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 "recruit at the gay and lesbian parade." The gay and lesbian police organization also reported recruits coming out in class and experiencing subsequent harassment, open officers being passed over for promotion, and that "it has not become a non-issue because there is still locker room talk, whispers and talk behind your back." The previous police chief issued a "zero-tolerance" memo about the harassment of gays and lesbians. The director of the gay and lesbian community services center reported that the new police chief "is committed to following the letter of the law and is beholding to a very conservative police association . . . [and] has not done the same leadership." The director also stated that "most of the feedback is that the police performs appropriately. When it is not, the officer is identified and is taken aside by administration. This showed how administration support is more important." Finally, the city withdrew from supporting the Boy Scouts of America because of their refusal to allow a gay male police officer to continue as the official liaison between the police and the Scouts.
Asking how many open gay and lesbian officers there are on the police force revealed some discrepancies. Police administrators thought there were approximately five; bar owners said the same number; the gay and lesbian police organization stated that there are "five males and two females out of 1900 officers"; whereas other gay police officers reported that there were eight. However, the heterosexual police agency diversity administrator said, "Many officers have come out of the closet."
A frequent comment made is that because no one ever witnesses a gay-bashing there must not be any problems for gays and lesbians. One of the consultants for CAT stated, "[I have] never been present during any discussion of homosexuality. This is a reflection of [how good of a job they do] addressing the issues." However, gays and lesbians are everywhere in significant numbers and there should be constant conversations that indicate homosexuality. Thus, if the issue is being adequately addressed, why is it never heard?
At the academy, there were two complaints in the past year. One occurred between recruits. Each was investigated and resolved. But what does resolved mean? One academy administrator reported, "I know of several instances where some male recruits had difficulty with the lesbian officers. I had a discussion with the group and it solved itself." None of the academy administrators had witnessed gay bashing and believed that "there is no ridicule of gays and lesbians [in the academy]," yet these are the same administrators who were involved with the complaints filed during the past year. As a further indicator that homosexuality is a hushed up issue, one academy director shared, "the issue does not disturb me. In my family, I have a cousin who is a lesbian [said with an almost inaudible lowered voice]. I dont dwell on this and have a lot more in my life that I value."
When academy students were asked to write a statement about their feelings or beliefs on homosexuality or homosexuals, only 3 out of 105 students replied. All responses were negative, such as, "I feel if an individual wants to conduct homosexual acts, it is his business. But if he/she brings it in the workplace or is open about being gay, then he should receive a warning. Any further attempts to exploit should result in discipline. This is reasonable."

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 respondents agreed that the two most important goals of sexual orientation training were to "promote the equal treatment" of gays and lesbians and to increase their awareness to gays and lesbians through breaking down stereotypes. The male heterosexual diversity administrator emphasized that administrators need to consider while evaluating officer performance that, "Ethnicity, race, and sexual orientation are sometimes used to fog the issue[s] and are [used as] scapegoats to evade performance issues and that there are only 2 or 3 [categories of people] heteros, homos and bisexuals." The CAT consultant took a more organizational approach and claimed that sexual orientation training needed to "promote an organizational perspective on diversity and show organizations that it is in their vested interest to give police officers skills in people, peers and community." Only one person, a lesbian community member, mentioned that training goals must not try to change values or beliefs.
Respondents conveyed the belief that heterosexuals and homosexuals are more alike than different. All the gay and lesbian officers and community members thought that sexual orientation is inborn and not a choice and that scientific information needed to be presented to support that position. The three heterosexual male police administrators unknowingly took a deficit position concerning homosexuality when they suggested training content that, "shows the [gay] lifestyle is not wrong," "how they think," "no specific facts since they do not deserve any treatment beyond what others have," and "you dont have to accept sexual orientation, just understand it as it relates to performance . . . there is a right or wrong way, no in-between."
In the past, the gay and lesbian panel simply told their personal coming out stories. Course evaluations indicated these were boring to the recruits. The panel now limits the telling of personal stories and aims at a more structured format. Open discussion, creating a supportive atmosphere for candid sharing and video presentation of the history of the gay and lesbian movement were methodologies respondents intended to use. The male heterosexual diversity administrator believed that lecture, written assignments and expert testimony would be used in training. Ultimately, all respondents believed that, "No matter how technical you make the class, it still gets back to personal stories."

Researchers Acceptance and Data Acquisition:
The police academy was very supportive of me and assigned a training officer to coordinate class observations and data collection. However, from the very beginning, things kept getting fumbled. Originally, training was scheduled for early June. This date was slipped to August at which time I went to the academy. Survey materials were distributed to all 105 students but only 15 students completed the PERQ and over half of the questionnaire booklets were never returned. Also, the observed class was not sexual orientation training, but rather sexual harassment. After a few more months, sexual orientation training was rescheduled for November. The class was to be divided into two and sexual orientation training given to each half on the same day. I attempted to observe both trainings, but plane delays resulted in missing the first class. Once I arrived, it was discovered that the second class was canceled and the students had been combined into one large class for the first sexual orientation training. Thus class observation was not accomplished. Instead, class observation was reconstructed through intensive interview. Finally, the distribution of materials for post-testing was worse than the pre-testing. Only three students (out of 105) completed the PERQ and again almost half of the questionnaire booklets were not returned. No students volunteered for interview and only two students returned evaluation forms. Overall, student participation was dismal and administration seemed unwilling to encourage greater involvement with the research.
Typically, 3 to 4 sexual orientation trainings take place each year, but during this research, training dates were slipped and eventually skipped. Ultimately, only 2 trainings occurred almost 10 months apart, resulting in one or two classes missing sexual orientation training. Police administration explained that this occurred due to scheduling conflicts within the academy.
Participation in alternate interviews was much more successful. Participants included: two heterosexual male academy administrators; two bar ownersone lesbian and one gay male; one male heterosexual officer during ride-along; one heterosexual male police agency administrator responsible for diversity; one heterosexual female CAT agency consultant; two open gay police officers; and panel members including a lesbian city manager who also publishes one of the local gay and lesbian newspapers, civilian gay male city prosecutor, and the lesbian director of gay and lesbian services center.
Administering the PERQ most likely had little impact on the class because very few students actually completed it and the time between pre- and post-testing was about four months. Likewise, I had no contact with the class and very little impact. Finally, observing classes, engaging in ride-along and interviewing were conducted over a total of 5 days.

Observation of Training Program:
Program and Participants: This academy is known for being an "In-and-Out" academy in which students alternate between class and field work for the 7 months of training. Students are exposed to issues of culture through a 1-week field experience with students volunteering their time with one of the local support organizations and through formal CAT. The observed class had 105 uniformed recruits of which 19 were women and 86 were men. All but 18 students were hired as recruits. Students casually entered and exited the classroom, with breaks often including line-ups and calisthenics.
Instructor(s): Sexual orientation training relied upon the local gay and lesbian community center for speakers and the training itself. A uniformed officer introduced the panel and the panel members (non-officers) shared their experiences.
Setting: The classroom was extremely large with rows of flat tables and an isle running down the center. The front of the room had a chalk board and TV. During the sexual orientation training, six administrators stood along the sides of the room.

Sexual Orientation Training Observation:
(See Table 4.1 for cross-agency comparison and Appendix C for complete documentation.)
The female director of the local gay and lesbian community services center acted as panel moderator. After a brief introduction, Coming Out Stories were shared by three of the civilian panel members. This encouraged approximately eleven students to ask questions that focused on the causes of sexuality and supported the belief that homosexuality is a deviance. One of the panel members was an open gay city prosecutor who provided technical information about homosexuality including the Kinsey chart, genetic vs. choice arguments, stereotypes, etc. After the 50-minute lecture and a 10-minute break, the second hour of training included 40 minutes on Police Scenarios and 20 minutes for Questions and Answers. For the Police Scenarios, a 1-page handout was given to each student that listed 4 scenarios including: (1) father reports a teenage runaway, (2) drive-by name calling, (3) domestic fight, and (4) beating in a public park known for sexual activity. The male prosecutor led the class in an open discussion about these scenarios from which eight students asked for classifications of the law. The final Questions and Answers section was largely unmotivating with only seven questions being asked from a room of over 100 persons. These questions covered domestic violence, heterosexual double standard, hate crimes and teenage runaways. No closure was attempted at the end of the training.

Analysis of Observed Methodology and Content:
Lecture was the primary teaching methodology that constituted 46% of class time. Even when students could be involved, very few did. One lesbian panel member reported, "probably not more than 10 people spoke and 5 of those repeated. The larger the class the less likely they will participate." Even during the student participation sections that comprised 36% of class time, the gay male city prosecutor reported, "the class died after the scenarios section. Although there were a few more questions, it died."
Content emerged from three activities. The two coming out stories helped spark questions about the formation of sexual and gender identities and particularly issues of homosexuality. Some of the panel members reported excessive time had been spent on bi-sexuality and thought that having a bi-sexual woman on the panel confused the issue. Sexual orientation was presented as genetically determined. The Police Scenarios presented technical legal information and described appropriate police conduct. The final Questions and Answers section took 18% of class time and touched upon a number of issues little participation by students was noted. Thus, the total course content was expected to emerge from three structured activities and primarily from student questions.
No assessment of student comprehension or closure of topics was attempted. The goal for "equal treatment" was stated many times during the training. The goal to increase awareness to gays and lesbians through breaking down stereotypes was indirectly addressed. Lack of planning for specific content weakened the ability to achieve that goal.

Assessment of Instructor(s)/Panel:
Unfortunately, no student evaluations of the instructor or panel members were made available. Also, I was unable to observe the training. The instructor and panel members may have been dynamic and skillful at presenting the information. Indirectly, the low number of student questions suggests that the instructor and panel members lacked the skill to involve students.

Student Reactions to the Sexual Orientation Training:


Conclusions Regarding Sexual Orientation Training:
Although the police agency made strong anti-discrimination statements about sexual orientation, the low number of open gay and lesbian officers indicates there are continuing conflicts within the agency. Predominately, people do not see or hear overt gay bashing and incorrectly assume that sexual orientation is a non-issue. Subtle discriminations continue and are mirrored by the police diversity administrator who voices deficit positions concerning gays and lesbians. These mixed signals influence the academy instruction.
The academy has allocated too little time and has over-sized classes for the sexual orientation training. The program goals are too broad with insufficient guidance for program development. Content is expected to emerge from three activities with only one activity (scenarios) aimed at specific police information. As an individual module, sexual orientation training is not connected to the overall CAT program and is unsupported through the agency. As students complained, "Why do we have to study this stuff, we already know this . . . [and] why gays and lesbian and not African-Americans or other groups?" Finally, it was reported that the panel was better focused than in previous classes, yet very little student interaction took place indicating a lack of skill in motivating students.

Educational Conclusions:
(See Appendix D for visual tabulation of training methodology compared with education theory that includes assessments of training effectiveness.)
Neither the instructor nor panel members were appropriate role-models. None of these people were the kind of people the recruits wanted to become. The gay male city prosecutor was the closest to being a police officer, yet his "very flashy" demeanor and civilian status made him a less than ideal role-model.
The goals for the training were vague and no assessment of student understanding of sexual orientation was attempted. Subsequently, the instructors were unable to prepare information for the students or assist students to higher levels of understanding. Some of the personal stories were relevant and solicited student involvement.
Once a new skill is taught, practice is necessary. The scenario activity would have been the perfect opportunity to practice new skills but students were not adequately prepared due to lack of specific content. At no time was closure attempted for any of the activities or discussions. Finally, students were not held responsible for what they learned, either through application on a test, homework, reflective project, or other individual activity.

.c3.Site #7



I was hired to teach sexual orientation training at one of the basic academies in Southern California. The Dean of the academy encouraged me to experiment with teaching methodologies and course content. As such, I became a participant-observer at this location. The subsequent two sections (Sites #8 and #9) will discuss what was changed since the initial training (Site #7) and present the data that was collected.
Site #7 Police Academy is a basic academy associated with a community college located in the eastern section of Los Angeles County. The academy serves many of the neighboring police agencies. CAT has followed POST mandates and recently included sexual orientation training. The academy Dean is active in developing CAT at the state level and believes that "law enforcement is at the forefront of training because it is mandated, but when it comes to addressing cultural issues, law enforcement is catching up."

Gay and Lesbian Community:
The immediate area surrounding Site #7 Police Academy is a suburban community of Los Angeles. Gays and lesbians are invisible and are only seen at a few cruise spots or through the college student organization. There are no gay or lesbian bars, no AIDS support group or organized political groups. Gays and lesbians often travel to Los Angeles or West Hollywood to participate in gay culture.

Police Subculture:
The academy culture is ascertained from four sources: interviews with the Dean, recruit volunteer and instructor; and classroom observations including student statements. The Dean reported:


A student reported:


As the instructor, I sensed the academy to be very homophobic. The other instructors showed interest in my work and the Dean was very supportive, but no gay or lesbian staff member came forward and identified themselves to me. The recruit class was extremely hostile toward me during training.
When asked what official policies protect gays and lesbian in the workplace, the Dean stated, "the community college is regulated under Title 9, Title 6, Cal law, etc." Also, the Dean reports that there have been no complaints filed in the police academy based upon anti-gay discrimination.
One panic phone call was received from a lesbian student who was concerned about completing the PERQ accurately. She was fearful of being discovered at the academy. Although I tried to convince her that all data was confidential, she indicated that she most likely would not turn in the questionnaire.
Students were asked to write comments on the acceptance of gays and lesbians in the academy. Out of 94 students in class, only 18 replied to this question. Seven respondents believed that homosexuality is not accepted"they are ridiculed until we have to confront them during a situation or incident." Six respondents claimed, "I have never seen/heard about gay bashing except on television." Three students reported that the academy is not homophobic. Finally, a few negative comments were made, including "educate people about the vices of sexual deviants."
In another activity, students were asked to write statements concerning their beliefs and/or feelings about homosexuals or homosexuality. Out of 94 students, 39 students responded. Twenty-seven (70%) students made negative statementsthe second highest level of negative statements of all academies in this research. Of these negative statements, nine (33%) made moral and religious condemnations"In the Bible, in the book of Genesis it states that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Also that because of unnatural relationships they were given in them diseases"; six (22%) made statements about feeling uncomfortable being around gays"Id be afraid to spend time with a fag because he might try and pick me up"; and, five (19%) said that homosexuality is a mental disorder"Homosexuals are sick puppies," and "Homosexuals have had a traumatic incident in early childhood which caused them to gravitate toward members of the same sex." Of the remaining statements, six (15%) were generally positive statements including this humorous perspective by a non-gay student"There is nothing wrong with gay guys. They are usually good looking guys who work out. Since they like each other, they as a result leave us straight single guys more women to choose from," and five (13%) made factual statements about homosexuality"[gays and lesbians are] discriminated against."

Program Goals and Intended Content/Methodology:
Program administrators 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 Dean believed the goal for CAT should be to provide awareness about other cultures. Given the limited time for training and student level, the Dean stated, "Training gives only basic awareness and hopefully self-awareness . . . [and] we are kidding ourselves if we think we can do more." I took a more proactive position, wanting to change beliefs, knowledge, attitudes and values of students away from negative gay stereotypes so as to make their behaviors be more gay positive. Also to illustrate and transmit the skills needed to effectively communicate and work fairly with the gay subculture. I saw my position as a provider of information and facilitator of educational processes. I understood the importance of being a role model for students, and was apologetic for not being an appropriate role model because I do not have a law enforcement background.
The Dean wanted accurate information presented to students, although he unintentionally took a deficit position, stating, "No accurate information [exists] on what causes it." The Dean hoped the information will "help to eliminate myths and convey the message that no matter what our personal feelings and values are, they will treat gays and lesbian equally and learn what legally should be done."
As instructor, I also wanted to provided accurate information with the goal of showing that, homosexuality is normal, natural and very common and that sexual orientation is stigmatized in our culture. This stigmatization accounts for homophobia and heterosexism and facilitate gay-bashing and discrimination. Anti-gay stereotypes affect police performance and puts them at risk for complaints from fellow employees and the community. We need to deconstruct polar gender- and sexual-identities and bring these concepts down to the personal level by showing that many police officers have engaged in homosexual behavior and homosexuality represents a hidden knowledge.

Teaching methodology suggested by the Dean included:


As the instructor for the class, I believed in using many individual and small group activities to assist students toward becoming aware of their personal beliefs, attitudes and feelings. Accurate information on human sexuality gives students the knowledge needed to overcome stereotypes. Presentation of points-of-contact supports appropriate conduct. Together, the newly discovered self-awareness and appropriate police behaviors can be applied to real police situations.

Researchers Acceptance and Data Acquisition:
The Dean of the academy fought for more than a year to allow me to come on staff as the instructor of sexual orientation training. The first two recruit classes were taught identical content with identical methodology (here referred to as Site #7). The PERQ was given to students two or three days before the sexual orientation training and asked to complete it at home. They held onto the survey materials, and after the sexual orientation training were instructed to turn their answer sheet over and take the PERQ a second time. All materials were recovered the next day. Additionally, students were asked to write questions they may have and/or statements about their beliefs and feelings regarding homosexuals and homosexuality. These written materials were collected. Although students were asked to volunteer for interview, only one participated. Course evaluations were provided to me for one class.
I had significant impact on the students because of my status as instructor. Administering the PERQ sensitized students to issues they otherwise may not have considered. Finally, each time the course was taught and assessment materials distributed, one or more students would call me in panic. They were concerned about being identified gay or lesbian if they answered accurately. These students disclosed that the small network of gay and lesbian recruits talked amongst themselves about the fear they had being found out. Although I reassured them that all materials and interviews were confidential, they indicated that many would decline participation.

Observation of Training Program:
Program and Participants: Recruit training lasts 19 weeks. CAT is conducted for the minimum POST requirement of 24-hours, of which 4 hours are devoted to sexual orientation training. Two different classes were taught and observed each with approximately ninety-four (94) uniformed recruits attendedat the ratio of 2 women to 92 men. These classes were approximately half way through with the training program. The academy was very formal with students being marched (run) in and out of the classroom, standing at attention before sitting, and engaged in lineup and calisthenics during breaks. During sexual orientation training, the Dean of the school and occasionally other instructors observed the class.
Setting: The classroom was not air-conditioned which made teaching in 100 degree smoggy summer weather very uncomfortable. Flat tables with two people to a desk were arranged in rows with one isle along one wall. The front of the classroom had a dry marker board, TV, electric roll-down screen, flipcharts and an overhead projector.

