Improving Relations with 
LGBTQ+ Communities:

A Guide for Law Enforcement 

JANUARY 2020

a dozen police officers in uniform holding Rainbow LGBTQ pride flags,standing by a police vehicle. 
A PUBLICATION BY



National Resource Center for Reaching Victims, helping those who help others, logo
Helping those who help othersHelping those who help othersThe National 
RESOURCE CENTERfor REACHING VICTIMS
FORGE logo

close up of a police officer's hands holding a button with rainbow badge that says, "Safe Place"
TABLE OF CONTENTS

About the Publishers...................................................................1About the National Resource Center 
for Reaching Victims.....................................................................1About FORGE.................................................................................2Acknowledgements......................................................................4Authors...........................................................................................4Gratitude and Appreciations........................................................4Funding Appreciation....................................................................5Introduction & Purpose ...............................................................6About this Guide............................................................................8Why Should Departments Focus on LGBTQ+ Issues? ............10History of Policing in LGBTQ+ Communities...........................13Impact of History on LGBTQ+ and 
Law Enforcement Relations Today...........................................17



10 Ways to Build Stronger Relationships 
with LGBTQ+ Communities ......................................................20Internal Department Work.........................................................221) Agency Assessments and Internal Inventories .................222) Cultural Awareness and Inclusivity Training 
on LGBTQ+ Communities......................................................233) Data Collection on LGBTQ+ Community 
Relations and Incidents .........................................................314) Recruitment Strategies Inclusive 
of LGBTQ+ Individuals...........................................................335) Policy and Procedure Review, Creation, 
and Implementation...............................................................35External-Facing Work: Community Relations 
Work with LGBTQ+ Communities.............................................406) Communication and outreach strategies 
for better LGBTQ+ relations...................................................407) LGBTQ+ Liaison Programming..........................................428) Community/Law Enforcement Advisory Boards 
or Feedback Forums...............................................................469) Participation and Visible Support for 
LGBTQ+ Community Events and Celebrations.....................4710) Special Initiatives that Support 
LGBTQ+ Communities ...........................................................49Closing Note from the Authors ................................................51Glossary of Terms......................................................................52Endnotes.....................................................................................58



ABOUT THE PUBLISHERS

About the National Resource 
Center for Reaching Victims

Funded by the federal Office for 
Victims of Crime, the National 
Resource Center for Reaching 
Victims (NRC) is a one-stop shop 
for victim service providers, culturally specific organizations, 
justice system professionals, and policymakers to get 
information and expert guidance to enhance their capacity 
to identify, reach, and serve all victims, especially those from 
communities that are underrepresented in healing services 
and avenues to justice. The NRC is working to increase 
the number of victims who receive healing supports by 
understanding who is underrepresented and why some 
people access services while others don’t, designing and 
implementing best practices for connecting people to 
the services they need, and empowering and equipping 
organizations to provide the most useful and effective 
services possible to crime victims. 
The NRC is a collaboration among Caminar Latino, Casa de 
Esperanza, Common Justice, FORGE, the National Children’s 
Advocacy Center, the National Center for Victims of Crime, 
the National Clearinghouse on Abuse Later in Life, Women 
of Color Network, Inc., and the Vera Institute of Justice. 
The NRC’s vision is that victim services are accessible, 
culturally appropriate and relevant, and trauma-informed, 
and that the overwhelming majority of victims access 
and benefit from these services. To learn more about 

Two Black men embracing

the National Resource Center for Reaching Victims, visit 




About FORGE

FORGE is the nation’s leading organization focused on 
violence against transgender/non-binary individuals, 
founded in 1994. Since 2009, FORGE has held multiple 
federal contracts to provide direct services nationwide to 
transgender/non-binary victims of crime and to provide 
training and technical assistance to the victim service 
providers who work with transgender/non-binary victims 
and loved ones. 
FORGE provides professionals with a wide range of support, 
including one-to-one technical assistance, virtual trainings, 
presentations at conferences, customized in-person 
intensives, and site visits to increase cultural competency. 
In addition to recorded trainings, 
FORGE has created and hosts 
a large, free, online library of 
publications, fact sheets, and 
other printable resources 
for providers.
FORGE’s mission is to create a 
world where all voices, people, 
and bodies are valued, respected, 
honored, and celebrated and 
where every individual feels 
safe, supported, respected, 
and empowered. FORGE’s work 
focuses around the following four 
central beliefs: (1) trans people 

