Chuck Stewart, Ph.D.

 

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

 

CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH DESCRIPTION, QUALITATIVE AND EMPIRICAL RESEARCH FINDINGS

Chapter 4 presents detailed descriptions and findings of the sexual orientation training observed at different police training sites. Section 1 includes qualitative observations and interviews used to assess sexual orientation training effectiveness. Section 2 looks closely at the data obtained from administering an assessment instrument (PERQ described in Chapters 2 and 3) and relates these findings with the previous data. Section 3 takes the qualitative and instrumental empirical research and estimates the level of homophobia within the police academy and/or agency. Hopefully, these comprehensive write-ups will give the reader a sense of how sexual orientation trainings were conducted and the cultures in which they are embedded. There are important concepts to be learned from each of these observations.

.c2.Section 1 Qualitative and Non-Instrumental Empirical Research

This section documents the qualitative and non-instrumental portion of the research. To observe cultural awareness sexual orientation training as a singular event would not yield much information about its effectiveness without also evaluating how this kind of training fits into the overall police program. To that end, classroom observations, document review and interviews with participants and persons involved with the training were conducted. The primary purpose in conducting these interviews was to obtain a sense of culture of the communities of persons surrounding the sexual orientation training. These communities of persons included not only the participants in the training, but also course instructors, program administrators, other police personnel and the community the police serve.

Training Observations
Table 4.1 presents a summary of the nine observed sexual orientation trainings. For comprehensive documentation of the training observations, see Appendix C which includes an analysis of the level of student involvement. As each site is discussed in this chapter, please refer back to Table 4.1 and Appendix C.

Level 4 Individual or small group activity with follow-up class discussion and much student involvement.

At the bottom of Table 4.1, a summary is made of the total time allotted and corresponding percentage at each level of student activity.


.c4.Table 4.1


Sexual Orientation Training Observation Summary


Activity, Time and Student Involvement



Time


Student


# Students

Site #1


143 min.


in-service


17

Site #2 & 3


132 min.


recruits


43/39

Site #4


240 min.


recruits


30

Site #5


202 min.


recruits


45

Video "Growing up Gay."
53 min. Level 1.		 Instructor- led discussion.
41 min. Level 2.		 Local gay history video.
23 min. Level 1. Introduction & goals lecture.
20 min. Level 1.
Personal stories from police personnel panel-lecture.
90 min. Level 1-2.		 Open discussionon homosexuality.
60 min. Level 2.		 "Stereotype" activity.
8 min. Level 3. Personal story by gay and lesbian police officer lecture.
15 min. Level 1.
Religious lecture.
31 min. Level 1.		 "Self-Awareness" activity.
35 min. Level 3. Personal story by gay and lesbian police officer lecture.
15 min. Level 1.
Personal story-lecture.
24 min. Level 1. Knowing someone gay activity.
2 min. Level 3.
Gay politics news video with lecture and discussion.
24 min. Level 2. "Stereotype" activity.
25 min. Level 3.
Video"Gay Cops" from 60 Minutes.
25 min. Level 1. Personal story by gay and lesbian police officer lecture.
23 min. Level 1.
Domestic violence and hate crime lecture.
5 min. Level 2. "Gay Lifestyle" activity.
13 min. Level 3.
Video of "Harvey Milk."
90 min. Level 1. "Question Cards" activity.
4 min. Level 4.
"Points-of-Contact" lecture.
40 min. Level 1.
"Questions and Answers" activity.
30 min. Level 3.
Summary of Time Allocations for Different Levels of Student Involvement

Level 1

101 min./ 71%

30 min./ 23%

167 min./ 70%

122 min./ 60%

Level 2

42 min./ 29%

102 min./ 77%

29 min./ 12%

0

Level 3

0

0

44 min./ 18%

76 min./ 38%

Level 4

0

0

0

4 min./ 2%

Note: For each training site, the sequence of teaching activities is presented by listing the type of activity, length of instruction and the level of student involvement. Levels correspond to: Level 1 lecture/video with almost no question or student involvementChapter 4 presents detailed descriptions and findings of the sexual orientation training observed at different police training sites. Section 1 includes qualitative observations and interviews used to assess sexual orientation training effectiveness. Section 2 looks closely at the data obtained from administering an assessment instrument (PERQ described in Chapters 2 and 3) and relates these findings with the previous data. Section 3 takes the qualitative and instrumental empirical research and estimates the level of homophobia within the police academy and/or agency. Hopefully, these comprehensive write-ups will give t eader a sense of how sexual orientation trainings were conducted and the cultures in which they are embedded. There are important concepts to be learned from each of these observations..c2.Section 1 Qualitative and Non-Instrumental Empirical ResearchThis section documents the qualitative and non-instrumental portion of the research. To observe cultural awareness sexual orientation training as a singular event would not yield much information about its effectiveness without also evaluating how this kind of training fits into the overall police program. To that end, classroom observations, document review and interviews with participants and persons involved with the training were conducted. The primary purpose in conducting these interviews was to obtain a sense of culture of the communities of persons surrounding the sexual orientation training. These communities of persons included not only the participants in the training, but also course instructors, program administrators, other police personnel and the community the police serve. Training ObservationsTable 4.1 presents a summary of the nine observed sexual orientation trainings. For comprehensive documentation of the training observations, see Appendix C which includes an analysis of the level of student involvement. As each site is discussed in this chapter, please refer back to Table 4.1 and Appendix C.Table 4.1 gives information on the total time for sexual orientation training, and the kinds and numbers of students attending. Each discrete activity is shown along with the amount of time devoted to the activity. Also, an assessment of the level of student involvement is indicated for each activity. These levels are discussed in Appendix C, and correspond to: Level 1 Lecture/video with almost no question or student involvement. Level 2 Lecture with some questions and answers by students. Level 3 Instructor-led class discussion or activity with moderate student involvement.Level 4 Individual or small group activity with follow-up class discussion a uch student involvement.At the bottom of Table 4.1, a summary is made of the total time allotted and corresponding percentage at each level of student activity..c4.Table 4.1Sexual Orientation Training Observation Summary Activity, Time and Student InvolvementTimeStudent # StudentsSite #1143 min.in-service17Site #2 & 3132 min.recruits43/39Site #4240 min.recruits30Site #5202 min.recruits45Video Growing up Gay.53 min. Level 1.Instructor- led discussion.41 min. Level 2.Local gay history video.23 min. Level 1.Introduction & goals lecture.20 min. Level 1.Personal stories from police personnel panel-lecture.90 min. Level 1-2.Open discussionon homosexuality.60 min. Level 2.Stereotype activity.8 min. Level 3.Personal story by gay and lesbian police officer lecture.15 min. Level 1.Religious lecture.31 min. Level 1.Self-Awareness activity.35 min. Level 3.Personal story by gay and lesbian police officer lecture.15 min. Level 1.Personal story-lecture.24 min. Level 1.Knowing someone gay activity.2 min. Level 3.Gay politics news video with lecture and discussion.24 min. Level 2.Stereotype activity.25 min. Level 3.VideoGay Cops from 60 Minutes.25 min. Level 1.Personal story by gay and lesbian police officer lecture.23 min. Level 1.Domestic violence and hate crime lecture.5 min. Level 2.Gay Lifestyle activity.13 min. Level 3.Video of Harvey Milk.90 min. Level 1.Question Cards activity.4 min. Level 4.Points-of-Contact lecture.40 min. Level 1.Questions and Answers activity.30 min. Level 3.Summary of Time Allocations for Different Levels of Student InvolvementLevel 1101 min./ 71%30 min./ 23%167 min./ 70%122 min./ 60%Level 242 min./ 29%102 min./ 77%29 min./ 12%0Level 30044 min./ 18%76 min./ 38%Level 40004 min./

2%Note: For each training site, the sequence of teaching activities is presented by listing the type of activity, length of instruction and the level of student involvement. Levels correspond to: Level 1 lecture/video with almost no question or student involvement Level 2 Lecture with some questions and answers asked by students; Level 3 Instructor-led class discussion or activity with moderate student involvement; and Level 4 individual or small group activity with follow-up class discussion and much student involvement.


Table 4.1 (cont.)