Sexual Orientation Training Observation:
(See Table 4.1 for cross-agency comparison and Appendix C for complete documentation.)
During the 5-minute Introduction, I stated the goals of the training and shared some personal background information including my academic credentials, political activism, my long career as a professional ballet dancer and my being fairly effeminate since childhood. Also, a 72-page Sexual Orientation Booklet was distributed. Next, I engaged students in a 30-minute Stereotype Activity using small groups to write gay and lesbian stereotypes on flipchart paper followed by a class-wide discussion. All students were involved, there was much nervous laughter, and most the terms were extremely negative. Following this, I lectured on Homophobia using three transparencies and referred students to three topic papers in the booklet. I discussed the similarities between homophobes and police subculture. Students were surprised at the primary expulsion of lesbians from the military (9 women to every 1 man). Next, students were engaged in the 8-minute Gay "Lifestyle" Activity where heterosexual and homosexual daily life routines were compared to demonstrate that there are no differences between gays and straights (identical to the activity discussed in Site #5). Four students participated in the activity with much of the class laughing at the realization that sex constitutes very little of anyone life. Just before the break, I had student write questions they may have had about homosexuality to be answered later. After a 15-minute break, a 40-minute lecture on scientific information on sexual orientation was given. I attempted to present the Shively and DeCecco gender-sexual-emotional identity theories along with cross-cultural analysis to broaden the essentialist perspective promoted by biological researchers and Kinsey. Fourteen students asked questions, seemed highly agitated and were primarily rejecting of the research. Next, the 20-minute video "Whos Afraid of Project 10" was shown to highlight the tragedy of gay teen suicide. Even still, class discussion resulted in two students stating that counseling for gay and lesbian youths should not be provided by schools. The 15-minute break was used to engage students in a Famous Gays and Lesbians activity, where students work from a list of gays and lesbians and try to discover the name of the famous person that was attached to their backs. Upon return from break, students shared their surprise at who was included in the list. I then lectured for 5-minutes on Hate Crimes using one transparency and referred students to one article and one topic paper in the booklet. Next, I lectured for 10-minutes on Homophobia within Police Agencies referring students to three topic papers in the booklet. The fear of being discovered to be gay was personalized through a verbal round-robin reading by students of the poem, "I Fear." Twenty-eight students were involved in the poem reading and six questions were fielded about the status of the Mitch Grobesons suit and the issue of outing. This flowed directly into a 15-minute lecture of Points-of-Contact. This lecture was supported by three topic papers and community resource list. Using Points-of-Contact as a lead-in, a 15-minute small group activity and instructor-led discussion was conducted on Appropriate Police Behavior. Twenty-four students participated in the discussion, mostly taking the politically correct position to each scenario. Finally, a 15-minute Questions and Answers session was conducted using the questions submitted earlier as the initial base. Many students hands went up for more questions, but time ran out for the 3 hours and 34 minute class.

Analysis of Observed Methodology and Content:
Lecture was the primary instructional methodology and was used 43% of the time. Lecture was used to transmit content on homophobia, basic information on sexual orientation, teen suicide and hate crime specifics. Instructor-led discussion or activities were the next favored instruction methodology. It was used 33% of the time and included the Stereotype Activity, Gay Lifestyle Activity, Homophobia within Police Agencies, and Questions and Answers activity. Individual or small group methods were used 16% of the time for conveying information on famous gays and lesbians and appropriate police behavior. Lecture with some questions and answers was used only for police points-of-contact.
The delivered content followed closely the curriculum written by the instructor for the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Police Advisory Task Force. The content was highly structured and overwhelming considering the 86 pages of materials given each student. Sexual orientation was not presented from an essentialist perspective, rather one that includes both genetic and environmental explanations and attempted to deconstruct students polar concepts of gender- and sexual-identities. Appropriate police behaviors during point-of-contact followed the recommendations of the curriculum. The content closely matched the goals stated by the curriculum.

Assessment of Instructor(s)/Panel:
I was not well received and students displayed a polar attitude about the course. From a class of 94 students, 43 completed evaluation forms and stated: the instructor was defensive and had a negative attitude (9 students, 21%); the instructor was knowledgeable and very informative (7 students, 16%); instructor was biased and tried to impose his values (6 students, 14%); the instructor was pleasant and good but needed more time (5 students, 12%); and, the instructor rushed through materials (4 students, 9%). As one student wrote, "[instructor] was outnumbered and left too open for criticism . . . Overall good info for cadets to know because our class showed a lot of ignorance and fear toward something they did not know and understand." In contrast, other students wrote, "If the instructor was more open and not defensive and did not rush through everything, maybe the class would of learned a lot more" and "he brought materials that was written by gay men and said that that was correct. Why didnt he bring books by straight men, the kind that all of us thought would be correct."
During the training, there were times when students were frustrated by the rush of materials and my having to cut off questions and debate in order to proceed to the next topic. Of particular interest, after the video on teen suicide that featured the open lesbian teacher, Virginia Uribe, issues of open gay teachers in the classroom came up. One student stood up and said that he would remove his child from a class where the teacher was openly gay or lesbian. I said to the student, "Look me in the eyes and tell me that I am not your equal." The student hesitated and said that was not what he meant, "Just that I dont want my child to grow up thinking it is OK." I repeated the demand emphasizing that, "What you have just said implies that I am not your equal, and I dont accept that." Other altercations such as this occurred during class and is probably the source of the belief that I was defensive.
The Dean commented, "the problem with the instructor is he is advocating a cause and it builds resistance. There is a difference between conveying information or advocating a cause. The class should emphasize awareness, facts and feeling. This is difficult because there really are no known facts about homosexuality."

Student Reactions to the Sexual Orientation Training:


Conclusions Regarding Sexual Orientation Training:
The academy had taken a proactive approach to sexual orientation training, devoting 1/6th of its CAT to this issue. No other subgroup, e.g., African-Americans, was given as much time or emphasis. The academy Dean encouraged me to experiment with teaching methodology and content and to photocopy full books of information for distributing to students for future reference. Furthermore, the Dean led a protracted political fight to obtain my services as sexual orientation instructor against the conservative elements at the academy. Yet the many deficit position comments about gays and lesbians made by the Dean, along with the absence of open gay and/or lesbian staff members or students suggests the academy environment is decidedly homophobic. I found the students at this academy held some of the strongest negative beliefs and feelings about homosexuals and homosexuality encountered in the entire research project. This is also the only academy from which panicked students called me to discuss survey confidentiality. It is within the context of this homophobic atmosphere that sexual orientation training was conducted.

Educational Conclusions:
(See Appendix D for visual tabulation of training methodology compared with education theory that includes assessments of training effectiveness.)
Although the training followed a very successful curriculum and training process that is well received at other agencies and academies, it became clear that I (the instructor) was not an appropriate role model for the students. Students respond best to instructors who are the kinds of persons they aspire to emulate. In police recruit training on sexual orientation, the best role-model would be an open gay or lesbian active officer of many years experience and who is well respected for his/her professionalism, conforms to gender stereotypes, and is well liked for his/her personality. I am not from a law enforcement background, was viewed as an intellectual and outsider due to my academic affiliations and degrees, was somewhat gender non-conforming because of my many years as a ballet dancer, and my political activism painted me to be antagonistic to police.
Instead of assessing what students knew and building upon that knowledge, I started with the topic of controlling sub-populations based on stereotypes. Using that awareness, academic content on human sexuality was delivered along with the consequences of stigmatization. This process prepared students for the delivered content, but because it was not personalized through some other process, it made the relevancy of the material unclear. Once appropriate behavior was discussed through points-of-contact lecture and activity, students were given the chance to practice their new found knowledge. This was effective. The ending questions and answer activity provided indirect closure on the training, but this could have been better formalized. Students were not held responsible for participating in the training or for demonstrating that they learned the intended content. Although I knew the 85-pages of handout materials was impossible to cover, I was encouraged by the Dean to distribute them since homosexuality is "hidden" and students could review them at home.

.c3.Site #8



This class was very similar to Site #7, but with changes reflecting the input from the previous class and in recognition that most of these students were police administrators. The changes included:

Unfortunately, no students from this class volunteered to be interviewed for the research. However, students were asked to write statements about their feelings and beliefs on homosexuals and homosexuality. Thirty-five (35) of the 38 students responded. Fourteen (41%) respondents made negative statements about gays and lesbians, particularly religious and moral condemnations such as, "This is why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Your gay agenda is strictly a sex issue." They also believed that gays and lesbians should "stay in the closet" and are confused about their gender. Eleven (32%) respondents made positive statements about gays and lesbians and felt they should have equal rights. One student said, "When I was younger I thought all homosexuals should be shot. But as I get older I learn more. I now know they are people just like I am. To each its own." Finally, nine (27%) respondents simply made a factual statement about gays and lesbians.
Although 41% of responses were negative, this is the lowest number obtained from any of the agencies or academies participating in this activity. I conclude that the initial level of homophobia in this group was lower than other groups at this academy.

Observation of Training Program:
Program and Participants: This was an advanced-officer training program of thirty-eight (38) uniformed officers and administrators including 9 women and 29 men. All students came from a particular local agency which contracted with this academy to fulfill the POST requirement for CAT. The class structure was extremely casual.

Sexual Orientation Training Observation:
(See Table 4.1 for cross-agency comparison and Appendix C for complete documentation.)
This 3 hours and 31 minutes training used many of the elements used in Site #7 and will not be fully described here. A 72-page booklet was distributed to all students and was referred to during the training besides the use of overhead transparencies. The training included a 5-minute Introduction, 35-minute Stereotype Activity, 12-minute Homophobia lecture, and a 2-minute Gay "Lifestyle" Activity. Student participation was similar to Site #7. A new element was the inclusion of a 10-minute Self-Awareness Activity based on a Forced-Choice value clarification technique. By requiring students to prioritize scenarios that contained a homosexual situation, they became aware of their values and feelings. All students were observed to be engaged in this activity and were particularly disturbed by two of the scenarios: (1) discovering their teenage son engaging in homosexual behavior, and (2) a male police officer leaves his wife after discovering that he is gay. Again, just before the break students were directed to write questions for later discussion. After break, 31 minutes of the hour video"Growing Up Gay," were used to vividly demonstrate the difficulties faced by gay people growing up in a heterosexist society. Key concepts from the video were written onto the chalk board and used to flow directly into a 32-minute lecture on Basic Information on Sexual Orientation. Twenty-five students asked questions and primarily made negative comments challenging the research as being biased and that the material was covered too fast. The Famous Gays and Lesbians activity was conducted during the 15-minute break with much student participation. After the break, Hate Crimes was presented for 5 minutes. Small group activities were used to process the 30-minute Harassment of Gay and Lesbian Officers activity. Here students were asked to work in groups of four to discuss and find solutions to specific police scenarios that involved gays and lesbians. All students were engaged and the consensus was that strong administrative directives could solve most of the problems. Having gotten students to think about their behavior on the job, 30 minutes were then devoted to a lecture on Points-of-Contacts. To close the training, I asked students to take home and complete an assignment that was due the next day. This assignment placed students in the position of being responsible for the sexual orientation training program at their agency and asked them what they would do to improve the environment for gays and lesbians.

Analysis of Observed Methodology and Content:
More time was spent on self-awareness, the stigmatization of gays and lesbians, and Points-of-Contact than at Site #7. Less time was spent on specific sexual orientation content and questions and answers. New to this training, were scenarios applicable for police administrators. The amount of time allocated for pure lecture was slightly reduced and more individual or small group activities were engaged.

Assessment of Instructor(s)/Panel:
Unfortunately, student evaluations were not available from the class. In review of student responses to the question of what stood out in their mind, twice as many respondents (7%) thought the instructor was, "very positive," "induced good group participation and thought," and "so open and felt good discussing situations with us." A minority of respondents (2%) felt the instructor "was trying to get us to give our approval" and "the openness of the instructor seemed to shock some students . . . [and] was a bit too graphic for my likes." These were significantly different student comments than Site #7 where on the same question 13% of students expressed disapproval of the instructor and no student gave a positive rating to the instructor.

Student Reactions to the Sexual Orientation Training:


Conclusions Regarding Sexual Orientation Training:
Although the academy was the same, this particular group of students were distinctively less homophobic than the recruit classes. That is not to say this class or the agency they come from was not homophobic. Approximately half the respondents made anti-gay comments somewhere in their writings.
The goals for the training shifted away from academic research on sexual orientation and more toward self-awareness and specific application for police administrators. These were achieved through more use of individual and small group activities and less lecture. Finally, I seemed better received than by the recruits even though the same personal presentation was made.

Educational Conclusions:
(See Appendix D for visual tabulation of training methodology compared with education theory that includes assessments of training effectiveness.)
Although I was not the appropriate role-model for this class of police administrators, I seemed to be better received or tolerated. This may reflect the less homophobic beliefs displayed by the class in general and/or that academics may have more in common with police administrators.
The use of a self-awareness activity in conjunction with the stereotype activity provided a greater understanding about the mechanisms of stigmatization. The video, "Growing Up Gay" greatly summarized the need to lecture on sexual orientation, but the speaker in the video is again not the appropriate role-model for these students. From their new understanding about homosexuality and stigmatization, students were allowed to explore police administrative scenarios that contained a gay and lesbian concern. Finally, a review of point-of-contact helped to bring closure to the training.
The homework assignment attempted to allow students to reflect upon course content and put them in a real situation where they would need to apply their new knowledge. However, this assignment caused much commotion. The Dean of the academy revealed to the instructor that the contracting agency complained about the assignment because it violated labor laws to require employees to do work during their off-duty time. Also, unspecified complaints about the content and purpose of the assignment were made to the agency who then complained to the Dean of the academy.

.c3.Site #9



This class was an evolution of Site #7 and Site #8 with changes based on input from the previous three classes. These changes include:


Police Subculture:
No students volunteered to participate for the interview portion of the research. However, I received a number of panic phone calls from gay and lesbian recruits concerned over the confidentiality of the survey. These students indicated that the gays and lesbian recruits whom they knew would not participate in any parts of the research.
I asked the Dean if there were any gay or lesbian staff members at the academy and if he would approach them about participating in the training. The Dean contacted one of the lesbian instructors who contacted me. She was hesitant at first to participate as she was open only to a handful of people. After discussion and sharing instructional materials with her, she consented to participate in the sexual orientation training. However, she was not available due to scheduling conflicts.
Students were asked to write statements about their feelings and beliefs about homosexuals and homosexuality. Of the 65 students, 62 responded to this activity. Thirty-seven (60%) respondents felt that homosexuality is morally wrong, a mental disorder and that they should stay hidden. For example, one student wrote, "Gays are wrong and have a sick mind in being able to release their sexual frustration in a unnatural sex act." Another student wrote, "Whats the point of people saying youre gay, what do you people have to prove to us. You dont hear heterosexuals telling people that they are heterosexual." Thirteen (21%) respondents made positive statements about gays and lesbians and their right to equal treatment. Finally, twelve (19%) respondents simply made factual statements.
Students were also asked directly about the academy culture. Forty-one (41) students out of the class of 65 responded. Eighteen respondents (44%) held negative beliefs about gays and lesbians. Ten of these negative statements were moral and religious condemnations of homosexuality. One student reported, "Awful!!! The most homophobic people Ive known. The jokes and comments are so bad, I cant say what to do to stop it." Another student wrote, "Law enforcement in general is a homophobic profession. We joke among ourselves, in a sense "prove" our masculinity, and will continue to do so. I would love to be able to say "it stops here," but I wont be that naive." Another student wrote, "The police academy ridicules homosexuality in part because of the lack of understanding and being afraid of being thought of being homosexual." Ten (24%) respondents claimed to have not seen any discrimination against gays and lesbians. Education was suggested by five (13%) respondents as a means of improving the situation. And another five (13%) respondents claimed that the academy was not homophobic. Interestingly, three (7%) respondents believed that, "The prejudice imposed on gays are[sic] greatly exaggerated."

Observation of Training Program:
Program and Participants: This recruit class was similar to the previous recruit classes except that it was smaller, with sixty-five (65) uniformed recruits including 3 women and 62 men.

Sexual Orientation Training Observation:
(See Table 4.1 for cross-agency comparison and Appendix C for complete documentation.)
Much of the 3 hours and 43 minutes of training is similar to the training described in Site #7 & #8, and will not be repeated here. After the 10-minute Introduction in which I restricted my presentation to reduce objectionable characteristics, the 23-minute video "Gay Cops" from 60-Minutes with Mike Wallace was shown. This led directly to the 30-minute Harassment of Gay and Lesbian Police Officers activity. All students were actively involved and their comments suggested that their responses to conflict would be situationally based. After a 10 -minute break, student were asked to write questions on cards they had about homosexuality for answering at a later time. A Stereotype Activity was conducted for 30 minutes that was a variation on what had been used at Sites #7 & #8 and attempted to control student responses such that negative statements would be kept to a minimum. As usual, students had a fun time with this activity. I then lectured on Sexual Orientation Basics for 15 minutes, using the student comments made earlier as a guide for selecting which information to present. Five students challenged the research as being biased and self-identified Christian fundamentalists made their counter-points. Again, each activity and/or lecture was supported by a 62-page booklet and overhead transparencies. During the 15-minute break, students were engaged in the Famous Gays and Lesbians activity. After the break, I lectured for 60 minutes on Points-of-Contact. Twelve students made comments clarifying points of law. Students then were asked to share their Personal Contact they may have had with gays and lesbians. Six students shared having worked with gays and lesbians and one student share an experience of being "hit" upon by someone of their same sex. The question cards collected earlier were brought out and a few were selected for comment during the 15-minute Questions and Answers activity. Finally, I attempted closure during the last 5-minutes of trainingtrying to tie the content of the training back to the training goals. Also, I shared with the class that it had been brought to my attention that often a witch hunt for gays and lesbians ensues after I conduct a sexual orientation training. I told the students that such a witch hunt would not be tolerated and that it was their responsibility to intervene and stop gay-bashing.

Analysis of Observed Methodology and Content:
Individual or small group activities were the primary instructional methodology constituting 29% of class time. These activities were used to allow students to explore personal views on police scenarios that contained gay and lesbian elements. Lecture with some questions and answers was the second most used instructional methodology. This was used 27% of the time and used to explore point-of-contact discussion. The use of video and formal lecture were used 24% of the time. This methodology showed the gay cop video and presented basic information on sexual orientation. Finally, instructor-led discussion was used 20% of the time to help students understand the process of stigmatization and closure through questions and answers.
The academic research on sexual orientation was severely reduced but did not oversimplify into an essentialist perspective. Much more time was allocated to presenting personal gay and lesbian police experiences and exploring the impact homophobia has on police working conditions. Students were not held responsible for learning the content as assessed through testing, homework assignment or other means. Closure on topics was sporadically attempted.

Assessment of Instructor(s)/Panel:
Although no students volunteered to be interviewed from this class and the student evaluations were unavailable, only one respondent mentioned on the survey of improvements for the class that he/she thought I was biased. In contrast, a few students mentioned that they thought I was good. One student stated, "[I] could use some help while he is teaching. Its kind of ruff [sic] standing in front of 50 or so homophobic cadets." This is a major change over the instructor evaluations at Sites #7 and #8.

Student Reactions to the Sexual Orientation Training:


Conclusions Regarding Sexual Orientation Training:
This group of recruits seemed equally anti-gay as had the previous two recruit classes (Site #7) when comparing their written comments about personal beliefs and agency culture; however, their classroom behavior was not as aggressive toward the instructor. This class went much more smoothly. When students made suggestions to improve the training, the previous two classes made many negative statements about me and "bias" materials, while this class praised me.
The goals for the training further shifted away from academic research on sexual orientation and brought in police personal experiences and more time to gain self-awareness. More time was spent on individual and small group activities. These provided the foundation for practicing appropriate police behaviors in situations that involved gays and lesbians.

