Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Sch Health. 2021 Apr;91(4):318–330. doi: 10.1111/josh.13005

Intersectional Differences in Protective School Assets by Sexuality, Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Status

ROBERT W S COULTER a, TAYLOR PAGLISOTTI b, GERALD MONTANO c, KAITLIN BODNAR d, MELINA BERSAMIN e, STEPHEN T RUSSELL f, ASHLEY V HILL g, CHRISTINA MAIR h, ELIZABETH MILLER i
PMCID: PMC8432425  NIHMSID: NIHMS1700437  PMID: 33740272

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

School assets—such as connectedness, caring relationships with adults, high behavioral expectations from adults, and meaningful participation—are associated with positive outcomes for adolescents. However, little is known about how school assets differ among adolescents with intersecting marginalized identities.

METHODS:

We used the 2013–2014 California Healthy Kids Survey (N = 320, 462 students) to examine differences in school assets with respect to sexuality, gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status using adjusted multilevel linear regression models.

RESULTS:

Sexual minority, gender minority, racial/ethnic minority, and low socioeconomic status adolescents had significantly lower protective school assets. For all outcomes, the differences between sexual minority and heterosexual adolescents were more pronounced among nontransgender girls than nontransgender boys; however, these differences were not consistently present among racial/ethnic minority students. For school connectedness and meaningful participation, differences for racial/ethnic minorities versus white adolescents were more pronounced among nontransgender girls than nontransgender boys. Differences between transgender adolescents and nontransgender boys were more pronounced for white adolescents compared to some other racial/ethnic minority students. Overall, adolescents with certain multiple marginalized identities had lower school assets.

CONCLUSIONS:

Interventions are needed to strengthen school assets among marginalized students, thereby helping mitigate health and education inequities.

Keywords: school protective assets, school connectedness, racial/ethnic minority, socioeconomic status, sexual and gender minority

School assets—such as school connectedness, caring relationships with adults, high behavioral expectations, and meaningful participation—are associated with adolescent health and well-being. For example, higher levels of school assets are associated with lower levels of depression, fewer conduct problems, better school attendance, higher grades and classroom test scores, and staying in school longer.1–4 However, sexual minority youth (ie, lesbian, gay, or bisexual youth), racial/ethnic minority youth, and youth with lower socioeconomic status often experience prejudice, stigma, and discrimination from school staff and peers,5 which may inhibit their access to protective school assets.6,7 Preliminary research demonstrates that sexual minorities, racial/ethnic minorities, and youth with low socioeconomic statuses report lower school assets than their peers.8–12 Yet, there is no research, to our knowledge, that has examined whether these assets are lower among gender minority youth (ie, transgender youth) compared with cisgender youth. Furthermore, there is limited research to our knowledge that examines whether having 2 or 3 minority identities compared to having 1 or 0 minority identities is associated with different levels of protective school assets. Therefore, our objective was to identify differences in protective school assets at the intersections of sexual identity, race/ethnicity, gender identity, and socioeconomic status.

Minority stress theory posits that being a member of a minority group is associated with a higher exposure to prejudice, stigma, and discrimination5; for youth, such experiences are common at school. For example, sexual and gender minority youth experience high rates of victimization and bullying at school and school staff may hold negative attitudes and behaviors toward sexual and gender minority youth.13,14 Youth with low socioeconomic status are more likely to experience bullying victimization than theirpeerswithhighersocioeconomicstatus.15 Finally, black youth receive disciplinary sanctions more often than white youth.16,17 These discriminatory and stigmatizing experiences may make sexual minority, gender minority, racial/ethnic minority, and low socioeconomic status students’ feel less cared for by school-based adults, have fewer opportunities for meaningful school participation, and feel less connected to schools overall.

Multiple minoritized or multiple marginalized youth are particularly vulnerable because multiple societal factors place them at the intersection of pervasive structural and systemic issues like heterosexism, genderism, racism, and classism,18 which can have profound negative effects on adolescents’ wellbeing.19 Intersectionality is a theoretical framework that examines how individuals are marginalized through multiple aspects of their identity by systems of power that impact them.20 These systems assign social value through social constructions of race/ethnicity, class, gender, and sexuality. Although initially introduced as a product of Black Feminist Thought to explore the harmful impacts of societal structures on black women and femmes (ie, intersecting sexuality, race, and gender), Intersectionality has broadly been applied to understand the health, social, and political implications of individuals marginalized across their multiple identities.21 According to intersectionality theory, adolescents with multiple marginalized identities experience may experience stressors that are uniquely different from those of their nonmarginalized peers, which may further inhibit their access to protective school assets.20,22,23 For instance, at the interpersonal level, sexual minority people who are also racial/ethnic minorities may experience racial discrimination from the wider sexual minority community24 and also may experience heterosexism within their racial/ethnic minority communities.25 This dual discrimination has been linked to poor mental health and physical outcomes among sexual and gender minority people of color.23,26–28 However, the impact of belonging to multiple marginalized groups on school assets is unknown.

Given the theoretical and empirical knowledge of minority stress5 and intersectionality,20 our first hypothesis is that perceived levels of protective school assets will be: (1) lower for sexual minority youth compared to heterosexual youth; (2) lower for racial/ethnic minority youth compared to white youth; (3) lower for gender minority youth and nontransgender girls compared to nontransgender boys; (4) and lower for youth with lower socioeconomic status compared to youth with higher socioeconomic status. Our second hypothesis is that adolescents with more than one minority identity will have lower levels of perceived protective school assets compared to adolescents with 1 or 0 minority identities. Testing these hypotheses will have implications for programming and policies aimed at promoting protective school assets among vulnerable groups of adolescents.

METHODS

Participants

We analyzed cross-sectional data from the 2013–2014 California Healthy Kids Survey, administered to students in grades 7, 9, and 11, including 439,743 students attending 1584 middle schools and high schools in California.

Procedure

Parents provided active or passive consent for their children, depending on the school. Students voluntarily completed anonymous surveys either online or via paper. Sampling frames were diverse across schools: census sampling was employed in schools with ≤900 students per grade; and randomly selected class rooms were sampled in schools with > 900 students per grade. Average school response rates were 77.0% for grade 7, 67.0% for grade 9, and 56.2% for grade 11.

Measures

Dependent variables.

Our 4 dependent variables were adolescents’ self-reported school connectedness, caring relationships with a school-based adult, high expectation by a school-based adult, and meaningful participation at school. School connectedness was assessed using 5 positively worded items (eg, “I feel like I am part of this school”) from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health.29 Response options were on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” This scale is widely used and has been shown to have concurrent validity and acceptable reliability across 18 different racial/ethnic groups.30 The scale had acceptable internal consistency in our study (Cronbach’s α = 0.82).

The scales assessing adult caring, adult expectations, and meaningful participation were developed by the California Healthy Kids Survey31 and used in prior research.8,32 Each scale was measured with 3 positively worded unique items (example items include: “At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who really cares about me” for adult caring; “At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who always wants me to do my best” for adult expectations; and “At school I do things that make a difference” for meaningful participation). Response options for these scales were on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “not at all true” to “very much true.” These scales had acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.79 for adult caring; α = 0.84 for adult expectations; and α = 0.77 for meaningful participation). For all dependent variable scales, we calculated average (unstandardized) scores and standardized scores if participants responded to at least 2 items within each scale.

Independent variables.

