Chuck Stewart, Ph.D.

To send me email, click here - ckstewar@sbcglogal.net.
To return to the main page, click here.

APPENDIX E Qualitative and Instrumental Data / Levels of Homophobia Tables

These tables present both the qualitative and empirical data collected for each of the training sites and attempts to assess the levels of homophobia in the training class and in the surrounding police culture, and present conclusions concerning training effectiveness. Not all types of data were collected for each site. Missing data is indicated by a dashed line. A shading scheme is used to visually clue readers to levels of homophobia.

Sources of Data include:
Qualitative and Empirical Data
(Note: At the end of each type of qualitative data, an assessment of the homophobia is made and designated as Homophobia Est..)
1. Two types of interview/observation data were considered:
a. Interviews of persons associated with the training students, instructors, panel members and program administrators who commented on the training class, and direct class observations (referred to as Interviews/Observations: On Training Class).
b. Comments made about the police culture during interview of police personnel and gay and lesbian community members besides direct observations (referred to as Interviews/Observations: On Police Culture).
2. Student Written Responses include:
a. Students were asked to reflect upon their own academy or agency and write an assessment of the acceptance of gays and lesbians and/or the discussion of homosexuality (referred to as Student Written Response: On Police Culture).
b. During training, students were asked to write statements on their feelings or beliefs about homosexuals or homosexuality and these were collected (referred to as Student Written Response: Belief Statements).
c. During the training, students were asked to submit questions they had about sexual orientation. Instead many indicated their disapproval of the training by making negative statements against gays and lesbians. The percent of negative statements is a possible indication of the level of homophobia. In the study, the highest observation was 28% recorded in an academy that is extremely homophobic. A 4-point scale was developed upon this upper bound. Thus, 0-7 is high non-homophobia, 8-14 is low non-homophobic, 15-21 is low homophobia, and 22-28 is high homophobia (referred to as Student Written Response: % Neg. Statements).
d. At the end of training, students were asked to write three things they remembered most about the training. Often students commented on the reaction of the class (referred to as Student Written Response: On Class Reactions).
Instrumental Data:
3. PERQ data is divided into 3 categories of respondents (students, police personnel (including administrators), community members) and two sexual orientations (heterosexual and homosexual as defined by Part 4 of the PERQ) as follows:
a. Part 1 of the PERQ measured attitudes and beliefs towards homosexuals and homosexuality (referred to as Attitudes: Heterosexual Students, Attitudes: Homosexual Students, Attitudes: Heterosexual Police, Attitudes: Homosexual Police, Attitudes: Heterosexual Community, Attitudes: Homosexual Community).

b. Part 2 of the PERQ measured feelings about homosexuals and homosexuality (referred to as; Feelings: Heterosexual Students, Feelings: Homosexual Students, Feelings: Heterosexual Police, Feelings: Homosexual Police, Feelings: Heterosexual Community, Feelings: Homosexual Community).


c. Part 3 of the PERQ measured knowledge about homosexuality (referred to as; Knowledge: Heterosexual Students, Knowledge: Homosexual Students, Knowledge: Heterosexual Police, Knowledge: Homosexual Police, Knowledge: Heterosexual Community, Knowledge: Homosexual Community).


d. Part 6 of the PERQ measured behaviors in police scenarios that included a gay or lesbian component (referred to as: Scenarios: Heterosexual Students, Scenarios: Homosexual Students, Scenarios: Heterosexual Police, Scenarios: Homosexual Police, Scenarios: Heterosexual Community, Scenarios: Homosexual Community).