Educational Conclusions:
(See Appendix D for visual tabulation of training methodology compared with education theory that includes assessments of training effectiveness.)
By modifying my personal information, I was viewed less antagonistically. Although I am still not the ideal role model for this training, I attempted to compensate by bringing in open gay and lesbian officers to assist with the class. Unfortunately, none were available and thus the gay cop video was used to fill this gap. The course structure attempted to start with the harassment of gay cops as a lead-in to self-discovery about ones beliefs and feelings surrounding gays and lesbians at work. The Stereotype Activity and Basic Information on Sexual Orientation built upon the self-awareness to assist students to a new level of understanding about the mechanism of stigmatization. The Points-of-Contact lecture and activity demonstrated appropriate police behaviors as the relevant consequence of the new knowledge. The personal contact activity was not at the right position in the educational sequence and should have been used earlier to personalize the discussion of gay cops. Closure was attempted and students were not required to demonstrate that they learned the intended content.

.c3.Participants Suggestions for Assessing the Effectiveness of Sexual Orientation Training
Sexual orientation training is only minimally assessed by academies and the state commission overseeing the police academies (POST). One of the questions asked during interviews with students, instructors, program administrators and community members was for their suggestions for assessment strategies to determine training "effectiveness." A wide-range of suggestions were made reflecting the difficulty in performing such assessment and the confusion arising from differences in program goals. For example, the academy director at Site #4 believed that their sexual orientation training met state CAT requirements and that it sensitized officers, but whether officers were prepared to "deal in a protected/professional manner with all the problems they may encounter in dealing with gays and lesbian culturewe have a lot of work to do." For lack of better ideas, this director suggested the use of "so-called experts" to assess the effectiveness of their training program.
Job Performance: Many interviewees took a macro-perspective of training goals and suggested assessing the effectiveness of sexual orientation training through the use of beat officer performance reviews in gay and lesbian communities, feedback at community meetings, interviews of closeted gay cops, etc. All of these suggestions were related to how officers perform on the job. A gay male city prosecutor believed that job performance is imperative since, "assessing in class does not get accurate information . . . [it is more important to know if] they use the information in the field."
Longitudinal Study: Similar to the job performance macro-perspective, most training sites suggested a longitudinal study of students, administrators and the community. As one 23-year veteran male instructor stated,


Formal Assessment Strategies: Many respondents believed that some form of formal testing could help assess the effectiveness of sexual orientation training. Often this suggestion was combined with suggestions for assigning homework and student interviews to get "feed-back" on the training. All training sites had students complete some short evaluation form and/or completing the state required multiple-choice evaluation form at the end of the entire cultural awareness training program. Informally known as "evals," a conflict over their appropriateness emerged from the interviews. For example, at Site #5, some respondents favored the current evaluation forms because "they are honest because they are anonymous." Consequently this trainer believed the training was effective because "the evals are very positive. I dont recall a negative assessment," and "the gay and lesbian training shines above the others, even though we are the most controversial." However, the person who has conducted the most training at Site #5 revealed that there have been many negative evaluations with some recruits stating that "they believed the training is bogus and that more time should be spent on tactics." Thus, a conflict seems to exist between instructors perceptions at the same site over the accuracy and appropriateness of formal assessment. Similarly, Site #6 instructors acknowledged that "evals" are not considered accurate because "many people fill them out haphazardly." Overall, most respondents mentioned wanting to create some kind of test that could be used at the end of the training or in a pre-/post-test analysis.

.c3.Program Suggestions Made by Interviewees
Interviewees were asked for their suggestions toward improving sexual orientation training. Although many of the comments were directed at their own programs, there were general comments applicable to all.
Methods: A program consultant at Site #1 best summed up the comments made by most respondents. She suggested that a "multitude of teaching/learning approaches that are meaningful and credible to police [should be used] and recognize the fact that everyone learns differently." To that end, the academy director at Site #4 suggested more problem solving exercises that emphasized actual behaviors more than "just sensitizing them to cultural difference." Other respondents wanted more video tape presentations where officers shared their work related experiences. Role-playing activities and situational simulations were suggested by many respondents, yet one gay officer at Site #6 refined that position and suggested that "small groups and collectively attaining closure" would be important. Similarly, the academy director at Site #7 wanted more time allocated for interactives allowing students to discover their own positions, and more time for police scenarios. In terms of the instructional style, the Dean at Site #7 believed his academys sexual orientation training is the "most definitive . . most formalized . . . [and] most extensive," but that the instructor needs to take a more "even-handed approach," and try not to "convert" students since there "is very little [accurate] research" on homosexuality.
Time Allotment: Without exception, the sites that conducted approximately two hours of sexual orientation training felt that the time allocation was far too short. For example, instructors of Site #2 stated, "Two hours is inappropriate because not everyone can be engaged. The minimum is 4 hours." Those sites conducting approximately 4 hours of training on sexual orientation believed this to be sufficient time. One instructor at Site #5 related, "I can pretty much cover it all in 3 1/2 hours and I start to run out of things to say."
Class Size: At the training sites with class size approaching 100 students, instructors reported that "much smaller classes are neededat least in half or one-third." Even at the training sites with smaller classes, many instructors desired "limiting class size to 20," and as one academy dean believed, "smaller classes help to facilitate question and answer activities and problem solving exercises."
Materials: Many respondents mentioned that they wished they had more information and literature with handouts. Half of the interviewees further stated that they would like short videos demonstrating "appropriate" police conduct during points-of-contact with the gay and lesbian community. Only at Site #7, where a 75-page booklet was distributed to students, did the instructor and program administrator suggest a reduction in handout materials.
Trainers/Instructors: An openly gay sergeant at Site #5 expressed his belief about who makes the ideal instructor,

Most of the interviewees felt that the instructors must be gay or lesbian and preferably active police officers. At the sites where only one instructor was used, respondents often suggested having more than one instructor and persons of different genders, race, and ethnicity representing "greater diversity other than just one white male."
Other suggestions: A number of respondents suggested a simple solution to improving the status for gays and lesbians in the police agencymore open gay and lesbian officers. Three sites suggested having students engage in service with gay and lesbian organizations. A common suggestion was to expand training to all personnel, not just recruits. A non-police gay male instructor took a more radical position regarding improvements of conditions for gay and lesbian officers:


One area that is often overlooked is the issue of holding students responsible for learning the materials. Currently, no testing is conducted on sexual orientation content. A 27-year police veteran commented, "In all the CAT, is there any testing? People say you cant test, yet we should be tested. It does not have to be minority specific, but how they are discriminated against." Thus, testing on sexual orientation was suggested. The CAT program consultant at Site #6 took an organizational approach and suggested that "diversity must become an organizational value and training is only one component. Diversity needs to be treated as more than just a program, but it must show up in performance evaluations, and day-to-day operation decisions." Finally, a few individuals suggested more time to prepare lessons, more technology to make it more fun, a train-the-trainers program, having cops walking beats in the gay and lesbian community, training the entire city personnel, money for materials, money to pay for professional instructors, a professional staff member for sexual orientation training, and taking students to the community.

.c3.What Forces Contribute Most to the Acceptance of Gays and Lesbians?
During interview, subjects were asked to identify and prioritize the factors contributing to a gay supportive work environment. Four major factors were identifiedsexual orientation training, administration support, open gay and lesbian officers, and community pressure. Respondents were almost unanimous in stating that community pressure was the least effective and only caused "resentment." However, one community activists countered, "Without pressure from the gay and lesbian community, none of this would have ever happened. It may be distasteful, but it opens doors and changes policies." Respondents were equally split over sexual orientation training, administration support and having open gay and lesbian officers as being the more important. Some respondents severely resisted prioritizing the factors and emphasized that all must act concurrently in order to affect a gay supportive work environment. As the program director at Site #7 stated, "each must occur concurrently and that it is personal experiences" that have the greatest impact.

.c3."Appropriate" Police Behaviors in Gay and Lesbian Scenarios
One goal of this research was to reach a consensus on "appropriate" police behavior in gay and lesbian situations. Three scenarios were paraphrased from the behavioral assessment instrument designed for this research (describe in Chapter 3) and presented to interviewees for their suggestions. The three scenarios represent the most common interactions police personnel experience while on the job that involve gays and lesbians.

Gay and lesbian police officers gave fairly similar responses. One lesbian officer/instructor at Site #1 summed it best when she said, "the officer should keep the information confidential, feel pride that he/she trusted them enough to share the deeply personal information, to accept graciously, and encourage the gay/lesbian officer to come out to other personnel." A gay male officer at Site #5 emphasized that the officer should feel "flattered" that the person shared the information. The two heterosexual instructors at Site #2 felt that the partner should recognize that coming out is a sign of trust, and similarly suggested that the officer respond with a statement such as, "Thats interesting and I feel honored that you shared with me and Ill keep the confidence." They further suggested that the officer ask many questions to demonstrate his/her genuine interest. In contrast, most heterosexual officers and administrators responded differently. For example, the heterosexual officers at Site #6 uniformly responded with "So!" and the male heterosexual diversity administrator added, "Keep it confidential because it is not an illegal act." The Dean at Site #7 likewise suggested that the officer "not do anything" and that "it changes nothing." Finally, community members at Site #6 expressed a desire for much more compassion and showing interest besides just keeping it confidential. One of the more unique answers to this question was from the CAT program consultant at Site #6. She believed that since the scenario stated the officers had been partners for a long time, then the receiving officer should "apologize for not creating an environment that was safe for them to share."


Most all respondents agreed that the women should first be separated, clamed, interviewed without bias, determine if a crime was committed, and make the appropriate arrest or referral. The heterosexual instructor at Site #2 who is a doctoral candidate in educational psychology, suggested that the women be separated and seated since this will help them change their behavior, and have them write with pencil on paper so as to help them "refocus and to go from emotional state to cognitive state." Many of the respondents felt it was important to establish the relationship between the women. For example, one administrator at Site #4 felt it was necessary to "find out if they are a couple for our safety because they are more likely to lash out at us if they are a couple." Similarly, the gay male city prosecutor at Site #6 wanted officers to remember, "Caution, they will kill me as easily as in a heterosexual situation . . . we are not social workers, if something goes wrong, we become liable." It was the lesbian respondents who emphasized that the relationship between the women should not be assumed and that the investigating officers need to ask the status of the relationship. Furthermore, one lesbian officer at Site #5 said that if they suspected the women were lesbian lovers and unwilling to open up about their relationship, she "would open up to them to make them feel at ease."

This scenario revealed much confusion about proper police procedures when dealing with a potential hate crime. Most respondents felt that medical assistance needed to be called first and that the victims needed to be handled with sensitivity. However, deciding whether to inquire about the victims sexual orientation or the legal process involved in reporting a hate crime confused many police personnel. For example, the administrators at Site #4 and instructors at Site #2 believed that officers should ask the men if any negative statements were made. If the men were suspected of being gay, the investigating officers should continue pressing them about what words were said, and if need be, ask the men if they were gay explaining the need to file a potential hate crime report. Similarly, about half of the gay and lesbian instructors of Site #5 and Site #1 wanted to ask if the victims were gay or if they knew they were in a gay cruise spot. However, the other half of the gay and lesbian instructors and officers felt that it was not necessary to ask the victims sexual orientation directly and instead "engineer this so they dont have to come out." Similarly, many respondents would ask the victims if they thought the attack was motivated by hate while other respondents said they would only ask if derogatory words were used during the attack since it is the responsibility of the police officer to file the hate crime report. Finally, most of the respondents would "assure them [victims] that the issue would be taken seriously." The gay male city prosecutor of Site #6 wanted the officers to "not blame the victim . . . [and not say] what the fuck are you doing down here."
.c2.Section 2 Instrumental Empirical Research
Instrumental empirical testing was used as an attempt to quantify changes in student attitudes, feelings, knowledge, identities and behaviors on sexual orientation resulting from cultural awareness training (CAT) focusing on sexual orientation information. Likewise, instrumental empirical testing of instructors, program administrators and community members was conducted to quantify the level of homophobia surrounding the training. Appendix E presents comprehensive tables of statistical data for each of the training sites. This section will discuss the major trends observed in the instrumental empirical data.
The empirical testing instrument is described in detail in Chapter 3. Succinctly, the Police Empirical Research Questionnaire (PERQ) was a one-hundred question survey comprised of 6 different sections. Part 1 used the Modified Attitude Towards Homosexuality (MATH) (Price, 1982; MacDonald, Jr., et al., 1973) to assess student attitudes and beliefs toward homosexuality. Part 2 used the Index of Homophobia (IHP) (Hudson & Rickets, 1980) to assess student feelings toward homosexuals and homosexuality. Part 3 used the Homosexuality Knowledge Index (HKI) (Sears, 1991) to assess student knowledge about homosexuality. Part 4 was newly created for this research and used the Shively and De Cecco theories on gender-sexual-emotional identity to assess student understanding about changes in these identities (identified as Gender Identity, Sexual Identity, Emotional Identity, Stewart 1994). Part 5 used the 4-Item F Scale (Lane, 1955) to assess student beliefs on authoritarianism. Part 6, was created for this research to assess student behavioral response to police situations where homosexuality had a component (Police Behavioral Scenarios on Homosexuality, Stewart 1994). Scoring of these tests indicated that homophobic responses gave a low score and gay-affirming responses yielded a high score. These scores were normalized on a hundred point scale with 0 being completely homophobic and 100 being totally gay-affirming.
Part 4 of the PERQ caused much controversy (see discussion earlier in this chapter). Some agencies thought that asking questions about current and future gender-sexual-emotional identities was too personal. The intent of the questionnaire was to see if students shifted away from an exclusively heterosexual or exclusively homosexual identity, and toward a more complex identity as they received information about the social construction of sexuality. But because of the continuing controversy, only the question about current sexual orientation was kept and used to differentiate responses between heterosexual and homosexual respondents. Also, data collected from the 4-Item F Scale was ultimately deemed not necessary for this study and was discarded.

There are many caveats concerning the research data:


Students Attending Sexual Orientation Training Responses
Table 4.2 presents the median pre-/post-test scores for heterosexual students who attended sexual orientation training. The only test that reported statistically significant changes in pre-/post-scores was Part 2Feelings about Homosexuals (IHP). Site #1 and Site #9 saw student feelings toward gays and lesbians become more positive after training, whereas two other sitesSite #2 and Site #6reported student feelings becoming more negative after training. Are there educational commonalties to explain these trends? Site #1 training used a video and panel made up of gay and lesbian police personnel from the agency. Site #9 training was a highly structured workshop with many individual and group activities taught by a gay academic/activist. Site #2 training was a teacher-led inquiry into student feelings and taught by a heterosexual police educator with clear religious overtones. Site #6 training consisted primarily of a panel of civilian gays and lesbians with some direct instruction on appropriate police behaviors. Thus, the reasons associated with the measured changes in feelings toward gays and lesbians seemed unclear and possibly not related to educational methodology.
In Appendix E, estimates based on qualitative and empirical evidence are made about the levels of homophobia expressed at each training site. The term "homophobia" is used broadly and incorporates more than just the fear of being in close proximity to homosexuals, but is used to incorporate all anti-gay sentiments, beliefs and behaviors. Site #4 was estimated to have the lowest levels of homophobia, followed by Site #1. The remaining five sitesSite #2, Site #3, Site #6, Site #7, and Site #9seemed similar in their high levels of homophobia. Heterosexual students from the academy with the least homophobic environments (Site #4) also scored much higher (less homophobic) on virtually all tests. Heterosexual students from the agency with the second least homophobic environment (Site #1) scored approximately second highest (less homophobic) on most tests. Students at the five academies with the highest levels of homophobia (Site #2, Site #3, Site #6, Site #7, and Site #9) scored similar low scores (high homophobia). Although formal correlation analysis was not conducted between agencies, it appears that heterosexual students in gay friendly environments reflect those values by scoring lower levels of homophobia (high scores). Conversely, heterosexual students in anti-gay environments, scored much higher levels of homophobia (low score).

.c4.Table 4.2


Pre- and Post-Test Mean PERQ Scores of


Heterosexual Students Attending Sexual Orientation Training





student type


class count


# respondents

Site #1


service


17


13

Site #2


recruits


43


34

Site #3


recruits


39


28

Site #4


recruits


30


6

Site #5


recruits


45

Site #6


recruits


105


3

Site #7


recruits


94


28

Site #9


recruits


65


55

Part 1
Attitudes

65.9/


68.7

56.4/


52.8

51.2/


52.6

78.0

67.3/


72.3

56.3/


54.9

58.7/


56.6

Part 2
Feelings

51.2/


57.6*

1

42.4/


37.2*

2

36.7/


35.9

60.6

58.8/


56.7*

3

37.2


35.7

41.6/


43.9*

4

Part 3
Knowledge

63.5/


67.8

66.5/


61.2

67.2/


67.9

79.2

75.0/


77.1

67.4/


65.4

65.0/


63.1

Part 6
Scenarios

78.7/


78.1

75.1/


75.1

78.0/


77.5

76.9

84.6/


79.5

76.9/


80.2

74.0/


71.2

Notes: The first number is the pre-test score and the second number is the post-test score with a slash separating them. Scoring is on the scale; 0 = gay-negative, and 100 = gay-positive. Site #8 did not participate in any instrumental empirical testing. Site #4 students took the PERQ only once, whereas the other sites completed both pre- and post-tests. Site #5 students were not allowed to take the PERQ.
*The differences between pre- and post-test scores were not statistically significant except those marked with an asterisk. (1) Feelings became more positive after training, with Pooled x=6.44, sd=5.95, t=3.91, df=12, 2-tail sig=.002. (2) Feelings became more negative after training, with Pooled x=-5.15, sd=11.23, t=-2.67, df=33, 2-tail sig=.012. (3) Caution, only 3 respondents in this pool. Feelings became more negative after training, with Pooled x=-2.08, sd=.72, t=-5.00, df=2, 2-tail sig=.038. (4) Feelings became more positive after training, with Pooled x=2.26, sd=8.34, t=2.01, df=54, 2-tail sig=.049.

In reviewing the raw data, it was immediately evident that gay and lesbian people had significantly different scores on the various tests. These few respondents scores were removed from the class total and are tabulated in Table 4.3. These are very few responses and the reader is cautioned about making generalizations about homosexuals as a group. What is noticed is that the scores for homosexual students attending sexual orientation training were much less homophobic than the average scores for heterosexual students. Also, the environment in which training took place seems to influence homosexual student responses. In gay-affirming environments (Site #4), gay and lesbian students exhibit less homophobia than when in gay-negative environments (Site #9).

.c4.Table 4.3


Pre- and Post-Test PERQ Scores of


Homosexual Students Attending Sexual Orientation Training





student type


class count


# respondents

Site #1


service


17


1

Site #2


recruits


43

Site #3


recruits


39

Site #4


recruits


30


1

Site #5


recruits


45

Site #6


recruits


105

Site #7


recruits


94

Site #9


recruits


65


2


(mean)

Part 1
Attitudes

86.6/


89.3

92.0

64.3/


61.6

Part 2
Feelings

90.0/


83.8

93.8

48.8/


48.8

Part 3
Knowledge

75.0/


93.8

81.3

71.9/


71.9

Part 6
Scenarios

84.6/


84.6

69.2

92.3/


88.4

Notes: The first number is the pre-test score and the second number is the post-test score with a slash separating them. Scoring is on the scale; 0 = gay-negative, and 100 = gay-positive. Site #8 did not participate in any instrumental empirical testing. Site #4 students took the PERQ only once, whereas the other sites completed both pre- and post-tests. Site #5 students were not allowed to take the PERQ.