Sexual Orientation Training Observation Summary


Activity, Time and Student Involvement



Time


Student


# Students

Site #6


110 min.


recruits


105

Site #7


193 min.


recruits


94

Site #8


211 min.


in-service


38

Site #9


223 min.


recruits


65

Personal stories from community panel-lecture.
50 min.. Level 1.		 Introduction and "Stereotype" activity.
35 min. Level 3.		 Introduction and "Stereotype" activity.
40 min. Level 3.		 Introduction and share-lecture personal story.
10 min. Level 1.
"Police Scenarios" activity.
40 min.. Level 3.		 "Homophobia" lecture.
13 min. Level 1.		 "Homophobia" lecture.
12 min. Level 1.		 Video"Gay Cops" from 60-Minutes.
23 min. Level 1.
"Questions and Answers" activity.
20 min.. Level 2.		 "Gay Lifestyle" activity.
8 min. Level 3.		 "Gay Lifestyle" activity.
2 min. Level 3.		 "Police Scenarios" of police harassment activity.
30 min. Level 4.
Scientific lecture on sexual orientation.
40 min. Level 1.		 "Self-Awareness" activity.
10 min. Level 4.		 "Question Card" activity.
5 min. Level 4.
Video"Project 10" teen suicide.
20 min. Level 1.		 "Question Card" activity.
2 min. Level 4.		 "Stereotype" activity.
30 min. Level 3.
"Famous Gays and Lesbians" activity.
15 min. Level 4.		 Video"Growing Up Gay."
31 min. Level 1.		 Scientific lecture on sexual orientation.
15 min. Level 1.
"Hate Crime" lecture.
5 min. Level 1.		 Scientific lecture on sexual orientation.
32 min. Level 1.		 "Famous gays and lesbians" activity.
15 min. Level 4.
Police homophobia lecture/activity.
10 min. Level 3.		 "Famous Gays and Lesbians" activity.
15 min. Level 4.		 "Points-of-Contact" lecture/activity.
60 min. Level 2.
"Points-of-Contact" lecture/activity.
15 min. Level 2.		 "Hate Crimes" lecture.
5 min. Level 1.		 "Personal Contact" activity.
15 min. Level 4.
"Appropriate Police Behavior" activity.
15 min. Level 4.		 "Police Scenarios" of police harassment activity.
30 min. Level 4.		 "Questions and Answers" activity.
15 min. Level 3.
Questions and Answers activity.
15 min. Level 3.		 "Points-of-Contact" lecture/activity.
30 min. Level 2.		 Closure.
5 min. Level 1.
Summary of Time Allocations for Different Levels of Student Involvement

Level 1

50 min./ 46%

83 min./ 43%

85 min./ 40%

53 min./ 24%

Level 2

20 min./ 18%

15 min./ 8%

30 min./ 14%

60 min./ 27%

Level 3

40 min./ 36%

63 min./ 33%

39 min./ 18%

45 min./ 20%

Level 4

0

30 min./16%

57 min./ 28%

65 min./ 29%

Note: For each training site, the sequence of teaching activities is presented by listing the type of activity, length of instruction and the level of student involvement. Levels correspond to: Level 1 lecture/video with almost no question or student involvement; Level 2 Lecture with some questions and answers asked by students; Level 3 Instructor-led class discussion or activity with moderate student involvement; and Level 4 individual or small group activity with follow-up class discussion and much student involvement.

.c3.Site #1



Site #1 is a medium-sized city of 120,000 located in the San Francisco Bay Area. Posted on the major roads entering the community are signs that state, "Racism is not tolerated." Towards that commitment to overcome racism, Site #1 police department initiated a program in 1991 to assess the cultural awareness needs of the agency which resulted in a comprehensive Cultural Awareness Training (CAT) program for all police personnel starting in 1994. With 161 sworn officers and 124 civilian employees, the program planned for small classes of 15-19 students to attend the 40 hour CAT. Holding classes monthly, the department anticipated completing training within 24 months. Taking great pride in their program, they proposed to the City Council a similar training program to be initiated for all city employees.

Gay and Lesbian Community:
The gay and lesbian community at Site #1 is small and revolves around a few bars located in the old downtown. Bar owners and patrons report that the overall harassment of gays and lesbians has decreased significantly over the last ten years, particularly since the hiring of the new police chief. No longer do police enter gay bars to stand and stare at the patrons or randomly arrest them. Still, bar owners report continued low-level harassment from the community including "verbal harassment 3 to 5 times a week, being egged once every 6 weeks and being water pistoled by passing cars a few times a year."
Site #1's gay and lesbian community is virtually unaware of the police except for when there is an altercation. Although no official liaison group exists between police and the gay community other than the broad based Human Rights Commission, recurring problems with noise and public drunkenness at a particular heterosexual bar located near homes of wealthy citizens and next to a lesbian bar had resulted in a coalition of these homeowners and bar owners to form to try and rid the community of this problem. The gay/lesbian bar owners are vocally anti-drug, non-supportive of illegal behavior, welcome police inspections, and have learned that police respond to requests for assistance with haste and a smile. Non-gay police noted that they "wish the straight bars were as cooperative and well behaved as the gay/lesbian bars." Together, a mutually supportive relationship has developed. Of course, not all police officers are perfect, and bar owners report the infrequent need of going directly to the area police administrator to settle problems. Vice enforcement, historically an area of conflict between police and the gay community, is not a problem, since as a police administrator explained, "Vice does not target homosexuals or street prostitution (unless a complaint is filed)." Furthermore, the police's non-harassment and professional support of the gay/lesbian community, aligned with the City's adoption of anti-discrimination policies that include a domestic partnership registration, has defused most gay/lesbian political organizing.
The gay and lesbian community is very unaware of the internal happenings or policies of the police department. Although more than half of Site #1's fifteen women police officers are open lesbians (as reported by some of the open lesbian officers interviewed for the study), the community perceives that there are only one or two on the force. Since there have been no public statements, press releases, or community forums at which the gay/lesbian community could officially recognize gay/lesbian police officers, the primary source of information about the internal workings of the police is through friendship networks with the open lesbian and closeted gay male officers. It is through these networks that the community is aware that the are no open gay male officers and as one bar owner reported, it would be "very dangerous" for a gay male officer to come out. The community also learned about previous harassment experienced by the lesbian officers, including the current controversy regarding the heterosexual women personnel requesting greater "privacy" be built into the bathroom renovations. Although no "incidents" have occurred in the bathrooms, some heterosexual women have stated that they resent sharing the bathrooms with lesbian officers. The lack of official communication between the city, the police department and the gay/lesbian community has weakened the communities' understanding of the legal protections based on sexual orientation afforded them in Site #1.

Police Subculture:
The police administration is strongly committed to organizational change toward being more responsive to the entire spectrum of community needs. The police chief is recognized, both in the community and in the agency, as a leader in this quest and the best administrator Site #1 has had in the past few years. Yet, some in the community see the chief as a political opportunist since it is widely known that he already has applied to take a new chief position at a much larger police agency. Also, some officers feel that the agency is blinding itself with a self-serving attitude, a belief that they are way ahead of most other police agencies and that they are the most knowledgeable about policing.
The police subculture with respect to gays and lesbians is much more complex. No citizen and/or internal police complaints or suits based on sexual orientation discrimination have been filed against the police during the administration of the current police chief. The number of open lesbian officers has increased. Police personnel make an "active" recruitment effort by not discriminating against gays and lesbians. Together, the acceptance of gays and lesbians seems good, i.e., the level of homophobia in the agency seems low. However, there seem to be unresolved issues that contribute to continued harassment of the gay and lesbian officers. First, different administrators view sexual orientation issues diametrically opposed to one another; some claim that sexual orientation is a non-issue for police, while others claim that having no open gay male officers indicates a significant problem. Still, other administrators make both claims in the same conversation. Police administrators in general give the impression of wanting sexual orientation to be a non-issue, however, when questioned about the reasons for having no open gay male officers, and when presented with the complaints and concerns expressed by the open lesbian officers, they concede that homosexuality is still an important issue for the agency. Second, the administration's belief they are taking an "active" posture on gay and lesbian issues does not match the "proactive" desires of many lesbian officers and gay/lesbian community members. Even with these differences, administrators and gay/lesbian officers agreed during interview that having open gay and lesbian officers is the single most important component to improving the acceptance of gays and lesbians in the police agency. Administrative support and cultural awareness training specifically on sexual orientation issues were also considered important, but not as significant as having open role models.
Students were asked their opinion about the level of acceptance for gays and lesbians in the agency. Ten students out of a class of 17 responded to this request. Ten (60%) respondents felt the agency was not homophobic. As one student stated, "lesbians are out and seem to be more accepting, but gay males are not. That probably has to do with the MACHO attitudes of most males in police work." There was a dissenting voice, "[gays and lesbians are] accepted but still some covert resistance with comments made by administrators they need to go through the course first." It is interesting that students hold this fairly schizophrenic attitude because none reported witnessing a gay-bashing in the agency nor felt that gays and lesbians were ridiculed. Of those students who made suggestions as to how to improve the situation, all of them suggested more education on gay and lesbian concerns.

Program Goals and Intended Content/Methodology:
Program administrators and training instructors were asked to state the goals of the sexual orientation training program, list the content they expected to present and explain the teaching methodologies they expected to use. This information will be compared to actual observations to assess compliance. Cultural awareness training is highly valued by the Site #1 police administration and community. The components of the program evolved from the city's Human Rights Commission.
There are three sources defining the goals of the CA program. The Site #1 Police DepartmentCultural Awareness Program, states that CA is:


The student manual given at the CA training, Site #1 Police DepartmentCultural Awareness Training states that CA:


Finally, the interviews with community and police personnel revealed the goals of CA are:


Merging these sources, one could conclude that the primary goal of Site #1's CA training is to bring about changes in police behaviors toward greater employee safety and increased effectiveness in communicating with a diverse community. It is hoped that this will be achieved through higher levels of understanding of social interactions that are developed through the sharing of "our human stories." Although the police professed a desire to see behavioral changes that would improve job performance, they did not want specific behaviors mandated. To achieve these goals, instructors are expected to act as role models and facilitators, and are not expected to be trainers or experts on the subject. Likewise, panel members are expected to share their life stories and act as role models.
Most respondents shared that the primary information about sexual orientation to be transmitted during training is that gays and lesbians are no different from society as a whole and share many common concerns with the general population. Gay and lesbian respondents expanded upon this perspective and said more detail information would also be provided, including bisexuality, definition of terms, that sexual orientation is not a sexuality issue, and that sexual orientation is inborn (essentialist perspective).

