Course material. Only 14% of directors reported that their programs offered a course that focuses specifically on LGBT issues. Such courses were more common among master’s programs than undergraduate programs, χ2 (1, N = 154) = 15.99, p < .001. Sixty-eight percent reported their programs offered courses on diversity that are external to the curriculum areas; among them, nearly all purportedly include content on sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, or LGBT people. In addition, nearly all directors (95%) reported their programs offered a course on human sexuality during the past two years. About 82% stated their programs regularly offered courses on child welfare, but material specific to LGBT youth was reportedly not included in many of them: Only 54% reported material on identity development among LGBT youth, 50% on LGBT youth in out-of-home care, and 41% on best practices with LGBT youth.
Coverage of LGBT-related topics within the curriculum areas, as reported by the faculty “experts,” varied greatly, as shown in Tables 4, 5, 6, and 7. Programs reporting coverage within HBSE courses ranged from 97% for “gender identity development” to 44% for “LGBT history.” Among policy courses that range was from 95% for “lesbian and gay discrimination” to 49% for “diversity among LGBT populations.” Among practice courses it was from 92% for “self-awareness of values and biases” to 50% for “legal issues.” Among research courses the range was from 78% for “avoiding sexual orientation bias” to 16% for “issues facing LGBT researchers.”
The full list of coverage of LGBT-related topics in each of these four curriculum areas appears below. Because the number of faculty “experts” responding to each item varied among curriculum areas, this number is noted for each table.
Field learning. Among field learning faculty “experts,” 86% reported their program offers field placements where there is an opportunity to work on LGBT issues or with LGBT clients; 13% reported no such opportunities. Among the programs not offering these opportunities (n = 11), all are baccalaureate programs (primarily in institutions that do not also offer a master’s program in social work). No other demographic differences were discernable between programs offering and not offering opportunities to work on LGBT issues or with LGBT clients. Table 8 shows the extent to which field learning faculty experts reported the availability of opportunities to work on LGBT issues or with LGBT clients in agencies providing services to youth, including youth in out-of-home care. Table 9 shows the extent to which these experts reported having field placement opportunities in agencies providing LGBT-specific services for youth or adults.
Most Recent Issue