“Students feel safer here, and more included”: Evalua8on of SOGI 123 in BC Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc, Dr. Mauricio Coronel Villalobos, Dr. Monica Rana Shannon Srivastava, & Ley Fraser S?gma and Resilience Among Vulnerable Youth Centre University of Bri?sh Columbia October 2024 Canva Premium Respsitory adapted by Sushmita Roy 2 Project Team Elizabeth Saewyc, PhD, RN, FSAHM, FCAHS, FAAN, FCAN Professor & ExecuDve Director, SDgma and Resilience Among Vulnerable Youth Center Monica Rana, PhD, MPH Research Associate & Managing Director, SARAVYC Mauricio Coronel Villalobos, PhD, MERM Research Associate, SARAVYC Shannon Srivastava, MA Research Assistant & Quartermain SOGI Fellow Ley Fraser, MA, PhD candidate Research Assistant & Quartermain SOGI Fellow Funding Funding for this project has been provided by: The Quartermain SOGI Fund and The Canadian InsDtutes of Health Research, grant #FDN 154335 (Saewyc, Principal InvesDgator) Ethics The research conducted for this evaluaDon received ethics approval from the UBC Behavioural Research Ethics Board, cerDficate #H21-03569, and approval from several school district ethics offices (unnamed to protect confidenDality). Recommended Cita3on Saewyc EM, Coronel Villalobos M, Rana M, Srivastava S, & Fraser L. (2024). “Students feel safer here, and more included”: Evalua8on of SOGI 123 in BC. Vancouver, BC: SDgma and Resilience Among Vulnerable Youth Centre, University of BriDsh Columbia. Copyright Copyright 2024 CreaDve Commons 4.0 BY-NC-ND, by the SDgma and Resilience Among Vulnerable Youth Centre, University of BriDsh Columbia. Cover image from Canva Premium Repository, adapted by Sushmita Roy, used with permission. We gratefully acknowledge that SARAVYC at the University of BriDsh Columbia is located on the ancestral, tradiDonal, and unceded territory of the xwməθkwəy̓ əm (Musqueam) First NaDon. 3 Execu/ve Summary The UBC SDgma and Resilience Among Vulnerable Youth Centre in the School of Nursing has conducted a mixed methods evaluaDon of SOGI 123 over the past few years with two key aims: • To idenDfy any impacts of SOGI 123 for LGBQ+ and heterosexual students on bullying and discriminaDon; • Elicit insights into barriers and facilitators for implemenDng SOGI supports in schools, and recommendaDons for further enhancements to SOGI 123. Drawing on data from BC Adolescent Health Survey across 10 years from more than 98,000 students in grades 7 to 12, in 482 schools in 55 of 60 school districts across BC, we found: • LGBQ+ youth are sDll more likely to experience bullying and sexual orientaDon discriminaDon than their heterosexual peers; however, • The training and support for school staff that SOGI 123 provides, plus the support for students through policies, teaching materials, and strategies to foster inclusive schools, together reduced some forms of bullying and sexual orientaDon discriminaDon targeted toward LGBQ+ youth; the impact was separate from the impacts of Gender and Sexuality Alliances (GSAs) where schools had both. • SOGI 123 also reduced bullying and sexual orientaDon discriminaDon among heterosexual students, and effects were someDmes stronger than from GSAs. • The longer SOGI 123 and/or GSAs were in a school, the greater the impact toward reducing bullying and sexual orientaDon discriminaDon. SOGI 123 appears to be effec?ve for reducing violence and fostering more inclusive environments in BC schools. The longer it has been implemented, the greater the improvement. GSAs also have an impact, but SOGI 123 has effects above and beyond GSAs, including for heterosexual students. From interviews with 21 District and School SOGI Leads in 6 districts purposively selected for rural and urban senngs, more experienced and acDve implementaDon vs. more limited engagement or newer SOGI Leads, we learned: • Most idenDfied posiDve impacts on inclusion and acceptance of 2SLGBTQ+ youth, none idenDfied negaDve impacts. • They valued the SOGI 123 resources for policies and teaching, leveled by grade, although some wanted addiDonal advanced materials, and updated content to beoer reflect the diversity in their classrooms . • An important factor for successfully implemenDng SOGI 123 was supporDve leadership, while lack of financial resources and pushback from communiDes were key barriers. 4 Background In the 2015-2016 school year, the SOGI 123 iniDaDve and resources were developed to help reduce discriminaDon and bullying and improve inclusion for 2SLGBTQ+ youth in schools in BC. SOGI 123 was created by ARC FoundaDon in partnership with school districts, teachers, parents, students, community groups, the UBC Faculty of EducaDon, and the BC Ministry of EducaDon. In developing SOGI 123, they drew on evidence around best pracDces for fostering inclusion and safety, because research had shown generic anD-bullying programs were not effecDve in addressing bias-based bullying that targeted specific groups1. SOGI 123 focuses on guidance for school policies, teacher and staff training, curricular resources for teachers and students, and evidence-based strategies that support a SOGI-inclusive environment, including strategies such as Gender & Sexuality Alliances (GSAs). SOGI 123 engages SOGI Leads at both the school and the district level to help school leaders, teachers, and staff foster inclusive environments for all. Nine school districts were involved in SOGI 123 as a pilot in the 2016/2017 school year, and over the next two years, all BC school districts signed on to access the resources and engage both SOGI District Leads and SOGI School Leads at schools. In collaboraDon with ARC FoundaDon, the UBC SDgma and Resilience Among Vulnerable Youth Centre in the School of Nursing undertook a mixed methods evaluaDon of SOGI 123 over the past few years. The study involved staDsDcal analyses of province-wide data from students over 10 years, from 2013, before SOGI 123 was implemented, to 2023. It also involved interviews with SOGI District Leads and SOGI School Leads from a varied sample of school districts. The evaluaDon aims were: 1) to idenDfy whether there were detectable impacts of SOGI 123 for LGBQ+ and heterosexual students related to bullying and discriminaDon; and 2) to elicit insights into how SOGI 123 contributes to educator and student experience and school climates; barriers and facilitators for implemenDng SOGI supports in schools; examples of impacts that SOGI Leads observed that might not be measurable with exisDng student data; and recommendaDons for further enhancements to SOGI 123. The two evaluaDon methods to address these aims will be detailed separately in the following pages of this report. 1 Russell S.T., Kosciw J., Horn S., Saewyc E. (2010). Safe schools policy for LGBTQ students. SRCD Social Policy Report, 24(4), 1-17. 5 Quan/ta/ve Analyses: Evalua/ng the Impact of SOGI 123 for LGBQ+ and heterosexual students Methods We used data from the BC Adolescent Health Surveys (BC AHS) of 2013, 2018, and 2023 (McCreary Centre Society; Dr. Saewyc is also co-Principal InvesDgator of this survey). The BC AHS is a clustered, straDfied adolescent health survey of classrooms randomly sampled every 5 years across school districts and health regions among grades 7 through 12. The large sample size each year (30,000+) ensures that classes in most schools will be selected every year of the survey. This allows us to track changes in student experiences in schools over Dme. • Our study included 482 elementary and secondary schools in 55 of the 60 BC school districts that parDcipated in all 3 survey years. • The analyses involved 95,490 students across the 3 survey years. To conduct the study, we added how long SOGI 123 had been implemented in each specific school district to student data. Since GSAs are also idenDfied in other research as an effecDve strategy to support wellbeing of LGBQ+ and heterosexual students2,3, and SOGI 123 and GSAs oqen co-occur in schools, we also included the length of Dme that a GSA had been established at each school (schools with no GSA got a 0). This allowed us to tease out the impact of SOGI 123 separately from the impact of GSAs on bullying and other school outcomes for students. Note: These analyses focus on students grouped by sexual orientaDon and sex rather than by gender idenDty. This is because in 2013, the BC Adolescent Health Survey did not have a valid measure of trans, nonbinary or other gender diverse idenDDes, this was only included in 2018 onwards. However, we know from the 2018 and 2023 surveys that gender diverse youth are also far less likely to idenDfy as heterosexual. For example, in the 2023 BC Adolescent Health Survey, only 6% of nonbinary youth idenDfied as completely straight, while 3% idenDfied as mostly straight, 45% as bisexual/pansexual, another 14% as gay/lesbian, 12% as asexual, 4% as “something else,” and 15% as not sure4. Therefore, we can be confident that gender diverse youth are primarily included in the LGBQ+ category in our analyses, although they cannot yet be reported on separately. We are limited to reporDng our trends and impact analyses by a combinaDon of sexual orientaDon and sex assigned at birth, grouped as LGBQ+ Boys, Het+ Boys, 2 Li G, Wu A, Marshall S, Watson R, Adjei J, Park M, Saewyc E. (2019). InvesGgaGng site-level longitudinal effects of populaGon health intervenGons: Gay Straight Alliances and school safety. Social Science & Medicine: Popula1on Health, 7, 100350. 3 Saewyc E, Konishi C, Rose H, & Homma Y. (2014). School-based strategies to reduce suicidal ideaGon, suicide aXempts and discriminaGon among sexual minority and heterosexual adolescents in Western Canada. Interna1onal Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 5 (1), 89-112. 4 Smith, A., Poon, C., Peled, M., Forsyth, K., Saewyc, E., & McCreary Centre Society. (2024). The big picture: An overview of the 2023 BC Adolescent Health Survey provincial results. Vancouver, BC: McCreary Centre Society. 