Queer Assumptions: An Outcome-Based Program Evaluation of Eastern

Michigan University’s LGBTQ Safe Campaign Training Program

What are Safe Programs

Social StigmaUnsafe school environments

HarassmentStudents harming themselves

Not successful in schoolTeachers & Administrators ignorant about best practices

Queerphobia is often perpetuated by the social institution of school

GLSEN. (2010)

Goals of the Safe Campaign

LGBTQ identity & expression

Dispelling misrepresentations of LGBTQ individuals & issues

EMU’s Reputation

2012 Top Ten list for LGBT-Friendliest Campus ClimatesAwarded 4.5 out of 5 stars

Findings based on survey results of thousands of LGBTQ individuals representing their schools

Campus Pride- LGBT- Friendly Campus Climate Index: National Assessment Tool. 2010

Focus of Literature

• Implementation• Queerphobic• LG mentoring programs• ‘Safe Zone’ symbol impact• Campus Climate

Major Research Questions about Knowledge

Does participating in a single Safe Campaign session increase one’s level of knowledge of LGBTQ topics?

Is one’s level of knowledge influenced by socio-demographics?

Does knowledge change vary by socio-demographic factors?

23

1

H1= Will lead to an increase in knowledge about LGBTQ individuals and issues.

H2= One’s initial (T1) level of knowledge is impacted by sociodemographics.

H3= Knowledge change (T2) is impacted by sociodemographics.

HypothesesAs a result of participating in a single

SAFE session:

The extended-contact hypothesisThe learning theory

The social-cognitive developmental theoryThe cognitive-development theory

The socialization theory

12

3 4

5

Theories often used to explain social interventions

Theoretical Framework

Social Representations theoryIt is the continual process of negotiation between individually kept

perceptions and social interactions that act as a forces pressuring one’s cognitive process of rationalization to apply new meanings being

provided by the social intervention.

Sociodemographics

In the Literature Added to this studyAge Social ViewGender More appropriate measures for religiosity Sexual OrientationRaceAcademic Class StandingGPAAcademic MajorRaceReligiosityPolitical Party AffiliationContact with LGBTQ

Study Design

Pre-test Post-testQuantitative (N=126) Qualitative (N=6)Knowledge of LGBTQ topics Faculty InterviewsParticipant AssessmentsAttitudes toward ‘LG’Attitudes toward ‘T’

Agree or DisagreeMeasuring Knowledge

1. As far as you know, most transgender people identify as LG.2. I think children raised by LGB parents are more likely to be gay.3. As far as you know, it has been scientifically proven that gay men are

largely responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS.4. In the state of Michigan it is legal to fire individuals for being LGBTQ.5. As far as you know, gays and lesbians cannot have children.6. To be gay is only a phase they can be “changed” or “cured.”7. As far as you know, LGBTQ individuals are not religious.8. As far as you know, there are anti-bullying or harassment policies on

a federal level that protect LGBTQ students in schools.

Student ParticipantAssessment Questions

1. The SAFE training session I attended was very informative 2. I would recommend this SAFE training program to others

3. I feel I am now more aware of LGBTQ issues4. I feel I am now more sensitive about the obstacles that

LGBTQ individuals face5. I feel my attitudes have become more supportive or

positive toward LGBTQ individuals and issues6. I think I will become more supportive of LGBTQ rights

1. The strengths/benefits 2. How it help their students3. The highlight(s) of their experience4. Areas in need of improvement5. If they support mandated SAFE participation for faculty6. Ideas for increasing faculty participation

Focus of questions for Faculty Interviews

Knowledge Scores

T1= 70.5% T2= 85.5%

Sig=.000000000000R=701

Knowledge Score0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Post-testPre-test

Results of Student Participant Assessments

•93.6% informative •89.6% would recommend to others•85% more aware•81% more sensitive about the obstacles LGBTQ face•65% felt more supportive or positive•70% they will become more supportive of LGBTQ rights

Faculty Feedback

1. Awareness2. Provides facts/data3. Provides narrative4. Insight to how inequality impacts the daily lives of LGBTQ individuals5. Frames the LGBTQ struggle as a civil rights issue not a religious one6. Transgender 7. Safe environment for EMU LGBTQ students & faculty8. Resources available at EMU 9. Points out the heterosexual privilege in this country10.Rethink assumptions

“…this is a matter not only of awareness but also professional competency. LGBTQ issues, since it is a national social issue now and pertains to

students on our campus, need to be a part of your comfort zone as a professional.”

Faculty member:

The Safe Campaign is as good as it gets, but could be limited because

it just does not reach enough faculty members.

What can be done to increase faculty participation?

Addressing the Major Concern

Ease of access to the information

Offering faculty incentives

References

Aboud, F & S. Levy. 2000. “Interventions to reduce prejudice in children and adolescents.” Pp. 269–94 in Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Mahwah, New Jersey

Bandura, Albert 1989 “Human agency in Social Cognitive Theory” American Psychologist. 44(9):1175-1184

Bigler, R. 1999. “The use of multicultural curricula and materials to counter racism in children”, Journal of Social Issues, 55( 4) 687–705.

Campus Pride- LGBT- Friendly Campus Climate Index: National Assessment Tool. 2010. Retrieved November 2011. (http://www.campusclimateindex.org/about/default.aspx ).

Evans, Nancy J., 2002. “The Impact of an LGBT Safe Zone Project on Campus Climate.” The Journal of College Student Development 43(4):522-538

GLSEN. 2010. “National School Climate Survey: Nearly 9 out of 10 LGBT Students Experience Harassment in School.” Retrieved November 22, 2011 (http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/record/2624.html)

Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K. & Salas, E. 1993. Application of Cognitive, Skill-Based, and Affective Theories of Learning Outcomes to New Methods of Training Evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (2):311-328.

Levy, S, T. West, L. Ramirez, & J. Pachankis, 2004, “Racial and Ethnic Prejudice Among Children.” Pp..37–60 in The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination, Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Pfeifer, Brown, & Juvonen. 2007. “Teaching Tolerance in Schools: Lessons Learned Since Brown V. Board of Education about the Development and Reduction of Children's Prejudice.” Social Policy Report. 21(2):177–89.

Wright, Lester W., Henry Adams, & Jeffery Bernat. 1999. “Development and Validation of the Homophobia Scale.” The Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 21(4):337-347.

Wright, S, A. Aron, T. McLaughlin-Volpe & S. Ropp, 1997. “The Extended Contact Effect: Knowledge of Cross-Group Friendships and Prejudice.” Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 73( 1):73–90.