Source: Northfield Patch

It was 1973 when homosexuality was de-classified as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and since then it has become accepted by most professionals in the mental health community that homsexuality is neither a disease nor a conscious choice that a person can alter. However, the practice of “sexual orientation change efforts” (SOCE) or “conversion therapy” as a way to change a person’s sexual orientation is still used today in Minnesota by some mental health practitioners.

This year Representative Susan Allen has introduced H.F. 1906 to the Minnesota legislature, which would ban licensed professionals from practicing SOCE with children under 18. Because H.F. 1906 targets the care being provided to youth its provisions could have implications for child welfare practice.

What’s in the Bill?

H.F. 1906 defines “sexual orientation change efforts” as any practice that seeks to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender expression. Not included under the current definition is

  • counseling providing support to a minor seeking to transition from one gender to another,
  • practices providing acceptance, support, assistance for youth in developing coping strategies, or
  • practices encouraging identity exploration.

Furthermore, interventions meant to help youth of all identities address unsafe or unlawful sexual practices are permitted so long as they don’t target sexual orientation change. This ban on practicing SOCE would apply to any practitioner licensed by the six boards of Medical Practice, Nursing, Psychology, Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy, and Behavioral Health and Therapy. To hold practitioners accountable the bill establishes requirements that upon the discovery of  a licensed professional engaging in SOCE with a minor, the necessary licensing board will be forced to apply disciplinary actions that they see fit.

The Efficacy of SOCE

Most major U.S. medical and mental health institutions have denounced SOCE due to the potential harm to individuals who undergo SOCE. For instance, professionals from the American Psychiatric Association state that not only do most efforts to change a person’s sexual orientation fail, but these efforts put individuals at significant risk for depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior. Other groups such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO), and the American Psychological Association (APA) have conducted research signifying that little substantiated evidence exists supporting the effectiveness of SOCE in changing sexual orientation, and that these practices are associated with guilt, shame and even suicide. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) has also stated that

“the increase in media campaigns, often coupled with coercive messages from family and community members, has created an environment in which lesbians and gay men often are pressured to seek reparative or conversion therapies, which cannot and will not change sexual orientation…No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful.”

However, some advocates of SOCE claim that a ban would place restrictions on the freedoms of young people seeking to alter their identities. Advocacy organizations such as Restored Hope Network in Virginia have expressed concerns that banning conversion therapy would limit options for those individuals who want help “escap

[ing] unwanted same-sex attractions and experiences.” This view is also supported by the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), which defines ‘change’ in sexual orientation as occurring along a continuum and thus providing clients with “sustained shifts in the direction and intensity of their sexual attractions, fantasy, and arousal that they consider to be satisfying and meaningful.”

SOCE & Youth in the Child Welfare System

Considering the evidence put forth by the American Psychiatric Association and other mental health organizations and professionals, H.F. 1906 could have notable outcomes for youth in child welfare settings who identify as LGBT or Questioning.

According to the Administration for Children and Families, LGBTQ youth are often overrepresented in the U.S. child welfare system, and many of these youth have experienced repeated instances of rejection or maltreatment from families of origin as a result of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Child Welfare Information Gateway found that a high percentage of LGBTQ youth involved in foster care face verbal or physical violence resulting in multiple disrupted placements, which further compounds the trauma they have previously experienced. Additional studies show that as many as 56% of youth in foster care experienced homelessness because they felt safer on the streets than in out-of-home care, and it is this form of maltreatment that partially accounts for the fact that LGBTQ youth make up approximately 40% of homeless teenagers.

Given the realities faced by many LGBTQ youth in the child welfare system it is imperative that those youth who are in need of mental or emotional support are connected with compassionate practitioners who can adequately support them. As such, the child welfare community may want to monitor H.F. 1906’s impact on the mental health treatment and services that LGBTQ youth in the child welfare system receive.