Researcher's Acceptance and Data Acquisition:
Site #1 Police Department was highly supportive of this study. Not only did they provide access to observe the entire 40-hour CAT, allow pre-/post-testing of students and the extensive interviewing of instructors, students, administrators and the police chief, but they also assigned a police officer to take me to meet with local gay and lesbian community leaders and bar owners. Overall, twenty persons participated in the interview portion of the research including 10 gay/lesbian community members, 4 gay/lesbian officers and/or instructors, 3 non-gay officers and/or instructors and 3 police administrators (including the police chief). Some students in the CAT course participated in the interviews. I also participated in a couple of ride-alongs. During the week-long CAT, I was requested to share about particular topics with which he was knowledgeable. Site #1 takes great pride in their program and spends considerable resources toward making the police department responsive to the needs of its diverse community.
The PERQ was distributed to students on the first day of CAT and instructed to complete it at home. Four days later at the conclusion of the sexual orientation training, students were instructed to turn their answer sheets over and take the PERQ a second time at home. All materials were retrieved from the students the following day.
I had some impact on class proceedings. On several occasions during five days of observations, I was called upon as a subject matter expert. Although friendships were developed with a number of students, one student directly told me (in very negative terms) that I should not be there taking notes and the class would be better without my presence. During interviews, several students expressed opinions that the PERQ opened their eyes and influenced the questions they subsequently asked during the gay and lesbian panel.

Observation of Training Program:
Program and Participants: CAT classes were scheduled 8:30 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. Participants in the classes were a mix of both sworn (including the Police Chief) officers and police civilian employees who were released from their normal duties for the entire week at full pay. Of the seventeen (17) persons attending, 5 were women and 12 were men. These included three police officers, five new police officers, two police administrators, one person from animal control, and six persons (4 women and 2 men) who were civilian police employees. The class was informal with no one in uniform. During the sexual orientation training on the fourth day of the class, two high level administrators entered the classroom and stood at the backsomething that had not happened during the rest of the week. The program structure consisted of instructors presenting a theoretical model, having students work through activities, and hear personal experiences shared by fellow police personnel. Approximately two panels were presented each dayeach for almost 2 1/2 hours. The panels were the primary source of information on Hispanic/Latino, African-American, White European male, women, Asian-American, lesbians and gay men, and Middle Eastern cultures. A seventy-three (73) page Cultural Awareness Training Manual that included articles, worksheets and evaluations were provided to each student.
Instructor(s): The CAT program developed a group of 24 trainers through a Train-the-Trainer class taught some months earlier in Site #1 by the college professor who helped create the program. One African-American male police officer and a lesbian police officer were the trainers for the program observed for this study. At subsequent classes, other sets of trainers would be used with some overlap during the course of the program.
Setting: Classes were held in a conference room in the city's Convention Center. The flat desks were arranged in a U-shape seating six persons to a side. At the front of the room there were two flipchart stands with paper, TV and dry marker board. Free pastries and other foods were made available in the morning and after lunch.

Sexual Orientation Training Observation:
(See Table 4.1 for cross-agency comparison and Appendix C for complete documentation.)
For the first hour of the 2 1/2 hour program, the video "Growing Up Gay" produced by Brian McNaught was shown. This video demonstrates the absurdity of the notion that gays and lesbians choose to be outcasts from society and that being gay in our society is extremely difficult. During the viewing, students sat passively watching. After a short break, a panel of gay and lesbian employees from the police agency and gay and lesbian community members shared their stories and answered questions. The panel consisted of two lesbian officers, one male officer in uniform from a different police agency, and two male community members. Initially, the panel members followed a pre-set format of questions presented by the instructors. Primarily, panel members were asked to share their coming-out stories and their relationships with their families. This was very stilted with no student involvement. About 30 minutes into the presentation, the lesbian instructor deviated from the set questionswhich started a freer flow of interaction. Not until 42 minutes into the 90 minute panel was the first question fielded by a student. For the remainder of the panel presentation, approximately 10 more students asked questions. Students focused in asking questions of the police officers on the panel and were interested in their experiences in the agency and with their families. In particular, the male officer was asked why there were no open gay male officers in this agency. Approximately five of the questions were wrapped in anti-gay moral judgments such as, "Aren't you afraid that if you have children they will turn out gay?" Overall, the panel members shared information on coming out, being gay in a police force, age of sexual identity, family dynamics, dealing with homophobia and heterosexism, instance of gay-bashing, working with gay or lesbian officers, being harassed simply for being the friend of a homosexual, the historical harassment experienced by gays and lesbians from police, insensitivity shown by minorities toward gays and lesbians, appropriate word usage, youth suicide and the development of a strong support system. The instructors did not seek closure at the end of training.

Analysis of Observed Methodology and Content:
Classroom observations support that "sharing of our human stories" is indeed the primary instructional method used by Site #1's CAT as outlined in their goals. The opening video used 1/3 of the training time and was a weave of the speaker's (Brian McNaught) personal life, research on sexual orientation and the experiences one faces growing up in a heterosexist society. A panel composed of police personnel used the remaining allotted time. The police panel members shared experiences as related to choosing and entering the world of law enforcement, and contrasted those experiences with being gay or lesbian. The panel members less well received were the two male civilian members. Showing the video and panel presentation constituted 71% of the instructional time. Only 29% of class time was used for limited student involvement.
The content of the gay and lesbian panel emerged from the personal stories related by panel members. As such, specific information that would enhance a person's understanding and subsequent job performance became a hit or miss proposition. Although the goals of the training did not want specific behaviors mandated, without specific content goals it was impossible to determine if the panels provided the needed information to effect the desired behavioral changes.
Finally, the panel revealed a conflict between lesbian officers' impressions of homophobia within Site #1's police agency. One officer claimed to have little or no problems "no one challenges me . . . I was so concentrated on being a police officer. Enough people are pro-me that they will cover me." Another panelist claimed to have continual problems. As noted in the interviews, harassment of lesbian officers has declined from a few years ago, but all lesbian officers related that they still continue. Officers who are more aggressive report less harassment. This stems from two sources: (1) being aggressively open does reduce the amount of direct confrontation from other persons, and (2) often tied to an aggressive stance is a psychological denial of instances of harassment.

Assessment of Instructor(s)/Panel:
The two instructors were not trained teachers and unfortunately demonstrated their inability to structure class discussions and activities during the week. That is not to say that they were not well liked and held with high professional esteem as police officers. They appeared to lack the skills for effective classroom processes nor were they experts on the material being presented. When showing a video or conducting an activity, they did not prepare the students for the experience, but simply turned on the video or read the directions for the activity. They were continually unable to draw students into class discussion or relate what was shared to the theory being explored. Even the simple task of dividing the class into smaller groups became a confused situation. The instructors choose groups that were either too large or not spatially arranged for engagement. Besides not preparing students for an activity, the instructors did not attempt summary or closure for any topic. Although the instructors were officially known as facilitators and explained they were not teachers or subject matter experts, their classroom function required them to be teachers and subject matter experts. A major flaw in the program was not having a trained teacher structure the program processes and not having subject matter experts available.
The police officers on the panel were better received by the students than the gay community members. Particularly effective was having the one gay male police officer in uniform while on the panel. He appeared to obtain the greatest interest and respect from the students as evidenced by the number of questions he received, plus the content of the questions centering upon his police experiences. In contrast, a statement made by the elder community member, "the only difference between a straight man and a gay man is two drinks," caused considerable commotion among the students and was remembered negatively the next day.

Student Reactions to the Sexual Orientation Training:
Classroom observations revealed that the module on sexual orientation solicited the most reactions from studentsas measured by the number of questions emanating from the students and the activity level during review of the panel. However, interviews of the gay and lesbian panel members suggested the participation level of this particular set of students was lower than previous classes. This is interesting, because of all the panels presented during the week, the gay and lesbian panel had the greatest student participation. One could conclude that the entire week had been less involving for students than previous CAT and that sexual orientation training in general is the most involving for students.


Conclusions Regarding Sexual Orientation Training:
The agency strongly supports CAT and is echoed by all administrators and most officers and employees. The sexual orientation training seemed to involve students more than the other sub-topics and was felt to be an important contributor to the acceptances of gays and lesbians.
The stated goals for the training emphasized changing behaviors of officers so as to enhance employee safety and communication when dealing with individuals from different cultures. The program hoped that through police employees sharing their personal stories fellow employees would become "sensitized" to the issues of cultural differences without "mandating specific behaviors." Unfortunately, the behaviors and professional skills needed by police officers when dealing with gays and lesbians were never specified and was left to emerge from the panel presentation and student questions. Students were left confused and with many questions unanswered as evidenced during interview. Furthermore, students were interested in the "causes" of homosexuality and associated religious injunctionstopics on which none of the facilitators or panel members could give expert information and which fell outside the goals of the program.

Educational Conclusions:
(See Appendix D for visual tabulation of training methodology compared with education theory that includes assessments of training effectiveness.)
Students were prepared for the panel through use of the video, "Growing Up Gay." This opened many lines of questions that were presented to the panel. However, because of the scripted manner of the panel, student participation was limited. The instructors/facilitators were active officers and should have been an appropriate role model for the students, but failed to discuss their personal experiences where sexual orientation and policing intersect. The panel also failed in most cases to be the appropriate role model for the students. Only the openly gay and lesbian officers provided students with some of the information they requested. Furthermore, since none of the instructors or panel members were experts on sexual orientation, valuable information was missing from the presentation. Students indicated they wanted technical information on sexual orientation besides other kinds of information. The instructors also failed to provide meaningful practice for the student or attempt closure on what had been taught. Overall, this class structure provided marginal amounts of information to students and failed in many educational processes.

