Child Adolesc Soc Work J (2016) 33:395–405
DOI 10.1007/s10560-016-0435-7
Promoting Empowerment Among LGBTQ Youth: A Social
Justice Youth Development Approach
M. Alex Wagaman1
Published online: 21 January 2016
 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer-
identified (LGBTQ) youth are a population with a unique
set of service needs. Existing research on effective service
methods with LGBTQ youth is limited. Youth empower-
ment holds potential as an approach that can impact well-
being among youth who face discrimination. The current
study explores the relationship between the social justice
youth development framework (Ginwright and James, New
Directions Youth Dev 96:27–46, 2002) and youth
empowerment in a sample of LGBTQ youth. Multiple
regression analysis of data collected through a community-
based youth program identified critical consciousness and
community engagement as significant predictors of
empowerment. Findings suggest that programs that pro-
mote these factors among LGBTQ youth using the social
justice youth development framework may enhance
empowerment thereby increasing other aspects of well-
being.
Keywords LGBT
Youth
Empowerment
Social
justice
Youth development
Community-based services
Many lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer-iden-
tified (LGBTQ) youth face discrimination and marginal-
ization fostered by the social systems that serve them.
Traditional responses to serving youth who face such
societal barriers aim to equip them with skills to cope with
or adapt to their environments. Positive youth development
(PYD) and sociopolitical development theorists have
& M. Alex Wagaman
mawagaman@vcu.edu
1
Virginia Commonwealth University, 1000 Floyd Ave,
PO Box 842027, Richmond, VA 23284, USA
challenged such approaches because they do not engage
youth in using their power to change the systems that are
often the causes of their negative outcomes.
Building on PYD principles, Ginwright and James
(2002) have proposed a social justice youth development
framework that supports the relationship between the
ability to analyze use and misuse of power in one’s life
(critical consciousness) and engagement in activities that
promote social justice. Such a model has a number of
potential implications for community-based services aimed
at LGBTQ youth through supporting their empowerment,
which in turn may have positive effects on their well-being.
This exploratory study examined relationships between
factors identified in the social justice youth development
framework among a group of LGBTQ youth.
Environmental Factors Impacting LGBTQ Youth
Many LGBTQ youth face discrimination and marginal-
ization from the social systems with which they come in
contact. Despite a number of shifts in the political context
for LGBTQ-identified people in the U.S., research contin-
ues to indicate that LGBTQ youth face harassment in
schools that often goes unchecked and can result in poor
academic outcomes or being ‘‘pushed out’’ of school prior
to graduation (Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2014).
LGBTQ youth represent a disproportionate percentage of
homeless youth in the U.S (Cray, Miller, & Durso, 2013).
A recent report indicates that the primary cause of home-
lessness among LGBTQ youth is being forced out by
family or running away because of one’s sexual orienta-
tion, gender identity or expression (Choi, Wilson, Shelton,
& Gates, 2015). Once homeless, LGBTQ youth face
compounded challenges to accessing adequate shelter,
123
396
permanent housing and employment (Cray et al., 2013;
Ray, 2006). These challenges are particularly complex for
transgender youth and youth of color (Choi et al., 2015).
For LGBTQ youth who become involved in systems of
care, we know that their experiences may be impacted by
unfair treatment, such as in the juvenile justice system
(Majd, Marksamer, & Reyes, 2009), or a lack of sensitivity
to their unique needs, such as in the child welfare system
(Berberet, 2006; Mallon, 1998).
At the community level, research indicates that LGBTQ
youth experience threats to their safety. More specifically,
transgender women of color face high levels of risk for
violence on the streets (Grant et al., 2011). Research has
also explored the impact of the social environment on LGB
youth. Findings suggest that less supportive environments
are associated with increased risk for suicide (Hatzen-
buehler, 2011) and increased likelihood of tobacco use
(Hatzenbuehler, Wieringa, & Keyes, 2011) among LGB
youth.
While research has clearly documented the impact of
negative environmental factors and discriminatory prac-
tices within systems on the well-being of LGBTQ youth
(Almeida, Johnson, Corliss, Molnar, & Azrael, 2009), it
has also documented the value of efforts to address those
factors. For example, the existence of a gay straight alli-
ance (GSA) in the school environment has a positive
impact on perceptions of school experiences among LGBT
students, whether or not they participate in the GSA
(Walls, Kane, & Wisneski, 2010), and has been associated
with long term effects on mental health outcomes (Heck,
Flentje, & Cochran, 2011). Similarly, the work of the
Family Acceptance Project has documented the direct
impact of parental behaviors on the risk for suicide among
LGBT youth. When parents and caregivers engage in more
accepting behaviors, risks decrease significantly in their
children (Ryan, Russell, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2010).
The role of the broader community environment in
affecting outcomes in LGBTQ youth has been explored
less in the literature. Over several decades, LGBTQ youth
have consistently identified the importance of a connection
to other LGBTQ-identified people and a larger LGBTQ
community (Nesmith, Burton, & Cosgrove, 1999;
Wagaman, 2014). And youth at the intersections of mul-
tiple identities that face discrimination receive support
from their community and constructed families in ways
that are protective (Arnold & Bailey, 2009). A sense of
connection to a larger LGBTQ community has been asso-
ciated with increased self-esteem (Detrie & Lease, 2007)
and positive social identity development (McCallum &
McLaren, 2010) in LGB youth. LGBTQ youth often access
identity-based community through LGBTQ youth-serving
organizations (Gamarel, Walker, Rivera, & Golub, 2014).
However, there is little evidence to support the important
123
M. Alex Wagaman
role of these organizations, and the programs and services
they provide (Allen, Hammack, & Hines, 2012).