Our primary independent variables were sexual identity, gender, race/ethnicity, and parents’ highest education level, an established proxy for adolescents’ socioeconomic status.33 Sexual identity and gender identity were assessed with the item, “Which of the following best describes you? (Mark All That Apply.)” Participants were given the choices of, “Heterosexual (straight),” “Gay or Lesbian or Bisexual,” “Transgender,” “Not Sure,” and “Decline to respond.” Using the first 2 response options, we created 4 sexual identity categories: “lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) only;” “heterosexual only;” “heterosexual and LGB;” and “neither heterosexual nor LGB.” We removed those that selected “Decline to respond” (N = 25,981) or “Not Sure” (N = 31,637) because we could not distinguish whether students selected this response about their gender identity or sexual identity. Consistent with prior research,34 to assess students’ gender, we used the aforementioned measure of transgender status as well as an item that asked about sex, “What is your sex?” with the options of “Male” or “Female.” Students who selected “Transgender” on the sexual and gender identity item were coded as “transgender students.” Meanwhile, students who did not select “Transgender” were coded as nontransgender boys or nontransgender girls based on how they answered the sex question.

Two items assessed race/ethnicity: (1) Are you of Hispanic or Latino origin? Yes or No; and (2) What is your race? American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, white, or Mixed (2 or more) races. We combined participants’ responses into one of the following unique categories: Hispanic, white, black, Asian (including Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander), and other (including American Indian or Alaska Native and Mixed).

As a proxy for socioeconomic status, we used parents’ highest education level,33 assessed as: “What is the highest level of education your parents completed? (Mark the educational level of the parent who went the furthest in school.)” Response options included: did not finish high school; graduated from high school; attended college but did not complete a 4-year degree; graduated from college; and do not know. We also controlled for grade in school (7th, 9th, or 11th).

Data Analysis

After removing 12.5% of participants who checked “decline to state” or “unsure” for the gender and sexual identity item, 384,985 students in grades 7, 9, and 11 remained in the analytic sample. Per recommendations,35 we removed 2.7% of participants who selected “only some of them” or “hardly any” when responding to the question: “How many questions in this survey did you answer honestly?” Among the remaining participants, the proportion of missingness was highest for gender (11.6%) and sexual identity (11.0%). Missingness was low for our dependent variables (ranging from 0.6% for school connectedness to 2.4% for adult expectations). Of the participants who had a score for at least one of our dependent variables, 85.9% had complete data for all independent variables, creating a final analytic sample of 320,462 participants. We allowed sample sizes to vary for each dependent variable.

In our analyses, we examined the unstandardized mean scores of our dependent variables for each of our primary independent variables. In multivariable models, we used multilevel linear regression with random intercepts, thereby accounting for the clustering of students with schools. We used the following model building process: first, we included only the main effects of independent variables, using standardized dependent variables; second, we included all 2-way and 3-way interaction terms for sexual identity, gender, and race/ethnicity (controlling for grade level and parents’ highest education level); and, third, we included all 2- and 3-way interaction terms for sexual identity, gender, and parents’ highest education level (controlling for grade level and race/ethnicity). We conducted analyses in Stata version 15 (College Station, TX).

RESULTS

Table 1 describes the demographics of the sample. Main effects models generally showed that sexual minority youth, nontransgender girls, transgender youth, racial/ethnic minority youth, and youths whose parents’ highest education was below a college degree had significantly lower scores across all 4 protective school assets in comparison to reference groups (Table 1).

Table 1.

Sample Demographics, Unadjusted Estimates, and Adjusted Main Effects Models of Protective School Assets: California Healthy Kids Survey, California, 2013–2014

School Connectedness
 Adult Caring
 Adult Expectations
 Meaningful Participation
Total N (%) Unadjusted Estimates Unstandardized Mean (SD) Adjusted Main Effects Estimates Standardized, B (95% Cl) Unadjusted Estimates Unstandardized Mean (SD) Adjusted Main Effects Estimates Standardized, B (95% Cl) Unadjusted Estimates Unstandardized Mean (SD) Adjusted Main Effects Estimates Standardized, B (95% CI) Unadjusted Estimates Unstandardized Mean (SD) Adjusted Main Effects Estimates Standardized, B (95% Cl)
Sexual identity
 Heterosexual only 302,039 (943) 3.60(0.81) Reference group 2.79(0.82) Reference groups 3.06(0.81) Reference group 2.25 (0.84) Reference group
 LGB only 15,074(47) 3.18(0.89) −0.41 (−0.42, −0.39)*** 2.59(0.90) −0.19 (−0.21, −0.17)*** 2.82 (0.90) −0.24 (−0.25, −0.22)*** 2.05 (0.85) −0.17 (−0.19,−0.16)***
 Heterosexual arid LGB 1739(05) 3.20(0.93) −0.36 (−0.41, −0.32)*** 2.58(0.91) −0.18 (−0.22, −0.13)*** 2.80(0.92) −0.24 (−0.29, −0.19)*** 2.12(0.87) −0.10 (−0.15, −0.05)***
 Neither heterosexual nor LGB (trarrsgerider youth only) 1560(05) 2.98(1.08) −0.17 (−0.25, −0.09)*** 2.42 (0.95) −0.08 (−0.16, 0.00) 2.58(1.00) −0.14 (−0.22, −0.06)** 2.15(0.93) 0.08(0.00,0.16)
Gender
 Nontransgender boys 154,611 (48.2) 3.61 (0.83) Reference group 2.79(0.82) Reference groups 3.04(0.82) Reference group 2.27 (0.84) Reference group
 Nontransgender girls 163,306(51.0) 3.56(0.80) −0.05 (−0.05, −0.04)*** 2.77 (0.83) −0.00 (−0.01,0.01) 3.05(0.81) 0.04 (0.03, 0.04)*** 2.22 (0.85) −0.05 (−0.06, −0.04)***
 Transgender 2545 (0.8) 2.97(1.07) −0.51 (−0.57, −0.45)*** 2.42 (0.97) −0.32 (−0.38, −0.26)*** 2.58(1.01) −0.37 (−0.43, −0.30)*** 2.10(0.92) −0.18 (−0.24, −0.11)***
Race/ethnicity
 White 74,366 (23.2) 3.74(0.82) Reference group 2.93(0.81) Reference group 3.16(0.78) Reference group 2.36(0.85) Reference group
 Hispanic 155,841 (43.6) 3.50(0.81) −0.09 (−0.10, −0.08)*** 2.69(0.84) −0.17 (−0.18,−0.16)*** 2.97 (0.84) −0.12 (−0.13, −0.11)*** 2.15(0.84) −0.12 (−0.13, −0.11)***
 Black 11,398(3.6) 3.36(0.88) −0.26 (−0.28, −0.24)*** 2.79(0.85) −0.08 (−0.10, −0.06)*** 3.07 (0.84) −0.04 (−0.06, −0.02)*** 2.28(0.86) −0.01 (−0.03,0.02)
 Asian 43,989(13.7) 3.65 (0.78) −0.05 (−0.07, −0.04)*** 2.80(0.77) −0.14 (−0.15, −0.13)*** 3.07 (0.77) −0.08 (−0.09, −0.06)*** 2.33 (0.83) −0.01 (−0.02,0.00)
 Other 34,868(10.9) 3.56(0.84) −0.13 (−0.15, −0.12)*** 2.80(0.83) −0.11 (−0.12, −0.10)*** 3.06(0.82) −0.09 (−0.10, −0.08)*** 2.29(0.84) −0.04 (−0.05, −0.02)***
Parent’s highest education
 Less than high school degree 42,350(13.2) 3.39(0.83) −0.23 (−0.24, −0.22)*** 2.64(0.85) −0.23 (−0.24, −0.22)*** 2.90(0.86) −0.24 (−0.25, −0.23)*** 2.07 (0.84) −0.29 (−0.30, −0.28)***
 High school degree 50,528(15.8) 3.49(0.81) −0.15 (−0.16,−0.14)*** 2.70(0.83) −0.17 (−0.18,−0.16)*** 2.97 (0.83) −0.16 (−0.18, −0.15)*** 2.15(0.84) −0.21 (−0.22, −0.20)***
 Attended sorre college 42,012(13.1) 3.53 (0.80) −0.11 (−0.12, −0.10)*** 2.76(0.82) −0.12 (−0.13, −0.11)*** 3.03(0.81) −0.11 (−0.12, −0.10)*** 2.22 (0.84) −0.15 (−0.16,−0.13)***
 College degree 130,457(40.7) 3.72(0.81) Reference group 2.91 (0.80) Reference group 3.15(0.78) Reference group 2.40(0.85) Reference group
 Do not know 55,115(17.2) 3.49(0.81) −0.20 (−0.21, −0.19)*** 2.66(0.82) −0.23 (−0.24, −0.22)*** 2.96(0.83) −0.22 (−0.23, −0.21)*** 2.11(0.81) −0.30 (−0.31, −0.29)***
Open in a new tab