Site #2



Site #2 is one of the largest cities of Californias Central Valley. The population of 400,000, is served by approximately 484 sworn officers of which 42 are female and 442 are male officers. Most officers are trained at the Site #2 Police Academy which is one of the basic recruit academies associated with the local community college. The academy does accommodate recruits and advance-officer training for other nearby police departments. Cultural Awareness Training (CAT) started in 1988 when the department contacted the instructors to develop a CAT program. Initially, 4 hours were devoted to the training which grew to its current 30 hours of training6 hours more than the POST mandate. The instructors of the training displayed great pride in their overall program, yet felt inadequately prepared to train on sexual orientation.

Gay and Lesbian Community:
As reported by the gay and lesbian bar owners, Site #2 gay and lesbian community is extremely diverse; however it is relatively closeted. There is no specific organization that acts as a liaison between the gay and lesbian community and police. Most contact with the police is either from bar owners or local AIDS organizations. Bar owners were split between appreciating the police assistance or claiming that harassment by police officers continuesalthough such police harassment has declined the past 10 years.

Police Subculture:
Neither of the heterosexual instructors nor heterosexual students knew of gay-bashing in the police department. They felt that the acceptance of gays and lesbians was mixed, with some officers accepting while many, if not most, were somewhat negative toward gays and lesbians. Of the bar owners, one reported of beatings that have occurred recently and that the police did not act as "supportive as they should have." There are no open gay or lesbian officers.
In the academy, one student interviewee said the acceptance of sexual orientation issues ranged from "genuine interest to out and out outrage . . . [and] it is youthful recruits who were closed-minded" having the most negative attitudes. Continuing, she said that she too was very conservative when she started police work, but learned "that many different kinds of people are out there. I have had to learn to be more accepting." The discussion during sexual orientation training was overtly negative with less than 1/5 of the students showing non-judgmental interest in learning more about the issue. The instructor reported that, "the academy has a lot of resistance to sexual orientation training. Younger male cadets are open about I dont like homos. Why do you have to study them. You are trying to cram them down my throat. Verbal bashing is common through [the use of] jokes."
Students were asked to assess the acceptance of gays and lesbians in the academy. Fifteen students out of 43 responded to this question. Five students reported that gays and lesbians were not accepted. Four students suggested trying the improve the situation through education, e.g., "I would continue to do these types of classes to help improve the situation." Only two students of the class thought the academy was not homophobic. Also, two students made negative comments including, "I feel that by improving the situation with gays in our society more people should go to church and believe in the bible to learn the fact that homosexuality is wrong."
Students were asked to write a statement about their feelings or beliefs about homosexuals or homosexuality. From a class of 43 students, 37 responded to this request. Negative statements were made by twenty-six (70% ) students. Of those negative statements, half (15 students, 57%) made a moral or religious condemnation of homosexuals and seven (27%) believed homosexuals to be psychologically sick and/or confused about their gender. Only four (11%) students of the class believed that gays and lesbians should have equal rights and/or are "just like everyone else."

Program Goals and Intended Content/Methodology:
Training instructors were asked to state the goals of the sexual orientation training program, list the content they expected to present and explain the teaching methodologies they expected to use. This information will be compared to actual observations to assess compliance. Both instructors emphasized the goal of sexual orientation training is to assist students in becoming aware of their feelings and attitudes and that "[you] cant change behavior until they understand their beliefs." Once self-awareness is achieved, then the training focuses on "changing behavior from intolerance and misunderstanding to tolerance and respect." The instructors felt they needed to create a positive learning environment and for them to be seen as sources of informationthereby "facilitating them up the scaffold." One instructor was "not sure sexual orientation training belongs with cultural awareness training . . . for example, when gays talk about TB or AIDS, the discussions are differentnot because they are different, but because of the cultural milieu. The cultural mechanisms are differentlike in 1950 saying that black women are equal to white men."
The instructors felt it was important for students to know the incidence of homosexuality in both the "general populations and in law enforcement," the definitions of sexual orientation and how the behaviors are related to everyone, and that gay and lesbian relationships are "infinitely more than sexual activity. If you back the sex out, what you have left is a positive human interaction."
Being Ph.D. candidates in education, both instructors were well versed in educational theory and utilized teaching methods based on "adult learning models that are life-long." They based their teaching model on Vygotskys "zone of proximal development," whereby students "funds of knowledge" (Moll) are the basis for assisting students to greater levels of understanding by "scaffolding" (Vygotsky). As one instructor stated, "Knowledge through scaffolding is powerful."

Researchers Acceptance and Data Acquisition:
The instructors at Site #2 Police Academy were very supportive of the study. Not only did they provide transportation during each of the three days of the study, but they used 1 1/2 hours of the total CAT program to administer the PERQ. The PERQ was distributed to students at the beginning of CAT. They completed the test once, held onto the materials, and at the completion of CAT, turned over their answer sheets and took the PERQ a second timeat which point they turned in all materials. As such, these classes had one of the highest rates of student participation in the study. After the class, two students participated in the follow-up interviews. Recent changes in program administration precluded interviewing any program administrators. In the community, one gay male and one lesbian bar owners were interviewed. Contacts with the local AIDS or college gay organizations resulted in no volunteers for interviewing.
My presence produced a mix response. One student thanked me for conducting the study with the hopes that "discrimination can be prevented." Other students believed that, "by his comments in class and hypocritical attitude he [Chuck Stewart] did more harm than good to his crusade and confirmed our biases on gays," it "seems the guy is looking for a date," and they recommended to "take him out of the class." In contrast, another student suggested bringing in another researcher who "was willing to talk about his/her subject that the person is researching. He wasnt any help." Thus, my attempt to limit my interaction with the class by only responding as an subject-matter expert to questions asked by the instructor, resulted students forming vastly different opinions of my attendance. One student appreciated the PERQ while another student thought it was biased and suggested that the class should "concentrate on the history of homosexuality and sexual deviance then consider your sexuality. 1-800-need-help."

Observation of Training Program:
Program and Participants: Although this particular recruit class met for the same 21 weeks as all other recruit classes, it was the first class to experiment with different class hours. Students met between 10 am to 7 pm, Monday through Friday. This later time schedule was thought to be more accommodating to the students since they could take care of personal needs before class time. The students enjoyed the later start time, but the later ending time made the day seem extremely long. Of the forty-three (43) uniformed students, 7 were women and 36 were males. Most were hired recruits with approximately 3 or 4 in-service personnel and a few speculative students (i.e., persons paying their own way through the academy and who have not been yet hired). Only 18-days remained before this class graduated. During breaks, students casually left and entered the classroom. Just before sitting, they were expected to stand at attention. During break, they usually milled around.
Instructor(s): A husband and wife team were the instructors for most of the cultural awareness training. During the sexual orientation training, only the husband who is a 22-year veteran and county criminologist, conducted the class (not in uniform).
Setting: Training took place in the Community College setting with students coming from many surrounding agencies. The room was set with rows of desks sitting 6-8 on one side and 2 or 3 on the other with an isle down off-set center. At the front were a chalk board and TV along with a table on which the instructor displayed books and other resources.

Sexual Orientation Training Observation:
(See Table 4.1 for cross-agency comparison and Appendix C for complete documentation.)
The male instructor took an open-dialogue approach to conducting the sexual orientation training. He opened the training by asking the class as a whole, why sexual orientation was "such a volatile issue . . . [and] my daughter has asked me why people make such a big deal out of homosexuality. What am I going to say to her?" He solicited students to share their concerns and wrote these topics on the board. Twenty-three students participated in the activity and topics were developed on; fear of the unknown, lack of education, distortion of facts, lack of familiarity, difficult to relate, threat to (hetero)sexuality, out of norm, religious values, AIDS, repression of sexual themes, stereotypes, shock value of sexual theme, negative peer pressure, invisibility, and sexual identity. Most of these topics reflected the negative attitudes held by students. The instructor called upon me as a subject-matter expert on three occasions. After this 41 minute beginning, the class resumed for another 91 minutes during which the instructor delved deeper into the previously mentioned topics. Approximately 27 students asked questions that primarily supported the beliefs that homosexuals are deviant, diseased and sinful. Students and instructor were unconvinced by the "research" and the instructor emphasized that people "select facts to fit their paradigm." Procedures for handling domestic violence were given, students were encouraged to "ask" gays and lesbians when in doubt about their relationships, and to find out what "they" want. The instructor closed the last 30 minutes of class with a lecture about "backing the sex out of homosexuality, leaving you with people like everyone elsepeople who love each other and face the same life problems." He also included a long monologue (30 minutes) on Christian valuesstating that homosexuals who accept Christian scripture injunctions against homosexuality will stay celibate, and that Christians are to help those who hurt and are in need, such as those with AIDS. "Respect comes from knowledge, and tolerance comes from respect."