Serving LGBTQ Youth
LGBTQ youth are served in a variety of community-based
contexts (Craig, Dentato, & Iacovino, 2015). Some of these
service settings are LGBTQ-specific, but many are not.
Research has explored practices and principles that impact
effective service delivery in many of the general service
settings in which LGBTQ youth are served, including
health care (Coker, Austin, & Schuster, 2010). There is
little evidence, however, to support our understanding of
the effectiveness of what have been identified as best
practices, or interventions targeting LGBTQ youth (Craig,
McInroy, Austin, Smith, & Engle, 2012; Saewyc, 2011).
Much of the literature on youth in general has focused
on the ways in which the social and political context
impact them, and much less on how young people are
affecting those domains (Christens & Peterson, 2012). This
trend can be observed in the existing literature on LGBTQ-
identified young people as well. As a result, programs and
interventions targeting young people rarely address struc-
tural inequities, or the ways in which young people can
become more aware and more engaged in efforts to impact
these inequities and the systems that underlie or reinforce
them. Traditional responses to serving youth who face
societal barriers aim to equip them with skills to cope with
or adapt to their environments (Russell, 2005).
The Possibilities of Empowerment for LGBTQ
Youth
Along with substantial evidence to support our under-
standing of the challenging context within which LGBTQ
youth are living, there is also significant evidence that
LGBTQ youth are daily challenging, resisting and chang-
ing their environments (Wagaman, in press; Wagaman,
2014; Wernick, Dessel, Kulick, & Graham, 2013)—in and
through community-based organizations, schools, and
beyond. However, little is known about the impact of these
efforts on LGBTQ youth or the relationship between these
kinds of activities and their well-being.
In research on oppression and marginalization, scholars
often focus on the intersection of the intrapersonal, inter-
personal and the social or collective experience of dis-
crimination (Mullaly, 2002). Discrimination and
oppression can be experienced at all three levels, and
experiences at one level may impact another level. For
example, social messages from media that stigmatize
LGBTQ people may be internalized by a young person
Promoting Empowerment Among LGBTQ Youth: A Social Justice Youth Development Approach
who identifies as LGBTQ. The resulting internalized
oppression can, in turn, impact a young person’s individual
sense of self-worth as well as interactions with other
LGBTQ people. Prilleltensky (2003) argues that we must
take the same approach when we think about the process of
liberation from oppression. The psychological, interper-
sonal and collective are inextricably interconnected.
Similar to this framework for understanding oppression
and liberation, empowerment theoretically has been iden-
tified as having three levels—intrapersonal, interpersonal
and community (Gutiérrez, 1990; Gutiérrez, DeLois, &
GlenMaye, 1995), which aligns with research exploring
LGBTQ youths’ perceptions of empowerment (Russell,
Muraco, Subramaniam, & Laub, 2009). Empowerment has
been identified as a factor that may promote well-being
among youth generally. Although it has been defined in
various ways, if we look at it from a critical theory per-
spective (Jennings, Parra-Medina, Hilfinger Messias, &
McLoughlin, 2006), it may be an important outcome for
LGBTQ youth that not only promotes individual well-be-
ing but has community level impact as well. This is par-
ticularly important given the previously described
environmental context within which LGBTQ youth live.
The Potential of Community-Based LGBTQ
Youth-Serving Organizations as Sites
for Empowerment
Community-based LGBTQ youth organizations are posi-
tioned to engage LGBTQ youth in collective efforts to
respond to negative environmental factors in an effort to
create positive social change. By participating in LGBTQ
youth organizations, youth can experience empowerment
in the face of discrimination (Gamarel et al., 2014) through
social and peer support (Asakura, 2010), connection to a
broader LGBTQ community, and engagement in activities
that involve youth in change efforts. Anecdotally, we know
that many LGBTQ youth organizations and programs
incorporate engagement in change efforts into their work
with youth. However, there is a dearth of research on
community-based organizations and programs for LGBTQ
youth (Allen et al., 2012) limiting our understanding of
how such efforts are implemented and the outcomes they
have on the youth and community.
Theoretical Framework: Empowerment
and Youth Development
This study was grounded theoretically in the work of
scholars who are examining the development of youth
through an empowerment-based framework and a social
397
justice lens. More specifically, it is grounded in the social
justice youth development framework that was introduced
by Ginwright and James (2002). LGBTQ-identified youth
are unique from other sub-populations of young people,
particularly those with whom research on empowerment
has been conducted. However, based on what we know
about the experiences of LGBTQ youth, the social justice
youth development framework has a number of potential
implications for LGBTQ youth services. Employing a
social justice youth development framework in designing
and implementing LGBTQ youth-directed programs and
services can support their development as agents of change
thereby impacting their overall well-being.
Positive Youth Development (PYD) theorists and others
have challenged traditional approaches to working with
youth because they do not engage youth in using their
power to change the systems that are often the causes of
their negative outcomes (Watts & Flanagan, 2007). While
PYD has been applied in a number of disciplines and set-
tings, scholars have challenged us to consider its limita-
tions, particularly its lack of focus on structural barriers.
For example, drawing on the work of Freire and empow-
erment theorists, sociopolitical development theory has
been posited as an approach that extends PYD to include
developmental tasks such as an ability to analyze power in
systems and institutions (Watts & Flanagan, 2007). Such
developmental tasks have been identified as being a par-
ticularly important aspect of development for youth who
experience discrimination (Kirshner & Ginwright, 2012),
such as LGBTQ youth. A key component of sociopolitical
development is critical consciousness, which has been
described as an ‘‘antidote’’ to structural oppression (Watts,
Griffith, & Abdul-Adil, 1999). Critical consciousness
includes the skills and knowledge necessary to analyze
power within society and its impact on oneself.