Boldface indicates statistical significance of p < .05. Adjusted main effects estimates use multilevel linear regression, controlling for grade in school, parent education, and school clustering (via random intercepts). School connectedness was measured with 5 items using 5-point Likert scale response options (range: 1–5), while adult caring, adult expectations, and meaningful participation were measured with 3 items using 4-point Likert scale response options (ranges: 1–4).

B, beta; Cl, confidence interval; LGB, lesbian, gay, or bisexual.

We also found several significant 2-way and 3-way interaction effects between gender, sexual identity, race/ethnicity, and parent education (Tables 2 and 3). Key interaction findings are described below. (Supporting Information, Table S1 shows the number of participants with each intersectional identity).

Table 2.

Interaction Effects Between Sexual Identity, Gender, and Race/Ethnicity on Protective School Assets: California Healthy Kids Survey, California, 2013–2014

School Connectedness Standardized, B (95% Cl) Adult Caring Standardized, B (95% Cl) Adult Expectations Standardized, B (95% Cl) Meaningful Participation Standardized, B (95% Cl)
Sexual identity
 Heterosexual only Reference group Reference group Reference group Reference group
 LGB only −0.39 (−0.46, −0.33)*** −0.14 (−0.20,−0.07)*** −0.23 (−0.29,−0.16)*** −0.16 (−0.23,−0.10)***
 Heterosexual and LGB −0.37 (−0.55, −0.18)*** −0.24 (−0.44, −0.05)* −0.29 (−0.48,−0.10)** −0.13 (−0.32,0.06)
 Neither heterosexual nor LGB (transgender youth only) −0.50 (−0.77, −0.23)*** −0.45 (−0.73,−0.17)** −0.63 (−0.91,−0.35)*** −0.42 (−0.70, −0.14)**
Gender
 Nontransgender boys Reference group Reference group Reference group Reference group
 Nontransgender girls 0.01 (−0.01,0.02) 0.01 (−0.01,0.02) 0.04 (0.02, 0.05)*** 0.04 (0.03,0.05)***
 Transgender −0.34 (−0.58, −0.09)** −0.14 (−0.39,0.12) −0.09 (−0.35,0.17) 0.10 (−0.16,0.35)
Race/ethnicity
 White Reference group Reference group Reference group Reference group
 Hispanic −0.06 (−0.07, −0.04)*** −0.16 (−0.18,−0.15)*** −0.12 (−0.13,−0.11)*** −0.06 (−0.07, −0.04)***
 Black −0.23 (−0.26, −0.21)*** −0.10 (−0.13,−0.07)*** −0.06 (−0.09, −0.03)*** 0.07 (0.04,0.10)***
 Asian −0.02 (−0.04, −0.00)* −0.14 (−0.16,−0.12)*** −0.09 (−0.11,−0.07)*** 0.01 (−0.01,0.02)
 Other −0.13 (−0.14, −0.11)*** −0.12 (−0.14,−0.10)*** −0.10 (−0.12,−0.08)*** −0.01 (−0.03,0.01)
Two-way interactions of gender by sexual identity
 Nontransgender girls × LGB only −0.12 (−0.19,−0.04)** −0.17 (−0.25,−0.09)*** −0.09 (−0.17,−0.01)* −0.18 (−0.26,−0.10)***
 Nontransgender girls × Heterosexual and LGB 0.01 (−0.22,0.25) 0.06 (−0.18,0.30) 0.09 (−0.15,0.34) −0.06 (−0.30,0.19)
 Transgender × LGB only −0.12 (−0.41,0.18) −0.24 (−0.54,0.07) −0.19 (−0.49,0.12) −0.35 (−0.65, −0.05)*
 Transgender × Heterosexual and LGB −0.11 (−0.53,0.30) −0.14 (−0.57,0.28) −0.39 (−0.82,0.04) −0.07 (−0.50,0.35)
Two-way interactions of gender by race/ethnicity
 Nontransgender girls × Hispanic −0.06 (−0.08, −0.05)*** −0.02 (−0.04, −0.00)* −0.01 (−0.03,0.00) −0.13 (−0.15,−0.12)***
 Nontransgender girls × Black −0.06 (−0.10,−0.02)** 0.04 (−0.00,0.08) 0.04 (0.00, 0.08)* −0.17 (−0.21,−0.13)***
 Nontransgender girls × Asian −0.08 (−0.10, −0.06)*** −0.01 (−0.03,0.02) 0.02 (−0.00,0.04) −0.05 (−0.07, −0.02)***
 Nontransgender girls × Other −0.02 (−0.05,0.00) 0.01 (−0.02,0.04) 0.02 (−0.01,0.04) −0.06 (−0.09, −0.03)***
 Transgender × Hispanic 0.04 (−0.25,0.33) −0.16 (−0.46,0.15) −0.24 (−0.54,0.07) −0.24 (−0.54,0.07)
 Transgender × Black 0.05 (−0.57,0.66) −0.45 (−1.08,0.18) −0.20 (−0.83,0.44) −0.17 (−0.83,0.49)
 Transgender × Asian −0.22 (−0.67,0.24) −0.04 (−0.51,0.43) −0.27 (−0.74,0.19) −0.29 (−0.76,0.18)
 Transgender × Other −0.08 (−0.47,0.31) −0.44 (−0.84, −0.04)* −0.60 (−1.00, −0.20)** −0.12 (−0.52,027)
Two-way interactions of race/ethnicity by sexual identity
 Hispanic × LGB only 0.10(0.02,0.17)* 0.00 (−0.07,0.08) 0.06 (−0.02,0.14) 0.14(0.06,0.21)***