TABLE E1 Indicator of Levels of Homophobia

Qualitative Data
Interviews
Written Comments Box ShadingInstrumental Empirical Data
PERQ Scores (see literature review for details and scores are normalized to 100%)
(Note: Homophobia Estimates will be indicated only for respondents exceeding 20% of total class count. This nomenclature is based on Hudson & Ricketts, 1980. See Chapter 3.)
Part 1 Attitudes/Beliefs Towards Homosexuals/Homosexuality
Part 2 Feelings about Homosexuals
Part 3 Knowledge about Homosexuality
Part 6 Police Behavioral Scenarios on HomosexualityVirtually No Homophobia1
(no shading)76% to 100% High Non-HomophobiaLow Levels of Homophobia: Lesbians Accepted, Gay Males Not Accepted251% to 75% Low Non-HomophobiaModerate Levels of Homophobia: Lesbians Tolerated,
Dangerous for Gay Males326% to 50% Low HomophobiaHigh Levels of Homophobia
Dangerous for all non-heterosexuals40 to 25% High Homophobia
Heterosexual or Homosexual Identity Ascertained from PERQ Part 4:
Responses on the PERQ are analyzed, in-part, according to the sexual orientation of the student. In preliminary review of the data, no respondent identified themselves as bisexual. Thus, responses were categorized either as heterosexual (indicated by checking off the exclusive or predominantly heterosexual identity boxes in Part 4 of the PERQ) or as homosexual (those having checked off the exclusive or predominantly homosexual identity box).
.c2.TABLE E2 Training Site #1

Number of Students in Class: 17. Number taking PERQ Pre- and Post-training: 14. Number of Interviewees: 20.
SourceCommentsSignificanceQualitative DataInterviews/
Observations:On Training Class On Police Culturen=20

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Mixed comments, safe for lesbian officers, "dangerous" for gay male officers, strong administrative support.

Homophobia Est.=2.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Student Written Responses:

On Police Culture

n=10; 63% report agency not homophobic, but gay males are not out.

Homophobia Est.=2.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Belief Statements

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

% Negative Statements

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

On Class Reactions

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Instrumental Data

Respondents

Pre-Training

Post-Training

Part 1
Attitudes

Heterosexual Students:
Pre- and Post-Test (n=13)

x=65.87, sd=23.20

x=68.68, sd=22.92
Homophobia Est.=2.

Pooled x=-2.82, sd=5.74, t=-1.77, df=12, 2-tail sig=.102

Homosexual Students:
Pre- and Post-Test (n=1)

x=86.6

x=89.3

Heterosexual Police:
Tested once (n=2)

x=80.80, sd=1.89

Homosexual Police:
Tested once (n=4)

x=92.41, sd=6.70

Heterosexual Community:
Tested once (n=2)

x=75.45, sd=23.36

Homosexual Community:
Tested once (n=3)

x=89.29, sd=4.46

Part 2
Feelings

Heterosexual Students:
Pre- and Post-Test (n=13)

x=51.15, sd=22.38

x=57.60, sd=22.21
Homophobia Est.=2.

Pooled x=6.44, sd=5.95, t=3.91, df=12, 2-tail sig=.002

Homosexual Students:
Pre- and Post-Test (n=1)

x=90.0

x=83.8

Heterosexual Police:
Tested once (n=2)

x=66.88, sd=11.49

Homosexual Police:
Tested once (n=4)

x=90.63, sd=4.62

Heterosexual Community:
Tested once (n=2)

x=68.75, sd=12.37

Homosexual Community:
Tested once (n=3)

x=92.50, sd=7.50

Part 3
Knowledge

Heterosexual Students:
Pre- and Post-Test (n=13)

x=63.46, sd=21.02

x=67.79, sd=28.28
Homophobia Est.=2.

Pooled x=-4.33, sd=29.80, t=-.52, df=12, 2-tail sig=.610

Homosexual Students:
Pre- and Post-Test (n=1)

x=75.0

x=93.8

Heterosexual Police:
Tested once (n=2)

x=84.38, sd=4.42

Homosexual Police:
Tested once (n=4)

x=89.06, sd=5.98

Heterosexual Community:
Tested once (n=2)

x=75.00, sd=17.68

Homosexual Community:
Tested once (n=3)

x=77.08, sd=34.42

Part 6
Police Scenarios

Heterosexual Students:
Pre- and Post-Test (n=13)

x=78.70, sd=15.11

x=78.11, sd=13.99
Homophobia Est.=1.