Building on PYD principles, Ginwright and James’
(2002) social justice youth development framework looks
at the experiences of youth in a social-ecological context.
This framework asks scholars to consider how social,
political and economic forces influence the development of
young people. Ginwright and James (2002) identified
several components of a youth development approach that
underlie the framework. These include: (1) analyzing
power within social relationships, (2) making identity
central, (3) promoting systemic change, (4) encouraging
collective action, and (5) embracing youth culture. This
framework supports the idea that a relationship exists
between the ability to analyze use and misuse of power in
one’s life (critical consciousness) and engagement in
activities that promote social justice.
Sociopolitical development theory and the social justice
youth development framework have been primarily applied
to the specific experiences of youth of color and low-
123
398
income youth (Baker & Brookins, 2014), but Ginwright
and James (2002) draw links between the systemic
oppression faced by youth of color and youth in other
identity groups such as LGBTQ youth. Such an approach to
supporting youth development yields different outcomes
than traditional youth development, including factors that
we would associate with empowerment such as activism
and civic engagement. In the research that has been done to
explore sociopolitical development, critical consciousness
among youth has been linked to political participation in
adulthood (Diemer & Li, 2011). The work of Christens and
Peterson (2012) has identified psychological empowerment
(or intrapersonal empowerment) as being an important
mediator for low-income youth. For example, it was found
to have a significant mediating effect on the relationship
between family cohesion and self-esteem, and on the
relationship between supportive environments and indica-
tors of well-being (Christens & Peterson, 2012). Reflecting
on the risks that LGBTQ youth face for experiencing
family rejection and hostile environments, as previously
discussed, such a framework has potential value for
impacting positive outcomes for this population.
Current Study
This study aimed to explore the relationships between the
social justice youth development principles in Ginwright
and James’ (2002) theoretical framework, particularly
community engagement and critical consciousness, and
empowerment among LGBTQ youth. More specifically,
the research examined the association between youth
engagement in activities that helped others and the com-
munity, critical consciousness, and empowerment of
LGBTQ youth.
Methods
Data Collection
Data were collected in partnership with a community-based
LGBTQ youth-serving organization in a large, urban area
in the southwestern US through an annual program pro-
vided by the organization. The program was a 4-day,
LGBTQ-focused, youth leadership retreat that offered team
building, educational workshops, personal development,
and community building activities for youth ages 12–24.
The program primarily recruited participants from the state
within which the organization is based, including urban,
suburban and rural communities. It also accepted applica-
tions from youth outside of the state, and had previously
included a few youth from outside of the US. Each year,
123
M. Alex Wagaman
youth apply to attend the program using an online appli-
cation process. Approximately three to four times more
youth apply than are accepted based on space, funding and
a screening process.
Youth were invited to participate in the study after
applying to attend the 2013 program, and prior to finding
out if they had been accepted into the program. All youth
who applied to the program were eligible to participate in
the study. Youth ages 18 and over were emailed an invi-
tation and a link to the survey by the program director.
Youth under age 18 were sent a parental consent and assent
form via mail. Upon return of both forms, program staff
made phone contact with the parent/guardian to confirm
consent. The youth was then emailed the invitation to
participate and survey link. Youth had to complete the
survey prior to the program being delivered. All data were
collected during the month of August 2013. The study was
approved by the university institutional review board.
Measures
The researchers worked collaboratively with program staff
and youth who participated in programming to develop a
set of demographic items on the survey that would be
inclusive of the experiences of youth served by the orga-
nization. These included items such as: age, designated sex,
gender identity, trans*/transgender identity, sexual orien-
tation, racial or ethnic identity, and current school
involvement. In addition, youth were asked to report per-
ceived support they received from family, peers, at school,
and within their geographic community. The level of
LGBTQ visibility in one’s community was reported by
respondents, as well as specific items related to the pres-
ence of a GSA in one’s school and an LGBTQ youth
organization or support group in one’s community.
Youth responded to items from the Social Empathy
Index (SEI) (Segal, Wagaman, & Gerdes, 2012) assessing
social empathy, which is theoretically and conceptually
related to critical consciousness (Wagaman, 2011). Nine
items assess contextual understanding of systemic barriers,
and another 9 assess macro perspective-taking, or the
ability to understand ways in which one’s own experiences
in the world may differ from others’ based on identity or
other factors—for a total of 18 items. Each item is on a
6-point scale from ‘‘never’’ (1) to ‘‘always’’ (6) and asks
respondents to select the option that most closely reflects
their feelings. Examples of items include: ‘‘I can best
understand people who are different from me by learning
from them directly’’ (macro perspective-taking), and ‘‘I
believe there are barriers in the United States’ educational
system that prevent some groups of people from having
economic success’’ (contextual understanding). As a scale,
the eighteen items had good reliability (? = .92).
Promoting Empowerment Among LGBTQ Youth: A Social Justice Youth Development Approach
Participants were asked to rate the frequency with which
they participated within the previous 3 months in a range
of behaviors or activities associated with helping others
and the community. These included such behaviors as:
volunteering, mentoring or advising a peer or other young
person, being a leader of a group or organization, attending
a march or rally, and engaging in a political activity (such
as voting or helping on a campaign). A wide range of
activities were intentionally included to align theoretically
with a broad definition of civic engagement and political
participation, or as described by Watts and Flanagan
(2007), societal involvement behaviors. This is particularly
important for studies with populations of youth who may
experience marginalization from traditional forms of civic
engagement. Participants responded to each of seven items
on a 4-point scale (1—‘‘never’’ to 4—‘‘often’’). These
items were used to create a scale score for community
engagement, which had good reliability (? = .82) in the
sample.