6 LGBQ+ Girls, and Het+ Girls (where LGBQ+ includes mostly heterosexual, bisexual/pansexual, gay/lesbian, and queer, and Het+ includes heterosexual, unsure, and no aoracDons yet). Outcomes Measured There are three types of vicDmizaDon in school, plus sexual orientaDon discriminaDon, that were our main negaDve outcome measures for these analyses: • Verbal harassment, defined as being seriously teased or insulted at school in the past 12 months. • Social exclusion, defined as being leq out of things on purpose at school in the past 12 months. • Physical assault, defined as being physically assaulted at school in the past 12 months. • Sexual orienta7on discrimina7on, defined as being discriminated against because of your sexual orientaDon, or because people thought you were gay, lesbian or bisexual, in the past 12 months. While the discriminaDon measure did not specifically say discriminaDon at school, so this could take place outside of school, in the 2023 BC AHS, we also asked where discriminaDon had taken place, and the majority of young people said they experienced discriminaDon at school. Analyses We used three types of analyses for our evaluaDon: Trends and Gap Trends. First, we calculated the overall trends in all of the outcome measures across the years within each orientaDon/gender group (e.g., for LGBQ+ boys, HET+ boys, LGBQ+ Girls, and Het+ Girls) and between them, at the provincial level, without taking into account SOGI 123 or GSAs involvement in the school or school district. In this report, we round all percentages for ease of reading, ominng decimal places. As part of these analyses, we control for age, in case there are differences in average age between orientaDon groups and in samples between years, as LGBQ+ youth came out earlier in more recent years. We calculated the gap between orientaDon groups within genders across each of the years, reported as age-adjusted odds raDos, and finally conducted a “gap trend” analysis, to determine if the gap between heterosexual and LGBQ+ youth is narrowing, widening, or unchanged over Dme. These trends and gap trends analyses are an approach we developed in 2016, which have been used widely to document trends in health dispariDes among marginalized groups.5 SLEPHI analyses. Aqer the overall trend analyses, we conducted an advanced mulD-group, mulD-level analysis, the Site-level Longitudinal Effects of Popula8on Health Interven8ons, or SLEPHI, to idenDfy the impacts of SOGI 123 and GSAs on these outcomes. This award-winning 5 Homma Y, Saewyc E, & Zumbo B. (2016). Is it ge`ng beXer? An analyGcal method to test trends in health dispariGes, with tobacco use among sexual minority vs. heterosexual youth as an example. Interna1onal Journal of Equity in Health, 15:79 7 advanced staDsDcal approach lets us make causal inferences6 about the impact of school-level intervenDons like SOGI 123 and GSAs. The approach involves considering the school as the main unit of analysis, with different student’s data at each Dme point; in one year, the school might not have been involved in SOGI 123 or have a GSA, while the next Dme around they might have one or the other, or both. Other schools have had GSAs since well before 2013, and others sDll do not have GSAs (see the figure below as a visualizaDon). SLEPHI analyses take into account when intervenDons started, controlling for differences in students, and whether the school was part of the intervenDon or comparison group at each Dme point, as well as changes over Dme within and between schools. These analyses allow us to tease apart specific impacts of SOGI 123 from those of GSAs where either came first, or where there is only one and not the other. Figure 1. Example of schools with/without intervenDons in SLEPHI analyses We conducted SLEPHI analyses for each of the bullying and discriminaDon outcomes, for each of the four groups, to explore the impacts of SOGI 123 separate from and beyond any impacts of GSAs for students in schools over Dme. The esDmates that are produced by this complex staDsDcal approach are not easy to translate, but for those who have some knowledge of staDsDcs, we calculated standardized esDmates, which is what we have included in this report. These standardized esDmates can be interpreted as: for every 1 year of Dme that the school has been involved in SOGI 123 (or has had a GSA), the standard deviaDon of that outcome increases or decreases by the esDmate amount. 6 Li G, Wu A, Marshall S, Watson R, Adjei J, Park M, Saewyc E. (2019). InvesGgaGng site-level longitudinal effects of populaGon health intervenGons: Gay Straight Alliances and school safety. Social Science & Medicine: Popula1on Health, 7, 100350. 8 In plain language, this allows us to determine whether the longer schools are involved in SOGI 123, the more an outcome improved or not for the different groups, separately from any impacts GSAs. This also gives us similar results for GSAs controlling for involvement in SOGI 123. Note. This analysis does not allow us to differenDate to what extent a school took up the various elements of SOGI 123; some schools may be more enthusiasDc in adopDng strategies and policies and teaching content than others in the same school district, or compared to other schools in other districts that enrolled in SOGI 123 during the same years. However, we use an “intent to treat” approach to analyses—whether a school did anything or not, they’re included in the intervenDon group in the year their district began implemenDng SOGI 123, regardless of to what extent. Thus, these results can be considered conserva7ve assessments of the posi7ve effects of SOGI 