Pooled x=.59, sd=6.63, t=.32, df=12, 2-tail sig=.753

Homosexual Students:
Pre- and Post-Test (n=1)

x=84.6

x=84.6

Heterosexual Police:
Tested once (n=2)

x=80.77, sd=5.44

Homosexual Police:
Tested once (n=4)

x=90.38, sd=3.85

Heterosexual Community:
Tested once (n=2)

x=84.62, sd=0

Homosexual Community:
Tested once (n=3)

x=82.05, sd=8.88

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Site #1
Overall Assessment

Interviews with students and police personnel indicate that gays and lesbians are conditionally accepted by the agency. Lesbians are fairly accepted while gay men are not. With 76% of the class participating in the instrumental research, three of the tests indicate moderately low levels of homophobia. Testing on police scenarios revealed the lowest level of homophobia. Only the Part 2 Feeling towards gays and lesbian instrumental test was statistically significant. Caution, this was a very small class and these conclusions are based on just 13 responses. Conclusion: The agency exhibits low levels of homophobia (Homophobia Est. = 1 to 2) and instrumental testing was unrevealing for most measures except that feelings towards gays and lesbians slightly improved.

TABLE E3 Training Site #2

Number of Students in Class: 43. Number taking PERQ Pre- and Post-training: 34. Number of Interviewees: 6.
SourceCommentsSignificanceQualitative DataInterviews/
Observations:On Training Classn=43

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Observed 4/5 class very negative.

Homophobia Est.=4.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

On Police Culture

n=6; No open students or staff, comment on how homophobic the academy is.

Homophobia Est.=4.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Student Written Responses:

On Police Culture

n=15; 35% report gays not accepted, 14% made negative statements, only 16% made positive statements.

Homophobia Est.=4.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Belief Statements

n= 37; 70% Negative statements plus other stereotypes.

Homophobia Est.=4.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

% Negative Statements

n=35; 13% neg. statements

Homophobia Est.=2.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

On Class Reactions

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Instrumental Data

Respondents

Pre-Training

Post-Training

Part 1
Attitudes

Heterosexual Students:
Pre- and Post-Test (n=34)

x=56.36, sd=18.65

x=52.78, sd=21.09
Homophobia Est.=2.

Pooled x=3.57, sd=12.96, t=1.61, df=33, 2-tail sig=.118

Part 2
Feelings

Heterosexual Students:
Pre- and Post-Test (n=34)

x=42.35, sd=21.33

x=37.21, sd=22.94
Homophobia Est.=3.

Pooled x=-5.15, sd=11.23, t=-2.67, df=33, 2-tail sig=.012

Part 3
Knowledge

Heterosexual Students:
Pre- and Post-Test (n=34)

x=66.54, sd=17.80

x=61.21, sd=21.42
Homophobia Est.=2.

Pooled x=5.33, sd=16.58, t=1.87, df=33, 2-tail sig=.070

Part 6
Police Scenarios

Heterosexual Students:
Pre- and Post-Test (n=34)

x=75.11, sd=14.68

x=75.11, sd=16.84
Homophobia Est.=1.

Pooled x=0, sd=8.03, t=0, df=33, 2-tail sig=1.000

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Site #2
Overall Assessment

Class observations and student written responses indicate a very high level of homophobia within the academy and recruits. Approximately 79% of students participated in the instrumental research which also indicates high levels of homophobia. In contrast with the high level of homophobia revealed in feelings about gays and lesbians, students were able to give less negative response to police scenarios. Only the Part 2 Feeling towards gays and lesbian test was statistically significant with students becoming more anti-gay by the end of training. Conclusion: The academy class exhibited high levels of homophobia (Homophobia Est. = 3 to 4), and training increased negative feelings towards gays and lesbians.

TABLE E4 Training Site #3

Number of Students in Class: 39. Number taking PERQ Pre- and Post-training: 25. Number of Interviewees: 1.
SourceCommentsSignificanceQualitative DataInterviews/
Observations:On Training Classn=1

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Instructor reports 60% class very resistant and negative.

Homophobia Est.=4.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

On Police Culture

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Student Written Responses:

On Police Culture

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Belief Statements

n=34; 75% negative statements.

Homophobia Est.=4.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

% Negative Statements

n=31; 28% neg. statements.

Homophobia Est.=4.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

On Class Reactions

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Instrumental Data

Respondents

Pre-Training

Post-Training

Part 1
Attitudes

Heterosexual Students:
Pre-and Post-Test (n=28)

x=51.24, sd=19.96

x=52.62, sd=20.44
Homophobia Est.=2.