Finally, youth were asked to respond to seven items that
indicated their level of empowerment. These items were
again based on specific behaviors within the previous
3 months, and the extent to which they engaged in each
behavior on a 4-point Likert scale (1—‘‘never’’ to 4—
‘‘often’’). These items included such behaviors as: ques-
tioning an authority figure about an unfair policy, decision
or action; challenging someone who used negative lan-
guage or a stereotype with regard to sexual orientation or
gender identity or race; and expressing one’s views or
opinions in front of a group. The items were generated to
assess participation in behaviors that reflected the three
levels of empowerment—intrapersonal, interpersonal, and
collective or social. They were also intentionally developed
to align with the previously described aspects of the social
justice youth development framework. As such, items were
included that made identity central, addressed analysis of
power in social relationships, and identified participation in
actions that promote systemic change. As a scale, these
items had good reliability (? = .78) in the sample.
Sample
A total of 72 youth participated in the survey. Participants
ranged in age from 14 to 23 years old with an average age
of 18.7 (std. dev. = 2.54). Seven youth did not report age.
Most of the youth (n = 54) reported current attendance at
school (high school, GED program, college or vocational
program), and over half (52.8 %; n = 38) reported having
attended the leadership program in a previous year.
The youth were diverse with regard to sexual orienta-
tion. Approximately 51 % (n = 37) self-identified as gay
or lesbian. Youth were asked if they identified as trans-
gender or trans* (an umbrella term sometimes used by
399
LGBTQ youth to include non-binary gender identities).
Approximately 28 % (n = 20) responded that they did.
Youth were also diverse in terms of gender identity and
racial or ethnic identity. On both items, participants were
given the option to select all that apply. For gender iden-
tity, 70 % (n = 51) of the youth selected one answer
option. The remainder (n = 21) selected between 2 and 4
answer options. Of those selecting one gender identity,
over 84 % (43) selected either ‘‘man’’ or ‘‘woman’’. The
remaining participants (n = 8) selected one of the fol-
lowing: genderqueer, ftm, mtf, genderfluid, or wrote in a
self-identifier. With regard to racial or ethnic identity,
approximately 72 % (n = 52) chose only one answer
option. The remaining participants (n = 20) selected
between 2 and 4 answer options. Of those who selected one
option, the majority identified as white or Caucasian
(n = 27). Twelve youth identified as Latino/a, Hispanic or
Chicano/a, and 5 youth identified as multiracial. See
Table 1 for a summary of the sample demographics.
The youth who participated reported varying levels of
support from their families, schools and communities. Of
those who responded to the item (n = 67), just over half
(n = 38) reported feeling very or extremely supported by
their families. Of those reporting current school involve-
ment, approximately 48 % (n = 34) reported that their
schools had a GSA or another group that supports
LGBTQA students. Of those, only 21 reported attending or
participating often or all of the time. Community (defined
as ‘‘where you live’’) support and affirmation reported by
the youth was lower than reported family support. Thirty-
eight percent (n = 25) of the youth reported feeling very or
extremely supported by their community, and approxi-
mately 41 % (n = 27) reported feeling supported a little or
not at all. Nearly 67 % (n = 48) of the youth reported that
there was an LGBTQ youth organization or support group
in their community. When asked about overall LGBTQ
visibility in the communities where they lived, the youth
had a broad range of responses across the full spectrum of
options (0 = ‘‘not at all/no visibility’’ to 100 = daily vis-
ibility). The mean response was 46.2 with a standard
deviation of 28.9.
Analytic Strategy
Multiple regression was used to analyze a model with
empowerment as the dependent variable, and independent
variables of community engagement and critical con-
sciousness. Controls were added to the model for variables
that, based on literature, may confound the relationship
between the independent and dependent variables. For
LGBTQ youth, holding constant perceived affirmation and
support from family related to LGBTQ identity, LGBTQ
123
400 M. Alex Wagaman

Table 1 Summary of sample

Sexual orientation Gender identity (one selected)
demographics (N = 72)
Lesbian 19.4 % (n = 14) Man 37.3 % (n = 19)
Gay 31.9 % (n = 23) Woman 47.1 % (n = 24)
Bisexual 9.7 % (n = 7) Genderqueer 2 % (n = 1)
Pansexual 12.5 % (n = 9) FTM 3.9 % (n = 2)
Queer 13.9 % (n = 10) MTF 3.9 % (n = 2)
Heterosexual/straight 5.6 % (n = 4) Genderfluid 3.9 % (n = 2)
Self-identifier (write in) 6.9 % (n = 5) Self-identifier (write in) 2 % (n = 1)

School status Racial/ethnic identity (one selected)

Not in school 25 % (n = 18) White/Caucasian 51.9 % (n = 27)

Attend GED or high school 36.1 % (n = 26) Hispanic/Latino/a/Chicano/a 23.1 % (n = 12)
Attend college 37.5 % (n = 27) African Amer/Black/African 3.8 % (n = 2)
Attend voc/technical prog. 1.4 % (n = 1) Asian Amer/Asian 1.9 % (n = 1)
First Nation/Indigenous/Native Amer 5.8 % (n = 3)
Multiracial 9.6 % (n = 5)
Self-identifier (write in) 3.8 % (n = 2)

visibility in community, age, and gender identity were
important to investigating the relationship between critical
consciousness, community engagement, and empower-
ment. Gender identity was divided into two categories and
was included in the model as a dummy variable with
trans*/transgender (including both binary and non-binary
transgender identities) as the reference group. Items mea-
suring community engagement and empowerment are
summarized in Table 2.