123 on these outcomes. Sample Details The BC Adolescent Health Survey student parDcipants for these analyses across all three years included: • 98,823 total youth across 2013, 2018, and 2023 • 53% HET+ boys, 47% HET+ girls; but 26% LGBQ+ boys, 74% LGBQ+ girls • Percent of LGBQ+ students in the 482 schools increased a lot over Dme among girls, but only slightly for boys • More than 13,400 LGBQ+ students were part of our analyses Table 1. Number of par7cipants by year in each group (N = 482 schools) in BC 2013 2018 2023 LGBQ+ Girls 1,935 (14%) 3,250 (18%) 5,018 (29%) Het+ Girls 12,399 (86%) 14,653 (82%) 12,438 (71%) LGBQ+ Boys 902 (7%) 1,199 (7%) 1,531 (9%) HET+ Boys 12,938 (93%) 16,147 (93%) 16,413 (91%) Total 28,174 35,249 35,400 9 Results of the Quan/ta/ve Analyses Trends in Bullying and Discrimina;on Table 2 below shows the percents of students in each group reporDng the various types of bullying and discriminaDon over the past 12 months in each year of the survey. For ease of view, we also show trends in outcomes for boys and girls in line graphs on the following pages, to document significant trends and show the gaps between orientaDon groups. (Recall that in tesDng for trends we also control for age, which cannot be shown in the table or line graphs, so we will report which are significantly different over Dme in bold). Table 2. Frequencies of bullying and discrimina7on by year and sexual orienta7on Verbally harassed at school in the past 12 months 2013 2018 2023 Change direcDon LGBQ+ girls 61% 58% 57% ¯ Het+ girls 41% 42% 38% ¯ LGBQ+ boys 51% 47% 44% ¯ Het+ boys 30% 30% 24% ¯ Socially excluded at school in the past 12 months 2013 2018 2023 LGBQ+ girls 55% 58% 56% NC Het+ girls 41% 46% 45% ­ LGBQ+ boys 43% 44% 38% ¯ Het+ boys 25% 28% 25% NC Physically assaulted at school in the past 12 months 2013 2018 2023 LGBQ+ girls 10% 11% 10% NC Het+ girls 4% 5% 5% ­ LGBQ+ boys 18% 17% 14% ¯ Het+ boys 9% 9% 10% NC Discriminated due to perceived orienta7on in the past 12 months 2013 2018 2023 LGBQ+ girls 18% 26% 29% ­ Het+ girls 2% 2% 3% ­ LGBQ+ boys 24% 25% 25% NC Het+ boys 3% 3% 2% ¯ Note: Significant trends within orientaGon group in bold. NC= no change. 10 Trends in verbal harassment Verbal harassment declined significantly overall for all orientaDon groups compared to ten years ago. However, there was a significant gap between LGBQ+ boys and Het+ boys in every year, with LGBQ+ boys having twice the age-adjusted odds of verbal harassment. Based on the age- adjusted gap trends analyses, compared to 2013, this gap appears to be significantly narrowing between boys. For girls, there also was a significant gap between LGBQ+ and Het+ girls, with LGBQ+ girls having twice the age-adjusted odds of verbal harassment than their Het+ peers. Compared to 2013, the age-adjusted gap remained unchanged for girls. 30% 30% 24% 51% 47% 44% 2013 2018 2023 Verbally harassed at school in past 12 months - Boys Het+ LGBQ+ 41% 42% 38% 61% 58% 57% 2013 2018 2023 Verbally harassed at school in past 12 months - Girls Het+ LGBQ+ 11 Trends in social exclusion at school Social exclusion declined for LGBQ+ boys, was unchanged for Het+ boys and LGBQ+ girls, and increased slightly for Het+ girls. There was a significant gap between LGBQ+ and Het+ boys, with around twice the age-adjusted odds of social exclusion among LGBQ+ boys. In the gap trends, the age-adjusted gap narrowed slightly between 2013 and 2023 for boys. For girls, LGBQ+ girls had more than twice the age-adjusted odds of being socially excluded than Het+ girls, and in the gap trends the age-adjusted gap remained unchanged over Dme. 25% 28% 25% 43% 44% 38% 2013 2018 2023 Socially excluded at school in past 12 months - Boys Het+ LGBQ+ 41% 46% 45% 55% 58% 56% 2013 2018 2023 Socially excluded at school in past 12 months - Girls Het+ LGBQ+ 12 Trends in physical assault at school Physical assault at school declined for LGBQ+ boys, but was unchanged for Het+ boys and LGBQ+ girls, both around 10%. Het+ girls had the lowest rate of physical assault at school, but it increased (from 4% to 5%) between 2013 and 2018, and remained the same in 2023. The gap between LGBQ+ and Het+ groups were significant across all years, with boys having about twice the age-adjusted odds over the years. LGBQ+ girls had almost three Dmes the age-adjusted odds (2.91) of being physically assaulted at school in 2013, and by 2023, that decreased to only twice the odds (2.04) of assault. In our gap trends we found significantly narrowing age-adjused gaps for both groups over the years, but this is in part because LGBQ+ boys saw a decrease, and Het+ girls saw an increase in physical assaults. 