Responses by Police Personnel and Community Member Not Attending Sexual Orientation Training
Training does not occur within a vacuum. The community of persons surrounding the training has a direct impact on the acceptance of the training and its overall effectiveness. Besides interviewing police personnel and gay and lesbian community members, all were asked to participate in instrumental empirical research by completing the PERQ. Approximately half of those given the PERQ returned completed forms. Again, the raw data suggested that the responses by heterosexuals were different than the responses by homosexuals. Thus, the data was divided according to those two sexual orientations.
Table 4.4 presents the PERQ scores of heterosexual police officers (primarily program administrators). Results are mixed with police administrators possibly being less homophobic than their recruit classes. Interestingly, the heterosexual police officer who has a gay off-spring responded with some of the highest gay-affirming scores of the study.

.c4.Table 4.4


PERQ Scores of


Heterosexual Police Officers and Administrators


Not Attending Sexual Orientation Training






# respondents

Site #1


2


(mean)

Site #2

Site #3

Site #4


1

Site #5


1*

Site #6


2


(mean)

Site #7

Site #9

Part 1
Attitudes

80.8

89.3

94.6

46.0
Part 2
Feelings

66.9

66.3

98.8

28.8
Part 3
Knowledge

84.4

81.3

93.8

62.5
Part 6
Scenarios

80.8

76.9

92.3

80.8
Notes: Scoring is on the scale; 0 = gay-negative, and 100 = gay-positive. Site #8 did not participate in any instrumental empirical testing.
* Heterosexual police officer who is a co-instructor and has a gay off-spring

As expected, gay and lesbian police officers who are instructors of sexual orientation training answered with near-perfect gay-affirming scores (see Table 4.5).

.c4.Table 4.5


PERQ Scores of


Homosexual Police Officers


Not Attending Sexual Orientation Training





# respondents

Site #1


4*


(mean)

Site #2

Site #3

Site #4

Site #5


2*


(mean)

Site #6


2*


(mean)

Site #7

Site #9

Part 1
Attitudes

92.4

95.5

92.4
Part 2
Feelings

90.6

92.5

90.0
Part 3
Knowledge

89.1

100

93.8
Part 6
Scenarios

90.4

84.6

96.2
Notes: Scoring is on the scale; 0 = gay-negative, and 100 = gay-positive. Site #8 did not participate in any instrumental empirical testing.
* Current or previous instructors of sexual orientation training.

So few heterosexual community members who are involved with sexual orientation training participated in the research. As seen in Table 4.6, data is mixed and no trends are discernible.

.c4.Table 4.6


PERQ Scores of


Heterosexual Community Members


Not Attending Sexual Orientation Training





# respondents

Site #1


2*

1


(mean)

Site #2

Site #3

Site #4

Site #5

Site #6


1*

2

Site #7

Site #9

Part 1
Attitudes

75.5

89.3
Part 2
Feelings

68.8

91.3
Part 3
Knowledge

75.0

93.8
Part 6
Scenarios

84.6

76.9
Notes: Scoring is on the scale; 0 = gay-negative, and 100 = gay-positive. Site #8 did not participate in any instrumental empirical testing.
* (1) Have gay or lesbian children, (2) Cultural awareness training program developer.

Table 4.7 presents the PERQ data for homosexual community members who had an interest in sexual orientation training. As expected, the homosexual sexual orientation trainers obtained near-perfect scores on the PERQ. Even though these respondents were not police officers, they obtained similar near-perfect scores on Part 6 Police Scenarios.

.c4.Table 4.7


PERQ Scores of


Homosexual Community Members


Not Attending Sexual Orientation Training





# respondents

Site #1


3


(mean)

Site #2

Site #3

Site #4

Site #5


1*

Site #6


4*


(mean)

Site #7

Site #9

Part 1
Attitudes

89.3

90.2

95.3
Part 2
Feelings

92.5

96.3

97.5
Part 3
Knowledge

77.1

100

92.2
Part 6
Scenarios

82.1

100

98.1
Notes: Scoring is on the scale; 0 = gay-negative, and 100 = gay-positive. Site #8 did not participate in any instrumental empirical testing.
* Sexual orientation trainers.

Conclusions Concerning Instrumental Empirical Research
Ultimately, this research is interested in changes in student knowledge, feelings, attitudes and behaviors attributable to sexual orientation training. This section looked at the instrumental empirical data as related to training effectiveness. The instrumental empirical data was also compared with the qualitative research to find relations between the training environment and training effectiveness.
Only Part 2 Feelings about Homosexuals (based on the Index of Homophobia) of the PERQ showed statistical significance between pre- and post-training for some of the training sites. In some cases, students feelings about homosexuals became more positive while in other cases the feelings became more negative. Attributing these changes to training methodology is unclear. Measures of changes in students attitudes and knowledge showed no statistical difference between pre- and post-test. Finally, the Police Behavioral Scenarios on Homosexuality, as currently constructed, proved not to be discriminating and should not be used by other researchers until it is modified. Regardless of how homophobic a response people made on the other portions of the PERQ, virtually everyone scored similarly.
Although administrators seemed less homophobic than their recruits, the levels of homophobia measured in police administrators and recruits at their site seem related. For example, if the overall agency was gay-affirming then both the administrators and their recruits would score more gay-positive than in a gay-negative environment and vice versa. This suggests that recruits reflect their academy administrators and that the administrators select students who reflect their own values.
Finally, homosexual students and instructors, and heterosexuals with gay and/or lesbian children report overall greater acceptance of gays and lesbians than heterosexuals.
.c2.Section 3 Homophobia Level Estimate

