-homelessness/
23. Durso, L. E., & Gates, G. J. (2012). Serving our youth: Findings from a national survey of services providers working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law with True Colors Fund and The Palette Fund. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Durso-Gates-LGBT-Homeless-Youth-Survey-July-2012.pdf
24. Masten, A. S. (2007). Resilience in developing systems: Progress and promise as the fourth wave rises. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 921–930. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579407000442
25. Werner, E. (1995). Resilience in development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 81–85. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772327
26. Bird, J. D., Kuhns, L., & Garofalo, R. (2012). The impact of role models on health outcomes for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50, 353–357. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3313463/
27. Sterrett, E. M., Birkett, M., Kuhns, L., & Mustanski, B. (2015). Non-parental adults in the social and risk behavior networks of sexual minority male youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 55, 62–70. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-29712-009
28. Haddad, E., Chuansheng, C., & Greenberger, E. (2011). The role of important non-parental adults (VIPs) in the lives of older adolescents: A comparison of three ethnic groups. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 40, 310–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9543-4
29. Fergus, S., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2005). Adolescent resilience: A framework for understanding healthy development in the face of risk. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 399–419. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144357
30. Rhodes, J. E. (2002). Stand by me: The risks and rewards of mentoring today’s youth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31. Bauldry, S. (2006). Positive support: Mentoring and depression among high-risk youth. Philadelphia, PA: Public/ Private Ventures. Retrieved from https://www.cityofmadison.com/dpced/communitydevelopment/funding/documents/AreaI/B3/MentoringDepressionAmongHighRiskYouth.pdf
32. Tierney, J. P., Grossman, J. B., & Resch, N. (1995). Making a difference: An impact study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.
33. Gastic, B. & Johnson, D. (2009). Teacher-mentors and the educational resilience of sexual minority youth. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 21, 219–231. http://doi.org/10.1080/10538720902772139
34. Ross, F. E. (2005). Achieving cultural competence: The role of mentoring in sexual minority identity development. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.
35. Wilson, B.D., Cooper, K., Kastanis, A., & Nezhad, S. (2014). Sexual and gender minority youth in foster care: Assessing disproportionality and disparities in Los Angeles. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LAFYS_report_final-aug-2014.pdf
36. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015, November). HIV Surveillance Report, 2014, 26. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/library/reports/surveillance/cdc-hiv-surveillance-report-2014-vol-26.pdf
37. Kosciw, J. G., Palmer, N. A, & Kull, R. M. (2014). Reflecting resiliency: Openness about sexual orientation and/or gender identity and its relationship to well-being and educational outcomes for LGBT students. American Journal of Community Psychology, 55, 167–178. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-014-9642-6
38. Carver, P. R., Yunger, J. L., & Perry, D. G. (2003). Gender identity and adjustment in middle childhood. Sex Roles, 49, 95–109. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024423012063
39. Reisner, S. L., Vetters, R., Leclerc, M., Zaslow, S., Wolfrum, S., Shumer, D. & Mirmiaga, M. J. (2015). Mental health of transgender youth in care at an adolescent urban community health center: A matched retrospective cohort study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56, 247–279. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.10.264
40. Diaz, R. M., Bien, E., & Ayala, G., (2006). Homophobia, poverty and racism: triple oppression and mental health outcomes in Latino gay men. In A. M. Omoto & H. S. Kurtzman (Eds.), Sexual orientation and mental health: Examining identity and development in lesbian, gay and bisexual people (pp. 207–224). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
41. Safren, D. W., & Pantalone, D. (2006). Social anxiety and barriers to resilience among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents. In A. E. Omoto & H. M. Kurtzman (Eds.), Sexual orientation and mental health: Examining identity and development in lesbian, gay, and bisexual people (pp. 55–72). Washington, DC: APA Books.