Analysis of Observed Methodology and Content:
The instructors used an open investigative approach to the training. Opinions, beliefs, attitudes and feelings about homosexuals and homosexuality were solicited from students for approximately 77% of the time and used to encourage self-awareness. The last 30 minutes of class (approximately 1/4 of the total instructional time) was direct lecture aimed at "backing the sex out of homosexuality" and used to demonstrate that gays and lesbians are the same as heterosexuals. This monologue included overt references to Christianity. The instructor stated, "One of the things that comes up, are people with religious objections to sexual orientation training. Religious objections are powerful things. Who we are is determined by religion and morals. . . You are instructed to love all. We get into the religion because beliefs are what this is about."
Although the instructor saw himself as a source of information to assist students "up the scaffold" on sexual orientation information, he admitted that he was a new student to the subject. During the training, he was unable to answer student questions and indirectly dismissed the topic when he stated that people "select facts to fit their paradigm." Thus, one major goal of the training, to provide accurate information, was not met.

Assessment of Instructor(s)/Panel:
The instructors were well received by students and thought to be "dynamic speakers." As one student commented, "I admire [the instructors] for their work because they are non-judgmental. I wish my parents were that way."

Student Reactions to the Sexual Orientation Training:


Conclusions Regarding Sexual Orientation Training:
The instructors of CAT at Site #2 Police Academy are leaders on the subject in California law enforcement, yet the CAT program at the academy seems to be an isolated program that has little direct impact on the academy or agency. Although the academy comes under community college anti-discrimination rules, "Students are given a handbook, but many dont think they have to follow the policies." There were no open gay or lesbian students, although the instructor reported "one or two are recognizable during CAT." During the interviewing process, the instructor replied in hushed tones that "there is one staff member who is open to me, but not open to everyone." The class seemed very homophobic with 70% of respondents expressing negative beliefs and/or feelings about homosexuality. CAT seems to be conducted in a vacuum with little integration with other programs at the academy.
A concern expressed by the instructor was relinquishing CAT to other instructors. During other sections of CAT, a different instructor conducted the class. It was obvious this person was not a trained teacher and was unknowledgeable about the materials. The primary instructor stated, "I am very concerned about passing CAT onto others due to their lack of ability." Due to direct familial experience with homosexuality (a gay brother dying of AIDS), the alternate instructor could have had much to contribute to the sexual orientation training.

Educational Conclusions:
(See Appendix D for visual tabulation of training methodology compared with education theory that includes assessments of training effectiveness.)
This program is based on current educational theory using self-awareness activities to help students become aware of their beliefs, feelings and knowledge about sexual orientation. The instructor attempted to "scaffold" upon this awareness leading to a greater understanding of gays and lesbians. The instructor appeared to lack the knowledge regarding sexual orientation needed to bring students to a new level of understanding. Sexual orientation training proved to be difficult for the instructor to adequately address due to his lack of knowledge on the subject.
The instructor appeared to be a good role model for the tolerance and acceptance of gays and lesbians even though he was a heterosexual male officer. For many students, the instructor was the kind of person they wanted to be. Thus, the effectiveness of the class stemmed from the strength and dynamics of the instructors personality and his skill at classroom procedures, not from his knowledge of sexual orientation. Although I was taken a back by the overt Christian comments made by the instructor, for many students this seemed to have an impactyet it covertly maintained gays and lesbians in second-class status by reinforcing religious condemnations.
The instructor failed to provide specific information about appropriate police behavior, distribute reference materials or hold students responsible for participating in the class or for their own learning. Also, there was no time or activity given to allow students to practice what they learned. Finally, the closure attempted at the end of the training was mostly a religious call for tolerance and not a summation of what was learned.

.c3.Site #3



The instructors who taught at Site #2 Police Academy also teach at many other locations. One such location is Site #3, located on the south-east side of Californias San Joaquin Valley. The community college-based academy serves a farming community of 88,000. The local police department has 95 sworn officers, 10 of whom are women and 85 who are men. There are no open gay or lesbian officers on the department.
The academy director attended POSTs T-of-T (Train-the-Trainers) and was impressed by the instructors. He asked them to develop a CAT program at his academy. In 1992, a 24 hour CAT program was initiated by the instructors.
I did not observe the class or conduct interviews. However, the instructor claimed that the class was very similar in content and process as Site #2 Police Academy. He collected statements and questions from the students besides administering the PERQ. The class contained 39 recruits of which there were 5 women and 34 men.

Police Subculture:
The instructor reported that:

Students were asked to write statements regarding their feelings and/or beliefs about homosexuals and homosexuality at the beginning of the training class. Out of a class of 39 students, 34 responded to this question. Of all academies which completed this assignment, Site #3 was the most negative. Twenty-six (75%) respondents made negative statements. Of those making negative statements, eleven made religious or moral condemnations of homosexuality"morally wrong, will cause the downfall of society," or "homosexuality is an abomination and a sin. Men who lay with men and likewise women who lay with women shall not inherit the kingdom of god." Similarly, six of the negative statements expressed the belief that gays and lesbians should stay hidden"I believe that homosexuals are their own person and should keep their sexual preferences silent." Finally, six of the negative statements thought homosexuality to be a psychological disorder"homosexuals are mentally ill"with gays and lesbians being confused about their gender roles"male homosexuals are more feminine."

Student Reactions to the Sexual Orientation Training:


.c3.Site #4



Site #4 is located in a large metropolitan area of the San Francisco Bay Area. Its population of 752,000 is served by approximately 1850 sworn officers. Of these officers, approximately 230 are female and 1620 are male. Most officers are trained at the Site #4 Police Academy, one of the independent basic academies of the California police training system. Because of hiring freezes by the police agency and budget constraints in the early 1990s, the academy has opened its doors to other local agencies to provide training for their new recruits. Cultural Awareness Training (CAT) has a long history with the academy, and training on sexual orientation dates back to 1982. Over the years, sexual orientation training has evolved from simply taking recruits on field trips to the local gay community to walk around and visit bars, to the more structured training that it currently conducts. In response to Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) mandates for 24-hours of CAT for each recruit, the academy has implemented a week-long series of culture days including; "Gay Day," "African-American Day," "Hispanic Day," and "Asian Day." These culture awareness days consume most of that days schedule (approximately 6 hours each). Everyone interviewed at this site stated that they took great pride in the sexual orientation training conducted by their Police Academy. They believed their program to be the best, most comprehensive and in existence longer than any such program.

Gay and Lesbian Community:
Being one of the larger and more politically active gay and lesbian communities in the nation, it could best be described as diverse as the metropolitan city where it resides. It is estimated that, "20% of the citys population are gay or lesbian" (statement from video shown in class about the history of the citys gay and lesbian community). The city has a long history of gay activism that has influenced the development and deployment of its police. In the past, police harassed gay bars and often over-reacted to demonstrations and other political activism by the gay community. For the past 15-years, the police continually showed great restraint during political demonstrations, sometimes risking the safety of fellow officers. As one instructor stated, "The gay and lesbian community is 99% supportive of the police." This comment was echoed by bar owners and patrons. The number one complaint from the gay community toward police was similar to complaints from the city at-large"slow response time" indicating that sexual orientation was rarely an issue.
There is no one gay community group that acts as a liaison with the police department. Instead, as specific issues come to a head, the organizations involved meet formally with the police department. It has been the gay police officers organization that has significantly impacted the inclusion and development of sexual orientation training. Through their efforts, training has evolved into a more structured program and for more hours.

Police Subculture:
Harassment based on sexual orientation are virtually non-existent within the police department. The training instructor reported that an internal study of the department found approximately "75% of the women officers are lesbians." Even with a significant number of the male officers being gay, there have been no recent complaints filed against the department by either a civilian or a police officer. An instructor reported that there are some gay and lesbian officers who "have problems, but they are not popular and not happy people. . . maybe marginal people."
The academy seemed equally supportive of gays, having one sergeant and one staff officer who are openly gay to both staff and students. As one administrator explained, "[gays and lesbians] are very accepted because they have been part [of the department] for so long." In the class, two of the women recruits were open lesbians. However, during the sexual orientation trainings Self-Awareness Activity, approximately 2/3 of student responses were extremely anti-gay. On the question of how the student would respond to someone of the same sex making a pass at them, approximately five students said they would physically "hit" the gay person. Many students seemed surprised at the level of hatred expressed by so many of the recruits. This activity revealed that even in cultures that are supportive of gays and lesbians, in-coming recruits harbor many anti-gay feelings and beliefs.
Students were asked about the support gays and lesbians receive in the academy. From a class of 30 recruits, only 7 students responded to this question. Three students felt the academy was not homophobic whereas four witnessed acts of discrimination against gays and lesbians. Finally, one student commented, "I would say the acceptance of homosexuality is very narrow and limited in my academy class."

Program Goals and Intended Content/Methodology:
Program administrators and training instructors were asked to state the goals of the sexual orientation training program, list the content they expected to present and explain the teaching methodologies they expected to use. This information will be compared to actual observations to assess compliance. The academy director believed that the goals for sexual orientation training require more than just "sensitizing" students, but also to provide specific techniques for dealing with different cultures. One instructor emphasized that the academy is often a different environment than on the job and frequently recruits complain that their Field Training Officer (FTO) will make negative statements such as, "When you have been on the job as long as I have, you can pick them out." Another goal was for gays to be presented in a positive light since they historically have been maligned by the media.
The instructor and program administrator believed that the content in sexual orientation training included: sexual orientation as "part of a persons being" and being gay or lesbian "does not affect job performance or your rights as an officer or citizen"; history of gays in the U.S.A. to show discrimination and empowerment; the 1974 APA declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness; and examples where death occurred during a police investigation in an otherwise insignificant event but that sexuality became an issue.
One of the instructors wanted students to share their feelings and beliefs during class. Much of the class was expected to revolved around lecture, video presentation and asking questions.