Considering the impact an organizations culture can have on the function of its employees and the effectiveness of training programs, it is important to ascertain the overall level of homophobia within an organization. Combining the data obtain through interviews, training observations and document review, along with instrumental empirical measures, this section attempts to determine a broad estimate on the level of homophobia within the participating police academies and agencies. The qualitative data has been scaled as follows: Level 1 virtually no homophobia; Level 2 low levels of homophobia, lesbians somewhat accepted, gay males not accepted; Level 3 moderate levels of homophobia, lesbians tolerated, dangerous for gay males; and, Level 4high levels of homophobia, dangerous for all non-heterosexuals. For the instrumental data, Hudson & Ricketts (1980) (see Chapter 3) developed a scale for their IHP instrument. According to their scale as applied to the instruments used for this research, levels of homophobia based on instrumental research include: Level 1 (scores 76% to 100%) high non-homophobia; Level 2 (scores 51% to 75%)low non-homophobia; Level 3 (scores 26% to 50%)low homophobia; and, Level 4 (scores 0% to 25%)high homophobia. Thus, for both qualitative and instrumental data, levels of homophobia are estimated in the same direction with Level 1 being the most gay-positive and Level 4 being the most homophobic. For this discussion, the following nomenclature will be used: Level 1 virtually no homophobia, Level 2low homophobia, Level 3moderate homophobia, and Level 4high homophobia.
Site #1: Interviews with students and police personnel indicated that gays and lesbians are conditionally accepted by the agency. Lesbians were fairly accepted while gay men are notsuggesting a homophobia Level 2. With 76% of the class participating in the instrumental research, three of the tests indicated low levels of homophobia (Level 1-2). This was a very small class and caution must be used in reaching conclusions based on just 13 responses. Conclusion: The agency class exhibited low levels of homophobia (Level 1- 2).
Site #2: Class observations and student written responses indicated a very high level of homophobia within the academy and recruits (Level 4). Thirty-four students (approximately 79%) participated in the instrumental research which indicated moderate levels of homophobia (Level 2-3). In contrast with the high level of homophobia revealed in feelings about gays and lesbians, students were able to give less negative response to police scenarios. Conclusion: The academy class exhibited high levels of homophobia (Level 3-4).
Site #3: The instructor report and student written responses indicate a very high level of homophobia within the academy (Level 4). Twenty-eight students (approximately 72%) participated in the instrumental research which indicated moderate levels of homophobia (Level 2-3). Only on the police scenarios did students respond at a lower level of homophobia. Conclusions: The academy class exhibited high levels of homophobia (Level 3-4).
Site #4: Very few students or police personnel participated in the research. Although the class was observed to hold overwhelming anti-gay sentiments (Level 3), the written comments were much less homophobic (Level 1). The instrumental data is inconclusive since only 6 out of 30 students (20%) participated and no pre-test was given. However, the instrumental data does suggest that respondents fall somewhere between no to low levels of homophobia (Levels 1-2). Conclusion: The agency class seems conditionally accepting of gays and lesbians (Level 2).
Site #5: Observations of the academy class and their written statements indicate a moderately high level of homophobia (Level 3). Unfortunately, no instrumental testing of students was allowed. Instrumental testing did occur with people who had vested interest in the course and who were very knowledgeable. Conclusion: The academy class seemed moderately homophobic (Level 3).
Site #6: Class observations and student written responses were all very homophobic (Levels 3-4). Similarly, interviews with police personnel painted the agency very homophobic (Levels 3-4). Unfortunately, only 3 out of 105 recruits participated in the pre- and post- instrumental testing and results should not be considered representative of the whole. Conclusion: The agency and academy displayed moderate levels of homophobia (Level 3).
Site #7: Class observation, student interviews and student written comments were extremely homophobic (Level 4). Twenty-eight out of 94 students (approximately 30%) participated in instrumental testing which suggested moderate levels of homophobia (Level 2-3). Conclusion: The academy class was moderately homophobic (Level 3-4).
Site #8: Classroom observation and student written comments were moderately homophobic (Level 2-3). No instrumental testing was conducted.
Site 9: Classroom observations and student written responses indicated a moderate level of homophobia in the recruit class (Level 3). Fifty-five out of 65 students (approximately 85%) participated in instrumental testing. The Part 2 Feelings towards gays and lesbians rated a moderate level of homophobia (Level 3), while all other measures were low (Level 2). Conclusion: The academy class seemed moderately homophobic (Level 3).
A few general observations can be made from this data. First, the instrumental data always rated the same or slightly less homophobic than the qualitative estimates. This could be the result from scales not being matched, my being more receptive in identifying homophobia in qualitative estimates, the miss-match of populations due to the voluntary aspect for participation (e.g., no overtly homophobic person volunteered for interview), and/or respondents skewed their responses for the instrumental assessments (Did respondents give less homophobic answers on instrumental testing because they thought they should?). Second, there seems to be a positive relationship between qualitative and instrumental assessment. In sites where the qualitative assessments were low in homophobia, the instrumental assessments were also low. In sites where the qualitative assessments indicated high homophobia, the instrumental assessments were also high. Finally, of the assessment instruments, the IHP always yielded more negative scores than the other assessment instruments, and seemed to better reflect the qualitative data at estimating the level of homophobia within the police academy or agency. Also, the IHP is the only assessment instrument to record a statistically significant change in pre-/post-test scores. Thus, the IHP may be the more accurate instrument for assessing levels of homophobia.
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:A.What stood out in their minds? (Note: 23 students out of a class of 43 responded to this question.)Thirteen respondents (56%) felt the class was a positive experience toward overcoming stereotypes yet four (15%) of the respondents believed the information was wrong, one-sided and distorted. As one student stated, The problems with religion and homosexuality were never addressed. The suggestion of leaving the sex out of it and trying to think of a gay couple as simply people who love each other was a good one. A few students mentioned the instructor was dynamic yet objected to being pressured to accept this lifestyle.B.What did students want to know or were concerned with? (Note: 35 students out of a class of 43 responded to this question.)Eighteen respondents (52%) were interested in the psychology of gays and lesbians and what makes them this way? Seven respondents (23%) were interested in gay politics and gay perspective, particularly as to why are so many people coming out of the wood work? Finally, four (12%) respondents made heterosexist statements, such as Why is there the need for gays and lesbians to try and force their beliefs on us?C.Student suggestions for improvements to the training. (Note: 24 students out of a class of 43 responded to this question.)Twelve respondents (48%) mentioned that more time, information, and additional time for questions/answers would improve the training. The topics to be covered include: police issues, religion and morality, other side of pro-gay rhetoric, family issues, genetics, AIDS, and causes of homophobia.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.Site #3The 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:This is a very conservative group [academy class] and more resistant to the total package of human relations training. They were polarized on sexual orientation, and about 60% of them were decidedly resistant. One person even said that they would flunk an officer out of training if they discovered they were homosexual. That gave us an excellent opportunity to discuss the ramifications of doing so. One person has a brother who is gay and has active AIDS. 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 homosexualitymorally 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 hiddenI 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 disorderhomosexuals are mentally illwith gays and lesbians being confused about their gender rolesmale homosexuals are more feminine. Student Reactions to the Sexual Orientation Training:A.What did students want to know or were concerned with? (Note: 31 students from a class of 39 responded to this question.)Site #3 students were the most polarized of all surveyed academies regarding training on sexual orientation. Primarily, twenty (64%) of them wanted technical (scientific) information about sexual orientatione.g., why are some people homosexual and do they see the opposite sex as heterosexuals see the same sex?almost double the rate reported by the other academies. Yet, nine (28%) of the respondents continued to make negative statements reinforcing heterosexist beliefs and challenging the need for the course and the accuracy of the information. Again, this was the highest response for all locations. Thus, Site #3 students seemed very polarized by wanting technical information on sexual orientation while 1/3 of the class made statements to the contrarywhy do they force their agenda on others that do not want or accept it?Site #4Site #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-largeslow 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:A. What stood out in their minds? (Note: only 7 out of 30 students responded to this question.)Four things stood out in the minds of the students: group activities and videos (2 students); the clear, friendly instructor (1 student); the many examples of police situations where there is a gay/lesbian connection (1 student); and, the learning that gay stereotypes are not true (1 student).B .Student suggestions for improvements to the training. (Note: only 5 out of 30 students responded to this question.)Students suggested: more diverse speakers, role playing, more films, and more gay and lesbian police officer experiences demonstrating the improvement toward the acceptance of homosexual officers.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.Site #5The 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:It used to be that when you got on the job, the FTO [field training officer] would say forget the academy bullshit, now you will learn what is real police work. Now I dont hear this. I believe that police work is becoming more technical, that academy work is more valued. 10-years ago, officers would say that we really beat niggers, etc., but now we dont. If the old boy ways are kicked out, you are left with what is taught in the academy.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:I have probably taught the course 100 times. Many gays and lesbians would like to present it as factSimon Levy, Kinseyand this could be a double-edged sword . . . that science could be used against us. I have had many students challenge this, they think it is biased. My personal feeling that there is a strong bio/genetic link and a social construction. It is inappropriate to spend 4 hours talking research with beat-officers.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 storyhow 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:A.What did students want to know or were concerned with? (Note: 39 students of a class of 45 responded.)Sixteen (42%) respondents wanted technical information about sexual orientation. They were equally interested in the psychological causes of homosexuality and issues of family, e.g., Do you wish you had children? Other areas of interest for respondents included: personal information about the instructorsHave you ever felt alienated by co-workers? (5 responses, 13%); professional conduct by officersHow do you tell your T. O. [training officer] that you dont like his jokes about gays and lesbians (5 responses, 13%); negative statements against gays and lesbiansWhy do gays go around making a bigger deal out of it than I. I dont go around joking and talking about the fact that Im heterosexual (6 responses, 15%); and, issues of gay perspectives and politicsWould you like the gay and lesbian community to be categorized as a separate group in terms of affirmative action? (7 responses, 17%).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.Site #6The 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,[police] administrators bend over backwards [said many times during the interview] for the gay and lesbian community. For example, during the gay pride parade, officers are instructed not to arrest anyone, but rather keep the peace . . . and it is not fair that gays and lesbians can march in the Labor Day and St. Patrick Day Parades, but that heterosexuals were barred from marching in the gay and lesbian parade. . . if I had marched in my uniform in a parade, I would have been reprimanded, but the gay officers werent.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 recruit at the gay and lesbian parade. The gay and lesbian police organization also reported recruits coming out in class and experiencing subsequent harassment, open officers being passed over for promotion, and that it has not become a non-issue because there is still locker room talk, whispers and talk behind your back. The previous police chief issued a zero-tolerance memo about the harassment of gays and lesbians. The director of the gay and lesbian community services center reported that the new police chief is committed to following the letter of the law and is beholding to a very conservative police association . . . [and] has not done the same leadership. The director also stated that most of the feedback is that the police performs appropriately. When it is not, the officer is identified and is taken aside by administration. This showed how administration support is more important. Finally, the city withdrew from supporting the Boy Scouts of America because of their refusal to allow a gay male police officer to continue as the official liaison between the police and the Scouts.Asking how many open gay and lesbian officers there are on the police force revealed some discrepancies. Police administrators thought there were approximately five; bar owners said the same number; the gay and lesbian police organization stated that there are five males and two females out of 1900 officers; whereas other gay police officers reported that there were eight. However, the heterosexual police agency diversity administrator said, Many officers have come out of the closet.A frequent comment made is that because no one ever witnesses a gay-bashing there must not be any problems for gays and lesbians. One of the consultants for CAT stated, [I have] never been present during any discussion of homosexuality. This is a reflection of [how good of a job they do] addressing the issues. However, gays and lesbians are everywhere in significant numbers and there should be constant conversations that indicate homosexuality. Thus, if the issue is being adequately addressed, why is it never heard?At the academy, there were two complaints in the past year. One occurred between recruits. Each was investigated and resolved. But what does resolved mean? One academy administrator reported, I know of several instances where some male recruits had difficulty with the lesbian officers. I had a discussion with the group and it solved itself. None of the academy administrators had witnessed gay bashing and believed that there is no ridicule of gays and lesbians [in the academy], yet these are the same administrators who were involved with the complaints filed during the past year. As a further indicator that homosexuality is a hushed up issue, one academy director shared, the issue does not disturb me. In my family, I have a cousin who is a lesbian [said with an almost inaudible lowered voice]. I dont dwell on this and have a lot more in my life that I value.When academy students were asked to write a statement about their feelings or beliefs on homosexuality or homosexuals, only 3 out of 105 students replied. All responses were negative, such as, I feel if an individual wants to conduct homosexual acts, it is his business. But if he/she brings it in the workplace or is open about being gay, then he should receive a warning. Any further attempts to exploit should result in discipline. This is reasonable.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 respondents agreed that the two most important goals of sexual orientation training were to promote the equal treatment of gays and lesbians and to increase their awareness to gays and lesbians through breaking down stereotypes. The male heterosexual diversity administrator emphasized that administrators need to consider while evaluating officer performance that, Ethnicity, race, and sexual orientation are sometimes used to fog the issue[s] and are [used as] scapegoats to evade performance issues and that there are only 2 or 3 [categories of people] heteros, homos and bisexuals. The CAT consultant took a more organizational approach and claimed that sexual orientation training needed to promote an organizational perspective on diversity and show organizations that it is in their vested interest to give police officers skills in people, peers and community. Only one person, a lesbian community member, mentioned that training goals must not try to change values or beliefs.Respondents conveyed the belief that heterosexuals and homosexuals are more alike than different. All the gay and lesbian officers and community members thought that sexual orientation is inborn and not a choice and that scientific information needed to be presented to support that position. The three heterosexual male police administrators unknowingly took a deficit position concerning homosexuality when they suggested training content that, shows the [gay] lifestyle is not wrong, how they think, no specific facts since they do not deserve any treatment beyond what others have, and you dont have to accept sexual orientation, just understand it as it relates to performance . . . there is a right or wrong way, no in-between.In the past, the gay and lesbian panel simply told their personal coming out stories. Course evaluations indicated these were boring to the recruits. The panel now limits the telling of personal stories and aims at a more structured format. Open discussion, creating a supportive atmosphere for candid sharing and video presentation of the history of the gay and lesbian movement were methodologies respondents intended to use. The male heterosexual diversity administrator believed that lecture, written assignments and expert testimony would be used in training. Ultimately, all respondents believed that, No matter how technical you make the class, it still gets back to personal stories.Researchers Acceptance and Data Acquisition:The police academy was very supportive of me and assigned a training officer to coordinate class observations and data collection. However, from the very beginning, things kept getting fumbled. Originally, training was scheduled for early June. This date was slipped to August at which time I went to the academy. Survey materials were distributed to all 105 students but only 15 students completed the PERQ and over half of the questionnaire booklets were never returned. Also, the observed class was not sexual orientation training, but rather sexual harassment. After a few more months, sexual orientation training was rescheduled for November. The class was to be divided into two and sexual orientation training given to each half on the same day. I attempted to observe both trainings, but plane delays resulted in missing the first class. Once I arrived, it was discovered that the second class was canceled and the students had been combined into one large class for the first sexual orientation training. Thus class observation was not accomplished. Instead, class observation was reconstructed through intensive interview. Finally, the distribution of materials for post-testing was worse than the pre-testing. Only three students (out of 105) completed the PERQ and again almost half of the questionnaire booklets were not returned. No students volunteered for interview and only two students returned evaluation forms. Overall, student participation was dismal and administration seemed unwilling to encourage greater involvement with the research.Typically, 3 to 4 sexual orientation trainings take place each year, but during this research, training dates were slipped and eventually skipped. Ultimately, only 2 trainings occurred almost 10 months apart, resulting in one or two classes missing sexual orientation training. Police administration explained that this occurred due to scheduling conflicts within the academy.Participation in alternate interviews was much more successful. Participants included: two heterosexual male academy administrators; two bar ownersone lesbian and one gay male; one male heterosexual officer during ride-along; one heterosexual male police agency administrator responsible for diversity; one heterosexual female CAT agency consultant; two open gay police officers; and panel members including a lesbian city manager who also publishes one of the local gay and lesbian newspapers, civilian gay male city prosecutor, and the lesbian director of gay and lesbian services center. Administering the PERQ most likely had little impact on the class because very few students actually completed it and the time between pre- and post-testing was about four months. Likewise, I had no contact with the class and very little impact. Finally, observing classes, engaging in ride-along and interviewing were conducted over a total of 5 days.Observation of Training Program:Program and Participants: This academy is known for being an In-and-Out academy in which students alternate between class and field work for the 7 months of training. Students are exposed to issues of culture through a 1-week field experience with students volunteering their time with one of the local support organizations and through formal CAT. The observed class had 105 uniformed recruits of which 19 were women and 86 were men. All but 18 students were hired as recruits. Students casually entered and exited the classroom, with breaks often including line-ups and calisthenics.Instructor(s): Sexual orientation training relied upon the local gay and lesbian community center for speakers and the training itself. A uniformed officer introduced the panel and the panel members (non-officers) shared their experiences.Setting: The classroom was extremely large with rows of flat tables and an isle running down the center. The front of the room had a chalk board and TV. During the sexual orientation training, six administrators stood along the sides of the room. Sexual Orientation Training Observation:(See Table 4.1 for cross-agency comparison and Appendix C for complete documentation.)The female director of the local gay and lesbian community services center acted as panel moderator. After a brief introduction, Coming Out Stories were shared by three of the civilian panel members. This encouraged approximately eleven students to ask questions that focused on the causes of sexuality and supported the belief that homosexuality is a deviance. One of the panel members was an open gay city prosecutor who provided technical information about homosexuality including the Kinsey chart, genetic vs. choice arguments, stereotypes, etc. After the 50-minute lecture and a 10-minute break, the second hour of training included 40 minutes on Police Scenarios and 20 minutes for Questions and Answers. For the Police Scenarios, a 1-page handout was given to each student that listed 4 scenarios including: (1) father reports a teenage runaway, (2) drive-by name calling, (3) domestic fight, and (4) beating in a public park known for sexual activity. The male prosecutor led the class in an open discussion about these scenarios from which eight students asked for classifications of the law. The final Questions and Answers section was largely unmotivating with only seven questions being asked from a room of over 100 persons. These questions covered domestic violence, heterosexual double standard, hate crimes and teenage runaways. No closure was attempted at the end of the training.Analysis of Observed Methodology and Content:Lecture was the primary teaching methodology that constituted 46% of class time. Even when students could be involved, very few did. One lesbian panel member reported, probably not more than 10 people spoke and 5 of those repeated. The larger the class the less likely they will participate. Even during the student participation sections that comprised 36% of class time, the gay male city prosecutor reported, the class died after the scenarios section. Although there were a few more questions, it died.Content emerged from three activities. The two coming out stories helped spark questions about the formation of sexual and gender identities and particularly issues of homosexuality. Some of the panel members reported excessive time had been spent on bi-sexuality and thought that having a bi-sexual woman on the panel confused the issue. Sexual orientation was presented as genetically determined. The Police Scenarios presented technical legal information and described appropriate police conduct. The final Questions and Answers section took 18% of class time and touched upon a number of issues little participation by students was noted. Thus, the total course content was expected to emerge from three structured activities and primarily from student questions.No assessment of student comprehension or closure of topics was attempted. The goal for equal treatment was stated many times during the training. The goal to increase awareness to gays and lesbians through breaking down stereotypes was indirectly addressed. Lack of planning for specific content weakened the ability to achieve that goal.Assessment of Instructor(s)/Panel:Unfortunately, no student evaluations of the instructor or panel members were made available. Also, I was unable to observe the training. The instructor and panel members may have been dynamic and skillful at presenting the information. Indirectly, the low number of student questions suggests that the instructor and panel members lacked the skill to involve students.Student Reactions to the Sexual Orientation Training:A.What did students want to know or were concerned with? (Note: Only 6 students of 105 responded.)Five of the responses involved making moral statements condemning homosexuality, e.g., if homosexuals have a need to be out of the closet in order to be happy, why cant that apply to those who have sex with animals, the man-boy love association, and any other deviant/unconventional behavior (prostitutes, polygamist, etc.) Wont this cause a downward pressure on public morality? The only real question was if morality could be legislated.Conclusions Regarding Sexual Orientation Training:Although the police agency made strong anti-discrimination statements about sexual orientation, the low number of open gay and lesbian officers indicates there are continuing conflicts within the agency. Predominately, people do not see or hear overt gay bashing and incorrectly assume that sexual orientation is a non-issue. Subtle discriminations continue and are mirrored by the police diversity administrator who voices deficit positions concerning gays and lesbians. These mixed signals influence the academy instruction.The academy has allocated too little time and has over-sized classes for the sexual orientation training. The program goals are too broad with insufficient guidance for program development. Content is expected to emerge from three activities with only one activity (scenarios) aimed at specific police information. As an individual module, sexual orientation training is not connected to the overall CAT program and is unsupported through the agency. As students complained, Why do we have to study this stuff, we already know this . . . [and] why gays and lesbian and not African-Americans or other groups? Finally, it was reported that the panel was better focused than in previous classes, yet very little student interaction took place indicating a lack of skill in motivating students.Educational Conclusions:(See Appendix D for visual tabulation of training methodology compared with education theory that includes assessments of training effectiveness.)Neither the instructor nor panel members were appropriate role-models. None of these people were the kind of people the recruits wanted to become. The gay male city prosecutor was the closest to being a police officer, yet his very flashy demeanor and civilian status made him a less than ideal role-model.The goals for the training were vague and no assessment of student understanding of sexual orientation was attempted. Subsequently, the instructors were unable to prepare information for the students or assist students to higher levels of understanding. Some of the personal stories were relevant and solicited student involvement. Once a new skill is taught, practice is necessary. The scenario activity would have been the perfect opportunity to practice new skills but students were not adequately prepared due to lack of specific content. At no time was closure attempted for any of the activities or discussions. Finally, students were not held responsible for what they learned, either through application on a test, homework, reflective project, or other individual activity.Site #7I was hired to teach