A White gender nonconforming person with their arms and east asian woman, both people are smiling

and loved ones are resilient (but may still benefit from 
some reminders and skills); (2) service providers have the 
profession-specific skills they need to serve trans people, 
but simply need additional trans-specific knowledge and 
confidence; (3) every person is valuable and has a great deal 
to contribute to society; and (4) binary systems and thinking 
create arbitrary lines between people and communities, 
which damage spirits and resilience.
FORGE is the lead collaborative partner with the National 
Resource Center for Reaching Victims, focusing on LGBTQ+ 
populations. To learn more about FORGE, please visit 




a white gender nonconforming person and a south asian gender nonconforming person are holding hands and smiling, walking together on a city sidewalk. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Authors

Rebecca Dreke, MSSW 
Sergeant Michael Crumrine 
FORGE staff member michael munson 
Editing support provided by Kristi Rocap and Alex Kapitan 
Graphic design by Dawn Sword, Serendipity Creative LLC

Gratitude and Appreciations

FORGE and the authors of this document greatly appreciate 
the following individuals and organizations both for their 
work on behalf of and with LGBTQ+ communities and for 
their willingness to share their experience and perspectives 
to help shape this guide:
Officers Jim Ritter and Officer Tory Newburn, Assistant 
Chief Adrian Diaz, and Hate Crimes Detective Beth Waring 
of the Seattle Police Department, along with the Seattle 
community partners Ken Shulman and Marsha Butzer and 
federal partners including Assistant U.S. Attorney Bruce 
Miyake as well as the Hate Crimes taskforce members 
from the FBI; Lt. Brett Parsons from the Washington DC 
Metropolitan Police Department; Chief Brian Manley, Officer 
Greg Abbink, and Officer Erica Danielle from the Austin 
Police Department; Lt. Daniel Meyer and Officer Christie 
Garcia from the San Diego Police Department; and Sergeant 
Denise Jones from the Clark County Sheriff’s Office in Ohio.
We would also like to extend a heartfelt thank you to all 
the members of law enforcement across the country who 



have worked to improve their departments’ responses to 
LGBTQ+ individuals. Your compassionate, thoughtful, and 
forward-thinking actions have not only improved the lives 
and well-being of LGBTQ+ individuals but has made the law 
enforcement profession better. 
Thank you to the Vera Institute of Justice who carefully 
coordinates and lifts up the many underserved communities 
represented under the National Resource Center for 
Reaching Victims.

Funding Appreciation

This product was produced by FORGE, Inc., under award 
#2016-XV-GX-K015, awarded by the Office for Victims 
of Crime, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department 
of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or 
recommendations expressed in this document are those of 
the contributors and do not necessarily represent the official 
positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A family of four with two dads and two kids walking in the park together, holding hands and smiling.

INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE 

FORGE and its contributing authors are pleased to present 
Improving Relations with LGBTQ+ Communities: A Guide 
for Law Enforcement. This document is intended for use by 
police departments and other law enforcement agencies 
looking to create, build, maintain, or restore trust with 
members of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer 
(LGBTQ+)1 communities. The recommendations detailed 
throughout can serve as a compendium of practical 
suggestions, ideas for consideration, or a checklist for 
evaluating current departmental undertakings. 
Over the past 20+ years, much important work has been 
done to advance and improve relations between law 
enforcement and LGBTQ+ communities. Historically fraught, 
this relationship has often been marked by prejudice, 
discrimination, harassment, and violence. The legacy of 
discriminatory practices is one that departments must face 
and reconcile. Fortunately, in examining problems of the 
past including harmful policing practices against LGBTQ+ 
populations, many departments have begun taking steps 
to build community trust. These efforts are laudable and 
have yielded encouraging results; yet there is more work 
to be done, especially in developing trust between the 
law enforcement and LGBTQ+ communities of color and 
youth. This guide builds on the successful innovations, 