Results
The model results are summarized in Table 3. In the
model, 52 % percent of the variance (R2 = .58, adjusted
R2 = .52) in empowerment was accounted for by the
variables listed earlier [F(6, 43) = 10.12, p \ .01], with
community engagement [b = .63, t(6,43) = 5.93, p \ .01]
and critical consciousness [b = .32, t(6,43) = 3.17,
p \ .01] being individually significant predictors. None of
the controls were significant, indicating that the association
between critical consciousness, community engagement
and empowerment held even when family affirmation and
support, LGBTQ visibility in the participant’s community,
age, and gender identity were held constant.
The findings of this study indicate a significant rela-
tionship between empowerment and both community
engagement and critical consciousness among LGBTQ
youth. The relationship between these variables still existed
after controlling for additional factors that literature has
identified as creating unique service needs for LGBTQ
youth, including environmental factors and specific
identities that may impose additional limits on empower-
ment, including age and gender identity.
Limitations
There are several important limitations of this study to
consider. First, the data are cross-sectional, limiting our
ability to establish causality or directionality of the rela-
tionships between empowerment, community engagement
and critical consciousness. Second, the sample was not
random, and was drawn from a group of LGBTQ youth
who had sought out a LGBTQ-specific, youth leadership
program. More specifically, over half of the sample
reported having attended the leadership program in a pre-
vious year. The sample does not include youth who face
barriers to or are not interested in participating in such a
program. As such, the findings may not be reflected in a
sample of youth who have not expressed an interest in or
been previously exposed to programs that support youth
empowerment and leadership. All of the data were based
on self-report measures. These sample characteristics must
be considered before applying the findings to any other
samples or populations in other contexts.
Not all of the applicants for the leadership program
chose to participate in the survey. Therefore, we do not
know if there are qualitative differences between the youth
who selected to participate and those who did not. In
addition, although all youth who applied to the program
were invited to participate in the study, it is possible that
some youth made decisions about participation in the study
based on their subsequent notification about acceptance (or
not) into the program. Finally, the research relied on proxy

123
Promoting Empowerment Among LGBTQ Youth: A Social Justice Youth Development Approach 401

Table 2 Descriptive statistics on individual items used to develop scale scores for dependent (empowerment) and independent (community
engagement and critical consciousness) variables
Mean Std. N
deviation

Empowerment items—on a scale of 1 (‘‘never’’) to 4 (‘‘often’’)

In the last 3 months, how often have you questioned an authority figure about an unfair policy, decision or action? 2.79 1.110 66
In the last 3 months, how often have you expressed your views or opinion in front of a group? 3.21 .880 66
In the last 3 months, how often have you challenged someone who used negative language or a stereotype about 2.92 1.010 66
LGBTQ people?
In the last 3 months, how often have you challenged someone who used negative language or a stereotype about 2.68 1.080 66
people based on their race or ethnicity?
In the last 3 months, how often have you thought about how to solve a problem facing the LGBTQ community? 3.06 .820 66
In the last 3 months, how often have you educated others about the LGBTQ community? 3.15 .860 66
In the last 3 months, how often have you used technology or social media to voice your opinion or educate others 2.95 .960 66
about something affecting the LGBTQ community?
Community engagement behaviors items—on a scale of 1 (‘‘never’’) to 4 (‘‘often’’)
In the last 3 months, how often have you volunteered (gave freely of your time) in the community to have a positive 2.79 .993 67
impact?
In the last 3 months, how often have you mentored or advised peers or other young people? 2.58 1.047 67
In the last 3 months, how often have you helped a peer or other young person find a resource that they needed? 2.70 1.030 67
In the last 3 months, how often have you been a leader of a group or organization? 2.22 1.253 67
In the last 3 months, how often have you engaged in collective action with other young people? 2.69 1.090 67
In the last 3 months, how often have you attended a March or rally? 1.75 .959 67
In the last 3 months, how often have you participated in a political activity, like voting, helping to campaign for 1.72 1.012 67
someone running for office, or participating in advocating for a policy change?
Critical consciousness items (Social Empathy Index)—on a scale of 1 (‘‘never’’) to 6 (‘‘always’’)
I believe adults who are in poverty deserve social assistance 4.78 1.224 72
I confront discrimination when I see it 4.28 1.366 72
I think the government needs to be a part of leveling the playing field for people from different racial groups 4.99 1.316 72
I believe it is necessary to participate in community service 4.44 1.255 72
I believe that people who face discrimination have added stress that negatively impacts their lives 5.11 1.09 71
I am comfortable helping a person of a different race or ethnicity than my own 5.63 0.813 72
I take action to help others even if it does not personally benefit me 5.21 0.992 72
I can best understand people who are different from me by learning from them directly 5.13 1.047 72
I believe government should protect the rights of minorities 5.55 0.883 69
I believe that each of us should participate in political activities 4.33 1.431 69
I believe people born into poverty have more barriers to achieving economic well-being than people who were not 4.94 1.247 69
born into poverty
I feel it is important to understand the political perspectives of people I don’t agree with 4.69 1.261 68
I think it is the right of all citizens to have their basic needs met 5.55 0.85 69
I believe the role of government is to act as a referee, making decisions that promote the quality of life and well- 5.03 1.239 70
being of the people
I have an interest in understanding why people cannot meet their basic needs financially 4.19 1.627 70
I believe that by working together, people can change society to be more just and fair for everyone 5.26 0.988 70
I believe my actions will affect future generations 5.19 1.054 70
I believe there are barriers in the United States’ educational system that prevent some groups of people from having 5.19 1.094 70
economic success

measures for critical consciousness and community drawn. Similarly, the empowerment measures were
engagement that were selected in partnership with the designed to reflect both the principles of the social justice
community organization from which the sample was youth development framework (Ginwright & James, 2002),

123
402
Table 3 Multiple regression model predicting empowerment
B (beta)
Intercept -1.779
Community engagement .54**(.63)
Critical consciousness/social empathy .12*(.32)
Affirmation and support-family .22(.06)
LGBTQ visibility in community .02(.15)
Age .01(.01)
Trans-identity .47(.04)
Adjusted R2 .52**
F 10.12 (6,43)
* p \ .05
** p \ .01
as well the relevance for community-based programs
serving LGBTQ youth. While strong in face validity, all
three measures have limited statistical validity.