9% 9% 10% 18% 17% 14% 2013 2018 2023 Physically assaulted at school in past 12 months - Boys Het+ LGBQ+ 4% 5% 5% 10% 11% 10% 2013 2018 2023 Physically assaulted at school in past 12 months - Girls Het+ LGBQ+ 13 Trends in sexual orienta;on discrimina;on Sexual orientaDon discriminaDon is much higher among LGBQ+ youth than Het+ youth in each year, as expected. However, with the much larger populaDon of Het+ youth, the small percent who reported discriminaDon because people thought they were LGBQ+ can mean an equal or even larger number of them experience sexual orientaDon discriminaDon. For example, in 2013, 24% of LGBQ+ boys reported discriminaDon, about 200 boys; 3% of Het+ boys reported discriminaDon, but that translates to 375 boys. Among girls, 2% of Het+ girls reported sexual orientaDon discriminaDon in 2018, which was almost 300 girls; but 28% of LGBQ+ girls reported discriminaDon, or more than 800 girls. Sexual orientaDon discriminaDon increased for both groups of girls over the years (but only slightly for Het+ girls), was unchanged for LGBQ+ boys, and went down for Het+ boys. As a result, the age-adjusted gap between groups widened for both boys and girls. 3% 3% 2% 24% 25% 25% 2013 2018 2023 Sexual orientation discrimination past 12 months - Boys Het+ LGBQ+ 2% 2% 3% 18% 26% 29% 2013 2018 2023 Sexual orientation discrimination past 12 months - Girls Het+ LGBQ+ 14 SLEPHI Analyses: The impact of SOGI 123 and GSAs on bullying and discrimina;on Our SLEPHI analyses were conducted separately for LGBQ+ boys and girls, and Het+ boys and girls. We found SOGI 123 reduced bullying and discrimina7on targeted toward LGBQ+ youth above and beyond GSAs’ impacts, although not always for both LGBQ+ boys and girls. SOGI 123 also reduced bullying and discrimina7on among heterosexual students, with effects that were even stronger than GSAs’ effects for some types of violence. Each of these are reported below using standardized esDmates of the effects. Verbal Harassment at school in past 12 months • SOGI 123 significantly decreased verbal harassment at school for LGBQ+ boys, but not for LGBQ+ girls, HET+ girls, or HET+ boys. • GSAs decreased verbal harassment at school for all sexual orientaDon and gender groups. • The longer SOGI 123 were in schools, the more verbal harassment at school decreased for LGBQ+ boys; the longer GSAs were in schools, the more verbal harassment at school decreased for all the groups. Verbal harassment, LGBQ+ Std. est. p Boys SOGI 123 -0.442 <.001 GSA -0.709 <.001 Girls SOGI 123 -0.002 0.954 GSA -0.977 <.001 Std. est.= standardized esGmate. Significant results in bold Verbal harassment, Het+ Std. est p Boys SOGI 123 0.312 .133 GSA -0.801 <.001 Girls SOGI 123 -0.147 .592 GSA -0.900 <.001 Std. est.= standardized esGmate. Significant results in bold 15 Social Exclusion at school in the past 12 months • SOGI 123 decreased social exclusion at school for LGBQ+ boys and HET+ girls, but had no separate effect for LGBQ+ girls or Het+ boys above and beyond GSAs. The standardized esDmates for both these groups were in the right direcDon, but they were not staDsDcally significant. • GSAs decreased social exclusion at school for both LGBQ+ boys and girls, and Het+ boys and girls; however, SOGI 123 had stronger effects than GSAs for Het+ girls. • The longer SOGI 123 and/or GSAs were in a school, the greater the decrease in social exclusion at school for groups Social Exclusion, LGBQ+ Std. est. p Boys SOGI 123 -0.220 <.001 GSA -0.851 <.001 Girls SOGI 123 -0.192 0.208 GSA -0.876 <.001 Std. est.= standardized esGmate. Significant results in bold Social Exclusion, Het+ Std. est p Boys SOGI 123 -0.309 0.078 GSA -0.767 <.001 Girls SOGI 123 -0.608 .021 GSA -0.552 <.001 Std. est.= standardized esGmate. Significant results in bold 16 Physically Assaulted at School in the past 12 months • SOGI 123 reduced physical assault in school for both HET+ boys and girls, and GSAs decreased physical assault in school for LGBQ+ girls. SOGI 123 did not have an addiDonal separate effect for LGBQ+ students aqer accounDng for GSAs. • The effects of SOGI 123 on reducing physical assaults were even stronger than those of GSAs for Het+ boys and Het+ girls. • The longer SOGI 123 or GSAs were in schools, the greater the decrease in physical assaults at school for Het+ boys and girls, and LGBQ+ girls. Std. est.= standardized esGmate. Significant results in bold Physically assaulted, Het+ Std. est p Boys SOGI 123 -0.809 <.001 GSA -0.312 <.001 Girls SOGI 123 -0.746 <.001 GSA -0.393 <.001 Std. est.= standardized esGmate. Significant results in bold Physical assaulted, LGBQ+ Std. est. p Boys SOGI 123 -0.574 0.407 GSA -0.349 0.412 Girls SOGI 123 0.053 0.849 GSA -1.012 <.001 17 Sexual orienta7on discrimina7on in the past 12 months Although rates of sexual orientaDon discriminaDon increased in schools overall between 2013 and 2023 among both LGBQ+ and Het+ girls, we saw posiDve impacts of SOGI 123 and GSAs on discriminaDon in schools that had adopted one or both: • SOGI 123 decreased sexual orientaDon discriminaDon for both LGBQ+ boys and LGBQ+ girls, and for HET+ boys, but not HET+ girls. For Het+ girls, the standardized esDmates were in the right direcDon, but not staDsDcally significant. • GSAs also had an independent effect in reducing sexual orientaDon discriminaDon for all but Het+ girls. • The longer SOGI 123 and/or GSAs were in a school, the greater the impact on reducing sexual orienta7on discrimina7on. These are some of the strongest standardized esDmates we’ve seen with SLEPHI analyses, and the analyses show no signs of peaking in their effects, i.e., con7nued implementa7on of SOGI 123 and GSAs over 7me should improve results further. It's important to remember that sexual orientaDon discriminaDon was increasing province-wide for both LGBQ+ and Het+ girls, but we see strong decreases in schools with longer involvement with SOGI 123 and with GSAs for everyone (except Het+ girls). This suggests that in schools where SOGI 123 is not being implemented robustly, rates of sexual orientaDon discriminaDon are likely genng worse. Std. est.