 Hispanic × Heterosexual and LGB 0.17 (−0.05,0.38) 0.20 (−0.03,0.42) 0.17 (−0.05,0.40) 0.15 (−0.07,0.38)
 Hispanic × Neither heterosexual nor LGB (transgender youth only) 0.18 (−0.14,0.50) 0.45 (0.12,0.78)** 0.53 (0.20,0.87)** 0.55 (0.22, 0.88)**
 Black × LGB only 0.00 (−0.14,0.15) −0.05 (−0.20,0.11) −0.00 (−0.16,0.15) −0.08 (−0.23,0.08)
 Black × Heterosexual and LGB −0.06 (−0.48,0.36) 0.34 (−0.09,0.77) −0.01 (−0.45,0.44) 0.43 (−0.00,0.86)
 Black × Neither heterosexual nor LGB (transgender youth only) −0.04 (−0.68,0.61) 0.44 (−0.22,1.11) 0.19 (−0.48,0.85) 0.35 (−0.34,1.03)
 Asian × LGB only 0.05 (−0.05,0.16) −0.04 (−0.15,0.07) −0.01 (−0.12,0.10) 0.12 (0.01,0.23)*
 Asian × Heterosexual and LGB 0.02 (−0.27,0.31) 0.03 (−0.28,0.33) −0.09 (−0.39,0.21) 0.07 (−0.23,0.37)
 Asian × Neither heterosexual nor LGB (transgender youth only) 0.37 (−0.12,0.86) 0.27 (−0.23,0.78) 0.63 (0.13,1.14)* 0.55 (0.05,1.06)*
 Other × LGB only 0.14(0.04,0.24)** 0.07 (−0.03,0.17) 0.08 (−0.03,0.18) 0.09 (−0.01,0.19)
 Other × Heterosexual and LGB 0.03 (−0.27,0.33) 0.27 (−0.04,0.58) 0.32 (0.01,0.63)* 0.27 (−0.04,0.58)
 Other Neither heterosexual nor LGB (transgender youth only) 0.30 (−0.13,0.72) 0.57 (0.13,1.01)* 0.84 (0.39,1.28)*** 0.29 (−0.15,0.73)
Threevray Interactions of gender by sexual Identity by race/ethnlclty
 Non-transgender girls × LGB only × Hispanic −0.02 (−0.11,0.07) 0.11 (0.02, 0.20)* 0.01 (−0.09,0.10) 0.03 (−0.06,0.12)
 Non-transgender girls × LGB only × Black 0.18(0.00,0.36)* 0.23 (0.05, 0.42)* 0.14 (−0.05,0.32) 0.37(0.18,0.55)***
 Non-transgender girls × LGB only × Asian 0.08 (−0.05,0.21) 0.14(0.00,0.28)* 0.10 (−0.04,0.24) −0.02 (−0.16,0.12)
 Non-transgender girls × LGB only × Other −0.07 (−0.20,0.05) −0.01 (−0.14,0.11) −0.04 (−0.16,0.09) 0.00 (−0.12,0.13)
 Non-transgender girls × Heterosexual and LGB × Hispanic −0.20 (−0.47,0.08) −0.25 (−0.53,0.03) −0.24 (−0.52,0.05) −0.12 (−0.40,0.17)
 Non-transgender girls × Heterosexual and LGB × Black 0.12 (−0.40,0.65) −0.48 (−1.02,0.05) −0.16 (−0.71,0.39) −0.47 (−1.01,0.06)
 Non-transgender girls × Heterosexual and LGB × Asian 0.04 (−0.34,0.41) 0.09 (−0.30,0.48) 0.23 (−0.15,0.62) 0.01 (−0.37,0.40)
 Non-transgender girls × Heterosexual and LGB × Other −0.09 (−0.46,0.27) −0.24 (−0.62,0.14) −0.43 (−0.81, −0.06)* −0.22 (−0.59,0.16)
 Transgender × LGB only × Hispanic −0.37 (−0.73, −0.01)* 0.25 (−0.13,0.62) 0.09 (−0.29,0.46) 0.11 (−0.26,0.48)
 Transgender × LGB only × Black −0.70 (−1.43,0.03) −0.07 (−0.83,0.68) −0.47 (−1.22,0.29) 0.07 (−0.71,0.84)
 Transgender × LGB only × Asian 0.47 (−0.10,1.04) 0.24 (−0.35,0.83) 0.36 (−0.23,0.96) 0.43 (−0.16,1.02)
 Transgender × LGB only × Other 0.02 (−0.47,0.50) 0.55 (0.04,1.05)* 0.66 (0.16,1.17)* 0.17 (−0.33,0.67)
 Transgender × Heterosexual and LGB × Hispanic −0.48 (−0.97,0.01) −0.11 (−0.62,0.39) 0.09 (−0.42,0.60) −0.34 (−0.85,0.17)
 Transgender Heterosexual and LGB × Black −0.89 (−1.90,0.12) −0.07 (−1.11,0.96) −0.17 (−1.21,0.88) −0.18 (−1.23,0.87)
 Transgender × Heterosexual and LGB × Asian 0.30 (−0.41,1.01) 0.16 (−0.57,0.89) 0.65 (−0.08,1.38) 0.23 (−0.49,0.96)
 Transgender × Heterosexual and LGB × Other −0.05 (−0.70,0.60) 0.02 (−0.65,0.69) 0.22 (−0.45,0.89) −0.13 (−0.80,0.55)
Open in a new tab

Boldface indicates statistical significance of p < .05. Adjusted main effects estimates use multilevel linear regression, controlling for grade in school, parent education, and school clustering (via random intercepts). School connectedness was standardized based on 5 items using 5-point Likert scale response options, while adult caring, adult expectations, and meaningful participation were standardized based on 3 items using 4-point Likert scale response options.

B, beta; Cl, confidence interval; LGB, lesbian, gay, or bisexual.

Table 3.

Interaction Effects Between Sexual Identity, Gender, and Parent Education on Protective School Assets: California Healthy Kids Survey, California, 2013–2014