Pooled x=-1.37, sd=6.45, t=-1.13, df=27, 2-tail sig=.270

Part 2
Feelings

Heterosexual Students:
Pre-and Post-Test (n=28)

x=36.65, sd=23.14

x=35.94, sd=23.04
Homophobia Est.=3.

Pooled x=.71, sd=6.18, t=.61, df=27, 2-tail sig=.546

Part 3
Knowledge

Heterosexual Students:
Pre-and Post-Test (n=28)

x=67.19, sd=14.19

x=67.86, sd=13.47
Homophobia Est.=2.

Pooled x=-.67, sd=11.83, t=-.30, df=27, 2-tail sig=.767

Part 6
Police Scenarios

Heterosexual Students:
Pre-and Post-Test (n=28)

x=78.02, sd=10.20

x=77.47, sd=14.94
Homophobia Est.=1.

Pooled x=.55, sd=12.82, t=.23, df=27, 2-tail sig=.821

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Site #3
Overall Assessment

Instructor report and student written responses indicate a very high level of homophobia within the academy. Approximately 72% of students participated in the instrumental research which indicated high levels of homophobia. Only on the police scenarios did students respond at a low level of homophobia. However, none of the pre- and post-test changes were statistically significant. Conclusions: The academy class exhibited high levels of homophobia (Homophobia Est. = 3 to 4) and instrumental testing failed to indicate effectiveness of training.

TABLE E5 Training Site #4

Number of Students in Class: 30. Number taking PERQ Pre- and Post-training: 0. Number of Interviewees: 6 (no students).
SourceCommentsSignificanceQualitative DataInterviews/
Observations:On Training Classn=30

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Observed 2/3 of class held anti-gay beliefs.

Homophobia Est.=3.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

On Police Culture

n=6; All respondents report no or little anti-gay sentiments, no complaints filed recently.

Homophobia Est.=1.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Student Written Responses:

On Police Culture

n=7; 44% believe not homophobic, 33% gay-bashing not seen, 1 student concern.

Homophobia Est.=1.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Belief Statements

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

% Negative Statements

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

On Class Reactions

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Instrumental Data

Respondents

Pre-Training

Post-Training

Part 1
Attitudes

Heterosexual Students:
Post-Test only (n=6)

x=77.98, sd=12.04
Homophobia Est.=1.

Homosexual Students:
Post-Test only (n=1)

x=92.0

Heterosexual Police:
Tested once (n=1)

x=89.3

Part 2
Feelings

Heterosexual Students:
Post-Test only (n=6)

x=60.63, sd=23.11
Homophobia Est.=2.

Homosexual Students:
Post-Test only (n=1)

x=93.8

Heterosexual Police:
Tested once (n=1)

x=66.3

Part 3
Knowledge

Heterosexual Students:
Post-Test only (n=6)

x=79.17, sd=15.65
Homophobia Est.=1.

Homosexual Students:
Post-Test only (n=1)

x=81.3

Heterosexual Police:
Tested once (n=1)

x=81.3

Part 6
Police Scenarios

Heterosexual Students:
Post-Test only (n=6)

x=76.92, sd=6.88
Homophobia Est.=1.

Homosexual Students:
Post-Test only (n=1)

x=69.2

Heterosexual Police:
Tested once (n=1)

x=76.9

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Site #4
Overall Assessment

Very few students or police personnel participated in the research. Although the class was observed to hold overwhelming anti-gay sentiments, the written comments were much less homophobic. The instrumental data is inconclusive about training effectiveness since less than one-forth (20%) of the class participated and no pre-test was given. However, the instrumental data does suggest that respondents fall somewhere between high to low levels of non-homophobia. Conclusion: The agency seems conditionally accepting of gays and lesbians (Homophobia Est. = 2), and instrumental data on training effectiveness is incomplete and non-revealing.

TABLE E6 Training Site #5

Number of Students in Class: 45. Number taking PERQ Pre- and Post-training: 0. Number of Interviewees: 7.
SourceCommentsSignificanceQualitative DataInterviews/
Observations:On Training ClassObserved majority students holding negative stereotype beliefs.Homophobia Est.=3. On Police Culturen=7

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Mixed response, mostly dangerous.

Homophobia Est.=4.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Student Written Responses:

On Police Culture

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Belief Statements

n=29; 55% negative statements, 29% positive statements.

