One population that has yet to receive adequate attention in the application of positive youth development (PYD) is LGBTQ+ youth. PYD (Benson et al., 1998; Silbereisen & Lerner, 2007) guides much of the nation’s youth policy and programming initiatives (Benson et al., 2011; Catalano et al., 2004; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2016), including 4-H. PYD is rooted in prevention and is an approach to programming that seeks to promote youth social connection, socioemotional competence, self-determination, self-efficacy, future orientation, and prosocial behavior, among other prosocial outcomes across the various contexts in which youth develop, such as schools, family, and community (Catalano et al., 2004; Silbereisen & Lerner, 2007). Despite its widespread use in youth programming, PYD’s application to LGBTQ+ youth has been limited (Toomey et al., 2019). Preliminary research in this area has focused on the Developmental Assets Framework, which names 40 positive resources and strengths that youth need to thrive (Benson et al., 2011). Findings suggest that these assets operate similarly for heterosexual, cisgender, and LGBTQ+ youth (Syvertsen et al., 2019; Toomey et al., 2019). Perhaps not surprisingly, however, LGBTQ+ youth reported fewer internal (e.g., academic engagement, social competence) and external (e.g., support, belonging) assets than their heterosexual and cisgender peers (Syvertsen et al., 2019; Toomey et al., 2019); yet these assets would likely provide LGBTQ+ youth greater increased resilience and additional coping strategies in the face of adversity. With intentional efforts to enhance inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ+ identities, community-based youth organizations, such as 4-H, may help to increase developmental assets among LGBTQ+ youth.

Scholarship on LGBTQ+ youth often reflects and frames the experience of LGBTQ+ youth in urban contexts, a focus that ignores the geographic heterogeneity that often alters the experience of being an LGBTQ+ young person. Simultaneously, rural communities are often characterized as inherently hostile toward LGBTQ+ youth, with few opportunities for support or resources (Paceley, 2020). Indeed, some research suggests that LGBTQ+ youth in rural communities overhear more anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment (Kosciw et al., 2015) and have less access to supportive resources (Paceley, 2016; Paceley et al., 2019) than youth in urban communities. Alternatively, research indicates that rural LGBTQ+ youth are resilient and develop pathways to positive identity and well-being in ways that are different from urban youth. For example, Gray (2009) described how rural LGBTQ+ youth in Kentucky utilized non-LGBTQ+ spaces to form community, such as the local Walmart. Youth in her study also used online and social media outlets to communicate and find support across rural areas, a common strategy for rural LGBTQ+ youth (Gray, 2009; Paceley et al., in press).

Rather than position rural communities as inherently hostile, it may be useful to consider rural communities as promoting different strengths and values for LGBTQ+ youth and identify opportunities to strengthen these communities. Paceley (2020) described the necessity of understanding rural communities in light of their strengths rather than from a deficit-based approach. For example, rural communities may offer a sense of closeness and connection to others not found in urban spaces. Still, these studies remain rare in LGBTQ+ youth scholarship and more research is needed to identify the opportunities for support in rural communities for LGBTQ+ youth. One possibility is that existing youth organizations could provide support to LGBTQ+ youth, yet their impact and work with LGBTQ+ youth have not been explored. One such organization that is common in rural communities is 4-H.

Data were analyzed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) by three coders. Thematic analysis is a flexible, yet rigorous method of qualitative analysis that allows for the discovery of patterns within a set of qualitative data. It is particularly useful with this data set given our goal of assessing patterns across constituent groups via SWOT and group meetings in which notes were taken, but without verbatim transcripts. It provides the structure to assess patterns without being theoretically driven. Our analytic process followed the steps laid out by Braun and Clarke (2006). The first author established familiarity with the data based on a review of the meeting notes, given he had been present at each meeting. Next, the second author and a student assistant read through all the notes to become familiar with the data without reviewing the first author’s notes. They independently created an initial set of codes; the second author combined their codes into an initial set of themes, discussing areas in which there were discrepancies. They compared their set of themes to the first author’s and, finding consistency, the second author used the set of themes to engage in multiple rounds of coding until near-final sets of themes and sub-themes were identified. After the themes were named and defined, a summary of findings was shared with the research team before compiling them for dissemination.