School Connectedness Standardized, B (95% CI) Adult Caring Standardized, B (95% CI) Adult Expectations Standardized, B (95% CI) Meaningful Participation Standardized, B (95% CI)
Sexual identity
 Heterosexual only Reference group Reference group Reference group Reference group
 LGB only −0.31 (−0.36,−0.27)*** −0.14 (−0.19,−0.10)*** −0.18 (−0.23,−0.13)*** −0.09 (−0.14,−0.04)***
 Heterosexual and LGB −0.30 (−0.43,−0.16)*** −0.10 (−0.24,0.04)* −0.17 (−0.31,−0.03)** −0.05 (−0.19,0.09)
 Neither heterosexual nor LGB (transgender youth only) −0.35 (−0.54,−0.16)*** −0.13 (−0.33, 0.07)** −0.31 (−0.51,−0.11)*** −0.17 (−0.37,0.03)
Gender
 Non-transgender boys Reference group Reference group Reference group Reference group
 Non-transgender girls −0.02 (−0.03, −0.01)* 0.01 (−0.01,0.02) 0.04 (0.03, 0.05)*** 0.01 (−0.00,0.02)
 Transgender −0.39 (−0.56,−0.21)** −0.32 (−0.50, −0.14)* −0.30 (−0.48, −0.13)** −0.02 (−0.20,0.15)
Parent education
 Less than high school degree −0.21 (−0.22,−0.19)*** −0.23 (−0.25, −0.22)*** −0.24 (−0.26, −0.23)*** −0.23 (−0.25,−0.21)***
 High school degree −0.12 (−0.14,−0.11)*** −0.17 (−0.18,−0.15)*** −0.16 (−0.18,−0.14)*** −0.16 (−0.17,−0.14)***
 Attended some college −0.10 (−0.11,−0.08)*** −0.11 (−0.13,−0.10)*** −0.10 (−0.12,−0.09)*** −0.13 (−0.14,−0.11)***
 College degree Reference group Reference group Reference group Reference group
 Do not know −0.19 (−0.21,−0.18)*** −0.23 (−0.24, −0.22)*** −0.22 (−0.23,−0.21)*** −0.27 (−0.28, −0.25)***
Two-way interactions of gender by sexual identity
 Non-transgender girls × LGB only −0.17 (−0.23,−0.11)*** −0.12 (−0.18,−0.06)*** −0.11 (−0.17,−0.05)*** −0.20 (−0.26,−0.14)***
 Non-transgender girls × Heterosexual and LGB 0.00 (−0.17,0.17) −0.09 (−0.26,0.09) −0.03 (−0.21,0.14) −0.10 (−0.28,0.08)
 Transgender × LGB only −0.13 (−0.35,0.09) 0.11 (−0.12,0.34) 0.11 (−0.12,0.34) −0.20 (−0.43,0.03)
 Transgender × Heterosexual and LGB −0.14 (−0.43,0.16) −0.10 (−0.41,0.20) −0.22 (−0.52,0.09) −0.13 (−0.44,0.17)
Two-way interactions of gender by parent education
 Non-transgender girls × Less than high school degree −0.03 (−0.06,−0.01)*** 0.00 (−0.02,0.03) 0.01 (−0.01,0.04) −0.13 (−0.15,−0.11)***
 Non-transgender girls × High school degree −0.06 (−0.08, −0.04)** −0.01 (−0.03,0.01) −0.02 (−0.04,0.00) −0.11 (−0.13,−0.09)***
 Non-transgender girls × Attended some college −0.04 (−0.06, −0.02)*** −0.02 (−0.04,0.01) −0.02 (−0.04,0.00) −0.05 (−0.07, −0.02)***
 Non-transgender girls × Do not know −0.00 (−0.02,0.02) −0.00 (−0.02,0.02) 0.00 (−0.02,0.02) −0.07 (−0.09, −0.05)***
 Transgender × Less than high school degree −0.11 (−0.44,0.23) −0.04 (−0.39,0.31) −0.09 (−0.44,0.26) −0.12 (−0.47,0.23)
 Transgender × High school degree −0.01 (−0.37,0.36) −0.03 (−0.41,0.35) −0.07 (−0.45,0.32) −0.00 (−0.38,0.37)
 Transgender × Attended some college 0.49 (0.12, 0.85)* 0.17 (−0.21,0.54) 0.00 (−0.37,0.38) 0.09 (−0.29,047)
 Transgender × Do not know −0.00 (−0.33,0.32) 0.01 (−0.32,0.35) −0.03 (−0.37,0.30) −0.24 (−0.59,0.10)
Two-way interactions of parent education by sexual identity
 Less than high school degree × LGB only −0.01 (−0.10,0.08) 0.00 (−0.09,0.09) −0.01 (−0.10,0.08) 0.09 (0.00,0.18)***
 Less than high school degree × Heterosexual and LGB −0.11 (−0.39,0.17) −0.05 (−0.34,0.23) −0.03 (−0.31,0.26) 0.12 (−0.17,0.40)
 Less than high school degree × Neither heterosexual nor LGB (transgender youth only) −0.16 (−0.52,0.20) −0.02 (−0.40,0.36) 0.04 (−0.34,0.42) 0.13 (−0.25,0.51)
 High school degree × LGB only 0.02 (−0.07,0.10) 0.07 (−0.02,0.15) 0.03 (−0.06,0.12) 0.02 (−0.07,0.11)
 High school degree × Heterosexual and LGB 0.15 (−0.10,0.41) 0.11 (−0.16,0.37) 0.09 (−0.17,0.36) 0.19 (−0.08,0.46)
 High school degree × Neither heterosexual nor LGB (transgender youth only) 0.33 (−0.07,0.72) 0.24 (−0.16,0.65) 0.43 (0.02, 0.84)* 0.19 (−0.22,0.59)
 Attended some college × LGB only 0.00 (−0.09,0.09) 0.09 (0.00,0.19)* 0.03 (−0.06,0.13) 0.04 (−0.05,0.13)
 Attended some college × Heterosexual and LGB 0.03 (−0.23,0.28) −0.25 (−0.51,0.02) −0.10 (−0.36,0.17) 0.23 (−0.04,0.49)
 Attended some college × Neither heterosexual nor LGB (transgender youth only) −0.30 (−0.70,0.09) −0.12 (−0.53,0.29) 0.19 (−0.22,0.60) 0.10 (−0.31,0.51)
 Do not know × LGB only −0.07 (−0.15,0.02) −0.07 (−0.16,0.02) −0.09 (−0.18,−0.01)* −0.03 (−0.12,0.06)
 Do not know × Heterosexual and LGB −0.00 (−0.23,0.22) 0.14 (−0.09,0.37) −0.01 (−0.25,0.22) −0.04 (−0.27,0.19)
 Do not know × Neither heterosexual nor LGB (transgender youth only) 0.16 (−0.19,0.51) 0.12 (−0.24,0.49) 0.20 (−0.16,0.57) 0.43 (0.07, 0.80)*
Three-way Interactions of gender by sexual Identity by parent education
 Non-transgender girls × LGB only × Less than high school degree 0.08 (−0.03,0.18) 0.05 (−0.06,0.16) 0.06 (−0.05,0.17) 0.04 (−0.06,0.15)
 Non-transgender girls × LGB only × High school degree 0.08 (−0.03,0.18) 0.02 (−0.08,0.13) 0.01 (−0.09,0.12) 0.09 (−0.02,0.19)
 Non-transgender girls × LGB only × Attended some college 0.11 (−0.00,0.21) 0.01 (−0.10,0.12) 0.05 (−0.07,0.16) 0.05 (−0.06,0.16)
 Non-transgender girls × LGB only × Do not know 0.05 (−0.05,0.15) 0.10 (−0.01,0.20) 0.09 (−0.01,0.20) 0.14(0.04,0.25)*
 Non-transgender girls × Heterosexual and LGB × Less than high school degree −0.03 (−0.36,0.30) 0.07 (−0.27,0.40) 0.01 (−0.34,0.35) −0.18 (−0.52,0.16)
 Non-transgender girls × Heterosexual and LGB × High school degree −0.26 (−0.57,0.04) −0.15 (−0.46,0.17) −0.14 (−0.45,0.18) −0.08 (−0.40,0.24)
 Non-transgender girls × Heterosexual and LGB × Attended some college −0.13 (−0.44,0.19) 0.22 (−0.10,0.54) 0.03 (−0.30,0.35) −0.26 (−0.58,0.06)
 Non-transgender girls × Heterosexual and LGB × Do not know −0.11 (−0.40,0.18) −0.19 (−0.49,0.11) −0.07 (−0.37,0.23) 0.02 (−0.28,0.32)
 Transgender × LGB only × Less than high school degree −0.49 (−0.92, −0.06)*** −0.56 (−1.01, −0.11)*** −0.74 (−1.18, −0.29)*** −0.23 (−0.68,0.21)
 Transgender × LGB only × High school degree −0.04 (−0.51,0.43) −0.08 (−0.57,0.40) 0.06 (−0.43,0.54) −0.17 (−0.65,0.31)
 Transgender × LGB only × Attended some college −0.48 (−0.93, −0.04)* −0.21 (−0.67,0.25) 0.05 (−0.41,0.51) −0.24 (−0.71,0.22)
 Transgender × LGB only × Do not know −0.09 (−0.51,0.33) −0.15 (−0.59,0.28) −0.32 (−0.75,0.12) 0.28 (−0.16,0.73)
 Transgender × Heterosexual and LGB × Less than high school degree −0.44 (−0.99,0.12) −0.26 (−0.84,0.31) −0.23 (−0.80,0.35) −0.21 (−0.79,0.36)
 Transgender × Heterosexual and LGB × High school degree −0.33 (−0.93,0.27) −0.10 (−0.72,0.52) −0.14 (−0.76,0.49) −0.34 (−0.96,0.28)
 Transgender × Heterosexual and LGB × Attended some college −0.80 (−1.45,−0.16)* 0.09 (−0.58,0.75) 0.16 (−0.51,0.83) −0.55 (−1.22,0.11)
 Transgender × Heterosexual and LGB × Do not know 0.03 (−0.49,0.54) −0.10 (−0.63,0.44) 0.17 (−0.37,0.71) 0.20 (−0.34,0.74)
Open in a new tab