Homophobia Est.=3.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

% Negative Statements

n=39; 14% neg. statements.

Homophobia Est.=2.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

On Class Reactions

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Instrumental Data

Respondents

Pre-Training

Post-Training

Part 1
Attitudes

Heterosexual Police:
Tested once (n=1)

x=94.7

Homosexual Police:
Tested once (n=2)

x=95.54, sd=1.26

Homosexual Community:
Tested once (n=1)

x=90.2

Part 2
Feelings

Heterosexual Police:
Tested once (n=1)

x=98.8

Homosexual Police:
Tested once (n=2)

x=92.50, sd=3.54

Homosexual Community:
Tested once (n=1)

x=96.3

Part 3
Knowledge

Heterosexual Police:
Tested once (n=1)

x=93.8

Homosexual Police:
Tested once (n=2)

x=100, sd=0

Homosexual Community:
Tested once (n=1)

x=100

Part 6
Police Scenarios

Heterosexual Police:
Tested once (n=1)

x=92.3

Homosexual Police:
Tested once (n=2)

x=84.62, sd=0

Homosexual Community:
Tested once (n=1)

x=100

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Site #5
Overall Assessment

Observations of the academy class and their written statements indicate a moderately high level of homophobia. Unfortunately, no instrumental testing of students was allowed. Instrumental testing did occur with people who had vested interest in the course and were very knowledgeable. Conclusion: The academy class seemed moderately homophobic (Homophobia Est. = 3), and no conclusions can be made about training effectiveness.

TABLE E7 Training Site #6

Number of Students in Class: 105. Number taking PERQ Pre- and Post-training: 3. Number of Interviewees: 12.
SourceCommentsSignificanceQualitative DataInterviews/
Observations:On Training Classn=12

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

No open academy staff, recruit complaints, shame in lesbian relatives.

Homophobia Est.=4.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

On Police Culture

n=12; Mix comments, mostly negative, few open officers.

Homophobia Est.=3.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Student Written Responses:

On Police Culture

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Belief Statements

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

% Negative Statements

n=3: All negative.

Homophobia Est.=4.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

On Class Reactions

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Instrumental Data

Respondents

Pre-Training

Post-Training

Part 1
Attitudes

Heterosexual Students:
Pre- and Post-Test (n=3)

x=67.26, sd=15.73

x=72.32, sd=21.11

Pooled x=-5.06, sd=6.27, t=-1.4, df=2, 2-tail sig=.297

Heterosexual Students:
Pre-Test only (n=12)

x=67.56, sd=19.89

Heterosexual Police:
Tested once (n=2)

x=45.98, sd=28.41

Homosexual Police:
Tested once (n=2)

x=92.41, sd=5.68

Heterosexual Community:
Tested once (n=1)

x=89.29

Homosexual Community:
Tested once (n=4)

x=95.31, sd=1.69

Part 2
Feelings

Heterosexual Students:
Pre- and Post-Test (n=3)

x=58.75, sd=9.44

x=56.67, sd=10.03

Pooled x=-2.08, sd=.72, t=-5.00, df=2, 2-tail sig=.038

Heterosexual Students:
Pre-Test only (n=12)

x=55.31, sd=25.22

Heterosexual Police:
Tested once (n=2)

x=28.75, sd=24.75

Homosexual Police:
Tested once (n=2)

x=90.00, sd=3.40

Heterosexual Community:
Tested once (n=1)

x=91.25

Homosexual Community:
Tested once (n=4)

x=97.50, sd=2.89

Part 3
Knowledge

Heterosexual Students:
Pre- and Post-Test (n=3)

x=75.00, sd=16.54

x=77.08, sd=19.09

Pooled x=-2.08, sd=3.61, t=-1.00, df=2, 2-tail sig=.423

Heterosexual Students:
Pre-Test only (n=12)

x=74.48, sd=12.05

Heterosexual Police:
Tested once (n=2)

x=62.50, sd=17.68

Homosexual Police:
Tested once (n=2)

x=93.75, sd=8.84

Heterosexual Community:
Tested once (n=1)

x=93.75

Homosexual Community:
Tested once (n=4)