Given the qualitative and community-based nature of this study, it is important for us to reflect on our positionality within the research project. Author 1 is directly affiliated with 4-H through his position as youth development Extension faculty that includes research and advocacy for LGBTQ+ youth. He identifies as a White, gay, cisgender man that lives and works in rural communities. Author 2 is a social worker and scholar engaged in research with queer and trans youth and communities. She identifies as a White, queer, cisgender woman. Author 3 is a White, cisgender, queer woman with training in human development, family science, and couple and family therapy. Author 4 is a White, transgender social worker and scholar within the discipline of human development and family science. We engaged reflexively with these positionalities in terms of identities and what we bring to the research, as well as our professional roles and identities. As queer and/or trans scholars, social workers, practitioners, and youth development leaders, we take an explicit stance toward promoting equity and inclusion for LGBTQ+ youth; this lens was intentionally present in our data collection, analysis, and dissemination processes. Importantly, we also reflected on our positionality as White scholars and geographic positionality outside of the studied area for authors 2, 3, and 4.

The first theme encompasses the ways in which the organizational climate created challenges or opportunities to support LGBTQ+ youth in 4-H. We use Oswald et al.’s (2010) definition of climate as it relates to communities, given its connection to LGBTQ+ people, specifically. Therefore, we define climate as the level of support for or hostility toward LGBTQ+ people within the 4-H organization.

The second theme encompassed the policies and procedures within 4-H (broadly and locally) that created challenges or opportunities to support LGBTQ+ youth. Policies and procedures are one aspect of climate (Oswald et al., 2010; Paceley et al., 2020) however, we separate them here to illustrate their importance in establishing an environment that supports or creates challenges to supporting LGBTQ+ youth.

The third theme encompassed challenges and opportunities within 4-H training, education, and resources that prevented or could create a supportive environment for LGBTQ+ youth. Participants primarily discussed opportunities for positive growth within this theme.

The fourth theme included opportunities for 4-H chapters and the larger organization to engage with the community in ways that support LGBTQ+ youth. Program staff suggested determining where LGBTQ+ youth find support in the community and allying with those agencies or organizations. They indicated that a possible resource that could improve 4-H’s ability to engage with the community was the local university, specifically diversity and extension offices. These offices may be able to facilitate training and resources identified above, as well as assist with larger community-level events, such as LGBTQ+ Pride or other LGBTQ+ events. Youth participants echoed this desire to have 4-H involved in the local community via participation at Pride events or connecting with other LGBTQ+-supportive resources.

Finally, an opportunity exists within 4-H to promote the leadership and empowerment of LGBTQ+ and allied youth. Youth participants described a need for youth-specific resources provided within the 4-H umbrella that are LGBTQ+-specific and/or LGBTQ+-supportive. They provided several examples including an LGBTQ+ club within 4-H youth groups, youth advocacy clubs for youth to learn about and practice advocacy skills, peer mentorship programs for older and younger youth to connect on shared identities and experiences, support groups, youth retreats specific to gender and sexuality, and other groups that can increase empowerment and visibility of LGBTQ+ youth.

This study has important implications for the 4-H program, rural community practice, and research. First, 4-H should consider strategies related to education, programs and policies, hiring, and community partnerships in order to increase inclusion of the LGBTQ+ community and improve the climate for LGBTQ+ youth. These strategies may also improve the climate for LGBTQ+ families, volunteers, and staff who are part of the vital operation of the 4-H program. One important strategy is education. Our findings emphasize the need for education pertaining to gender identity and sexual orientation among staff, volunteers, and youth. Education at all of these levels will not only provide resources to 4-H participants, but can help improve organizational climate, inform policies and procedures, scrutinize existing partnerships that may damage inclusion efforts, help develop new partnerships, and empower youth to create new spaces and experiences for LGBTQ+ 4-H young people. Education can be weaved into traditional training for staff and volunteers, reviewing forms and other written documents for bias, amplifying voices of LGBTQ+ 4-H members, and promoting LGBTQ+ inclusion in publications and advertisements. One resource for education and training for 4-H is respective university resources, such as offices of equity and diversity and LGBTQ+-specific groups and clubs that can inform and support inclusion efforts. Whereas geographic location can be a barrier to local, county-based, 4-H programs, local staff are capable of directing inquiries to respective resources.

4-H programs can also adapt policy and program changes to promote inclusion of LGBTQ+ youth. Gendered activities can be altered to promote the inclusion of all participants, regardless of gender identity and expression. Additionally, practices that normalize the use of pronouns consistent with gender identity and foster respect for gender diversity among youth members and staff should be implemented or enhanced. Policies that reinforce gender binaries and stereotypes, such as dress codes, should be revised to promote inclusion of all genders. The promotion of affiliated university inclusion statements and equal opportunity clauses is not enough. 4-H codes of conduct and other behavioral contracts should include gender and sexual identity in clauses that prohibit biased-based bullying in order to proactively promote inclusivity within 4-H clubs, retreats, leadership experiences, livestock programs, and fairs. Given that research demonstrates linkages between stated policies and LGBTQ+ youth experiences of safety (Hatzenbuehler, 2016) and support (Day et al., 2019), the adoption and implementation of these policies within 4-H could create a culture shift for LGBTQ+ youth members and staff.