Discussion
There are a number of important implications of this
study’s findings for social work practitioners and organi-
zations serving LGBTQ youth and their families. Programs
and organizations specifically serving LGBTQ youth can
incorporate aspects of a social justice youth development
framework in program design and service delivery. In
addition, general youth-serving organizations can apply
this framework into practice efforts to effectively serve
LGBTQ youth.
Youth-serving organizations and practitioners can apply
the findings of this study within their practice with LGBTQ
youth and their families in several ways. First, they can
engage in training and individual development to better
understand the systemic context within which LGBTQ
youth are living. By enhancing their own critical con-
sciousness, organizations and practitioners are better
equipped to support critical consciousness development in
the youth whom they serve. Second, youth-serving orga-
nizations and practitioners can seek partnerships with
community-based, LGBTQ youth-serving organizations to
identify and develop opportunities for LGBTQ youth to
engage in community activities that are identity-based and
include a reflective component. And third, youth-serving
practitioners can support LGBTQ youth by referring them
to LGBTQ youth-serving organizations, and communicat-
ing with parents and guardians about the value of partici-
pating in identity-affirming activities and spaces. Examples
of what each of these might look like in practice are below.
For youth and family service providers at an individual
level, the findings of this study have implications for
enhancing competence to serve LGBTQ youth. Because
123
M. Alex Wagaman
the bulk of existing research literature on LGBTQ youth
has focused on risk and the clinical implications of facing
societal stigma and discrimination, practitioners are often
not prepared to engage with youth in broader discussions
about the oppressive practices and systems that affect their
lived experiences. In fact, sometimes social workers are a
part of these systems. This study suggests that there is a
need for practitioners to be able to name and analyze
structural inequities that affect LGBTQ youth and their
families. By raising one’s own critical consciousness and
reflecting on avenues to engage in change efforts to impact
inequities, social work practitioners will be more equipped
to work with LGBTQ youth from a social justice youth
development approach.
For example, practitioners should be trained to under-
stand the ways in which transgender youth of color are
often profiled and targeted by law enforcement, increasing
their risk for involvement in the juvenile justice system
where they face harsher sentences than their cisgender or
white peers. Understanding these system level inequities
allows for dialogue with clients who identify as transgen-
der youth of color about fears and anxieties that they may
feel when negotiating transportation, job searches, or other
tasks that pose unique barriers for them. Practitioners who
understand and can articulate knowledge of these barriers
can support young people in putting their own experiences
and feelings in a broader context, thereby externalizing
rather than internalizing them. This is one example of how
critical consciousness among practitioners can enhance
critical consciousness with LGBTQ youth in the context of
service delivery. Bridging the micro–macro understanding
of clients’ experiences is what makes social workers
uniquely equipped to do this work.
Another way to apply the findings of this study is to
develop partnerships with local LGBTQ youth-serving
organizations. Many communities have community-based,
LGBTQ youth-serving organizations, some of which may
be volunteer-run. Other communities serve LGBTQ youth
through intentional programming at local health centers or
through advocacy groups, such as safe schools coalitions.
LGBTQ youth-serving organizations, particularly those
that are community-based, can serve as a valuable bridge
between systems of care that may perpetuate experiences
of discrimination and oppression for LGBTQ youth, and a
broader LGBTQ community within which opportunities for
community reflection and engagement exist. Youth and
family practitioners should seek out information about
what kinds of programs and services are available to
LGBTQ youth in their service area. Partnerships with these
organizations allow for referrals of youth as appropriate, as
well as dialogue about ways to plug youth into community
activities that are geared toward helping others or creating
community level change. When these activities occur in an
Promoting Empowerment Among LGBTQ Youth: A Social Justice Youth Development Approach
identity-based context, such as an LGBTQ organization,
dialogue about issues facing the population can occur,
connecting an individual youth’s experiences with a
broader community experience. While these kinds of pro-
grams or services do not replace traditional services, such
as counseling, they serve as important complements in the
context of this study’s findings—supporting an aspect of
development that is also connected to health and well-
being.
As an example of such a partnership, a homeless youth
organization could work with an LGBTQ youth-serving
organization to develop an LGBTQ youth-sensitive cloth-
ing closet. Youth from both organizations who identify as
LGBTQ could engage in discussing the clothing needs of
LGBTQ youth, and ways to support access to clothing that
allows for a broad array of gender expression. Youth can
plan and implement an effort to collect clothing and set up
the closet, including ways to reach out to LGBTQ youth
who may need it. In a project such as this, service providers
and social workers should include a reflective component
that emphasizes a connection between the need that is
being addressed and an analysis of power in society.
Questions can be posed to the youth such as: Why are
clothing closets often divided into ‘‘male’’ and ‘‘female’’
clothing? What barriers does this create for people? How
do LGBTQ people experience this barrier in other parts of
their lives? How might that affect how they feel about
themselves? The connection between critical reflection,
lived experience, and an effort for change is a way of
bringing together the components of the social justice
youth development framework in an organizational setting
to promote empowerment.