x=92.19, sd=11.83

Part 6
Police Scenarios

Heterosexual Students:
Pre- and Post-Test (n=3)

x=84.62, sd=7.69

x=79.49, sd=8.88

Pooled x=5.13, sd=4.44, t=2.00, df=2, 2-tail sig=.184

Heterosexual Students:
Pre-Test only (n=12)

x=78.85, sd=15.08

Heterosexual Police:
Tested once (n=2)

x=80.77, sd=5.44

Homosexual Police:
Tested once (n=2)

x=96.15, sd=5.44

Heterosexual Community:
Tested once (n=1)

x=76.92

Homosexual Community:
Tested once (n=4)

x=98.08, sd=3.85

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Site #6
Overall Assessment

Class observations and student written responses were all very homophobic. Similarly, interviews with police personnel painted the agency very homophobic. Unfortunately, only 3% of recruits participated in the pre- and post- instrumental testing and results should not be considered representative of the whole. The only instrumental test that showed significance was the Part 2- Feelings towards gays and lesbians. But again, the sample size (3 ) is much too small to accept this finding. Conclusion: The agency and academy display moderate levels of homophobia (Homophobia Est. = 3) and instrumental testing about training effectiveness was non-revealing due to the low participation rate.

TABLE E8 Training Site #7

Number of Students in Class: 94. Number taking PERQ Pre- and Post-training: 28. Number of Interviewees: 3.
SourceCommentsSignificanceQualitative DataInterviews/
Observations:On Training Classn=2

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Class unruly, very negative and homophobic, gay recruits called in panic.

Homophobia Est.=4.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

On Police Culture

n=3; Academy resisted hiring gay instructor, no open staff members, students harassed each other with impunity.

Homophobia Est.=4.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Student Written Responses:

On Police Culture

n=18; Only 18% report academy not homophobic.

Homophobia Est.=4.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Belief Statements

n=39; 70% neg. statements. Only 15% pos. statements.

Homophobia Est.=4.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

% Negative Statements

n=84; 28% neg. statements.

Homophobia Est.=4.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

On Class Reactions

Teacher outnumbered and attacked by students.

Homophobia Est.=4.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Instrumental Data

Respondents

Pre-Training

Post-Training

Part 1
Attitudes

Heterosexual Students: Pre-and Post-Test (n=28)

x=56.35, sd=15.33

x=54.94, sd=16.74
Homophobia Est.=2.

Pooled x=1.40, sd=6.59, t=1.13, df=27, 2-tail sig=.270

Heterosexual Students: Pre-Test only (n=22)

x=54.67, sd=17.55

Part 2
Feelings

Heterosexual Students: Pre-and Post-Test (n=28)

x=37.23, sd=13.55

x=35.67, sd=13.71
Homophobia Est.=3.

Pooled x=1.56, sd=6.22, t=1.33, df=27, 2-tail sig=.195

Heterosexual Students: Pre-Test only (n=22)

x=40.40, sd=14.98

Part 3
Knowledge

Heterosexual Students: Pre-and Post-Test (n=28)

x=67.41, sd=15.62

x=65.40, sd=19.06
Homophobia Est.=2.

Pooled x=2.01, sd=13.51, t=.79, df=27, 2-tail sig=.439

Heterosexual Students: Pre-Test only (n=22)

x=60.80, sd=20.15

Part 6
Police Scenarios

Heterosexual Students: Pre-and Post-Test (n=28)

x=76.92, sd=18.37

x=80.22, sd=14.11
Homophobia Est.=1.

Pooled x=-3.23, sd=11.16, t=-1.56, df=27, 2-tail sig=.130

Heterosexual Students: Pre-Test only (n=22)

x=72.73, sd=18.95

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Site #7
Overall Assessment

Class observation, student interviews and student written comments were extremely homophobic. Approximately 30% of students participated in instrumental testing which suggested moderate levels of homophobia. The Part 2 Feelings towards gays and lesbians rated the highest level of homophobia whereas police scenarios rated the lowest. None of the instrumental testing was statistically significant. Conclusion: The academy class is moderately to very homophobic (Homophobia Est. 3-4) and instrumental testing was unrevealing as to training effectiveness.