= standardized esGmate. Significant results in bold Sexual orienta7on discrimina7on, Het+ Std. est p Boys SOGI 123 -0.290 <.001 GSA -0.816 .009 Girls SOGI 123 -0.468 .495 GSA -0.677 .285 Std. est.= standardized esGmate. Significant results in bold Sexual orienta7on discrimina7on, LGBQ+ Std. est. p Boys SOGI 123 -0.190 <.001 GSA -0.891 <.001 Girls SOGI 123 -1.421 <.001 GSA -1.662 <.001 18 Conclusions of the quan/ta/ve evalua/on The training and support for school staff that is provided by SOGI 123, as well as support for LGBQ+ and other students through policies, teaching materials, and strategies such as inclusive signage and GSAs, helps reduce bullying and discriminaDon in schools, even for heterosexual students. Why might this iniDaDve also have impacts for heterosexual students? While we cannot say for sure, research has shown that homophobic and transphobic bullying are also used as a way of policing masculinity among boys of all sexual orientaDons, and of enforcing feminine norms among girls. Teaching materials and programming that offer inclusive views about ways to express gender, provide teachers and staff with the skills to address anD-2SLGBTQ+ bullying, and foster inclusion among students can help create a safer environment for all, including heterosexual boys and girls who do not fit gender stereotypes. SOGI 123 appears to be effec?ve for reducing violence and crea?ng more inclusive environments in BC schools. The longer it has been implemented, the greater the improvement. GSAs also have an impact, but SOGI 123 has impacts above and beyond GSAs, including for heterosexual students. 19 Qualita/ve analyses: Insights about barriers and facilitators for implemen/ng SOGI 123: What is needed to implement it well? What other impacts are observed? Methods For this porDon of the evaluaDon, we purposively selected 6 different school districts across the province from both rural and urban school districts. We chose districts that were more experienced and acDve in implemenDng SOGI 123, and districts where involvement was more limited, or where SOGI District Leads and SOGI School Leads (resource teachers) were newer to SOGI 123. From October 2022 to May 2023, we interviewed 6 SOGI District Leads and 15 SOGI School Leads from these school districts across BC. They ranged in experience from within the year to 6+ years in the role; among the SOGI School Leads, an even number of Leads were from elementary, middle, and secondary school levels. We asked about any impacts of SOGI 123 they had observed in their school(s) on students, staff, and school environments. We asked what they saw as the key strengths of SOGI 123, and what they thought could be improved. Finally, we asked what they felt was needed to facilitate SOGI 123 effecDvely, and what barriers existed. We have included example quotes from SOGI District and School Leads in our findings below. Findings Perceived Impacts When asked about the impact that SOGI 123 has had on students, staff, and school environments, parDcipants primarily gave posiDve responses. Many parDcipants idenDfied the posiDve impact that inclusive signage and GSAs have had on students, and on increasing the school’s inclusivity and acceptance of 2SLGBTQ+ students. Some parDcipants were unsure whether perceived changes in students and schools was solely due to SOGI 123, or a cumulaDve effect from the program, community, and broader societal progress. However, there were no negaDve impacts idenDfied by parDcipants. “I think the presence of SOGI 123 and the fact that there’s Ministry endorsement, I think has been a posi>ve thing. I think it has empowered senior management to sort of invest. I think it’s been something that has created a bit of visibility.” (SOGI District Lead) ParDcipants noDced a posiDve shiq in staff’s comfort with using SOGI materials in classrooms and in schools, and believed this willingness to learn and diversify resources was helping to make school environments more inclusive. 20 “I think that people are really star>ng to see that there are connec>ons within the curriculum, even at very young ages. ‘Cause I know that people are using videos that I’ve created, resources that I’ve created for kindergarten, grade one, grade two classrooms. And that’s a real shiI…So I would say that’s probably the most posi>ve shiI.” (SOGI District Lead) Many Leads also spoke about the posiDve impact that SOGI 123 has had on school environments, and making schools more inclusive and affirming for 2SLGBTQ+ youth. “People just feel more open about expressing themselves and being who they are and coming out as well…also people are more comfortable, like, yeah, just being who they are and not having to hide as much because we’re so open about SOGI and we have-- we talk about it in announcements. We have a SOGI board in the hallway so it’s