sexual orientation training at one of the basic academies in Southern California. The Dean of the academy encouraged me to experiment with teaching methodologies and course content. As such, I became a participant-observer at this location. The subsequent two sections (Sites #8 and #9) will discuss what was changed since the initial training (Site #7) and present the data that was collected.Site #7 Police Academy is a basic academy associated with a community college located in the eastern section of Los Angeles County. The academy serves many of the neighboring police agencies. CAT has followed POST mandates and recently included sexual orientation training. The academy Dean is active in developing CAT at the state level and believes that law enforcement is at the forefront of training because it is mandated, but when it comes to addressing cultural issues, law enforcement is catching up.Gay and Lesbian Community:The immediate area surrounding Site #7 Police Academy is a suburban community of Los Angeles. Gays and lesbians are invisible and are only seen at a few cruise spots or through the college student organization. There are no gay or lesbian bars, no AIDS support group or organized political groups. Gays and lesbians often travel to Los Angeles or West Hollywood to participate in gay culture.Police Subculture:The academy culture is ascertained from four sources: interviews with the Dean, recruit volunteer and instructor; and classroom observations including student statements. The Dean reported:the academy is not very accepting [of gays and lesbians] does not want to talk about it. I think you are tolerated as long as you dont become visible. I think we have 2 employees who are gay/lesbian and they are accepted. No one bothers them and they do not broach the subject. Not an issue in workplace. The issue is not accepted in workplace. Realistically, the mere fact that I can identify them, shows how open it is. I never thought about this until asked this question. I base my judgment on the reaction I had in getting the [civilian] sexual orientation training instructor hired it was very difficult.A student reported:The class was unruly to the instructor. He seemed generally very nice. He seemed very interested in teaching us while students seemed most interested in harassing him. The students were very negative. In the shower [after the sexual orientation training] started a witch hunt for the 10%. Buddies would joke with each other are you one of the 10%ers? Overall maturity level [of the class] seemed low. Im bothered by the level. I am concerned that I will have to work with these kinds of guys. A couple of days later they were still joking around.As the instructor, I sensed the academy to be very homophobic. The other instructors showed interest in my work and the Dean was very supportive, but no gay or lesbian staff member came forward and identified themselves to me. The recruit class was extremely hostile toward me during training.When asked what official policies protect gays and lesbian in the workplace, the Dean stated, the community college is regulated under Title 9, Title 6, Cal law, etc. Also, the Dean reports that there have been no complaints filed in the police academy based upon anti-gay discrimination.One panic phone call was received from a lesbian student who was concerned about completing the PERQ accurately. She was fearful of being discovered at the academy. Although I tried to convince her that all data was confidential, she indicated that she most likely would not turn in the questionnaire.Students were asked to write comments on the acceptance of gays and lesbians in the academy. Out of 94 students in class, only 18 replied to this question. Seven respondents believed that homosexuality is not acceptedthey are ridiculed until we have to confront them during a situation or incident. Six respondents claimed, I have never seen/heard about gay bashing except on television. Three students reported that the academy is not homophobic. Finally, a few negative comments were made, including educate people about the vices of sexual deviants.In another activity, students were asked to write statements concerning their beliefs and/or feelings about homosexuals or homosexuality. Out of 94 students, 39 students responded. Twenty-seven (70%) students made negative statementsthe second highest level of negative statements of all academies in this research. Of these negative statements, nine (33%) made moral and religious condemnationsIn the Bible, in the book of Genesis it states that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Also that because of unnatural relationships they were given in them diseases; six (22%) made statements about feeling uncomfortable being around gaysId be afraid to spend time with a fag because he might try and pick me up; and, five (19%) said that homosexuality is a mental disorderHomosexuals are sick puppies, and Homosexuals have had a traumatic incident in early childhood which caused them to gravitate toward members of the same sex. Of the remaining statements, six (15%) were generally positive statements including this humorous perspective by a non-gay studentThere is nothing wrong with gay guys. They are usually good looking guys who work out. Since they like each other, they as a result leave us straight single guys more women to choose from, and five (13%) made factual statements about homosexuality[gays and lesbians are] discriminated against.Program Goals and Intended Content/Methodology:Program administrators 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 Dean believed the goal for CAT should be to provide awareness about other cultures. Given the limited time for training and student level, the Dean stated, Training gives only basic awareness and hopefully self-awareness . . . [and] we are kidding ourselves if we think we can do more. I took a more proactive position, wanting to change beliefs, knowledge, attitudes and values of students away from negative gay stereotypes so as to make their behaviors be more gay positive. Also to illustrate and transmit the skills needed to effectively communicate and work fairly with the gay subculture. I saw my position as a provider of information and facilitator of educational processes. I understood the importance of being a role model for students, and was apologetic for not being an appropriate role model because I do not have a law enforcement background.The Dean wanted accurate information presented to students, although he unintentionally took a deficit position, stating, No accurate information [exists] on what causes it. The Dean hoped the information will help to eliminate myths and convey the message that no matter what our personal feelings and values are, they will treat gays and lesbian equally and learn what legally should be done. As instructor, I also wanted to provided accurate information with the goal of showing that, homosexuality is normal, natural and very common and that sexual orientation is stigmatized in our culture. This stigmatization accounts for homophobia and heterosexism and facilitate gay-bashing and discrimination. Anti-gay stereotypes affect police performance and puts them at risk for complaints from fellow employees and the community. We need to deconstruct polar gender- and sexual-identities and bring these concepts down to the personal level by showing that many police officers have engaged in homosexual behavior and homosexuality represents a hidden knowledge.Teaching methodology suggested by the Dean included:experiential activity to develop self-identity. This issue is so explosive and value laden, that to try and make any changes in this group would make more damage than good . . . This whole area doesnt deal with culture, its human behavior. One of the things I do in my class is to get them to talk, that its a comfortable atmosphere to share. I dont tell them what is right or wrong because this questions their life choices and creates resentment and defensivenessthus they shut up.As the instructor for the class, I believed in using many individual and small group activities to assist students toward becoming aware of their personal beliefs, attitudes and feelings. Accurate information on human sexuality gives students the knowledge needed to overcome stereotypes. Presentation of points-of-contact supports appropriate conduct. Together, the newly discovered self-awareness and appropriate police behaviors can be applied to real police situations. Researchers Acceptance and Data Acquisition:The Dean of the academy fought for more than a year to allow me to come on staff as the instructor of sexual orientation training. The first two recruit classes were taught identical content with identical methodology (here referred to as Site #7). The PERQ was given to students two or three days before the sexual orientation training and asked to complete it at home. They held onto the survey materials, and after the sexual orientation training were instructed to turn their answer sheet over and take the PERQ a second time. All materials were recovered the next day. Additionally, students were asked to write questions they may have and/or statements about their beliefs and feelings regarding homosexuals and homosexuality. These written materials were collected. Although students were asked to volunteer for interview, only one participated. Course evaluations were provided to me for one class.I had significant impact on the students because of my status as instructor. Administering the PERQ sensitized students to issues they otherwise may not have considered. Finally, each time the course was taught and assessment materials distributed, one or more students would call me in panic. They were concerned about being identified gay or lesbian if they answered accurately. These students disclosed that the small network of gay and lesbian recruits talked amongst themselves about the fear they had being found out. Although I reassured them that all materials and interviews were confidential, they indicated that many would decline participation.Observation of Training Program:Program and Participants: Recruit training lasts 19 weeks. CAT is conducted for the minimum POST requirement of 24-hours, of which 4 hours are devoted to sexual orientation training. Two different classes were taught and observed each with approximately ninety-four (94) uniformed recruits attendedat the ratio of 2 women to 92 men. These classes were approximately half way through with the training program. The academy was very formal with students being marched (run) in and out of the classroom, standing at attention before sitting, and engaged in lineup and calisthenics during breaks. During sexual orientation training, the Dean of the school and occasionally other instructors observed the class.Setting: The classroom was not air-conditioned which made teaching in 100 degree smoggy summer weather very uncomfortable. Flat tables with two people to a desk were arranged in rows with one isle along one wall. The front of the classroom had a dry marker board, TV, electric roll-down screen, flipcharts and an overhead projector.Sexual Orientation Training Observation:(See Table 4.1 for cross-agency comparison and Appendix C for complete documentation.)During the 5-minute Introduction, I stated the goals of the training and shared some personal background information including my academic credentials, political activism, my long career as a professional ballet dancer and my being fairly effeminate since childhood. Also, a 72-page Sexual Orientation Booklet was distributed. Next, I engaged students in a 30-minute Stereotype Activity using small groups to write gay and lesbian stereotypes on flipchart paper followed by a class-wide discussion. All students were involved, there was much nervous laughter, and most the terms were extremely negative. Following this, I lectured on Homophobia using three transparencies and referred students to three topic papers in the booklet. I discussed the similarities between homophobes and police subculture. Students were surprised at the primary expulsion of lesbians from the military (9 women to every 1 man). Next, students were engaged in the 8-minute Gay Lifestyle Activity where heterosexual and homosexual daily life routines were compared to demonstrate that there are no differences between gays and straights (identical to the activity discussed in Site #5). Four students participated in the activity with much of the class laughing at the realization that sex constitutes very little of anyone life. Just before the break, I had student write questions they may have had about homosexuality to be answered later. After a 15-minute break, a 40-minute lecture on scientific information on sexual orientation was given. I attempted to present the Shively and DeCecco gender-sexual-emotional identity theories along with cross-cultural analysis to broaden the essentialist perspective promoted by biological researchers and Kinsey. Fourteen students asked questions, seemed highly agitated and were primarily rejecting of the research. Next, the 20-minute video Whos Afraid of Project 10 was shown to highlight the tragedy of gay teen suicide. Even still, class discussion resulted in two students stating that counseling for gay and lesbian youths should not be provided by schools. The 15-minute break was used to engage students in a Famous Gays and Lesbians activity, where students work from a list of gays and lesbians and try to discover the name of the famous person that was attached to their backs. Upon return from break, students shared their surprise at who was included in the list. I then lectured for 5-minutes on Hate Crimes using one transparency and referred students to one article and one topic paper in the booklet. Next, I lectured for 10-minutes on Homophobia within Police Agencies referring students to three topic papers in the booklet. The fear of being discovered to be gay was personalized through a verbal round-robin reading by students of the poem, I Fear. Twenty-eight students were involved in the poem reading and six questions were fielded about the status of the Mitch Grobesons suit and the issue of outing. This flowed directly into a 15-minute lecture of Points-of-Contact. This lecture was supported by three topic papers and community resource list. Using Points-of-Contact as a lead-in, a 15-minute small group activity and instructor-led discussion was conducted on Appropriate Police Behavior. Twenty-four students participated in the discussion, mostly taking the politically correct position to each scenario. Finally, a 15-minute Questions and Answers session was conducted using the questions submitted earlier as the initial base. Many students hands went up for more questions, but time ran out for the 3 hours and 34 minute class.Analysis of Observed Methodology and Content:Lecture was the primary instructional methodology and was used 43% of the time. Lecture was used to transmit content on homophobia, basic information on sexual orientation, teen suicide and hate crime specifics. Instructor-led discussion or activities were the next favored instruction methodology. It was used 33% of the time and included the Stereotype Activity, Gay Lifestyle Activity, Homophobia within Police Agencies, and Questions and Answers activity. Individual or small group methods were used 16% of the time for conveying information on famous gays and lesbians and appropriate police behavior. Lecture with some questions and answers was used only for police points-of-contact.The delivered content followed closely the curriculum written by the instructor for the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Police Advisory Task Force. The content was highly structured and overwhelming considering the 86 pages of materials given each student. Sexual orientation was not presented from an essentialist perspective, rather one that includes both genetic and environmental explanations and attempted to deconstruct students polar concepts of gender- and sexual-identities. Appropriate police behaviors during point-of-contact followed the recommendations of the curriculum. The content closely matched the goals stated by the curriculum.Assessment of Instructor(s)/Panel:I was not well received and students displayed a polar attitude about the course. From a class of 94 students, 43 completed evaluation forms and stated: the instructor was defensive and had a negative attitude (9 students, 21%); the instructor was knowledgeable and very informative (7 students, 16%); instructor was biased and tried to impose his values (6 students, 14%); the instructor was pleasant and good but needed more time (5 students, 12%); and, the instructor rushed through materials (4 students, 9%). As one student wrote, [instructor] was outnumbered and left too open for criticism . . . Overall good info for cadets to know because our class showed a lot of ignorance and fear toward something they did not know and understand. In contrast, other students wrote, If the instructor was more open and not defensive and did not rush through everything, maybe the class would of learned a lot more and he brought materials that was written by gay men and said that that was correct. Why didnt he bring books by straight men, the kind that all of us thought would be correct. During the training, there were times when students were frustrated by the rush of materials and my having to cut off questions and debate in order to proceed to the next topic. Of particular interest, after the video on teen suicide that featured the open lesbian teacher, Virginia Uribe, issues of open gay teachers in the classroom came up. One student stood up and said that he would remove his child from a class where the teacher was openly gay or lesbian. I said to the student, Look me in the eyes and tell me that I am not your equal. The student hesitated and said that was not what he meant, Just that I dont want my child to grow up thinking it is OK. I repeated the demand emphasizing that, What you have just said implies that I am not your equal, and I dont accept that. Other altercations such as this occurred during class and is probably the source of the belief that I was defensive.The Dean commented, the problem with the instructor is he is advocating a cause and it builds resistance. There is a difference between conveying information or advocating a cause. The class should emphasize awareness, facts and feeling. This is difficult because there really are no known facts about homosexuality. Student Reactions to the Sexual Orientation Training:A.What stood out in their minds? (Note: Out of a class of 94 students, 36 made written responses to this question.)Nineteen respondents (53%) thought the content was a positive experience, especially learning that gays and lesbians are normal people. In contrast, four (11%) of respondents felt the content was biased and wrong, and did not emphasize deviant homosexuals. Furthermore, five (13%) respondents thought the instructor was too militant, biased, defensive and tried to change peoples views. Finally, four (11%) respondents remembered the group activities including the famous gays and lesbians.B.What did students want to know or were concerned with? (Note: Out of a class of 94 students, 84 responded to this question.)Respondents were interested in technical information about sexual orientation (37 students, 44%). Primarily they wanted to know about the psychology and causes of homosexuality. Even though students were asked to write a question regarding homosexuality, instead, twenty-four (28%) chose to write statements condemning homosexuality on moral groundsdo you honestly feel God condones homosexuality?, and challenging researchWhy does the gay community continually use spurious or false research and present it as fact? Sixteen (19%) respondents were interested in personal questions about the instructor including why he is not married, does he have female friends, and his relationship with his family.C.Student suggestions for improvements to the training. (Note: Out of a class of 94 students, 32 responded to this question.)Ten (32%) respondents wanted more class time and more time devoted to questions and answers. Eight (24%) mentioned the need for greater diversity in instructors and mostly wanted open gay and lesbian officers as instructors. The same number of respondents (eight, 24%) also wanted more content on police topics.Conclusions Regarding Sexual Orientation Training:The academy had taken a proactive approach to sexual orientation training, devoting 1/6th of its CAT to this issue. No other subgroup, e.g., African-Americans, was given as much time or emphasis. The academy Dean encouraged me to experiment with teaching methodology and content and to photocopy full books of information for distributing to students for future reference. Furthermore, the Dean led a protracted political fight to obtain my services as sexual orientation instructor against the conservative elements at the academy. Yet the many deficit position comments about gays and lesbians made by the Dean, along with the absence of open gay and/or lesbian staff members or students suggests the academy environment is decidedly homophobic. I found the students at this academy held some of the strongest negative beliefs and feelings about homosexuals and homosexuality encountered in the entire research project. This is also the only academy from which panicked students called me to discuss survey confidentiality. It is within the context of this homophobic atmosphere that sexual orientation training was conducted. Educational Conclusions:(See Appendix D for visual tabulation of training methodology compared with education theory that includes assessments of training effectiveness.)Although the training followed a very successful curriculum and training process that is well received at other agencies and academies, it became clear that I (the instructor) was not an appropriate role model for the students. Students respond best to instructors who are the kinds of persons they aspire to emulate. In police recruit training on sexual orientation, the best role-model would be an open gay or lesbian active officer of many years experience and who is well respected for his/her professionalism, conforms to gender stereotypes, and is well liked for his/her personality. I am not from a law enforcement background, was viewed as an intellectual and outsider due to my academic affiliations and degrees, was somewhat gender non-conforming because of my many years as a ballet dancer, and my political activism painted me to be antagonistic to police.Instead of assessing what students knew and building upon that knowledge, I started with the topic of controlling sub-populations based on stereotypes. Using that awareness, academic content on human sexuality was delivered along with the consequences of stigmatization. This process prepared students for the delivered content, but because it was not personalized through some other process, it made the relevancy of the material unclear. Once appropriate behavior was discussed through points-of-contact lecture and activity, students were given the chance to practice their new found knowledge. This was effective. The ending questions and answer activity provided indirect closure on the training, but this could have been better formalized. Students were not held responsible for participating in the training or for demonstrating that they learned the intended content. Although I knew the 85-pages of handout materials was impossible to cover, I was encouraged by the Dean to distribute them since homosexuality is hidden and students could review them at home.Site #8This class was very similar to Site #7, but with changes reflecting the input from the previous class and in recognition that most of these students were police administrators. The changes included:1.The inclusion of a self-awareness activity based on a Forced-Choice value clarification technique in the first hour. (For details of this technique, see Appendix F.)2. In the second hour, the amount of time spent on discussion regarding the sources and causes of sexual orientation was reduced and the video, Growing Up Gay was used as the lead into the discussion of sexual orientation theory. In this video, Brian McNaught brilliantly weaves the experiences of growing up gay in a heterosexist and homophobic society with research on human sexuality and identity formation. The video, Whos Afraid of Project 10 was eliminated.3. In the third section of the class, a small group activity was included to discuss appropriate officer behavior in police situations that contained a gay or lesbian content. Less time was spent on the theory and history of hate crimes, but more time was spent on point-of-contact.4. The class did not have enough time to conduct a question and answer period.5.To build student responsibility for demonstrating that they learned the intended course content, students were required to complete a homework assignment in order to obtain credit for participating in the training. This assignment was ungraded and asked students to; (1) tell about three things they remember about the class, (2) identify three things that could improve the class, and (3) respond to a scenario where they have been assigned responsibility for cultural awareness training on sexual orientation at their agency and what they would do or say to convince resistant officers that homosexuality is both normal, natural and very common.Police Subculture:Unfortunately, no students from this class volunteered to be interviewed for the research. However, students were asked to write statements about their feelings and beliefs on homosexuals and homosexuality. Thirty-five (35) of the 38 students responded. Fourteen (41%) respondents made negative statements about gays and lesbians, particularly religious and moral condemnations such as, This is why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Your gay agenda is strictly a sex issue. They also believed that gays and lesbians should stay in the closet and are confused about their gender. Eleven (32%) respondents made positive statements about gays and lesbians and felt they should have equal rights. One student said, When I was younger I thought all homosexuals should be shot. But as I get older I learn more. I now know they are people just like I am. To each its own. Finally, nine (27%) respondents simply made a factual statement about gays and lesbians. Although 41% of responses were negative, this is the lowest number obtained from any of the agencies or academies participating in this activity. I conclude that the initial level of homophobia in this group was lower than other groups at this academy.Observation of Training Program:Program and Participants: This was an advanced-officer training program of thirty-eight (38) uniformed officers and administrators including 9 women and 29 men. All students came from a particular local agency which contracted with this academy to fulfill the POST requirement for CAT. The class structure was extremely casual.Sexual Orientation Training Observation:(See Table 4.1 for cross-agency comparison and Appendix C for complete documentation.)This 3 hours and 31 minutes training used many of the elements used in Site #7 and will not be fully described here. A 72-page booklet was distributed to all students and was referred to during the training besides the use of overhead transparencies. The training included a 5-minute Introduction, 35-minute Stereotype Activity, 12-minute Homophobia lecture, and a 2-minute Gay Lifestyle Activity. Student participation was similar to Site #7. A new element was the inclusion of a 10-minute Self-Awareness Activity based on a Forced-Choice value clarification technique. By requiring students to prioritize scenarios that contained a homosexual situation, they became aware of their values and feelings. All students were observed to be engaged in this activity and were particularly disturbed by two of the scenarios: (1) discovering their teenage son engaging in homosexual behavior, and (2) a male police officer leaves his wife after discovering that he is gay. Again, just before the break students were directed to write questions for later discussion. After break, 31 minutes of the hour videoGrowing Up Gay, were used to vividly demonstrate the difficulties faced by gay people growing up in a heterosexist society. Key concepts from the video were written onto the chalk board and used to flow directly into a 32-minute lecture on Basic Information on Sexual Orientation. Twenty-five students asked questions and primarily made negative comments challenging the research as being biased and that the material was covered too fast. The Famous Gays and Lesbians activity was conducted during the 15-minute break with much student participation. After the break, Hate Crimes was presented for 5 minutes. Small group activities were used to process the 30-minute Harassment of Gay and Lesbian Officers activity. Here students were asked to work in groups of four to discuss and find solutions to specific police scenarios that involved gays and lesbians. All students were engaged and the consensus was that strong administrative directives could solve most of the problems. Having gotten students to think about their behavior on the job, 30 minutes were then devoted to a lecture on Points-of-Contacts. To close the training, I asked students to take home and complete an assignment that was due the next day. This assignment placed students in the position of being responsible for the sexual orientation training program at their agency and asked them what they would do to improve the environment for gays and lesbians. Analysis of Observed Methodology and Content:More time was spent on self-awareness, the stigmatization of gays and lesbians, and Points-of-Contact than at Site #7. Less time was spent on specific sexual orientation content and questions and answers. New to this training, were scenarios applicable for police administrators. The amount of time allocated for pure lecture was slightly reduced and more individual or small group activities were engaged.Assessment of Instructor(s)/Panel:Unfortunately, student evaluations were not available from the class. In review of student responses to the question of what stood out in their mind, twice as many respondents (7%) thought the instructor was, very positive, induced good group participation and thought, and so open