Boldface indicates statistical significance of p < .05. Adjusted main effects estimates use multilevel linear regression, controlling for grade in school, parent education, and school clustering (via random intercepts). School connectedness was standardized based on 5 items using 5-point Likert scale response options, while adult caring, adult expectations, and meaningful participation were standardized based on 3 items using 4-point Likert scale response options.

B, beta; Cl, confidence interval; LGB, lesbian, gay, or bisexual.

Interactions Between Gender, Sexual Identity, and Race/Ethnicity

For all protective school assets, the differences between heterosexual only and LGB only students were larger for nontransgender girls than nontransgender boys (as shown by significant 2-way interactions; Table 2); this was true for nearly all racial/ethnic minority groups except for black adolescents in 3 outcomes (Figure 1a) and for Hispanic and Asian adolescents in adult caring (as shown by positive 3-way interactions). For school connectedness and meaningful participation, the disparities between white youth and racial/ethnic minority youth were larger for nontransgender girls than nontransgender boys (as evidenced by significant 2-way interactions between gender and race/ethnicity; Table 2).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Illustrative Examples of Significant 3-way Interactions for School Connectedness and Adult Caring. (a) Adult caring: race/ethnicity (black vs. white) by gender (nontransgender Girls vs, non-transgender Boys) by sexual identity (LGB only vs. heterosexual only). (b) Adult caring: race/ethnicity (other vs. white) by gender (transgender students vs. non-transgender boys) by sexual identity (LGB only vs. heterosexual only). (c) School connectedness: parent education (less than high school degree vs. college degree) by gender (transgender students vs. non-transgender boys) by sexual identity (LGB only vs. heterosexual only). (d) School connectedness: parent education (attending some college vs. college degree) by gender (transgender students vs. non-transgender boys) by sexual identity (LGB/heterosexual vs. heterosexual only)

The differences between heterosexual only and LGB only students were also larger in transgender students compared to nontransgender boys for meaningful participation (as shown by significant 2-way interactions; Table 2). For adult caring and adult expectations, the differences between transgender students and nontransgender boys were larger for students who reported “other” as their race/ethnicity versus white students for students of all sexual orientations except LGB only (as shown by significant 3-way interactions). Likewise, for adult caring and adult expectations, the difference between transgender versus nontransgender boys was smaller for white students versus “other” race/ethnicity for heterosexual only students, but not for LGB only students (Figure 1b).

Interactions Between Gender, Sexual Identity, and Parent Education

For school connectedness and meaningful participation, the disparities for non-transgender girls (vs nontransgender boys) were larger among students who had parents with less than a college degree versus those whose parents had a college degree (as shown by significant 2-way interactions; Table 3). For school connectedness, adult caring, and adults expectations, the disparities for LGB only (vs heterosexual only) students were larger for transgender students compared to nontransgender boys, and were significantly larger among students whose parents had less than a high school degree (vs parents with college degree; as shown by significant 3-way interactions in Table 3; visually depicted in Figure 1c). For school connectedness, the disparities for heterosexual and LGB students (vs heterosexual only students) were exacerbated among transgender students whose parents only attended some college (Figure 1d; significant 3-way interaction in Table 3).

DISCUSSION

Our study examined how protective school assets differ across different uniquely marginalized adolescent groups. The National Academy of Medicine has recommended the need for intersectional research as a priority for understanding the well-being of adolescents36 and of sexual and gender minority populations.37 Our study adds to the growing body of intersectional research by examining the intersections of sexual and gender minority statuses with racial/ethnic minority identities as well as with socioeconomic statuses—and the latter is rarely examined in sexual and gender minority adolescent research.

We provide several novel contributions to the field. Overall, protective school assets were lower among sexual minority youth, nontransgender girls, transgender youth, racial/ethnic minority youth, and youths whose parents’ highest education was below a college degree. These disparities were heightened among certain singly, dually, and multiply minoritized groups. Specifically, differences between LGB only and heterosexual only youth for nontransgender girls and nontransgender boys were larger among most racial/ethnic minorities. Likewise, differences for racial/ethnic minority groups compared to white youth were larger for nontransgender girls than nontransgender boys. Transgender youth had larger disparities among “other” race/ethnicity than white youth for heterosexual only youth.

Our study’s findings concerning intersectional differences in protective school assets are likely related to stigma and discrimination,38 which can be elucidated in future research. Specifically, structural, interpersonal, and internalized stigma can directly influence protective school assets in marginalized students. At the structural level, school policies that directly impact minority groups (eg, enumeration as protected classes in anti-bullying policies) and neighborhood-level factors (eg, neighborhood deprivation) can impact the opportunities, protective factors, and risk factors for minority groups. At the interpersonal level, the use of bias-based language, exclusion, and violence can directly impact minority students’ protective school assets. At the individual level, minority students may fear rejection from adults, and adults may have implicit biases that affect their relationships with students. Additional research can explore how multiple forms of stigma and discrimination at multiple sociological levels converge to impact dual and multiple minority populations and their access to protective school assets.

Moreover, research can elucidate how the differences in protective school assets from our study contribute to known disparities in educational and health outcomes for minority groups. Sexual and gender minority populations face great disparities in a variety of preventable health risk behaviors, from substance use39–41 and mental health problems42,43 to educational outcomes.44,45 Racial and ethnic minorities as well as sexual and gender minorities are disproportionately impacted in schools.46,47 Furthermore, intersectional research on these topics highlights how health inequities are exacerbated for youth with certain multiply marginalized identities. One study found that although sexual minority youth reported higher suicidal ideation, white, Asian, and black sexual minority youth were less likely to report suicidality than American Native/Pacific Islander, Latino, and multiracial youths.48 These intersectional disparities in health and education outcomes may be associated with and mediated by differences in protective school assets found in our study.