very visible for everybody to see. We have a lot of students who come to Diversity Club and it’s grown so much from just the last year. Yeah, I think we’ve created a safe space for students who iden>fy as being part of the LGBTQ2S+ community. Yeah. I like to think the students feel safer here and more included.” (Secondary School SOGI Lead) ParDcipants also menDoned the posiDve impact on the parents and their appreciaDon for the SOGI program in school: “Parents have been coming forward. For example, when we did our gender inclusive sexual health talks…a lot of parents came forward and said, ‘thank you. This was really important and our family feels seen. My child feels seen, and we appreciate the effort that you’ve put in here’. So I think that is showing success.” (SOGI District Lead) Strengths of SOGI 123: School level tools and resources The strength most frequently discussed by parDcipants was school-level tools and resources, which primarily included the SOGI 123 GSA supports, teaching resources, and lesson plans. For example, some helpful resources spoken about by Leads were: a wide variety of teaching tools, like lesson plans for math, physical educaDon, etc.; the SOGI 123 website; GSAs and inclusive signage like flags and safe space sDckers; Microsoq Teams and other online playorms to interact with other SOGI Leads. 21 “The teaching resources are super helpful. Everything’s broken down for you. And I like how it includes the grade levels that you can see clearly what’s more for primary and what’s more for intermediate or the older grades. And, yeah, just the whole thing. All the teaching resources, they’re just super helpful. Yeah, that’s what I draw on the most.” (Secondary School SOGI Lead) Some parDcipants idenDfied they wanted updated SOGI resource materials, either more advanced content, or content that is more diverse, to reflect the diversity within their schools. “Having a focus that is secondary, that would be a request, definitely. It’s excep>onally easy to find elementary school resources…They’re everywhere. So to find the secondary resources, though, it is much more difficult. And that’s where I think turning to the students is some>mes a wealth of knowledge right there.” (Secondary School SOGI Lead) “I recognize that the [SOGI 123] website, if you hit some of the links, it does have transla>on into different languages, like Spanish and French or Chinese or whatever. And I tried to email and say, hey, why don’t we have an ASL transla>on there? Again, the Vancouver Pride does translate parts of their website into ASL, and I thought that would be great an really inclusive.” (Secondary School SOGI Lead) "I think one of the things that we’ve oIen asked for is sort of the advocacy piece…that sort of thing where rather than individual districts having to respond to parent opposi>on or poli>cal momentum, an>-SOGI momentum, it would have been really nice to have that sort of coming from a centralized place…Where there was some contradic>on of misinforma>on and malinforma>on out there. That’s one thing that I think would be really helpful moving forward." (SOGI District Lead) What is needed to implement SOGI 123 well? Facilitators ParDcipants also spoke about factors that facilitated their use and implementaDon of SOGI 123 content into their schools or their school districts. The facilitator most frequently discussed by Leads was having supporDve school staff and leaders, which included classroom teachers, administrators, principals, and other support and learning staff. For example, many parDcipants idenDfied the posiDve impact that supporDve administrators had on their ability to implement SOGI 123 content. The presence of supporDve administrators and other staff resulted in Leads being more at ease with using SOGI 123 resources and content, and feeling more supported if faced with resistance from parents. 22 “But if you have a community within your school, and I meant community as in teacher community or administra>on community, that makes a huge difference to the amount of work you can do as a SOGI lead.” (Secondary School SOGI Lead) “I’ve worked with a number of principals and just worked on things like awareness and language in terms of responding to ignorance. And when we have people-- when we have admin who buy in and step up and are asser>ve with the response, it’s interes>ng how quickly that response gets ex>nguished versus the admin who are, like, yeah, I’m not sure how to respond to this.” (SOGI District Lead) Barriers to implemen;ng SOGI 123 well Lack of system resources A lack of funding for SOGI-related iniDaDves and lack of Dme (either in the form of FTE or release Dme) for School Leads to spend on SOGI-related iniDaDves. Both District and School Leads expressed the challenges posed by the lack of Dme and funding for SOGI-related work, which was oqen a result of limited investment in SOGI iniDaDves by provincial and district departments. “Most of our barriers become financial based. Like, we’re looking at expanding our gender neutral washroom. So now we’re looking at how are we going to fund this? We want-- we’re trying to create a full gender neutral inclusive space in our school. But