and felt good discussing situations with us. A minority of respondents (2%) felt the instructor was trying to get us to give our approval and the openness of the instructor seemed to shock some students . . . [and] was a bit too graphic for my likes. These were significantly different student comments than Site #7 where on the same question 13% of students expressed disapproval of the instructor and no student gave a positive rating to the instructor.Student Reactions to the Sexual Orientation Training:A.What stood out in their minds? (Note: Out of a class of 38 students, 31 students responded to this question.)The respondents were equally divided over the issue of content. Eleven (35%) respondents thought that content specifically on sexual orientation was a positive experience The lecturer was very positive and the barrage of previously unknown information was positive. An equal number of respondents thought the content was negative and challenged the accuracy of the statisticsI cannot believe 75% of this information. Finally, four (13%) respondents mentioned the class activities as being memorable. One student wrote, I received mixed emotions with the [stereotype] activity because being a heterosexual black male, I observed that the same people who chose the words for my race are the same persons that set the standard for all out war on all groups regardless of racial boundary or sexual orientation.B.What did students want to know or were concerned with? (Note: Out of a class of 38 students, 28 students responded to this question.)Technical information about sexual orientation, particularly on psychology and AIDS was mentioned by twelve (42%) respondents. Personal information and feelingshow did you tell your parents you were gayabout the instructor were sought by seven (25%) respondents. Even though students were asked for questions, six students (22%) gave anti-gay statements such as why dont they conceal their sexual acts from our of crowds of children and why should homosexuals have special rights?C.Student suggestions for improvements to the training. (Note: Out of a class of 38 students, 31 students responded to this question.)Eleven (35%) respondents felt that more overall time, more time allocated for questions and answers and more activities were needed. Nine (29%) respondents wanted more information specifically aimed at law enforcement and the causes of discrimination and homophobia. Classroom materials were mentioned by four (13%) respondents who wanted more visual aides, videos, handout materials and to identify when materials were written by heterosexuals. Interestingly, two (6%) respondents wanted information about the other side to be presented, specifically Bring in former gays or lesbians to share their experience . . . Discuss constructive ways to help those who want to change their life style to the normal standard.D.Response to the homework assignment. (Note: Out of a class of 38 students, 29 students completed this assignment.)Ten students (35%) recommended that to overcome resistance to accepting gays and lesbians, supervisors should emphasis the code of ethics that all people are to be treated the same. But, in the same breath, six (21%) respondents stated that they could not teach that homosexuality is normal, natural and common, because they do not believe that that is true and that they have no right to try and change peoples beliefs. For example, students wrote, Support code of ethics but cant defend homosexuality because against Jesus Christ, or equal treatment deserves same rights but not persuade that natural or normal because it isnt. For two (7%) respondents, they went so far as to say they could not administer the program because, dont believe it, thus couldnt teach it or not normal or natural, thus could not administrate the program. Respondents mainly suggested the use of educational programs that included gay and lesbian speakers, videos, teaching materials and collaborations with other agencies. One student suggested a change in measuring police productivity from the number of arrests to an analysis of types of arrests to see if particular populations are over-represented.Conclusions Regarding Sexual Orientation Training:Although the academy was the same, this particular group of students were distinctively less homophobic than the recruit classes. That is not to say this class or the agency they come from was not homophobic. Approximately half the respondents made anti-gay comments somewhere in their writings.The goals for the training shifted away from academic research on sexual orientation and more toward self-awareness and specific application for police administrators. These were achieved through more use of individual and small group activities and less lecture. Finally, I seemed better received than by the recruits even though the same personal presentation was made.Educational Conclusions:(See Appendix D for visual tabulation of training methodology compared with education theory that includes assessments of training effectiveness.)Although I was not the appropriate role-model for this class of police administrators, I seemed to be better received or tolerated. This may reflect the less homophobic beliefs displayed by the class in general and/or that academics may have more in common with police administrators.The use of a self-awareness activity in conjunction with the stereotype activity provided a greater understanding about the mechanisms of stigmatization. The video, Growing Up Gay greatly summarized the need to lecture on sexual orientation, but the speaker in the video is again not the appropriate role-model for these students. From their new understanding about homosexuality and stigmatization, students were allowed to explore police administrative scenarios that contained a gay and lesbian concern. Finally, a review of point-of-contact helped to bring closure to the training. The homework assignment attempted to allow students to reflect upon course content and put them in a real situation where they would need to apply their new knowledge. However, this assignment caused much commotion. The Dean of the academy revealed to the instructor that the contracting agency complained about the assignment because it violated labor laws to require employees to do work during their off-duty time. Also, unspecified complaints about the content and purpose of the assignment were made to the agency who then complained to the Dean of the academy.Site #9This class was an evolution of Site #7 and Site #8 with changes based on input from the previous three classes. These changes include:1. During the personal history, all references to my 25-year career as a professional classical ballet dancer were removed, plus any references to my being effeminate as a child. It was hoped that this would make me more acceptable and a better role-model for students.2.All references to my gay activism, including participation in public demonstrations or wrongful termination based on sexual orientation discrimination were not disclosed. Again, it was hoped that this would make me more acceptable.3.Because of the inability to obtain openly gay or lesbian officers to come and speak to the class, the first activity was to watch the Gay Cops segment of 60-Minutes.4.The Stereotype Activity was simplified and controlled to limit the use of derogatory terms. It was hoped this would reduce the negative feelings and comments that sometimes arises from this activity. This negativity has been observed to spread over into other discussions and activities.5.The section on sexual orientation theory was reduced in time and complexity, the multi-dimensional Shively and DeCecco model was discontinued and the normal sexuality distribution was substantiated through comparison of distributions found in heterosexist societies with those where homosexuality is institutionalized. I did not want to go so far as to promote the erroneous essentialist argument. Thus, sexual orientation was presented as a combination of biology and environment, stating that the better question is to ask why our society discriminates against anyone who is not heterosexual.6.The Points-of-Contact section was expanded by including police stories to illustrate each of the points. It was desirable to use open gay and lesbian police officers for this activity, but none were available.7.The use of a homework assignment was discontinued due to the poor acceptance in the last class of police administrators and no other reflective assignment was devised.Police Subculture:No students volunteered to participate for the interview portion of the research. However, I received a number of panic phone calls from gay and lesbian recruits concerned over the confidentiality of the survey. These students indicated that the gays and lesbian recruits whom they knew would not participate in any parts of the research.I asked the Dean if there were any gay or lesbian staff members at the academy and if he would approach them about participating in the training. The Dean contacted one of the lesbian instructors who contacted me. She was hesitant at first to participate as she was open only to a handful of people. After discussion and sharing instructional materials with her, she consented to participate in the sexual orientation training. However, she was not available due to scheduling conflicts.Students were asked to write statements about their feelings and beliefs about homosexuals and homosexuality. Of the 65 students, 62 responded to this activity. Thirty-seven (60%) respondents felt that homosexuality is morally wrong, a mental disorder and that they should stay hidden. For example, one student wrote, Gays are wrong and have a sick mind in being able to release their sexual frustration in a unnatural sex act. Another student wrote, Whats the point of people saying youre gay, what do you people have to prove to us. You dont hear heterosexuals telling people that they are heterosexual. Thirteen (21%) respondents made positive statements about gays and lesbians and their right to equal treatment. Finally, twelve (19%) respondents simply made factual statements.Students were also asked directly about the academy culture. Forty-one (41) students out of the class of 65 responded. Eighteen respondents (44%) held negative beliefs about gays and lesbians. Ten of these negative statements were moral and religious condemnations of homosexuality. One student reported, Awful!!! The most homophobic people Ive known. The jokes and comments are so bad, I cant say what to do to stop it. Another student wrote, Law enforcement in general is a homophobic profession. We joke among ourselves, in a sense prove our masculinity, and will continue to do so. I would love to be able to say it stops here, but I wont be that naive. Another student wrote, The police academy ridicules homosexuality in part because of the lack of understanding and being afraid of being thought of being homosexual. Ten (24%) respondents claimed to have not seen any discrimination against gays and lesbians. Education was suggested by five (13%) respondents as a means of improving the situation. And another five (13%) respondents claimed that the academy was not homophobic. Interestingly, three (7%) respondents believed that, The prejudice imposed on gays are[sic] greatly exaggerated.Observation of Training Program:Program and Participants: This recruit class was similar to the previous recruit classes except that it was smaller, with sixty-five (65) uniformed recruits including 3 women and 62 men.Sexual Orientation Training Observation:(See Table 4.1 for cross-agency comparison and Appendix C for complete documentation.)Much of the 3 hours and 43 minutes of training is similar to the training described in Site #7 & #8, and will not be repeated here. After the 10-minute Introduction in which I restricted my presentation to reduce objectionable characteristics, the 23-minute video Gay Cops from 60-Minutes with Mike Wallace was shown. This led directly to the 30-minute Harassment of Gay and Lesbian Police Officers activity. All students were actively involved and their comments suggested that their responses to conflict would be situationally based. After a 10 -minute break, student were asked to write questions on cards they had about homosexuality for answering at a later time. A Stereotype Activity was conducted for 30 minutes that was a variation on what had been used at Sites #7 & #8 and attempted to control student responses such that negative statements would be kept to a minimum. As usual, students had a fun time with this activity. I then lectured on Sexual Orientation Basics for 15 minutes, using the student comments made earlier as a guide for selecting which information to present. Five students challenged the research as being biased and self-identified Christian fundamentalists made their counter-points. Again, each activity and/or lecture was supported by a 62-page booklet and overhead transparencies. During the 15-minute break, students were engaged in the Famous Gays and Lesbians activity. After the break, I lectured for 60 minutes on Points-of-Contact. Twelve students made comments clarifying points of law. Students then were asked to share their Personal Contact they may have had with gays and lesbians. Six students shared having worked with gays and lesbians and one student share an experience of being hit upon by someone of their same sex. The question cards collected earlier were brought out and a few were selected for comment during the 15-minute Questions and Answers activity. Finally, I attempted closure during the last 5-minutes of trainingtrying to tie the content of the training back to the training goals. Also, I shared with the class that it had been brought to my attention that often a witch hunt for gays and lesbians ensues after I conduct a sexual orientation training. I told the students that such a witch hunt would not be tolerated and that it was their responsibility to intervene and stop gay-bashing. Analysis of Observed Methodology and Content:Individual or small group activities were the primary instructional methodology constituting 29% of class time. These activities were used to allow students to explore personal views on police scenarios that contained gay and lesbian elements. Lecture with some questions and answers was the second most used instructional methodology. This was used 27% of the time and used to explore point-of-contact discussion. The use of video and formal lecture were used 24% of the time. This methodology showed the gay cop video and presented basic information on sexual orientation. Finally, instructor-led discussion was used 20% of the time to help students understand the process of stigmatization and closure through questions and answers.The academic research on sexual orientation was severely reduced but did not oversimplify into an essentialist perspective. Much more time was allocated to presenting personal gay and lesbian police experiences and exploring the impact homophobia has on police working conditions. Students were not held responsible for learning the content as assessed through testing, homework assignment or other means. Closure on topics was sporadically attempted.Assessment of Instructor(s)/Panel:Although no students volunteered to be interviewed from this class and the student evaluations were unavailable, only one respondent mentioned on the survey of improvements for the class that he/she thought I was biased. In contrast, a few students mentioned that they thought I was good. One student stated, [I] could use some help while he is teaching. Its kind of ruff [sic] standing in front of 50 or so homophobic cadets. This is a major change over the instructor evaluations at Sites #7 and #8.Student Reactions to the Sexual Orientation Training:A.What stood out in their minds? (Note: Out of 65 students, 43 students responded to this question.)Sixteen (37%) respondents thought that content dispelling anti-gay stereotypes and issues of heterosexism were positive experiences. Some students commented, Positive, honesty, felt I was told real truth, and this was the first time I was involved in an open discussion about homosexuals and it was good. In contrast, five (12%) respondents disagreed with the content and felt the presentation was very biased, or I was disgusted with how this training was presented. Especially the language that was used. Contradictions of facts. Eight (19%) of respondents felt the instructor was outstanding, Enjoyed his humor and realism about being gay. Finally, seven (16%) respondents mentioned the used of the gay cop video and group activities as being most memorable. B.What did students want to know or were concerned with? (Note: Out of 65 students, 53 responded to this question.)Twenty-one (39%) students were interested in technical information about sexual orientation. They wanted to know about the role-playing in gay relationships, family and children issues, AIDS and discrimination. Students wrote, Do homosexuals feel threatened by heterosexuals, and How do you feel when you are with a lover. Does the pain of intercourse soon subside or does it last long (serious). Even though students were asked to write questions about homosexuality, thirteen (25%) chose to write a negative comment instead. Eleven (21%) respondents wanted to know about gay and lesbian politics and perspectives. For example, one student wrote, If you do not want to be discriminated against, why do you find it necessary to come out? Finally, nine (17%) respondents were curious about the personal feelings and beliefs of the instructor. Students wrote, How hard is it to do this class?, Have you ever wanted children of your own?, and What type of men do you date and are you against interracial relationships?C.Student suggestions for improvements to the training. (Note: Out of 65 students, 38 responded to this question.)Twelve (32%) respondents wanted greater emphasis given to topics of family issues, demonstrating that gays and lesbians are normal, and police issues. Ten (26%) respondents felt that open gay and lesbian officers needed to be present to talk about their experiences. More total time for training was mentioned by six (16%) respondents. Four (11%) of respondents wanted more videos, activities and teaching materials. One student said, the subject was presented very well. All areas seemed to be covered. Regardless of how well the training is given, I just dont think everyone is ready to change the values and morals.Conclusions Regarding Sexual Orientation Training:This group of recruits seemed equally anti-gay as had the previous two recruit classes (Site #7) when comparing their written comments about personal beliefs and agency culture; however, their classroom behavior was not as aggressive toward the instructor. This class went much more smoothly. When students made suggestions to improve the training, the previous two classes made many negative statements about me and bias materials, while this class praised me.The goals for the training further shifted away from academic research on sexual orientation and brought in police personal experiences and more time to gain self-awareness. More time was spent on individual and small group activities. These provided the foundation for practicing appropriate police behaviors in situations that involved gays and lesbians. Educational Conclusions:(See Appendix D for visual tabulation of training methodology compared with education theory that includes assessments of training effectiveness.)By modifying my personal information, I was viewed less antagonistically. Although I am still not the ideal role model for this training, I attempted to compensate by bringing in open gay and lesbian officers to assist with the class. Unfortunately, none were available and thus the gay cop video was used to fill this gap. The course structure attempted to start with the harassment of gay cops as a lead-in to self-discovery about ones beliefs and feelings surrounding gays and lesbians at work. The Stereotype Activity and Basic Information on Sexual Orientation built upon the self-awareness to assist students to a new level of understanding about the mechanism of stigmatization. The Points-of-Contact lecture and activity demonstrated appropriate police behaviors as the relevant consequence of the new knowledge. The personal contact activity was not at the right position in the educational sequence and should have been used earlier to personalize the discussion of gay cops. Closure was attempted and students were not required to demonstrate that they learned the intended content.Participants Suggestions for Assessing the Effectiveness of Sexual Orientation TrainingSexual orientation training is only minimally assessed by academies and the state commission overseeing the police academies (POST). One of the questions asked during interviews with students, instructors, program administrators and community members was for their suggestions for assessment strategies to determine training effectiveness. A wide-range of suggestions were made reflecting the difficulty in performing such assessment and the confusion arising from differences in program goals. For example, the academy director at Site #4 believed that their sexual orientation training met state CAT requirements and that it sensitized officers, but whether officers were prepared to deal in a protected/professional manner with all the problems they may encounter in dealing with gays and lesbian culturewe have a lot of work to do. For lack of better ideas, this director suggested the use of so-called experts to assess the effectiveness of their training program. Job Performance: Many interviewees took a macro-perspective of training goals and suggested assessing the effectiveness of sexual orientation training through the use of beat officer performance reviews in gay and lesbian communities, feedback at community meetings, interviews of closeted gay cops, etc. All of these suggestions were related to how officers perform on the job. A gay male city prosecutor believed that job performance is imperative since, assessing in class does not get accurate information . . . [it is more important to know if] they use the information in the field. Longitudinal Study: Similar to the job performance macro-perspective, most training sites suggested a longitudinal study of students, administrators and the community. As one 23-year veteran male instructor stated,training has occurred when performance has improved. In CAT, there is a difference between training and education. Training can be quantified to performance and behavior. Education, you dont know what they have learned. I think CAT should expect a certain level of performance that is the same as behavior. To evaluate these changes, we need feedback from the field to see how effective the training, but that never occurs. I dont know of any agency that communicates between training and FTO. I know it is a fact that FTO still tell probs that everything they learned in the academy is wrong and that now they will learn real police work.Formal Assessment Strategies: Many respondents believed that some form of formal testing could help assess the effectiveness of sexual orientation training. Often this suggestion was combined with suggestions for assigning homework and student interviews to get feed-back on the training. All training sites had students complete some short evaluation form and/or completing the state required multiple-choice evaluation form at the end of the entire cultural awareness training program. Informally known as evals, a conflict over their appropriateness emerged from the interviews. For example, at Site #5, some respondents favored the current evaluation forms because they are honest because they are anonymous. Consequently this trainer believed the training was effective because the evals are very positive. I dont recall a negative assessment, and the gay and lesbian training shines above the others, even though we are the most controversial. However, the person who has conducted the most training at Site #5 revealed that there have been many negative evaluations with some recruits stating that they believed the training is bogus and that more time should be spent on tactics. Thus, a conflict seems to exist between instructors perceptions at the same site over the accuracy and appropriateness of formal assessment. Similarly, Site #6 instructors acknowledged that evals are not considered accurate because many people fill them out haphazardly. Overall, most respondents mentioned wanting to create some kind of test that could be used at the end of the training or in a pre-/post-test analysis. Program Suggestions Made by IntervieweesInterviewees were asked for their suggestions toward improving sexual orientation training. Although many of the comments were directed at their own programs, there were general comments applicable to all.Methods: A program consultant at Site #1 best summed up the comments made by most respondents. She suggested that a multitude of teaching/learning approaches that are meaningful and credible to police [should be used] and recognize the fact that everyone learns differently. To that end, the academy director at Site #4 suggested more problem solving exercises that emphasized actual behaviors more than just sensitizing them to cultural difference. Other respondents wanted more video tape presentations where officers shared their work related experiences. Role-playing activities and situational simulations were suggested by many respondents, yet one gay officer at Site #6 refined that position and suggested that small groups and collectively attaining closure would be important. Similarly, the academy director at Site #7 wanted more time allocated for interactives allowing students to discover their own positions, and more time for police scenarios. In terms of the instructional style, the Dean at Site #7 believed his academys sexual orientation training is the most definitive . . most formalized . . . [and] most extensive, but that the instructor needs to take a more even-handed approach, and try not to convert students since there is very little [accurate] research on homosexuality. Time Allotment: Without exception, the sites that conducted approximately two hours of sexual orientation training felt that the time allocation was far too short. For example, instructors of Site #2 stated, Two hours is inappropriate because not everyone can be engaged. The minimum is 4 hours. Those sites conducting approximately 4 hours of training on sexual orientation believed this to be sufficient time. One instructor at Site #5 related, I can pretty much cover it all in 3 1/2 hours and I start to run out of things to say.Class Size: At the training sites with class size approaching 100 students, instructors reported that much smaller classes are neededat least in half or one-third. Even at the training sites with smaller classes, many instructors desired limiting class size to 20, and as one academy dean believed, smaller classes help to facilitate question and answer activities and problem solving exercises.Materials: Many respondents mentioned that they wished they had more information and literature with handouts. Half of the interviewees further stated that they would like short videos demonstrating appropriate police conduct during points-of-contact with the gay and lesbian community. Only at Site #7, where a 75-page booklet was distributed to students, did the instructor and program administrator suggest a reduction in handout materials.Trainers/Instructors: An openly gay sergeant at Site #5 expressed his belief about who makes the ideal instructor,I think we do a really good job. Most important is having good open gay and lesbian officers. Having marginal, cry-baby officers gives a bad taste. NY Charlie Cocrahn was great and when he came out, everyone was impressed and accepted his homosexuality. Civilians can do a good job, but if they dont know how to work with officers they will fail. I work the first 10 min. by showing that I am one of them. It is terrible to have an anti-police instructor. It is important to have non-stereotypical officers to teach. Dont use earring-out fags or bulldyke instructors. Many gay cops who have problems most often bring it on themselves. It becomes a game. As soon as cops smell blood, they come in for the kill.Most of the interviewees felt that the instructors must be gay or lesbian and preferably active police officers. At the sites where only one instructor was used, respondents often suggested having more than one instructor and persons of different genders, race, and ethnicity representing greater diversity other than just one white male. Other suggestions: A number of respondents suggested a simple solution to improving the status for gays and lesbians in the police agencymore open gay and lesbian officers. Three sites suggested having students engage in service with gay and lesbian organizations. A common suggestion was to expand training to all personnel, not just recruits. A non-police gay male instructor took a more radical position regarding improvements of conditions for gay and lesbian officers:The biggest stumbling block is religion. These are political businesses that seek to perpetuate themselves by heterosexual reproduction and they are the cause of war. I think a lot of police officers are conformist and subsequently religious. Even though it is a paramilitary command structure, if they hired people who thought for themselves, diversity issues would tend to fade because of the creativity of the workforce. The problem within the gay and lesbian community and the department is trying to be too PC that is how it got started. Taking the PC road may or may not work. Officers coming out is most important thing.One area that is often overlooked is the issue of holding students responsible for learning the materials. Currently, no testing is conducted on sexual orientation content. A 27-year police veteran commented, In all the CAT, is there any testing? People say you cant test, yet we should be tested. It does not have to be minority specific, but how they are discriminated against. Thus, testing on sexual orientation was suggested. The CAT program consultant at Site #6 took an organizational approach and suggested that diversity must become an organizational value and training is only one component. Diversity needs to be treated as more than just a program, but it must show