Researchers Acceptance and Data Acquisition:
Site #4 Police Academy was initially very supportive of this study. They were the first academy to respond to the solicitation for participation. Because of delays with my ethics review committee, observation and testing at the academy was postponed for 6 months and instead, became the last data to be gathered. Days before arriving at the academy, I was informed that testing of the recruits (PERQ materials had been sent to them two months earlier) would not be allowed because the survey looked at attitude changessomething the administrator claimed the program was not designed to accomplish. Upon arrival, the academy director approved the testing but it then was impossible to conduct a pre-test. Instead, the PERQ was distributed after the training and students returned the materials the next day. Not only did this snafu make pre-/post- analysis impossible, but administrators emphasized to the students that the survey was voluntary and was to be completed on their own time, stating that the "academy neither endorses nor opposes the research or its findings." As a result, only 7 out of 30 students completed the survey and no other data was made available to me. Interviewing also became an ordeal. The academy director allocated a 1-hour interview into his busy schedule. One developer of the sexual orientation training program also scheduled time to be interviewed. However, the actual instructor of the observed class was unavailable any time during the four days I was in town, failed to keep a mutually agreed upon phone interview, and did not return subsequent phone calls. I commenced to interview leaders of the gay and lesbian community including bar owners. Overall, six persons participated in the interviewacademy director, lesbian curriculum designer, two bar owners (and informally with some patrons), and two leaders of the community. Unfortunately, no student in the class volunteered to be interviewed.
My impact was minimal since I did not interact with any of the students or make comments during the sexual orientation training. Furthermore, since the PERQ was not administered until after the class, it had no impact on class proceedings.

Observation of Training Program:
Program and Participants: Recruit training at the academy lasted 22 weeks, meeting between the hours of 7:45 am to 4:45 pm, Monday through Friday. Of the thirty (30) hired uniformed police recruits in the observed class, 7 were women and 23 were men. This was their sixth day in training. Break times were informal, with students casually dismissed and casually returned. A 15-minute line-up did occur at lunch with marching practice. One recruit related that the goal of the academy was to help everyone pass, not to prove a point of weeding people out. The following week, a class from the Sheriffs Department was scheduled to join this class of police recruits.
Instructor(s): The instructor was one of several designers of the current sexual orientation training. She had significant influence in its development, is recognized as a leading authority on the training, and has testified twice to Congress about the training. She is an active officer who is an open lesbian.
Setting: The room setting included rows of flat desks facing the front, isle down the middle with chalk board and TV on roll cart. The sexual orientation training is dubbed "Gay Day," and was the first day of the recruits CAT.

Sexual Orientation Training Observation:
(See Table 4.1 for cross-agency comparison and Appendix C for complete documentation.)
The lesbian officer/instructor wrote her name and telephone number on the chalk board during her introductory statement of program goals. Immediately, she showed without comment the 23-minute video, "Looking at San Franciscos Gay and Lesbian Community." Next, students were solicited to share stereotypes (nouns and adjectives) used to describe gay men and lesbians during the 8-minute Stereotype Activity. Approximately 16 students participated sharing mostly negative stereotypes with much class laughing. The instructor directed students to write down on a piece of paper how they would react to 10 scenarios she read aloud as part of the 35-minute Self-Awareness Activity. Once the writing was completed, she collected the papers and randomly redistributed them back to the students. As she reread the questions, she selected students to read aloud the papers in front of them. Approximately 83 student readings were obtain with mostly negative attitudes towards gays and lesbiansincluding sanctioning physical harm toward a gay or lesbian making a pass at a heterosexual person. Students showed surprise at the results of the readings. After a 15-minute break, the instructor shared her Personal Story. During this 24-minute period, she told of her coming out, experiences with the police force, her relationship with her family and issues surrounding her having a child. Only four students asked question centering on child rearing. The instructor next weaved video highlights from television news broadcasts covering gay and lesbian protest demonstrations with a dialogue of her involvement as a police officer during the civil strife. She discussed ACT-Up (she approved their achievements), Queer Nation (she disapproved of their anarchists tactics), and the conflict she had over performing her duty as a police officer to up-hold the law with "turning in her brothers and sisters." Only a handful of students asked questions during this 24 minute lecture although they seemed enraptured in hearing about her "war" experiences. After a 1-hour lunch break, class resumed with a showing of the 25-minute video, "Gay Cops" from 60 Minutes with Mike Wallace. No students asked questions and the instructor closed the video by stating that gay cops are still fighting for their rights. Immediately, this flowed into a 5-minute lecture on Domestic Violence and Hate Crimes. The instructor stated that she believes that domestic violence is increasing and that she now makes approximately one call each day. During these calls, she emphasized that it is important to not assume that the big person is the aggressor and that the officer must ask the status of the relationship. To illustrate hate crimes, she told a story about a recent physical attack she personally experienced while off-duty and "luckily Im a cop with a gun and he went to jail." Another 15-minute break led into the showing of the 90-minute video, "The Times of Harvey Milk." This was shown without comment or class discussion. The training ended without any attempt at closure.

Analysis of Observed Methodology and Content:
The class emphasized the history and politics of the local gay community as evidenced through the use of many video sources which took approximately 2 1/4 hours of the 4 hours of instruction time. The instructors shared personal story and video on gay cops used another hour of instructional time. Student self-awareness and awareness of class attitudes on homosexuality and/or gays and lesbians were achieved through two activities using approximately 45 minutes of instruction time. Police techniques for use during domestic violence and/or hate crime investigations took approximately 5 minutes of instruction time. Thus, from this structure, it is evident that the training gave mostly information on local gay politics and history, less but equivalent time to the personal side of being a gay or lesbian cop and student awareness of their attitudes and beliefs, and very little time to specific police procedures. The training presented gays and lesbians in a positive light and "sensitized" students that gays and lesbians are essentially the same as heterosexuals, but failed to provide much concrete specific techniques for dealing with gays and lesbians.
The primary method of instruction was lecture/video and constituted 70% of class time. Approximately 30% of instruction time engaged student participation and was provided through instructor-led activities. No attempt was made to assess levels of student comprehension, bringing topics to closure, or having students assume responsibility for participating and learning content.

Assessment of Instructor(s)/Panel:
The students accepted the instructor very well. As one respondent wrote, "I was impressed with the instructors personal history. It brought closer her humanity and naturalness." The instructor displayed skill at class management, directing activities and making the environment safe for students to participate. It was observed that the instructor mostly made eye contact with the women in the class and paid significant attention to the one or two lesbians in the class.

Student Reactions to the Sexual Orientation Training:


Conclusions Regarding Sexual Orientation Training:
The agency strongly supports CAT. Sexual orientation training represented almost one-fifth of the entire CAT program and was well received by academy administrators and the police department. This integrated approach reflected the academy directors belief that sexual orientation training is part of a multi-pronged approach which includes administrative support, having open gay and lesbian officers and community involvement.
A wide range of goals were expressed for the training, reflecting political and personal emphasis. Almost no time was given to specific police procedures in situations containing a gay/lesbian aspect. Instead, these practices were left to emerge from the sharing of the instructors personal storywhich rarely happened.

Education Conclusions:
(See Appendix D for visual tabulation of training methodology compared with education theory.)
Students were first prepared for the topic through use of the video on local gay and lesbian history. The Stereotype activity exposed students to the pervasive negative gay and lesbian stereotypes. This was further expanded for the student through the Self-Awareness activity, revealing the environment in which students work. Unfortunately, the instructor failed to seize the opportunity and extend student awareness to the social processes that keep gays and lesbians disenfranchised and how that impacts the work of police. (These processes were discussed in the video, "Look at San Franciscos Gay and Lesbian Community," but this was shown before students went through the self-awareness activities. It would have been more effective to reverse the order of the presentation.)
Using the last 90 minutes of class to show the video, "The Times of Harvey Milk," was repetitious of the first video shown. Also, the instructor seemed bored during the showing which indirectly conveyed the message that it was not worth viewing.
The instructor, by being an open lesbian officer of many years experience and of high repute, was a perfect role-model for the students. Through her extensive use of story-telling about police work and how sexual orientation issues often play an important part in some kinds of crimes and investigations, she demonstrated that she is the kind of police officer recruits want to become. This was excellent. It would have improved the class if the instructor had included gay male officers and persons of color. The greatest weaknesses in the class were: (1) the lack of relevant practice by students, (2) not making students responsible for their own learningeither through relevant assignments or testing, (3) no materials were handed out despite covering immense quantities of information, (4) the instructor gave very limited information on specific police behaviors and, (5) failed to summarize or seek closure of topics.

.c3.Site #5



The Site #5 is one of the largest police departments in Southern California serving a city of almost 4 million residents with approximately 7,780 sworn officers. Currently, there are approximately 1,230 female and 6,550 male officers on staff of which there are 9 open gay and lesbian officers. The police academy is not associated with a community college and is one of the few self-contained police academies in the state. CAT has a long history with the academy and sexual orientation training dates back to the late 1980s. In 1992, because of changes in state law requiring sexual orientation as one of the issues CAT was to include, the academy expanded the existing training from 2 hours to 3 1/2 hours. To accommodate the new training format, the community gay and lesbian police liaison organization created a 175-page curriculum and teaching package. Both the gay and lesbian police organization and the police academy express great pride in such a comprehensive curriculum and training program and believe their effort to be the best in the nation.

