1. Dating Violence among Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Adolescents: Results from a Community Survey Naomi Freedner, MPH Lorraine H. Freed, MD MPH S. Bryn Austin, Sc.D. Y. Wendy Yang, BS

2. Contact Information: Naomi Freedner, MPH Violence Prevention Consulting Group PO Box 142 Auburndale, MA 02466 naomi.freedner@bmc.org 617.414.6928

3. Acknowledgements This work was funded in part by the Leadership Education in Adolescent Health Project grant 5T71 MC 00009-09 from the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, USDHHS and Project 10 East, Inc. We would like to thank the following people and organizations for their help and support: Rosalie Rippey and The Open Doors Project Project 10 East, Inc. The Network for Battered Lesbians and Bisexual Women

4. Background 18% of girls and 7% of boys have been physically or sexually hurt by a date or partner Rates of teen dating violence (TDV) among high school and college students nationwide range from 9% to 41% Students experiencing TDV are at increased risk for forced sexual contact, suicidality, drinking, pregnancy, STD’s, and vomiting and using laxatives to control weight MYRBS 2000, Massachusetts Department of Education. MMWR. June 9, 2000;49(SS05):1-96. Bergman L. Social Work. 1992;37(1):21-27. Foshee VA. Health Education Research. 1996;11(3):275-286. Riggs DS. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 1993; Roscoe B, Callahan J. Adolescence. 1985; 20(7-9):545-553. 8(1):18-35.

5. 1999 MYRBS: Sexual Orientation 2.8% of students surveyed described themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual 5.5% of all students described themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual and/or reported same-sex sexual contact

6. Prevalence of TDV among LGB Adolescents Experienced TDV L/B females (%) Other females (%) G/B males (%) Other males (%) Any abuse35.7*17.435.3 *5.9 Physical abuse10.28.82.52.3 Sexual abuse9.33.69.21.5 Both physical & sexual abuse 16.24.923.72.1 * p. <.001. 1999 MYRBS. Massachusetts Department of Education; 2000

7. Limitations of Data Regarding TDV among GLB Adolescents MYRBS provides some of the only data on TDV in LGB adolescents No data about the types of abuse or the gender of the abuser Bisexual often collapsed into gay/lesbian category

8. Objectives 1.To characterize the prevalence of TDV among LGB adolescents in an urban area in the NE 2.To better understand the types of abuse LGB adolescents experience and the gender of the abusive partner(s) 3.To determine whether the abuse was disclosed, and if so to whom 4.To determine which community resources addressing TDV are identified LGBT adolescents

9. Sampling Methodology Volunteers surveyed participants of a 2000 Gay/Straight Youth Pride March Self-report surveys were anonymous and took less than 5 minutes to complete Participation was voluntary

10. Demographic Data Surveys were collected from 632 adolescents 111 surveys were excluded:  67 because of missing data  9 who responded that they were transgendered  35 who were questioning sexual orientation Of the 521 surveys analyzed, 33% were male and 67% were female The age range of respondents was 13-22, with a mean age of 17.1 (  1.8)

11. Emotional abuse Being controlled by one’s partner/date Being scared for one’s safety Physical abuse Sexual abuse Being threatened with outing 6 abuse items assessed: 4-level response option for each item: No Yes, by a date/partner of the same sex Yes, by a date/partner of the opposite sex Yes, both a date/partner of the same sex and opposite sex

12. Sexual Orientation FemaleMale 24% 37%40% 59% 12% 29%

13. 3% 80% 7%3%1%7% Race and Ethnicity

14. Prevalence of Abuse NAny Abuse a (%)Same-Sex Partner (%) Opposite-Sex Partner (%) Lesbian83434019 Gay male10145447 Bi female128382627 Bi male21 57 * 43 Het female13932431 Het male4929227 a Abuse by same- and opposite-sex partners not mutually exclusive * p < 0.05

15. Type of Abuse: Females Lesbian (%) Bisexual (%) Heterosexual (%) N = 83N = 128N = 139 Control31*2317 Emotional27*2015 Scared for Safety19*119 Physical151410 Sexual1522*12 * p< 0.05 for difference from heterosexual

16. Type of Abuse: Males Gay (%) Bisexual (%) Heterosexual (%) N = 101N = 21N = 49 Control263318 Emotional212912 Scared for Safety12 # 19 # 0 Physical1410 Sexual14 4 # p<0.01 for difference from heterosexual

17. Threat of Outing NThreatened with Outing (%) Same-Sex Partner (%) Opposite-Sex Partner (%) Lesbian83412 Gay male101771 Bi female128 13 * 112 Bi male21 29 * 24 * p < 0.05 for difference from gay/lesbian

18. Disclosure of Abuse NDisclosed Abuse a (%) Told Friend (%) Told Adult (%) Lesbian28759119 Gay male407310021 Bi female456410010 Bi male9678317 Het female40709614 Het male13691000 a Friend and adult categories are not mutually exclusive.

19. Knowledge of Resources 29% of adolescents responded when asked to list resources in the area for LGBT youth experiencing dating violence:  82% identified a high school- or community-based LGBT youth group  10% identified traditional domestic violence/sexual assault resources

20. Logistic Regression: Females Compared to heterosexual females:  lesbians had 2.4 times the odds of reporting that a date or partner had made them scared for their safety (95% CI: 1.1, 5.5)  bisexuals had 2.0 times the odds of reporting sexual abuse (95% CI: 1.0, 3.9) Compared to lesbians:  bisexuals had 4.3 times higher odds of having been threatened with outing (95% CI: 1.2, 15.6)

21. Logistic Regression: Males Compared to heterosexual males:  bisexual males had 3.6 times the odds of experiencing at least one of the five types of abuse (95% CI: 1.2, 10.5) Compared to gay males:  bisexual males had 5.4 times the odds of being threatened with outing (95% CI: 1.5, 19.4)

22. Limitations Non-probability sample Small sample size Self-report surveys Cross-sectional analysis

23. Implications Further study with specific attention to differences across sexual orientation groups is warranted Further study into why bisexuals may be at higher risk for TDV as compared to gay, lesbian, or heterosexual adolescents Providers should not make assumptions about the gender of LGB adolescents’ partners