Third, youth and family practitioners should engage with
parents and guardians about the value that participating in
LGBTQ youth programming has for LGBTQ young people.
Particularly for youth who are under age 18, parents and
guardians may be a barrier to or the primary facilitator of
participation in an LGBTQ youth-serving organization.
Such conversations should only occur in the context of a
family in which an LGBTQ youth is out or has given consent
to discuss an LGBTQ identity with parents or guardians. In
these cases, taking an approach that is supported by the
research of Ryan et al. (2010) through the Family Accep-
tance Project, talking with adults about the value that
involvement in LGBTQ youth-serving organizations holds
for promoting the well-being of their LGBTQ-identified
child is an important role for social workers to play when
appropriate. This means that practitioners should not only be
prepared to make a referral, but also to build connections
between a family and an LGBTQ youth-serving organization
based on an existing partnership.
Based on the findings of this study, these practice
implications do not rely on high levels of existing family
403
and community support, or LGBTQ visibility in the envi-
ronment within which they can be implemented. The
association between critical consciousness, community
engagement and empowerment remained significant even
as level of family and community support was held con-
stant indicating that these relationships among LGBTQ
youth may apply for youth with both high and low levels of
support in their immediate environments. This is not to
indicate that a supportive environment is not important to
the well-being of LGBTQ youth. However, it does suggest
that a supportive environment may not be a prerequisite to
the suggested applications for practice settings as previ-
ously discussed. As indicated in discussion of study limi-
tations, more research is needed to further examine the role
that family support, community visibility, and other envi-
ronmental factors not included in this study play in the
application of a social justice youth development frame-
work with LGBTQ youth. Does family support play a more
significant role for younger youth? Does LGBTQ com-
munity visibility impact the significance of the model for
transgender youth? These questions should be examined
more fully in a larger, randomly selected sample.
From a research and evaluation perspective, there are a
number of important implications of this study to further
assess the impact of taking a social justice youth devel-
opment approach with LGBTQ youth. First, it is imperative
that organizations that serve this population consider the
intended outcomes of their programs and services, and
include factors such as empowerment in their evaluation
design. In addition, future research and program evaluation
should explore the relationship between factors intended to
promote empowerment, and empowerment in youth over
time. Similarly, research and evaluation needs to examine
the relationship between empowerment and factors asso-
ciated with health and well-being over time among
LGBTQ youth. If, in fact, the process of liberation for
LGBTQ youth should attend to the three levels impacted
by oppression—intrapersonal, interpersonal, and social or
collective—then evaluation of programs intended to
increase well-being using a social justice youth develop-
ment framework will need to evaluate outcomes at all three
levels. Further research evidence is also needed to support
program design and delivery using this framework.
LGBTQ youth have unique experiences that require
programs and services attentive to the impact of discrimi-
nation and oppression on their long-term health and well-
being. A social justice youth development framework
offers a theoretical lens with practice implications through
which programs and services can enhance the empower-
ment of LGBTQ youth. This is achieved through increasing
critical consciousness and engaging in activities intended
to address community and institutional inequities. Devel-
opment in these areas may promote empowerment, which
123
404
can enhance efforts to increase overall, individual well-
being in LGBTQ youth. Social work practitioners, and
youth and family-serving organizations can use a social
justice youth development approach to increase their
effectiveness in supporting and serving LGBTQ youth.
Acknowledgments The author would like to acknowledge and
thank one•n•ten for their partnership in the development and
implementation of this research study, and the youth who
participated.
References
Allen, K. D., Hammack, P. L., & Himes, H. L. (2012). Analysis of
LGBTQ youth community-based programs in the United States.
Journal of Homosexuality, 59, 1289–1306. doi:10.1080/
00918369.2012.720529.
Almeida, J., Johnson, R. M., Corliss, H. L., Molnar, B. E., & Azrael,
D. (2009). Emotional distress among LGBT youth: The influence
of perceived discrimination based on sexual orientation. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 1001–1014.
Arnold, E. A., & Bailey, M. M. (2009). Constructing home and
family: How the ballroom community supports African Amer-
ican GLBTQ youth in the face of HIV/AIDS. Journal of Gay and
Lesbian Social Services, 21, 171–188. doi:10.1080/
10538720902772006.
Asakura, K. (2010). Queer youth space: A protective factor for sexual
minority youth. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 80,
361–376.
Baker, A. M., & Brookins, C. C. (2014). Toward the development of a
measure of sociopolitical consciousness: Listening to the voices
of Salvadoran youth. Journal of Community Psychology, 42,
1015–1032.
Berberet, H. M. (2006). Putting the pieces together for queer youth: A
model of integrated assessment of need and program planning.
Child Welfare, 85, 361–384.
Choi, S. K., Wilson, B. D. M., Shelton, J., & Gates, G. (2015).
Serving our youth 2015: The needs and experiences of lesbian,
gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth experiencing
homelessness. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute with True
Colors Fund.
Christens, B. D., & Peterson, N. A. (2012). The role of empowerment
in youth development: A study of sociopolitical control as
mediator of ecological systems’ influence on developmental
outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 623–635.
doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9724-9.
Coker, T. R., Austin, S. B., & Schuster, M. A. (2010). The health and
health care of lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents. Annual
Review of Public Health, 31, 457–477.
Craig, S. L., Dentato, M. P., & Iacovino, G. E. (2015). Patching holes
and integrating community: A strengths-based continuum of care
for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth.
Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 27, 100–115.
doi:10.1080/10538720.2015.988317.
Craig, S. L., McInroy, L., Austin, A., Smith, M., & Engle, B. (2012).