again, we have to fund it. So financial barriers tend to be our biggest hurdle.” (Secondary School SOGI Lead) “But in an ideal world we would have collabora>on >me. We would have…>me to get together and talk about these things. But that >me currently does not exist within our schedule, as in full staff. It does not exist. And as a result, I think we’re doing the best we can with what we have. But for me any kind of end goal or ideal would include >me not only about SOGI, but >me—more collabora>on >me as a staff, as a full staff, to talk about what mafers to us. Because I know this is a shared value.” (Elementary School SOGI Lead) Unsuppor7ve school leadership Another barrier frequently discussed by parDcipants was unsupporDve leadership and school staff (unsupporDve can range from ignorance of SOGI topics to actual resistance to implemenDng SOGI content). For example, many parDcipants expressed that having unsupporDve administraDve staff made their job much more challenging. Several Leads also expressed that there was liole knowledge among staff of SOGI policies, causing staff to be unsure how to deal with instances of bullying of 2SLGBTQ+ students. 23 “But I tend to find that understanding of the policies tends to s>ll be a big s>cking point. Teachers not understanding-- I had a long conversa>on at our last staff mee>ng…I think there’s a disconnect s>ll between the policies and where we’re at.” (Secondary School SOGI Lead) Resistance from parents or community The last barrier spoken about by parDcipants was resistance or backlash from the community and/or parents. This posed a challenge more oqen to the School Leads, since they have more direct contact with students, parents, and the broader community. However, they also felt this barrier could be reduced by support from school administrators and the district in general. For example, when one school experienced community pushback, the issue was helped by the district having a firm stance on inclusion and diversity. “Some of the biggest barriers are s>ll misunderstandings. People-- recently it’s been a lot of discussions on what gender reaffirming care means. We’re in a community that’s rela>vely religious, and so a lot of parental backlash happens at the district level, which puts some fears into the kids themselves.” (Secondary School SOGI Lead) “But there are s>ll barriers…There’s quite a bit of pushback. And just recently our district office had received word that there was going to be protests for SOGI related…So it was put out there as a veiled threat that they would show up. Which school? I don't know. And so then all the principals and vice-principals they were having their mee>ngs and so emails were disseminated to all staff to just say, like, we’re not going to engage. We are an inclusive district and we are inclusive schools and we believe in human rights and people have rights. And so I think that will just be an ongoing bafle for a while unfortunately.” (Secondary School SOGI Lead) 24 Conclusions of the qualita/ve evalua/on Overall, the District and School SOGI Leads affirmed some of the same observaDons about SOGI 123’s impact that were also seen among students in our SLEPHI analyses. They offered addiDonal insights into its benefits for creaDng safer and more inclusive schools, and idenDfied specific resources or acDviDes that contributed to these impacts. While most parDcipants noted some barriers to implemenDng SOGI 123 well, including the need for school and district leadership to support the work, and pushback from parents or community members in some regions, they were enthusiasDc about the impacts they had seen, and the variety of supports provided to help develop school policy, to teach, and to support students in GSAs and other acDviDes. We note that many of the barriers or challenges they idenDfied—limited financial resources, lack of supporDve leadership, staff shortages, community pushback—are not really under the control of ARC FoundaDon or SOGI 123 as a program. Therefore, these fall outside our specific recommendaDons as part of this evaluaDon. That said, there may be opportunity for ARC FoundaDon and SOGI District and School Leads to advocate for further resources within the system to help support the iniDaDve. Final Thoughts We saw a clear impact on violence and discriminaDon for both LGBQ+ and heterosexual students that were documented in our SLEPHI analyses. At the same Dme, there has been increasing anD-SOGI rhetoric and poliDcal protests across BC, and indeed, across Canada. Our findings offer robust evidence that SOGI 123 is beneficial for inclusion and support of all students, not just LGBQ+ students. Given this impact and the noted barriers, addiDonal supports from government and communiDes to enhance, expand, and sustain SOGI 123 resources in schools appears warranted. Human rights law specifically prohibits discriminaDon on the basis of sexual orientaDon and gender idenDty and expression. However, with significant increases in reports of sexual orientaDon discriminaDon among students in BC schools, schools may be at risk of human rights complaints. SOGI 123 is one iniDaDve that effecDvely addresses this risk among all students..