Gay and Lesbian Community:
The gay and lesbian community is one of the largest and most politically powerful gay and lesbian communities in the world. It is richly diverse and trying to characterize the dynamics of the community in a few short words is impossible. The first public gay protest march anywhere in the U.S. was conducted here in 1967. The subsequent relationship between police and the gay community has been tumultuous. Twenty-five years of conflict between police and the gay community including numerous lawsuits, complaints, action committees and the formation of liaison organizations has significantly changed police practices and impacted state-wide CAT as mandated through POST.
Bar owners and political leaders of the gay community report that relations with police have improved significantly over the past 10 years. Police harassment of bar owners and businesses catering to homosexuals has virtually ceased. Misconduct by a few officers still continues, but these are considered to be singular events more related to management problems of a very large bureaucracy and not part of particular patterns.
Political leaders and liaison gay organizations are very aware of internal police functioning. The community at-large, like most communities, is basically ignorant of police policy. However, they believe the agency as still being a dangerous place to be openly gay or lesbian.

Police Subculture:
The low number of open officers is testament to the adverse conditions that still prevail in the agency. As reported by one lesbian instructor, lesbian officers are "more accepted because of the acceptance of masculinity which the stereotype of lesbian officers is hyper-masculine. The gay male assumption is feminine, thus gay male officers are assumed to be unable to perform their job." One 10-year gay male police veteran was "impressed by the women who engage in the most difficult male work yet have long hair and wear lipstick" and that anyone who acted feminine or perceived to be feminine had the most problems being accepted by the other officers. This officer also believed that gay male officers "need to be on the job a lot longer and be good officers . . . [and] not be feminine acting." Discussion of homosexuality in the agency was limited and an instructor reported that it appeared to act as a deterrent by "attempting to control behavior."
There seemed to be a difference in the levels of acceptance of gay and lesbian officers by the police agency. In upper management, there seemed to be greater acceptance. A gay male instructor believed the middle management level (Sgt., Lt., Watch Commanders at the division level) is "where the breakdown occurs" and this affects acceptance by the patrol officer. Often middle managers would not tell "officers (who use negative terms) that it is unacceptable." The problem between older and first-line supervisors (middle managers) has been described as an "inversion layer" where police subculture is thickest. Many of the respondents indicated that significant change toward creating a gay-friendly environment will not occur until "some of the managers get out there to see the problems."
A 10-year open gay police officer reported:


Often, when a gay or lesbian officer transfers to a new division, the "division must be prepared before the employee arrives. We should not have to prep a division before any employee arrives."
The agency has a strict non-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation. Unfortunately, the history of the agency continues to influence the policys impact. The previous chief issued a non-discrimination memo and stated numerous times that "discrimination against gays and lesbians will not be tolerated," but this was countered by other statements by the chief that encouraged gay stereotyping.
In the academy, gays and lesbians are becoming better accepted as evidenced by the increase in the number of open gay and/or lesbian recruits. When students in the observed class were asked to write statements about the feelings or beliefs about homosexuality or homosexuals, 29 out of 45 responded and sixteen (55%) wrote negative comments. Of these negative statements, five were heterosexist statements such as "this is a straight society, therefore, you should have to play by the straight rules." Another three of these negative statements portrayed homosexuality as a disease and reinforced gay stereotypes "gays get upset easily and believe that they are abnormal." Eight (26%) of the total statements were positive and emphasized that "gays and lesbians are as equal as any other person."
The sexual orientation class was quiet and not combative with the instructors. Although negative stereotypes were held by a majority of the students, student conduct toward the instructors was respectful.
Administrations support for sexual orientation training was evidenced when trainers were instrumental in removal of one recruit from the sexual orientation training because of their overt homophobic attitudes displayed in class. However, no recruit has ever been dismissed from the academy due to overt homophobia.

Program Goals and Intended Content/Methodology:
Training instructors were asked to state the goals of the sexual orientation training program, list the content they expected to present and explain the teaching methodologies they expected to use. This information will be compared to actual observations to assess compliance. Most respondents wanted accurate information about sexual orientation designed to breakdown stereotypes presented in a safe environment as their primary goal. The hope was that students would become "sensitized" to the issues. Respondents also felt that it was important for students to meet open gay and lesbian officers and to learn specific skills needed to interact safely and with respect.
All respondents wanted course content to attack anti-gay stereotypes specifically to show that gays and lesbians are normal and not "sick," gay men are not pedophiles, that there are no physiological differences between gays and non-gays, and that gays do not recruit. All but the gay male sergeant expressed an essentialist perspective and intended to teach that homosexuality is "born" and not a "preference." The gay male sergeants position:


Content on gay history and culture emphasizing that the "gay agendas" big secret is simply a call for equal rights was also mentioned. Finally, the misconception of AIDS being a gay disease was considered important for students to know. Only one respondent mentioned the need for information about the impact homophobia has on individuals and institutions.
The respondents intended sexual orientation training to include lecture, group discussion, questions and answers, some audio-visual including blackboard use and video presentation, and prepared charts or overhead transparency. All respondents mentioned how important it is for the classroom atmosphere be relaxed and conducive for sharing. This was primarily to be achieved through the use of humor and a buddy system of multiple instructors sharing their personal stories relating the diversity within the gay and lesbian community. Only the non-police gay instructor made the point that "I refuse to accept or tolerate predatory behavior. I dont think it helps us, not to answer challenge, e.g., someone will challenge our statistics or be unable to accept my perspective as real and valid such as the way I have said. I never accept or back down when someone challenges me."

Researchers Acceptance and Data Acquisition:
This academy proved to be the most difficult to work with. The gay and lesbian community liaison organization and the training instructors welcomed me and provided great assistance during interviews. The greatest difficulty was obtaining approval to administer the PERQ. When the academy reviewed the PERQ, the staff psychologist said that it was inappropriate to give the questionnaire to recruits because "it will do them irreparable harm" and this caused them to block all access to the academy. In discussion, it seemed that Part 4 of the PERQ caused the most concern and they objected highly to students being asked about their current and future sexual and gender identities. Ultimately, due to my persistence and other illusive factors, I was allowed to observe one class with the stipulation that no student be interviewed or talked to, and the PERQ was not to be administered. Course evaluations and other documents were also denied to me. One class activity had students write down questions they had regarding homosexuality or about the instructors themselves. These were collected and answered later in the class. Not only were these written questions from the observed class saved, but the instructors had saved hundreds of written questions from previous classeswhich were provided to me for analysis.
My presence during the sexual orientation training was minimal since I did not make any comments during class nor interact with any students. The PERQ was not administered and thus did not sensitize students to the training. A total of seven persons were interviewed (3 women, 4 men)all of them current or past sexual orientation training instructors at the academy. Two of the interviewees were civilian trainers who had never been police officers.

Observation of Training Program:
Program and Participants: Students attended classes from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. Police training lasts 28 weeks. Break times were informal with students casually entering and exiting the classroom. The class consisted of 45 uniformed recruits of which 5 were women and 40 were males. All recruits were one week away from graduation. Sexual orientation training is conducted as a separate self-contained module and counts toward the CAT requirements. During the training, two police administrators stood quietly at the side of the room.
Instructor(s): Open gay or lesbian officers wanting to participate in sexual orientation training must first observe a class. If still interested, they are invited to "share their story"how they came to realize they were homosexual, their coming to grips with that reality, forming their identity, family and interpersonal relations and how this is related to becoming a police officer. After repeated experiences of participating at this stage, they may evolve to a more active level of participation as an instructor.
Setting: Classes were held at the academy in one of the classrooms designed to accommodate not more than 50 students. Students were seated at individual desks in rows facing the front. The room contained a chalk board and TV.

Sexual Orientation Training Observation:
(See Table 4.1 for cross-agency comparison and Appendix C for complete documentation.)
Before the team of co-presenters entered the classroom, the students were instructed by the commanding officer not to ask questions about religion or politics during the training. When the instructors arrived, the lesbian instructor introduced the training team, gave her professional credentials and stated the program goalsincluding stating that they were not there to "change anyone minds or beliefs." After the 15-minute Introduction a gay male officer shared his life story including the realization that he was gay even though he was in a heterosexual marriage with children. No students asked any questions during the 15-minute presentation. Next, a lesbian officer told her story for another 15-minute Sharing Stories. She shared her experiences and emotional conflicts surrounding being a closeted lesbian officer. At the conclusion of this sharing, the instructor polled the class about how many of them Knew Someone Gay. Approximately 25 students raised their hands. This immediately flowed into the Stereotype Activity. Here, the instructor asked students to share their knowledge concerning gay and lesbian stereotypes (occupations and physical characteristics). These mostly negative comments were written on the chalk board. Approximately 43 students participated with much laughter during this 25-minute activity. After a 10-minute break, a heterosexual male staff officer share his 23-minute story about his son recently coming out gay. He explained how he and his wife were initially in denial about their sons homosexuality and would pray, "Please God, just make him bisexual." This led to their participation in PFLAG and sense of regret for all the anti-gay jokes he told over the years. Students seemed attentive during the stories, but still did not ask any questions. The instructor then led the class through a 13-minute Gay Lifestyle Activity. A heterosexual student was asked to share how he conducted his daily routine, e.g., sleeping takes 8 hours. This was presented in chart form on the chalk board. Next, one of the lesbian officers shared her daily routine. The instructor noted that the routines were virtually identical except for the sexual partners. No questions were asked by students, but much laughter ensued when it was evident that neither the heterosexual student or lesbian instructor engaged in much sex. At this point, the instructor directed students to write questions they may have had about homosexuality on cards. These were collected for later use. Next, the instructor conducted a 40-minute lecture on appropriate police behavior during Points-of-Contact with the gay and lesbian community. The seven topics included: (1) traffic stops, burglary, robbery; (2) lewd conduct and prostitution; (3) hate crimes; (4) domestic violence; (5) civil disobedience; (6) bars; and, (7) personal contact including death, AIDS, co-workers and the showers. For each situation, the instructor gave personal experiences, theory, and suggested professional behavior. No students asked questions during this section. Finally, the last 30-minutes of class were devoted to Questions and Answers, where answers were given to the previously collected Question Cards. Only three students asked questions beyond the cards. No closure was attempted by the instructor at the end of the 3 1/2 hour training.