42. Sanchez, B., & Colon, Y. (2005). Race, ethnicity, and culture in mentoring relationships. In D. L. Dubois & M. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 191–204). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
43. Irvine, A. (2010). We’ve had three of them: Addressing the invisibility of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and gender nonconforming youths in the juvenile justice system. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 19(3), 675–701. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.7916/cjgl.v19i3.2603
44. Hunt, J., & Moodie-Mills, A. (2012). The unfair criminalization of gay and transgender youth: An overview of the experiences of LGBT youth in the juvenile justice system. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/report/2012/06/29/11730/the-unfair-criminalization-of-gayand- transgender-youth/
45. Majd, K., Marksamer, J., & Reyes, C. (2009). Hidden injustice: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in juvenile courts. San Francisco, CA: The Equity Project. Retrieved from http://biblioteca.cejamericas.org/bitstream/handle/2015/569/Hidden_Injustice_LGBT_Youth_Juvenile_Courts.pdf
46. Troiden, R. (1988). Homosexual identity development. Journal of Adolescent Health, 9, 105–113. http://doi.org/10.1016/0197-0070(88)90056-3
47. Shilo, G., & Savaya, R. (2011). Effects of family and friend support on LGB youths’ mental health and sexual orientation milestones. Family Relations, 60, 318–330. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00648.x
48. Rosario, M., Hunter, J., Maguen, S., Gwadz, M., & Smith, R. (2001). The coming-out process and its adaptational and health-related associations among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths: Stipulation and exploration of a model. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 133–160. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005205630978
49. Stracuzzi, T., Fuertes, J., & Mohr, J. (2011). Gay and bisexual male clients’ perceptions of counseling: The role of perceived sexual orientation similarity and counselor universal-diverse orientation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 299–309. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0023603
50. Rogers, C. R. (1980). A way of being. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
51. Lemoire, S. J., & Chen, C. P. (2005). Applying person-centered counseling to sexual minority adolescents. Journal of Counseling and Development, 83, 146–154. http://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2005.tb00591.x
52. Hershberger, S. L., Pilkington, N. W., & D’Augelli, A. R. (1997). Predictors of suicide attempts among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 477–497. http://doi.org/10.1177/0743554897124004
53. Lewis, R., Derlega, V., Berndt, A., Morris, L., & Rose, S. (2001). An empirical analysis of stressors for gay men and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 42(1), 63–88. http://doi.org/10.1300/J082v42n01_04
54. Mohr, J. J., & Fassinger, R. E. (2003). Self-acceptance and self-disclosure of sexual orientation in lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults: An attachment perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 482–495. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.50.4.482
55. Bernal, A. T., & Coolhart, D. (2005). Learning from sexual minorities. Guidance and Counseling, 20, 128–138.
56. Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., Hunter, J., & Braun, L. (2006). Sexual identity development among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: Consistency and change over time. The Journal of Sex Research, 43, 46–58. http://doi.org/10.1080/00224490609552298
57. Lee, C. (2002). The impact of belonging to a high school gay/straight alliance. The High School Journal, 2, 8–25. http://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2002.0005
58. Brown, M., & Colbourne, M. (2005). Bent but not broken: Exploring queer youth resilience. In M. Unger (Ed.), The handbook of working with children and youth: Pathways to resilience across cultures and contexts (pp. 263–278). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
59. Spencer, R. (2004). Studying relationships in psychotherapy: An untapped resource for youth mentoring. New Directions for Youth Development, 103, 31–43. http://doi.org/10.1002/yd.89
60. Herrera, C., Sipe, C. L., & McClanahan, W. S. (2000). Mentoring school-age children: Relationship development in community-based and school-based programs. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.
61. Karcher, M., Kuperminc, G. P., Portwood, S., Sipe, C. L., & Taylor, A. S. (2006). Mentoring programs: A framework to inform program development, research, and evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 709–724. http://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20125
62. Morrow, K. V., & Styles, M. B. (1995). Building relationships with youth in program settings: A study of big brothers/ big sisters. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.
63. DuBois, D. L., Portillo, N., Rhodes, J. E., Silverthorn, N., & Valentine, J. C. (2011). How effective are mentoring programs for youth: A systematic assessment of the evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interests, 12, 57–91. http://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611414806
64. Rummell, C. L. (2013). A unique support for sexual-minority identity development: An interpretative phenomenological analysis of a long-term formal mentoring relationship between an adult and a youth from the gay community. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from Portland State University Dissertations and Theses. (Paper 1487). Available at https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2486&context=open_access_etds
65. Torres, R. S., Harper, G. W., Sánchez, B., & Fernández, M. I. (2012). Children and youth services review examining natural mentoring relationships (NMRs) among self-identified gay, bisexual, and questioning (GBQ) male youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 8–14. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.12.018
66. Acevedo-Polakovich, I. D., Bell, B., Gamache, P., & Christian, A. (2011). Service accessibility for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth. Youth & Society, 45, 75–97. http://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X11409067
67. Helfgott, K. P., & Gonsoulin, S. G. (2012). Standards of care for LGBT youth. In S. Fisher, J. M. Poirier, & G. Blau (Eds.), Improving emotional & behavioral outcomes for LGBT youth (pp. 141–158). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
68. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of Safe and Healthy Students. (2016, May). Examples of Policies and Emerging Practices for Supporting Transgender Students. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/oshs/emergingpractices.pdf
69. Bruce, M., & Bridgeland, J. (2014). The mentoring effect: Young people’s perspectives on the outcomes and availability of mentoring. Boston, MA: MENTOR/The National Mentoring Partnership.