up in performance evaluations, and day-to-day operation decisions. Finally, a few individuals suggested more time to prepare lessons, more technology to make it more fun, a train-the-trainers program, having cops walking beats in the gay and lesbian community, training the entire city personnel, money for materials, money to pay for professional instructors, a professional staff member for sexual orientation training, and taking students to the community.What Forces Contribute Most to the Acceptance of Gays and Lesbians?During interview, subjects were asked to identify and prioritize the factors contributing to a gay supportive work environment. Four major factors were identifiedsexual orientation training, administration support, open gay and lesbian officers, and community pressure. Respondents were almost unanimous in stating that community pressure was the least effective and only caused resentment. However, one community activists countered, Without pressure from the gay and lesbian community, none of this would have ever happened. It may be distasteful, but it opens doors and changes policies. Respondents were equally split over sexual orientation training, administration support and having open gay and lesbian officers as being the more important. Some respondents severely resisted prioritizing the factors and emphasized that all must act concurrently in order to affect a gay supportive work environment. As the program director at Site #7 stated, each must occur concurrently and that it is personal experiences that have the greatest impact.Appropriate Police Behaviors in Gay and Lesbian ScenariosOne goal of this research was to reach a consensus on appropriate police behavior in gay and lesbian situations. Three scenarios were paraphrased from the behavioral assessment instrument designed for this research (describe in Chapter 3) and presented to interviewees for their suggestions. The three scenarios represent the most common interactions police personnel experience while on the job that involve gays and lesbians. Scenario #1:After many years of working with a partner you enjoy and respect, he/she share with you that he/she is gay/lesbian. You are told this in the strictest confidence. What would you say and do?Gay and lesbian police officers gave fairly similar responses. One lesbian officer/instructor at Site #1 summed it best when she said, the officer should keep the information confidential, feel pride that he/she trusted them enough to share the deeply personal information, to accept graciously, and encourage the gay/lesbian officer to come out to other personnel. A gay male officer at Site #5 emphasized that the officer should feel flattered that the person shared the information. The two heterosexual instructors at Site #2 felt that the partner should recognize that coming out is a sign of trust, and similarly suggested that the officer respond with a statement such as, Thats interesting and I feel honored that you shared with me and Ill keep the confidence. They further suggested that the officer ask many questions to demonstrate his/her genuine interest. In contrast, most heterosexual officers and administrators responded differently. For example, the heterosexual officers at Site #6 uniformly responded with So! and the male heterosexual diversity administrator added, Keep it confidential because it is not an illegal act. The Dean at Site #7 likewise suggested that the officer not do anything and that it changes nothing. Finally, community members at Site #6 expressed a desire for much more compassion and showing interest besides just keeping it confidential. One of the more unique answers to this question was from the CAT program consultant at Site #6. She believed that since the scenario stated the officers had been partners for a long time, then the receiving officer should apologize for not creating an environment that was safe for them to share.Scenario #2:You arrive at a domestic argument between two women. Both are angry, yelling and look disheveled. What would you say and do?Most all respondents agreed that the women should first be separated, clamed, interviewed without bias, determine if a crime was committed, and make the appropriate arrest or referral. The heterosexual instructor at Site #2 who is a doctoral candidate in educational psychology, suggested that the women be separated and seated since this will help them change their behavior, and have them write with pencil on paper so as to help them refocus and to go from emotional state to cognitive state. Many of the respondents felt it was important to establish the relationship between the women. For example, one administrator at Site #4 felt it was necessary to find out if they are a couple for our safety because they are more likely to lash out at us if they are a couple. Similarly, the gay male city prosecutor at Site #6 wanted officers to remember, Caution, they will kill me as easily as in a heterosexual situation . . . we are not social workers, if something goes wrong, we become liable. It was the lesbian respondents who emphasized that the relationship between the women should not be assumed and that the investigating officers need to ask the status of the relationship. Furthermore, one lesbian officer at Site #5 said that if they suspected the women were lesbian lovers and unwilling to open up about their relationship, she would open up to them to make them feel at ease.Scenario #3:Two men have been badly beaten in a park by a gang of young adult males. This park is known for being a gay cruise spot. While interviewing the men at the scene, what would you say and do?This scenario revealed much confusion about proper police procedures when dealing with a potential hate crime. Most respondents felt that medical assistance needed to be called first and that the victims needed to be handled with sensitivity. However, deciding whether to inquire about the victims sexual orientation or the legal process involved in reporting a hate crime confused many police personnel. For example, the administrators at Site #4 and instructors at Site #2 believed that officers should ask the men if any negative statements were made. If the men were suspected of being gay, the investigating officers should continue pressing them about what words were said, and if need be, ask the men if they were gay explaining the need to file a potential hate crime report. Similarly, about half of the gay and lesbian instructors of Site #5 and Site #1 wanted to ask if the victims were gay or if they knew they were in a gay cruise spot. However, the other half of the gay and lesbian instructors and officers felt that it was not necessary to ask the victims sexual orientation directly and instead engineer this so they dont have to come out. Similarly, many respondents would ask the victims if they thought the attack was motivated by hate while other respondents said they would only ask if derogatory words were used during the attack since it is the responsibility of the police officer to file the hate crime report. Finally, most of the respondents would assure them [victims] that the issue would be taken seriously. The gay male city prosecutor of Site #6 wanted the officers to not blame the victim . . . [and not say] what the fuck are you doing down here.Section 2 Instrumental Empirical ResearchInstrumental empirical testing was used as an attempt to quantify changes in student attitudes, feelings, knowledge, identities and behaviors on sexual orientation resulting from cultural awareness training (CAT) focusing on sexual orientation information. Likewise, instrumental empirical testing of instructors, program administrators and community members was conducted to quantify the level of homophobia surrounding the training. Appendix E presents comprehensive tables of statistical data for each of the training sites. This section will discuss the major trends observed in the instrumental empirical data.The empirical testing instrument is described in detail in Chapter 3. Succinctly, the Police Empirical Research Questionnaire (PERQ) was a one-hundred question survey comprised of 6 different sections. Part 1 used the Modified Attitude Towards Homosexuality (MATH) (Price, 1982; MacDonald, Jr., et al., 1973) to assess student attitudes and beliefs toward homosexuality. Part 2 used the Index of Homophobia (IHP) (Hudson & Rickets, 1980) to assess student feelings toward homosexuals and homosexuality. Part 3 used the Homosexuality Knowledge Index (HKI) (Sears, 1991) to assess student knowledge about homosexuality. Part 4 was newly created for this research and used the Shively and De Cecco theories on gender-sexual-emotional identity to assess student understanding about changes in these identities (identified as Gender Identity, Sexual Identity, Emotional Identity, Stewart 1994). Part 5 used the 4-Item F Scale (Lane, 1955) to assess student beliefs on authoritarianism. Part 6, was created for this research to assess student behavioral response to police situations where homosexuality had a component (Police Behavioral Scenarios on Homosexuality, Stewart 1994). Scoring of these tests indicated that homophobic responses gave a low score and gay-affirming responses yielded a high score. These scores were normalized on a hundred point scale with 0 being completely homophobic and 100 being totally gay-affirming.Part 4 of the PERQ caused much controversy (see discussion earlier in this chapter). Some agencies thought that asking questions about current and future gender-sexual-emotional identities was too personal. The intent of the questionnaire was to see if students shifted away from an exclusively heterosexual or exclusively homosexual identity, and toward a more complex identity as they received information about the social construction of sexuality. But because of the continuing controversy, only the question about current sexual orientation was kept and used to differentiate responses between heterosexual and homosexual respondents. Also, data collected from the 4-Item F Scale was ultimately deemed not necessary for this study and was discarded.There are many caveats concerning the research data:1.Students: (a). The PERQ was distributed to students for pre-testing days, sometimes months in advance to training. Thus, students at each site had potential environmental influences and histories that are not equal. (b). After taking the PERQ the first time, students were asked to hold onto the test materials. After training, students were asked to turn the answer sheet over and take the PERQ a second time. This was done so tracking of individual responses was possible and the stronger Pooled T-test statistical method could be used for analysis. However, one agency in particular had four times as many students take only the pre-test and not the post-test. For some reason, student participation varied significantly. (c). Not all students participated. In some academies, 85% of students participated in pre-/post-testing, while in others it was only 3%. Thus, participation in testing was very self-selective. Since virtually no students volunteered to be interviewed, there are significant questions about the factors determining student participation. (d) Are the responses honest? There are many indicators that some students were not honest in their responses. First, the training was highly controversial and many students were disrespectful of the instructor, researcher and/or the material. Second, since students held onto the materials for a number of days, it is possible that they could have changed answers. Third, at two academies where the post-test was completed in class, a few students were observed copying their answers from the front side of the answer sheet (pre-test) on to the back side of the answer sheet (post-test). A review of data revealed a small number of students whose pre- and post-tests were identical. This is virtually impossible, but the responses were not discarded from the data analysis. Fourth, phone calls from panic stricken gay and lesbian students indicated that they would not participate in the questionnaires out of fear of being identified by their fellow students.2.Police Personnel and Community Members: These persons were vested in cultural awareness training and not representative of their communities. Again, only half of the persons asked to complete the PERQ did so. Thus, the responses from these persons are highly selective.Students Attending Sexual Orientation Training ResponsesTable 4.2 presents the median pre-/post-test scores for heterosexual students who attended sexual orientation training. The only test that reported statistically significant changes in pre-/post-scores was Part 2Feelings about Homosexuals (IHP). Site #1 and Site #9 saw student feelings toward gays and lesbians become more positive after training, whereas two other sitesSite #2 and Site #6reported student feelings becoming more negative after training. Are there educational commonalties to explain these trends? Site #1 training used a video and panel made up of gay and lesbian police personnel from the agency. Site #9 training was a highly structured workshop with many individual and group activities taught by a gay academic/activist. Site #2 training was a teacher-led inquiry into student feelings and taught by a heterosexual police educator with clear religious overtones. Site #6 training consisted primarily of a panel of civilian gays and lesbians with some direct instruction on appropriate police behaviors. Thus, the reasons associated with the measured changes in feelings toward gays and lesbians seemed unclear and possibly not related to educational methodology.In Appendix E, estimates based on qualitative and empirical evidence are made about the levels of homophobia expressed at each training site. The term homophobia is used broadly and incorporates more than just the fear of being in close proximity to homosexuals, but is used to incorporate all anti-gay sentiments, beliefs and behaviors. Site #4 was estimated to have the lowest levels of homophobia, followed by Site #1. The remaining five sitesSite #2, Site #3, Site #6, Site #7, and Site #9seemed similar in their high levels of homophobia. Heterosexual students from the academy with the least homophobic environments (Site #4) also scored much higher (less homophobic) on virtually all tests. Heterosexual students from the agency with the second least homophobic environment (Site #1) scored approximately second highest (less homophobic) on most tests. Students at the five academies with the highest levels of homophobia (Site #2, Site #3, Site #6, Site #7, and Site #9) scored similar low scores (high homophobia). Although formal correlation analysis was not conducted between agencies, it appears that heterosexual students in gay friendly environments reflect those values by scoring lower levels of homophobia (high scores). Conversely, heterosexual students in anti-gay environments, scored much higher levels of homophobia (low score).Table 4.2Pre- and Post-Test Mean PERQ Scores of Heterosexual Students Attending Sexual Orientation Trainingstudent typeclass count# respondentsSite #1service1713Site #2recruits4334Site #3recruits3928Site #4recruits306Site #5recruits45Site #6recruits1053Site #7recruits9428Site #9recruits6555Part 1Attitudes65.9/68.756.4/52.851.2/52.678.067.3/72.356.3/54.958.7/56.6Part 2Feelings51.2/57.6*142.4/37.2*236.7/35.960.658.8/56.7*337.235.741.6/43.9*4Part 3Knowledge63.5/67.866.5/61.267.2/67.979.275.0/77.167.4/65.465.0/63.1Part 6Scenarios78.7/78.175.1/75.178.0/77.576.984.6/79.576.9/80.274.0/71.2Notes: The first number is the pre-test score and the second number is the post-test score with a slash separating them. Scoring is on the scale; 0 = gay-negative, and 100 = gay-positive. Site #8 did not participate in any instrumental empirical testing. Site #4 students took the PERQ only once, whereas the other sites completed both pre- and post-tests. Site #5 students were not allowed to take the PERQ.*The differences between pre- and post-test scores were not statistically significant except those marked with an asterisk. (1) Feelings became more positive after training, with Pooled x=6.44, sd=5.95, t=3.91, df=12, 2-tail sig=.002. (2) Feelings became more negative after training, with Pooled x=-5.15, sd=11.23, t=-2.67, df=33, 2-tail sig=.012. (3) Caution, only 3 respondents in this pool. Feelings became more negative after training, with Pooled x=-2.08, sd=.72, t=-5.00, df=2, 2-tail sig=.038. (4) Feelings became more positive after training, with Pooled x=2.26, sd=8.34, t=2.01, df=54, 2-tail sig=.049.In reviewing the raw data, it was immediately evident that gay and lesbian people had significantly different scores on the various tests. These few respondents scores were removed from the class total and are tabulated in Table 4.3. These are very few responses and the reader is cautioned about making generalizations about homosexuals as a group. What is noticed is that the scores for homosexual students attending sexual orientation training were much less homophobic than the average scores for heterosexual students. Also, the environment in which training took place seems to influence homosexual student responses. In gay-affirming environments (Site #4), gay and lesbian students exhibit less homophobia than when in gay-negative environments (Site #9).Table 4.3Pre- and Post-Test PERQ Scores of Homosexual Students Attending Sexual Orientation Trainingstudent typeclass count# respondentsSite #1service171Site #2recruits43Site #3recruits39Site #4recruits301Site #5recruits45Site #6recruits105Site #7recruits94Site #9recruits652(mean)Part 1Attitudes86.6/89.392.064.3/61.6Part 2Feelings90.0/83.893.848.8/48.8Part 3Knowledge75.0/93.881.371.9/71.9Part 6Scenarios84.6/84.669.292.3/88.4Notes: The first number is the pre-test score and the second number is the post-test score with a slash separating them. Scoring is on the scale; 0 = gay-negative, and 100 = gay-positive. Site #8 did not participate in any instrumental empirical testing. Site #4 students took the PERQ only once, whereas the other sites completed both pre- and post-tests. Site #5 students were not allowed to take the PERQ.Responses by Police Personnel and Community Member Not Attending Sexual Orientation Training Training does not occur within a vacuum. The community of persons surrounding the training has a direct impact on the acceptance of the training and its overall effectiveness. Besides interviewing police personnel and gay and lesbian community members, all were asked to participate in instrumental empirical research by completing the PERQ. Approximately half of those given the PERQ returned completed forms. Again, the raw data suggested that the responses by heterosexuals were different than the responses by homosexuals. Thus, the data was divided according to those two sexual orientations.Table 4.4 presents the PERQ scores of heterosexual police officers (primarily program administrators). Results are mixed with police administrators possibly being less homophobic than their recruit classes. Interestingly, the heterosexual police officer who has a gay off-spring responded with some of the highest gay-affirming scores of the study..c4.Table 4.4PERQ Scores of Heterosexual Police Officers and Administrators Not Attending Sexual Orientation Training# respondentsSite #12(mean)Site #2Site #3Site #41Site #51*Site #62(mean)Site #7Site #9Part 1Attitudes80.889.394.646.0Part 2Feelings66.966.398.828.8Part 3Knowledge84.481.393.862.5Part 6Scenarios80.876.992.380.8Notes: Scoring is on the scale; 0 = gay-negative, and 100 = gay-positive. Site #8 did not participate in any instrumental empirical testing. * Heterosexual police officer who is a co-instructor and has a gay off-springAs expected, gay and lesbian police officers who are instructors of sexual orientation training answered with near-perfect gay-affirming scores (see Table 4.5).Table 4.5PERQ Scores of Homosexual Police Officers Not Attending Sexual Orientation Training# respondentsSite #14*(mean)Site #2Site #3Site #4Site #52*(mean)Site #62*(mean)Site #7Site #9Part 1Attitudes92.495.592.4Part 2Feelings90.692.590.0Part 3Knowledge89.110093.8Part 6Scenarios90.484.696.2Notes: Scoring is on the scale; 0 = gay-negative, and 100 = gay-positive. Site #8 did not participate in any instrumental empirical testing. * Current or previous instructors of sexual orientation training.So few heterosexual community members who are involved with sexual orientation training participated in the research. As seen in Table 4.6, data is mixed and no trends are discernible.Table 4.6PERQ Scores of Heterosexual Community Members Not Attending Sexual Orientation Training# respondentsSite #12*1(mean)Site #2Site #3Site #4Site #5Site #61*2Site #7Site #9Part 1Attitudes75.589.3Part 2Feelings68.891.3Part 3Knowledge75.093.8Part 6Scenarios84.676.9Notes: Scoring is on the scale; 0 = gay-negative, and 100 = gay-positive. Site #8 did not participate in any instrumental empirical testing. * (1) Have gay or lesbian children, (2) Cultural awareness training program developer.Table 4.7 presents the PERQ data for homosexual community members who had an interest in sexual orientation training. As expected, the homosexual sexual orientation trainers obtained near-perfect scores on the PERQ. Even though these respondents were not police officers, they obtained similar near-perfect scores on Part 6 Police Scenarios.Table 4.7PERQ Scores of Homosexual Community Members Not Attending Sexual Orientation Training# respondentsSite #13(mean)Site #2Site #3Site #4Site #51*Site #64*(mean)Site #7Site #9Part 1Attitudes89.390.295.3Part 2Feelings92.596.397.5Part 3Knowledge77.110092.2Part 6Scenarios82.110098.1Notes: Scoring is on the scale; 0 = gay-negative, and 100 = gay-positive. Site #8 did not participate in any instrumental empirical testing. * Sexual orientation trainers.Conclusions Concerning Instrumental Empirical ResearchUltimately, this research is interested in changes in student knowledge, feelings, attitudes and behaviors attributable to sexual orientation training. This section looked at the instrumental empirical data as related to training effectiveness. The instrumental empirical data was also compared with the qualitative research to find relations between the training environment and training effectiveness.Only Part 2 Feelings about Homosexuals (based on the Index of Homophobia) of the PERQ showed statistical significance between pre- and post-training for some of the training sites. In some cases, students feelings about homosexuals became more positive while in other cases the feelings became more negative. Attributing these changes to training methodology is unclear. Measures of changes in students attitudes and knowledge showed no statistical difference between pre- and post-test. Finally, the Police Behavioral Scenarios on Homosexuality, as currently constructed, proved not to be discriminating and should not be used by other researchers until it is modified. Regardless of how homophobic a response people made on the other portions of the PERQ, virtually everyone scored similarly. Although administrators seemed less homophobic than their recruits, the levels of homophobia measured in police administrators and recruits at their site seem related. For example, if the overall agency was gay-affirming then both the administrators and their recruits would score more gay-positive than in a gay-negative environment and vice versa. This suggests that recruits reflect their academy administrators and that the administrators select students who reflect their own values.Finally, homosexual students and instructors, and heterosexuals with gay and/or lesbian children report overall greater acceptance of gays and lesbians than heterosexuals.Section 3 Homophobia Level EstimateConsidering the impact an organizations culture can have on the function of its employees and the effectiveness of training programs, it is important to ascertain the overall level of homophobia within an organization. Combining the data obtain through interviews, training observations and document review, along with instrumental empirical measures, this section attempts to determine a broad estimate on the level of homophobia within the participating police academies and agencies. The qualitative data has been scaled as follows: Level 1 virtually no homophobia; Level 2 low levels of homophobia, lesbians somewhat accepted, gay males not accepted; Level 3 moderate levels of homophobia, lesbians tolerated, dangerous for gay males; and, Level 4high levels of homophobia, dangerous for all non-heterosexuals. For the instrumental data, Hudson & Ricketts (1980) (see Chapter 3) developed a scale for their IHP instrument. According to their scale as applied to the instruments used for this research, levels of homophobia based on instrumental research include: Level 1 (scores 76% to 100%) high non-homophobia; Level 2 (scores 51% to 75%)low non-homophobia; Level 3 (scores 26% to 50%)low homophobia; and, Level 4 (scores 0% to 25%)high homophobia. Thus, for both qualitative and instrumental data, levels of homophobia are estimated in the same direction with Level 1 being the most gay-positive and Level 4 being the most homophobic. For this discussion, the following nomenclature will be used: Level 1 virtually no homophobia, Level 2low homophobia, Level 3moderate homophobia, and Level 4high homophobia. Site #1: Interviews with students and police personnel indicated that gays and lesbians are conditionally accepted by the agency. Lesbians were fairly accepted while gay men are notsuggesting a homophobia Level 2. With 76% of the class participating in the instrumental research, three of the tests indicated low levels of homophobia (Level 1-2). This was a very small class and caution must be used in reaching conclusions based on just 13 responses. Conclusion: The agency class exhibited low levels of homophobia (Level 1- 2).Site #2: Class observations and student written responses indicated a very high level of homophobia within the academy and recruits (Level 4). Thirty-four students (approximately 79%) participated in the instrumental research which indicated moderate levels of homophobia (Level 2-3). In contrast with the high level of homophobia revealed in feelings about gays and lesbians, students were able to give less negative response to police scenarios. Conclusion: The academy class exhibited high levels of homophobia (Level 3-4).Site #3: The instructor report and student written responses indicate a very high level of homophobia within the academy (Level 4). Twenty-eight students (approximately 72%) participated in the instrumental research which indicated moderate levels of homophobia (Level 2-3). Only on the police scenarios did students respond at a lower level of homophobia. Conclusions: The academy class exhibited high levels of homophobia (Level 3-4).Site #4: Very few students or police personnel participated in the research. Although the class was observed to hold overwhelming anti-gay sentiments (Level 3), the written comments were much less homophobic (Level 1). The instrumental data is inconclusive since only 6 out of 30 students (20%) participated and no pre-test was given. However, the instrumental data does suggest that respondents fall somewhere between no to low levels of homophobia (Levels 1-2). Conclusion: The agency class seems conditionally accepting of gays and lesbians (Level 2).Site #5: Observations of the academy class and their written statements indicate a moderately high level of homophobia (Level 3). Unfortunately, no instrumental testing of students was allowed. Instrumental testing did occur with people who had vested interest in the course and who were very knowledgeable. Conclusion: The academy class seemed moderately homophobic (Level 3).Site #6: Class observations and student written responses were all very homophobic (Levels 3-4). Similarly, interviews with police personnel painted the agency very homophobic (Levels 3-4). Unfortunately, only 3 out of 105 recruits participated in the pre- and post- instrumental testing and results should not be considered representative of the whole. Conclusion: The agency and academy displayed moderate levels of homophobia (Level 3).Site #7: Class observation, student interviews and student written comments were extremely homophobic (Level 4). Twenty-eight out of 94 students (approximately 30%) participated in instrumental testing which suggested moderate levels of homophobia (Level 2-3). Conclusion: The academy class was moderately homophobic (Level 3-4).Site #8: Classroom observation and student written comments were moderately homophobic (Level 2-3). No instrumental testing was conducted.Site 9: Classroom observations and student written responses indicated a moderate level of homophobia in the recruit class (Level 3). Fifty-five out of 65 students (approximately 85%) participated in instrumental testing. The Part 2 Feelings towards gays and lesbians rated a moderate level of homophobia (Level 3), while all other measures were low (Level 2). Conclusion: The academy class seemed moderately homophobic (Level 3).A few general observations can be made from this data. First, the instrumental data always rated the same or slightly less homophobic than the qualitative estimates. This could be the result from scales not being matched, my being more receptive in identifying homophobia in qualitative estimates, the miss-match of populations due to the voluntary aspect for participation (e.g., no overtly homophobic person volunteered for interview), and/or respondents skewed their responses for the instrumental assessments (Did respondents give less homophobic answers on instrumental testing because they thought they should?). Second, there seems to be a positive relationship between qualitative and instrumental assessment. In sites where the qualitative assessments were low in homophobia, the instrumental assessments were also low. In sites where the qualitative assessments indicated high homophobia, the instrumental assessments were also high. Finally, of the assessment instruments, the IHP always yielded more negative scores than the other assessment instruments, and seemed to better reflect the qualitative data at estimating the level of homophobia within the police academy or agency. Also, the IHP is the only assessment instrument to record a statistically significant change in pre-/post-test scores. Thus, the IHP may be the more accurate instrument for assessing levels of homophob i