TABLE E9 Training Site #8

Number of Students in Class: 35. Number taking PERQ Pre- and Post-training: 0. Number of Interviewees: 0.
SourceCommentsSignificanceQualitative Data
Interviews/
Observations:On Training Classn=29

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

20% could not accept homosexuality to be normal, 8% could not administer cultural awareness program because of homosexuality.

Homophobia Est.=2.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

On Police Culture

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Student Written Responses:

On Police Culture

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Belief Statements

n=35; 41% negative statements, 32% positive statements.

Homophobia Est.=2.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

% Negative Statements

n=28; 22% neg. statements.

Homophobia Est.=4.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

On Class Reactions

n=31; 35% were positive about course content, 35% challenged the course content.

Homophobia Est.=2.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Instrumental Data

None

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Site #8
Overall Assessment

Classroom observation and student written comments were moderately homophobic. No instrumental testing was conducted. Conclusion: The academy class is moderately homophobic (Homophobia Est. = 2 to 3), and training effectiveness went unmeasured by instrumental means.

TABLE E10 Training Site #9

Number of Students in Class: 53. Number taking PERQ Pre- and Post-training: 25. Number of Interviewees: 0.
SourceCommentsSignificanceQualitative DataInterviews/
Observations:On Training Classn=2

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Panic phone calls from gay and lesbian recruits.

Homophobia Est.=3

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

On Police Culture

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Student Written Responses:

On Police Culture

n=41; 55% moral condemnations, 13% agency not homophobic.

Homophobia Est.=3.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Belief Statements

n=62; 60% neg. statements.

Homophobia Est.=3.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

% Negative Statements

n=38; 24% neg. statements.

Homophobia Est.=4.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

On Class Reactions

n=43; 11% felt training was biased and disgusting.

Homophobia Est.=1.

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Instrumental Data

Respondents

Pre-Training

Post-Training

Part 1
Attitudes

Heterosexual Students: Pre-and Post-Test (n=55)

x=56.59, sd=13.16

x=58.67, sd=16.10
Homophobia Est.=2.

Pooled x=2.08, sd=9.72, t=1.59, df=54, 2-tail sig=.119

Homosexual Students:
Pre-and Post-Test (n=2)

x=64.29, sd=39.14

x=61.61, sd=35.36

Pooled x=-2.68, sd=3.79, t=-100, df=1, 2-tail sig=.500

Part 2
Feelings

Heterosexual Students: Pre-and Post-Test (n=55)

x=41.63, sd=15.37

x=43.84, sd=16.18
Homophobia Est.=3.

Pooled x=2.26, sd=8.34, t=2.01 df=54, 2-tail sig=.049

Homosexual Students:
Pre-and Post-Test (n=2)

x=48.75, sd=30.52

x=48.75, sd=30.52

Part 3
Knowledge

Heterosexual Students: Pre-and Post-Test (n=55)

x=65.00, sd=17.29

x=63.07, sd=21.53
Homophobia Est.=2.

Pooled x=-1.93, sd=20.48, t=-.70, df=54, 2-tail sig=.487

Homosexual Students:
Pre-and Post-Test (n=2)

x=71.88, sd=13.26

x=71.88, sd=13.26

Part 6
Police Scenarios

Heterosexual Students: Pre-and Post-Test (n=55)

x=73.99, sd=17.42

x=71.19, sd=21.67
Homophobia Est.=2.

Pooled x=-2.80, sd=16.84, t=-1.23, df=54, 2-tail sig=.223

Homosexual Students:
Pre-and Post-Test (n=2)

x=92.31, sd=10.88

x=88.46, sd=5.44

Pooled x=-3.85, sd=5.44, t=-1.00, df=1, 2-tail sig=.500

BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1>

Site #9
Overall Assessment

Classroom observations and student written responses indicated a moderate level of homophobia in the recruit class. Approximately 85% of students participated in instrumental testing. The Part 2 Feelings towards gays and lesbians rated a high level of homophobia, while all other measures were moderate. Only Part 2 Feelings test was significant level with a .049 and indicated a slight improvement about feelings towards gays and lesbians. Conclusion: The academy class seemed moderately homophobic (Homophobia Est. = 3) and instrumental testing was mostly unrevealing as to training effectiveness except that feelings towards gays and lesbians improved slightly.