Education and program/policy work is important and sexual orientation and gender identity equity and inclusion requires enforcement at all levels. Specific attention should be paid to equipping 4-H participants, volunteers, and staff with strategies for responding effectively to LGBTQ+ harassment and prejudice. Youth can also be equipped with resources on how to support their peers and strategies for addressing harassment and prejudice. Volunteers and staff should be trained on policy and program requirements for inclusion of LGBTQ+ youth and held accountable to uphold those standards. Given the geographic and sociopolitical dispersion of 4-H programs around the country, 4-H leadership will have to consider how to support LGBTQ+ youth, volunteers, and staff in communities that may be more hostile toward or rejecting of LGBTQ+ people and identities

Given 4-H’s goal of achieving demographic parity in 2025, 4-H needs to consider strategies that actively recruit and retain LGBTQ+ diversity in staffing and leadership. 4-H should consider how to codify and promote state implementation of strategies outlined in the Practices for Inclusion of Individuals of all Genders and Sexual Orientation (AEBC, 2020), developed by their LGBTQ+ champions team. 4-H would benefit from building on individual states’ existing efforts toward inclusion, like the Ohio 4-H LGBTQ+ Youth Summit, Iowa 4-H’s LGBTQ+ champions team, and Washington 4-H’s Teen Equity and Inclusion Task Force.

Finally, 4-H programs need to examine community partnerships to determine whether partners are inclusive and learn from partners’ efforts. 4-H should not partner with organizations that promote prejudice or are intolerant of the LGBTQ+ community. Instead, 4-H should cultivate and learn from partnerships with local, county, and state organizations that promote LGBTQ+ inclusion and engage in LGBTQ+ community pride events. In order for the 4-H program to fulfill its commitment to youth voice and effectively serve its young participants it needs to promote and amplify LGBTQ+ youth voices by supporting LGBTQ+ youth-created spaces, clubs, education and leadership opportunities, training and other events.

Although this study focused on the 4-H program, the findings have broader implications for rural community programs. Youth-based programs, such as after-school programs, youth groups within churches, and general support groups should consider assessing their program inclusion of LGBTQ+ youth and identify strategies to increase inclusion and support. Including youth voice and expertise in the process of assessing and identifying strategies for improvement will be critical to ensuring that these efforts are meeting the needs of diverse LGBTQ+ youth. These organizations can also lead the way in educating the broader community to increase community-level inclusion efforts, which have been shown to benefit LGBTQ+ youth in rural spaces (Fish et al., 2019; Paceley, 2016).

Finally, this study has implications for research, particularly research that includes community-based organizations. The qualitative methods used in this study were focused first on the community engaging in a SWOT analysis and working directly with staff, volunteers, and youth. Researchers aiming to improve community organizations or systems should consider similar strategies to promote engagement and research that meet the needs of local communities. Additionally, including LGBTQ+ youth in the process of conducting and using research is important to ensure our questions, methods, and findings are relevant to the youth whose lives we aim to impact.

This study has several notable limitations that warrant discussion. First, the data were collected within 4-H programs in one U.S state and therefore reflect the concerns and ideas of a specific population. This potentially limits the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the groups consisted of LGBTQ+ and LGBTQ+-supportive individuals affiliated with 4-H who were motivated to make 4-H more inclusive and affirming. Their bias may have affected their impressions of current inclusion efforts and resources. LGBTQ+ youth who may have felt unwelcome and stopped participating in 4-H programs or did not join due to a lack of inclusion may have different experiences, concerns, or suggestions. Finally, because we did not audio-record participant responses, we are not able to provide quotes in support of our findings, which would help add context to bolster the evidence. In spite of these limitations, this study has several strengths. It focuses on a topic that has received no empirical attention: LGBTQ+ youth and 4-H and centers the voices and expertise of youth and adults involved with 4-H.

The findings from this study contribute to the wealth of literature on the 4-H program and its commitment to positive youth development. Still, it is among the first to center LGBTQ+ youth and staff in the 4-H program with the specific goal of increasing inclusion and support. Given the vast health disparities between LGBTQ+ youth and heterosexual and cisgender youth, it is essential to enhance understanding of how both LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ organizations can improve support and inclusion for this group of marginalized young people. This is particularly important for LGBTQ+ youth in geographic spaces without access to LGBTQ+-specific supports, such as youth in rural communities. 4-H and similar organizations have important opportunities to grow and support LGBTQ+ youth.