New Study Strengthens Evidence of Conversion Therapy Harm

A new report from The Trevor Project brings additional research to that discussion. It follows LGBTQ+ young people over two years and finds that those reporting threats of conversion therapy or actual exposure had substantially higher odds of suicidal thoughts, self-harm and other mental-health difficulties.

The findings deserve attention. So do the distinctions between what the researchers measured, what they found and what their results can establish. Taking harm seriously includes reporting the evidence accurately.

Following the same young people

Released October 20, Project SPARK’s two-year report draws on five survey waves conducted between September 2023 and March 2026. The ongoing study enrolled 1,689 LGBTQ+ young people ages 13–24 across the United States.

Many studies in this field survey people once, asking them to recall conversion practices and report their current or past mental health. Those studies can identify important associations, but they offer a limited view of how experiences unfold.

Project SPARK repeatedly surveyed the same participants. That provides a stronger basis for examining how reported experiences and mental health relate over time. It also moves the discussion beyond the suggestion that conversion practices belong primarily to an earlier generation.

The researchers found that participants who reported being threatened with or subjected to conversion therapy had 2.86 times the adjusted odds of suicidal thoughts over time. The confidence interval, a measure of statistical uncertainty, ranged from 2.28 to 3.60.

The same combined measure was associated with higher odds of self-harm, depression and anxiety. These were statistically significant associations in models that accounted for repeated responses from participants and adjusted for age, sexual orientation, gender identity, and race or ethnicity.

“Nearly three times the odds” should not be rewritten as “three times as likely,” and suicidal thoughts should not be confused with suicide attempts. The published statistical results support a serious finding without either exaggeration.

Harm has a history here

XGW readers will recognize the concern behind these numbers. In October 2007, we reported on former ex-gays outlining the harms of ex-gay programs, including experiences that aggravated existing emotional, spiritual and family difficulties.

Those accounts raised questions that a successful ministry testimony could not answer. What happened to participants who did not experience the promised change? Did a program help them live more securely, or deepen their sense of failure? Were difficulties acknowledged and addressed, or explained as insufficient faith, effort or commitment?

Individual accounts cannot tell us how common an outcome is across a population. They can, however, identify problems worth investigating. Research that follows young people over time adds another form of evidence to concerns survivors have been raising for decades.

The appropriate response is to examine that evidence. Pointing to someone who valued a ministry experience does not resolve questions about what happened to others.

What the study cannot settle

There are meaningful limitations.

Project SPARK is an organizational research report, rather than a peer-reviewed journal article. Its findings rely on participants’ own reports. The size of the cohort does not, by itself, make it representative of every LGBTQ+ young person in the country.

The conversion-related analysis also combines people threatened with conversion therapy and people who actually underwent it. Consequently, the reported association cannot be attributed specifically to receiving treatment. A threat may itself be distressing, but it may also accompany other experiences, such as family rejection, that affect mental health.

Following people over time does not automatically establish cause and effect. Adjusting for demographic differences does not eliminate every competing explanation, including distress that existed before a reported conversion experience.

These qualifications should guide the conclusions. They do not make the association disappear, and they do not turn the report into evidence that conversion practices are safe.

An organization offering young people help has a responsibility to investigate credible indications of harm. That responsibility cannot reasonably depend on researchers first answering every question about causation.

Support offers a constructive direction

There is also an encouraging side to the report. Its findings associate family support and affirming home environments with better mental-health outcomes over time.

That matters because the debate is too often presented as a choice between endorsing an ex-gay program and leaving a distressed young person without help. There is another direction: support that takes the person’s needs seriously without making a particular sexual orientation or gender identity the condition of success.

Families can maintain relationships, listen and help young people obtain appropriate care. Religious communities can respond to distress without promising changes they cannot substantiate. Counselors can help people explore difficult questions about faith, relationships and identity while remaining attentive to their well-being.

The report does not prove that any one supportive action will produce a particular outcome. It does give families and communities further reason to treat acceptance and connection as practical resources.

For XGW, the value of this research is both investigative and constructive. It strengthens the case for scrutinizing conversion practices while directing attention toward forms of support associated with healthier lives.

We should apply the same care to findings we welcome that we ask of ex-gay advocates defending their claims. In this case, careful reporting still leaves a consequential result: repeated observations of young people link conversion-related threats and exposure with substantially poorer mental health. Those promoting these practices owe young people and their families a substantive response.

Read the complete report and The Trevor Project’s release.

This post was created with the help of AI.