Promoting self-efficacy and self-esteem for multiethnic sexual
minority youth: An evidence-informed intervention. Journal of
Social Service Research, 38, 688–698.
Cray, A., Miller, K., & Durso, L. E. (2013). Seeking shelter: The
experiences and unmet needs of LGBT homeless youth. Wash-
ington, DC: Center for American Progress.
Detrie, P. M., & Lease, S. H. (2007). The relation of social support,
connectedness, and collective self-esteem to the psychological
123
M. Alex Wagaman
well-being of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of
Homosexuality, 53, 173–199.
Diemer, M. A., & Li, C. H. (2011). Critical consciousness develop-
ment and political participation among marginalized youth.
Child Development, 82, 1815–1833.
Gamarel, K. E., Walker, J. J., Rivera, L., & Golub, S. A. (2014).
Identity safety and relational health in youth spaces: A needs
assessment with LGBTQ youth of color. Journal of LGBT Youth,
11, 289–315. doi:10.1080/9361653.2013.879464.
Ginwright, S., & James, T. (2002). From assets to agents of change:
Social justice, organizing, and youth development. New Direc-
tions for Youth Development, 96, 27–46.
Grant, J. M., Mottet, L. A., Tanis, J., Harrison, J., Herman, J. L., &
Keisling, M. (2011). Injustice at every turn: A report of the
National Transgender Discrimination Survey. Washington, DC:
National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and
Lesbian Task Force.
Gutiérrez, L. (1990). Working with women of color: An empower-
ment perspective. Social Work, 35, 149–154.
Gutiérrez, L. M., DeLois, K. A., & GlenMaye, L. (1995). Under-
standing empowerment practice: Building on practitioner-based
knowledge. Families in Society, 76, 534–542.
Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2011). The social environment and suicide
attempts in lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Pediatrics, 127,
896–903. doi:10.1542/peds.2010-3020.
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Wieringa, N. F., & Keyes, K. M. (2011).
Community-level determinants of tobacco use disparities in
lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth: results from a population-based
study. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 165,
527–532.
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, 161–174.
Jennings, L. B., Parra-Medina, D. M., Hilfinger Messias, D. K., &
McLoughlin, K. (2006). Toward a critical social theory of
youth empowerment. Journal of Community Practice, 14, 31–
55.
Kirshner, B., & Ginwright, S. (2012). Youth organizing as a
developmental context for African American and Latino ado-
lescents. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 288–294.
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: GLSEN.
Majd, K., Marksamer, J., & Reyes, C. (2009). Hidden injustice:
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in juvenile courts.
San Francisco: Legal Services for Children, National Juvenile
Defender Center, and National Center for Lesbian Rights.
Mallon, G. P. (1998). We don’t exactly get the welcome wagon: The
experiences of gay and lesbian adolescents in child welfare
systems. Columbia University Press.
McCallum, C., & McLaren, S. (2010). Sense of belonging and
depressive symptoms among GLB adolescents. Journal of
Homosexuality, 58, 83–96.
Mullaly, R. P. (2002). Challenging oppression: A critical social work
approach. Oxford University Press.
Nesmith, A. A., Burton, D. L., & Cosgrove, T. J. (1999). Gay, lesbian,
and bisexual youth and young adults: Social support in their own
words. Journal of Homosexuality, 37, 95–108.
Prilleltensky, I. (2003). Understanding, resisting, and overcoming
oppression: Toward psychopolitical validity. American Journal
of Community Psychology, 31, 195–201.
Ray, N. (2006). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth: An
epidemic of homelessness. New York: National Gay and Lesbian
Task Force and the National Coalition for the Homeless.
Promoting Empowerment Among LGBTQ Youth: A Social Justice Youth Development Approach
Russell, S. T. (2005). Beyond risk: Resilience in the lives of sexual
minority youth. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education,
2(3), 5–18.
Russell, S. T., Muraco, A., Subramaniam, A., & Laub, C. (2009).
Youth empowerment and high school Gay Straight Alliances.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 891–903.
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, 23,
205–213.
Saewyc, E. M. (2011). Research on adolescent sexual orientation:
Development, health disparities, stigma, and resilience. Journal
of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 256–272. doi:10.1111/j.
1532-7795.2010.00727.x.
Segal, E. A., Wagaman, M. A., & Gerdes, K. E. (2012). Developing
the social empathy index: An exploratory factor analysis.
Advances in Social Work, 13(3), 541–560.
Wagaman, M. A. (2011). Social empathy as a framework for
adolescent empowerment. Journal of Social Service Research,
37(3), 278–293. doi:10.1080/01488376.2011.564045.
405
Wagaman, M. A. (in press). Self-definition as resistance: Under-
standing identities among LGBTQ emerging adults. Journal of
LGBT Youth.
Wagaman, M. A. (2014). Understanding service experiences of
LGBTQ young people through an intersectional lens. Journal of
Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 26, 111–145. doi:10.1080/
10538720.2013.866867.
Walls, N. E., Kane, S. B., & Wisneski, H. (2010). Gay-Straight
Alliances and school experiences of sexual minority youth.
Youth and Society, 41, 307–332.
Watts, R. J., & Flanagan, C. (2007). Pushing the envelope on youth
civic engagement: A developmental and liberation psychology
perspective. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 779–792.
Watts, R. J., Griffith, D. M., & Abdul-Adil, J. (1999). Sociopolitical
development as an antidote for oppression—Theory and action.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 255–271.
Wernick, L. J., Dessel, A. B., Kulick, A., & Graham, L. F. (2013).
LGBTQQ youth creating change: Developing allies against
bullying through performance and dialogue. Children and Youth
Services Review, 35, 1576–1586.
123
Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal is a copyright of Springer, 2016. All Rights
Reserved.