• Adult Education
  • Case Management
  • Child Wellbeing
  • Child, Youth and Family Services
  • Child, Youth, and Family Services
  • Community Engagement
  • Country Guides
  • Cultural Awareness
  • Digital Inclusion
  • Early Childhood Education
  • Employment
  • Featured
  • Financial Capabilities
  • Food Security and Nutrition
  • Grief and Healing
  • Health
  • Housing
  • Immigration Legal Needs
  • Media and Communications
  • Mental Health & Wellness
  • Monitoring & Evaluation
  • Organizational Development
  • Project Design and M&E Planning
  • Resource Round-Ups
  • Safety
  • Unaccompanied Refugee Minors
  • Uncategorized
  • Using Data and Evidence
  • Youth Education
  • Youth Wellbeing
Image of person with Pride flag

FILES



Summary PDF: What works to support LGBTQ refugees?

M&E | Track Resource Download
  • PUBLISHED BY
  • Date
  • Topic(s)
   Identity & Inclusive Services, Mental Health and Wellness
  • Subtopic(s)
   
  • Population(s)

SHARE

What works to support LGBTQ refugees?

As yet, there are no published outcome evaluations of programs or practices specifically for LGBTQ refugees. Existing best practice recommendations are based on stakeholder consensus.

  • Three separate stakeholder consensus reports all yield similar recommendations for addressing the unique needs of this population. All recommendations revolve around creating a “safe space” through specific practices.

 

Evidence suggests that young LGBTQ people of immigrant origin may benefit from structured peer support.

  • Immigrant students in groups where both LGBTQ and immigration issues were discussed felt greater hope and perceived peer validation.

 

There is a need for implementation and evaluation of programs and practices specifically for LGBTQ refugees.

Post TitleStrength of EvidenceType of StudyDirection of Evidence
Serving LGBTQ immigrants and building welcoming communitiesSuggestiveSuggestive evidenceNo evidence about impact
Rainbow Response: A practical guide to resettling LGBT refugees and asyleesSuggestiveSuggestive evidenceNo evidence about impact
Benefits for immigrant-origin and nonimmigrant-origin youth of discussing immigration in gender and sexuality alliancesSuggestiveSuggestive evidencePositive impact

Search Protocol

 

Studies included in the database focused on high-income or upper middle-income countries, including but not limited to the United States. Studies included must have been published since 2000. To identify evidence, we searched the following websites and databases using the following population, methodology, and target intervention terms:

Websites and Databases Population Terms Methodology Terms Target Intervention Terms
PubMed

ASSIA

Social Services Abstracts

Social Work Abstracts

PsycInfo

Google Scholar

 (refugee

OR

immigrant

OR

“unaccompanied minor”

OR

asylee

OR

“temporary protected status”

OR

“victims of traffick*”

OR

“traffick* victims”

OR

T-Visa

OR

U-Visa

OR

Cuban

OR

Haitian

OR

Amerasian)

AND

(LGB*

OR

LGBTQ

OR

lesbian

OR

gay

OR

“sexual orientation”

OR

“gender identity”

OR

SOGI

OR

transgender

OR

queer)

 evaluation

OR

impact

OR

program

OR

intervention

OR

policy

OR

Project

OR

train*

OR

therapy

OR

treatment

OR

counseling

OR

workshop

OR

review

OR

meta-analysis

OR

synthesis

 N/A

 

For databases or websites that permitted only basic searches, free-text terms and limited term combinations were selected out of the lists above, and all resultant studies were reviewed for relevance. Conversely, for databases or websites with advanced search capability, we made use of relevant filters available. All search terms were searched in the title and abstract fields only in order to exclude studies that made only passing mention of the topic under consideration.

 

After initial screening, Switchboard evidence mapping is prioritized as follows: First priority is given to meta-analyses and systematic reviews, followed by individual impact evaluations when no meta-analyses or systematic reviews are available. Evaluations that are rated as impact evidence are considered before those rated as suggestive, with the latter only being included for outcomes where no evidence is available from the former.