Analysis of Observed Methodology and Content:
Lecture was the primary teaching methodology. Approximately 2 hours of the training (representing 60% of the allotted time) was used for lecturing on Personal Stories (63 minutes), Points-of-Contact (40 minutes) and statement of goals (10 minutes). Instructor led activities and discussions comprised the remainder of the training (38%) answering student questions (Questions and Answers, 30 minutes), Stereotype Activity (27 minutes) and Gay Lifestyle Activity (13 minutes). No small group or individual activities were engaged.
The content of the class covered a broad spectrum of information. The Personal Stories gave deep insight into the conflicts between discovering that one is gay or lesbian or having a child who is homosexual, and the expectations of family and society. Choosing a police career and the impact that had on ones homosexual behavior demonstrated the conceptual differences between identity and behavior. The speakers sharing of discrimination experienced as a gay or lesbian police officer in conjunction with the Stereotype Activity helped students to become aware of their own feelings and beliefs, and acted as a springboard for accurate information to dispel many anti-gay stereotypes. The Gay Lifestyle Activity further reinforced the inaccuracies of the gay stereotype. The Points-of-Contact gave specific behavioral information in police situations where sexual orientation was relevant. This part of the lecture was punctuated by the guest speakers sharing their experiences. Finally, the Questions and Answers section was structured so that students could safely ask questions and with anonymity.
The course followed very closely the written curriculum and adhered to the goals stated by the instructors during the interviews. Breaking down stereotypes and presenting appropriate police behaviors in a gay or lesbian context were the two major areas covered by the training. Academic information about sexual orientation was informally given and sexual orientation was presented from an essentialist perspective.

Assessment of Instructor(s)/Panel:
The primary instructor demonstrated great skill at processing students through the materials. The assistant speakers displayed a wide range of personalitiesfrom quiet and withdrawn to being forthright and almost combative. Yet the use of humor discouraged personal attacks from students. Unfortunately, no students were interviewed and the class evaluations were unavailable to obtain their opinion of the instructors. Finally, none of the instructors attempted closure at the end of specific activities.

Student Reactions to the Sexual Orientation Training:


Conclusions Regarding Sexual Orientation Training:
The agency has a long history of being anti-gay. Even as it implements new policies and expands sexual orientation training, momentum of previous problems and pending lawsuits make it difficult for gay and lesbian officers to come out. CAT has a long history with the agency, but the current format of having sexual orientation training as a separate module disconnected from the rest of CAT undermines the coherence of the program. Furthermore, the "inversion layer" of middle-management reinforces police subculture that emphasizes hyper-masculine attitude and behaviorthe primary obstacle to gay men and women officers.
It is in this agency atmosphere that sexual orientation training at the academy is often seen as "bogus" and gays not representing a "real culture." Just a few years back, as the sexual orientation trainers would be leaving the room, the sergeant-at-arms would announce to the class that everything they just heard was "false and PC crap." This no longer happens and instructors report that the animosity and outright hatred they experienced in the past have reduced significantly. The observed class seemed to enjoy the training and only two or three students expressed comments that could be considered severely homophobic or heterosexist. Although students knew the anti-gay stereotypes, only 14% of them went out of their way to make negative statements within their questions. Thus, anti-gay sentiments may still be held by a majority of the students, but they are covertly held opinions. It is unfortunate that instrumental empirical testing and interviews with students were not allowed.

Educational Conclusions:
(See Appendix D for visual tabulation of training methodology compared with education theory that includes assessments of training effectiveness.)
The combination of instructors provided near perfect role-models for the students. These instructors were the kinds of officers the recruits want to become. All were very direct and could "talk the talk," since they "walk the walk." Having two lesbian officers and two male officers (one gay and the other heterosexual with a gay son) presented a greater diversity than could have been accomplished with only one instructor. To complete the diversity of the instructors, they need to include instructors who are persons of color.
Instructors were clear in their goals for the class. They adhered closely with the goals of the curriculum and the goals stated in interviews. This clarity of goals and clarity of classroom process provided direct instruction with little ambiguity.
An important component of the training is to help students become aware of their own beliefs and feelings about homosexuality and to see this in context with the police subculture. The Stereotype Activity and Gay Lifestyle Activity were narrow in focus and presented very few opportunities for students to learn about their own beliefs. These stereotypes could have been extended into a discussion revolving around social institutions using stereotypes to disenfranchise gays and lesbians, thus becoming a major source of conflict between gays and lesbians and policebut this was not done. Instead, students were helped to identify a few of their beliefs concerning homosexuality, but they were not assisted in learning the social mechanisms involved and the impact on them as police officers.
Police officers who shared personal stories in combination with the Points-of-Contact lecture, provided relevant material; however, a number of things were missing from the training. First, no time or activity was provided for students to practice what they had learned. Second, closure was not attempted on any topics. Third, even though the training covered immense quantities of information, no materials were handed out. Fourth, students were not held responsible for participating in the learning or demonstrated that they had in fact, learned anything.

Additional Data:
The primary sexual orientation trainer for the Site #5 Police Academy maintained a file of questions written by students from the past few years. All total, I was given 376 additional responses beyond the ones collected during the observed training. The primary category in which students had questions concerned technical information (33%) regarding sexual orientation. Within this primary category, students were most interested in the psychological "causes" of homosexuality (23% of this category), issues of family and interpersonal relationships (23% of this category), and issues of discrimination (11% of this category). The secondary category of questions dealt with personal questions about the instructor (23%), with half the respondents concerned about having children and raising them in a gay household. Gay politics (17%), negative statements against gays and lesbians (14%), and professional conduct by officers (13%) were the three categories of lesser interest to students.

.c3.Site #6



The Site #6 Police Academy is a regional training center attached to a community college and staffed by four different police agencies and the sheriff department. It took on its regional structure in response to economic factors that made a one-agency academy economically unfeasible. CAT at the academy has followed POST mandates and only recently included training on sexual orientation. CAT also expanded in response to a city police altercation seven years ago. A white police officer shot a black man during a scuffle who later claimed that the officer made slurs toward him. This caused great controversy in the city and resulted in the entire 3,000 employees going through sensitivity training in one year. The trainer used a technique called "verbal judo" that was remembered by every officer interviewed as "brain-dead." Subsequently that trainer was held in disrespect. From this incident, the city and the academy made greater efforts toward diversity issues.
The majority of recruits in the academy came from the largest police agency in the area. The citys population of 1.1 million, is located in Southern California. Site #6 has approximately 1977 sworn officers of which 274 are women and 1703 are men. Recently, a captain level police officer was promoted to oversee diversity in the agency. The academy program is highly valued and thought by the program consultant to be "light-years ahead." The agency administrator held similar beliefs and stating, "We are far ahead [on diversity issues and training] of most other cities."

Gay and Lesbian Community:
Being a metropolitan area large enough to support its own gay and lesbian community services center, the community is richly diverse. The community is politically active with a gay and lesbian police officers organization and an annual gay pride parade and festival. Interviews with bar owners reported that relations with police have improved significantly over the past 10 years. No longer do police raid bars. Instead, vice squad officers immediately identify themselves to the bar owners when they come in. The owners felt much of the gay bashing which still exits stems from people not using common sense. This contrasted with political activists who claim that, "Gays and lesbians should be able to walk anywhere at anytime of day or night."
A recent brouhaha regarding participants in the gay pride parade reveals much of the tension that still exists in the city. The former mayor of the city became a radio talk show host promoting conservative ideology, including sponsoring a group who wanted to march in the gay pride parade under the banner "Normal People." The application was illegible and was rejected. The "Normal People" organization resubmitted their application, but again it was illegible and rejected. The court upheld the right of the gay pride parade organizers to reject the application. Of course, the former mayor cried discrimination. While this was going on, the police chief approved the request from the gay police organization to march in the parade in uniform and to sponsor a recruitment booth at the festival. While marching in the parade, the open gay police officer reported, "The other officers turned their backs on us while going by." In contrast, an interview with a heterosexual male police officer conducted during a ride -along revealed,


Most of the gay community members were aware that the City has an anti-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation. This policy extends to both employment and housing.

Police Subculture:
The police agency has had complaints and lawsuits filed against it for sexual orientation discrimination. The last such suit was filed more than three years ago. The effect of these complaints was the decision to &qu