Our results can also inform intervention research. Given the importance of protective school assets, our study highlights the need for interventions to increase protective school assets among singly, dually, and multiply marginalized students. Nevertheless, formative intervention research with school staff and multiply marginalized students is needed to design interventions that appropriately support the needs of both staff and students. For example, inclusive school policies, staff training, and related structural interventions may be able to reduce intersectional discrimination and prejudicial experiences, thereby empowering school staff to improve support for minority students, and potentially increasing vulnerable students’ protective school assets.

Our study is not without limitations. Our results may not be generalizable to all students within California or within the United States. However, the large sample size and strong sampling frame is a strength of our study. Though we looked at multiple minority statuses, we could not parse out effects for certain minority groups, including gays/lesbians versus bisexuals, differences in transgender status (eg, transgender boys, transgender girls, genderqueer, or nonbinary students), and racial/ethnic minority subgroups (eg, Korean vs Japanese). Furthermore, we may lack statistical power for certain intersectional identities due small cell sizes (Table S1). Future research can look at distinct minority subgroups in more detail. Additionally, we used parent’s highest education level as a proxy for socioeconomic status, which is multidimensional construct; California Healthy Kids Survey did not, for example, assess parental income. Response rates are less than optimal, especially for the higher-grade levels, but how much sampling bias this creates is uncertain. These data are from 2013 to 2014, which may not reflect the current state of school health, especially given the drastic changes imposed on schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusions

In conclusion, we found that students with sexual minority identities, gender minority identities, racial/ethnic minority identities, and lower socioeconomic statuses reported having lower protective school assets. Certain dual or multiple minority populations have even lower protective school assets. Given the disparities in health and education for minority youth, and the protective associations school assets have on health and education, finding ways to increase protective school assets among single, dual, and multiple minority youth is critical.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL HEALTH AND EQUITY

To improve school health and health equity, including the disparities found in our study, regular school surveillance of student health and protective factors as well as adoption of evidence-based interventions in schools to mitigate disparities are essential. First, monitoring student health by collecting student-reported information allows schools to anonymously identify populations that have low levels of school assets. Schools can adapt publicly available survey templates and methods from well-established surveillance systems, such as the California Health Kids Survey and the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, to meet the needs of their own school’s sociopolitical climates. Second, upon identifying key student populations and their needs, schools can adopt and implement evidence-based programmatic and policy interventions to address the identified disparities. There are numerous evidence-based interventions from which to choose: anti-bias and multicultural training for school staff to improve cross-cultural competency and student-teacher connectedness49,50; restorative justice programs (an alternative to zero-tolerance policies which disproportionately punish marginalized students51) to emphasize reparation and prioritize student well-being52–54; anti-bullying policies to reduce bullying victimization and mental health problems for sexual minority youth55,56; gender-sexuality alliances to potentially reduce bullying victimization, substance use, and mental health problems for sexual and gender minority youth57,58; and social and emotional learning interventions (eg, Tools for Getting Along, Steps to Respect, 4Rs Program)59 to promote positive youth development, improve social-emotional skills/behaviors, and mitigate health inequities.60,61After implementing evidence-based interventions, schools can actively monitor the success of the interventions via the previously aforementioned school surveillance system. Overall, an ongoing surveillance system combined with evidence-based intervention implementation can assist schools in fostering healthy equity for their most vulnerable students.

Human Subjects Approval Statement

The University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board deemed this current secondary data analysis exempt.

Supplementary Material

Table S1. Sample size for intersectional identities: California Healthy Kids Survey, California, 2013-2014

Acknowledgments

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (K01AA027564 to R.W.S.C), the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (TL1TR001858 to R.W.S.C.), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (F31DA037647 to R.W.S.C), and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (K24HD075862 to E.M.) of the National Institutes of Health supported this research paper. The funding agencies had no involvement in the study design, analysis or interpretation of data, the writing of the report, or the decision to submit for publication. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Footnotes

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The following Supporting Information is available for this article:

Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of the article.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Scales PC. Reducing risks and building developmental assets: essential actions for promoting adolescent health. J Sch Health. 1999;69(3):113–119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Jessor R, Van Den Bos J, Vanderryn J, Costa FM, Turbin MS. Protective factors in adolescent problem behavior: moderator effects and developmental change. Dev Psychol. 1995;31(6):923–933. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Waters S, Cross D, Shaw T. Does the nature of schools matter? An exploration of selected school ecology factors on adolescent perceptions of school connectedness. Br J Educ Psychol. 2010;80(pt 3):381–402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Duke NN. Adolescent adversity, school attendance and academic achievement: school connection and the potential for mitigating risk. J Sch Health. 2020;90(8):618–629. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Meyer IH. Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychol Bull. 2003;129(5):674–697. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hatzenbuehler ML, Phelan JC, Link BG. Stigma as a fundamental cause of population health inequalities. AmJPublic Health. 2013;103(5):813–821. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wilson MN, Asbridge M, Langille DB. School connectedness and protection from symptoms of depression in sexual minority adolescents attending school in Atlantic Canada. J Sch Health. 2018;88(3):182–189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Bersamin M, Coulter RWS, Gaarde J, Garbers S, Mair C, Santelli J. School-based health centers and school connectedness. J Sch Health. 2019;89(1):11–19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Joyce HD. School connectedness and student-teacher relationships: a comparison of sexual minority youths and their peers. Child Sch. 2015;37(3):185–192. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Stone DM, Luo F, Lippy C, McIntosh WL. The role of social connectedness and sexual orientation in the prevention of youth suicide ideation and attempts among sexually active adolescents. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2015;45(4):415–430. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Voight A, Hanson T, O’Malley M, Adekanye L. The racial school climate gap: within-school disparities in students’ experiences of safety, support, and connectedness. Am J Community Psychol. 2015;56(3–4):252–267. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Fernandez A, Loukas A, Golaszewski NM, Batanova M, Pasch KE. Adolescent adjustment problems mediate the association between racial discrimination and school connectedness. J Sch Health. 2019;89(12):945–952. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Horn SS, Szalacha LA, Drill K. Schooling, sexuality, and rights: an investigation of heterosexual students’ social cognition regarding sexual orientation and the rights of gay and lesbian peers in school. J Soc Issues. 2008;64(4):791–813. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Friedman MS, Marshal MP, Guadamuz TE, et al. A meta-analysis of disparities in childhood sexual abuse, parental physical abuse, and peer victimization among sexual minority and sexual nonminority individuals. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(8):1481–1494. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Tippett N, Wolke D. Socioeconomic status and bullying: a meta-analysis. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(6):e48–e59. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Bottiani JH, Bradshaw CP, Mendelson T. A multilevel examination of racial disparities in high school discipline: black and white adolescents’ perceived equity, school belonging, and adjustment problems. J Educ Psychol. 2017;109(4):532–545. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Wallace JM, Goodkind S, Wallace CM, Bachman JG. Racial, ethnic, and gender differences in school discipline among U.S. high school students: 1991–2005. Negro Educ Rev. 2008;59(1–2):47–62. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bowleg L. The problem with the phrase women and minorities: intersectionality-an important theoretical framework for public health. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(7):1267–1273. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Secretary’s Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2020. Healthy People 2020: An Opportunity to Address the Societal Determinants of Health in the United States. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2010. Available at: https://www.healthypeople.gov/sites/default/files/SocietalDeterminantsHealth.pdf.Accessed January 11, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Crenshaw K. Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Rev. 1991;43(6):1241–1299. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Collins PH. Intersectionality as Critical Social Theory. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Garnett BR, Masyn KE, Austin SB, Miller M, Williams DR, Viswanath K. The intersectionality of discrimination attributes and bullying among youth: an applied latent class analysis. J Youth Adolesc. 2014;43(8):1225–1239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Richards D, Gateri H, Massaquoi N. The effects of intersectional tigma and discrimination on the mental well-being of black, LBQ, female youth 18–25years old. In: Pashang S, Khanlou N, Clarke J, eds. Today’s Youth and Mental Health. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2018:119–133. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Balsam KF, Molina Y, Beadnell B, Simoni J, Walters K. Measuring multiple minority stress: the LGBT people of color microaggressions scale. Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol. 2011;17(2):163–174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Malebranche DJ, Fields EL, Bryant LO, Harper SR. Masculine socialization and sexual risk behaviors among black men who have sex with men. Men Masculinities. 2009;12(1):90–112. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Díaz RM, Ayala G, Bein E, Henne J, Marin BV. The impact of homophobia, poverty, and racism on the mental health of gay and bisexual Latino men: findings from 3 US cities. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(6):927–932. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Daley A, Solomon S, Newman PA, Mishna F. Traversing the margins: intersectionalities in the bullying of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth. J Gay Lesbian Soc Serv. 2007;19(3–4):9–29. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Zamboni BD, Crawford I. Minority stress and sexual problems among African-American gay and bisexual men. Arch Sex Behav. 2007;36(4):569–578. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Resnick MD, Bearman PS, Blum RW, et al. Protectin gadolescents from harm: findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health. JAMA. 1997;278(10):823–832. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Furlong MJ, O’Brennan LM, You S. Psychometric properties of the add health school connectedness scale for 18 sociocultural groups. Psychol Sch. 2011;48(10):986–997. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Austin G, Polik J, Hanson T, Zheng C. School climate, substance use, and student well-being in California, 2013–2015. In: Results of the Fifteenth Biennial Statewide Student Survey, Grades 7, 9, and 11. San Francisco, CA: West Ed Health & Human Development Program; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Stone S, Whitaker K, Anyon Y, Shields JP. The relationship between use of school-based health centers and student-reported school assets. J Adolesc Health. 2013;53(4):526–532. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Won KS, Cho H, Kim LY. Socioeconomic status and academic outcomes in developing countries: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res. 2019;89(6):875–916. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Coulter RWS, Bersamin M, Russell ST, Mair C. The effects of gender-and sexuality-based harassment on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender substance use disparities. J Adolesc Health. 2018;62(6):688–700. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Furlong MJ, Fullchange A, Dowdy E. Effects of mischievous responding on universal mental health screening: I love rum raisin ice cream, really I do! Sch Psychol Q. 2017;32(3):320–335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.National Academies of Sciences Engineering, and Medicine. The Promise of Adolescence: Realizing Opportunity for All Youth. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2019. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Institute of Medicine. The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: Building a Foundation for Better Understanding. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Chavous TM, Rivas-Drake D, Smalls C, Griffin T, Cogburn C. Gender matters, too: the influences of school racial discrimination and racial identity on academic engagement outcomes among African American adolescents. Dev Psychol. 2008;44(3):637–654. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Marshal MP, Friedman MS, Stall R, Thompson AL. Individual trajectories of substance use in lesbian, gay and bisexual youth and heterosexual youth. Addiction. 2009;104(6):974–981. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Fish JN, Baams L. Trends in alcohol-related disparities between heterosexual and sexual minority youth from 2007 to 2015: findings from the youth risk behavior survey. LGBT Health. 2018;5(6):359–367. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Fallin-Bennett A, Goodin A. Substance use and school characteristics in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual high school students. J Sch Health. 2019;89(3):219–225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Veale JF, Watson RJ, Peter T, Saewyc EM. Mental health disparities among Canadian transgender youth. J Adolesc Health. 2017;60(1):44–49. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.King M, Semlyen J, Tai SS, et al. A systematic review of mental disorder, suicide, and deliberate self harm in lesbian, gay and bisexual people. BMC Psychiatry. 2008;8:70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Kosciw JG, Palmer NA, Kull RM. Reflecting resiliency: openness about sexual orientation and/or gender identity and its relationship to well-being and educational outcomes for LGBT students. Am J Community Psychol. 2015;55(1–2):167–178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Proulx CN, Coulter RWS, Egan JE, Matthews DD, Mair C. Associations of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning-inclusive sex education with mental health outcomes and school-based victimization in U.S. high school students. JAdolesc Health. 2019;64(5):608–614. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. Am Psychol. 2008;63(9):852–862. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Poteat VP, Scheer JR, Chong ESK. Sexual orientation-based disparities in school and juvenile justice discipline: a multiple group comparison of contributing factors. J Educ Psychol. 2016;108(2):229–241. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Bostwick WB, Meyer I, Aranda F, et al. Mental health and suicidality among racially/ethnically diverse sexual minority youths. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(6):1129–1136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Kalinoski ZT, Steele-Johnson D, Peyton EJ, Leas KA, Steinke J, Bowling NA. A meta-analytic evaluation of diversity training outcomes. J Organ Behav. 2013;34(8):1076–1104. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.McAllister G, Irvine JJ. Cross cultural competence and multicultural teacher education. Rev Educ Res. 2000;70(1):3–24. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Snapp SD, Hoenig JM, Fields A, Russell ST. Messy, butch, and queer: LGBTQ youth and the school-to-prison pipeline. J Adolesc Res. 2015;30(1):57–82. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Karp D, Breslin B. Restorative justice in school communities. Youth Soc. 2001;33(2):249–272. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Day JK, Snapp SD, Russell ST. Supportive, not punitive, practices reduce homophobic bullying and improve school connectedness. Psychol Sex Orientat Gend Divers. 2016;3(4):416–425. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Morrison BE, Vaandering D. Restorative justice: pedagogy, praxis, and discipline. J Sch Violence. 2012;11(2):138–155. 10.1080/15388220.2011.653322. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Hall W. The effectiveness of policy interventions for school bullying: a systematic review. J Soc Social Work Res. 2017;8(1): 45–69. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Kull RM, Greytak EA, Kosciw JG, Villenas C. Effectiveness of school district antibullying policies in improving LGBT youths’ school climate. Psychol Sex Orientat Gend Divers. 2016;3(4):407–415. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Marx RA, Kettrey HH. Gay-straight alliances are associated with lower levels of school-based victimization of LGBTQ+ youth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Youth Adolesc. 2016;45(7):1269–1282. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Heck NC, Flentje A, Cochran BN. High school gay-straight alliances and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth. Psychol Sex Orientat Gend Divers. 2013;1(S):81–90. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Grant S, Hamilton L, Wrabel S, et al. Social and Emotional Learning Interventions under the every Student Succeeds Act: Evidence Review. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Taylor RD, Oberle E, Durlak JA, Weissberg RP. Promoting positive youth development through school-based social and emotional learning interventions: a meta-analysis of follow-up effects. Child Dev. 2017;88(4):1156–1171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Durlak JA, Weissberg RP, Dymnicki AB, Taylor RD, Schellinger KB. The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: a meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Dev. 2011;82(1):405–432. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Table S1. Sample size for intersectional identities: California Healthy Kids Survey, California, 2013-2014
NIHMS1700437-supplement-Table_S1__Sample_size_for_intersectional_identities__California_Healthy_Kids_Survey__California__2013_2014.pdf (54.6KB, pdf)

RESOURCES