1 Although “LGBTQ” is the more commonly used, succinct term, the letters do not 
include all who identify with this diverse community. The addition of “+” throughout 
this guide helps ensure that all those whose sexual orientations and gender identities 
(or lack thereof) do not conform to societal norms are represented. For a list of 
terms, identities, and definitions, please see the glossary of terms at the end of this 
document. 



recommendations, and best practices of trailblazers in 
the field to help motivated departments continue the 
work. As community leaders, law enforcement not only 
have a responsibility to help LGBTQ+ communities access 
their share of safety and justice, but they also have a real 
opportunity to support full equality for all citizens. 
The recommendations presented here are a starting point. 
Although they are not comprehensive, they can act as a 
barometer for departments to examine efforts they have 
already undertaken. Where possible, resources and links 
are provided to exemplary work from jurisdictions around 
the country. 
Police departments and law enforcement agencies that 
have been successful in successfully building stronger 
accountable relations with LGBTQ+ communities are often 
ones that have committed to robust community policing 
principles, including an emphasis on collaboration and 
outreach. Local community groups are much better situated 
to provide information and assistance regarding the unique 
needs of their members. Connecting with and creating 
ongoing collaborations with local organizations to develop 
best practices specific to that community will yield high-
quality results for years to come. 

Connecting with and creating ongoing collaborations with 
local organizations to develop best practices specific to that 
community will yield high-quality results for years to come.



About this Guide

As part of the Vision 21 National Resource Center for 

Reaching Victims project of the Office for Victims of Crime, 
U.S. Department of Justice, FORGE conducted an extensive 
needs assessment related to challenges and barriers faced 
by LGBTQ+ crime victims. For many victims, law enforcement 
(and the resulting response after an incident) is often the 
first step, or “front door,” to services and resources in the 
aftermath of a crime. Yet FORGE’s needs assessment showed 
that poor, negative, or oppositional relationships with law 
enforcement were barriers to reporting for LGBTQ+ crime 
victims. In FORGE’s national work with service providers, 
victim advocates, and law enforcement, many of these 
stakeholders expressed interest in learning more about how 
to improve police response and enhance the relationship 
between law enforcement and LGBTQ+ individuals. 
FORGE identified two consultants with experience 
working in this arena: (1) a sergeant from a large city police 
department with years of investigative and policing training 
work and (2) a former victim advocate and training specialist 
who has worked with dozens of police departments across 
the country to help them improve their responses to crime 
victims. These specialists (the authors of this document) 
conducted a number of site visits in various jurisdictions 
throughout the country, interviewing officers, administrators, 
community partners, and allied professionals. 
Throughout the interviews, several common themes 
emerged on how police departments and other law 
enforcement agencies can best demonstrate their desire to 
improve community relations. 



These included: 
ĥThe importance of law enforcement being proactive and 
visible in LGBTQ+ community efforts and events 
ĥThe importance of policy and procedure review 
and implementation 
ĥA commitment to restoring strained and fractured 
relationships throughout all ranks (with buy-in stemming 
from leadership) 
ĥA willingness to cultivate new relationships and 
collaborations—even with entities that might have had a 
fractured relationship with law enforcement 
ĥAcknowledging the real and perceived harms of past 
policing of this community 
ĥBeing vocal on specific issues related to safety for 
this community 
The departments selected for site visits were just a few of 
the many that have taken proactive steps to create effective 
policies and procedures to improve relations with their 
local LGBTQ+ community. Their successes, challenges, and 
lessons learned are reflected throughout this compendium.



WHY SHOULD DEPARTMENTS FOCUS ON LGBTQ+ ISSUES? 

LGBTQ+ individuals are a part of every community in 
America, including among law enforcement. Some 
communities may contain more LGBTQ+ people than others 
because the environment is more conducive for them to live 
and express themselves openly, but no community is void of 
them. According to the latest estimate from Gallup,i 4.5% of 
American adults, more than 11 million, identify as LGBTQ+.ii 
Of the different age groups listed, 8.1% of Millennials 
(born between 1980 and 1995) identify as LGBTQ+. One 
study showed that only 47% of “Gen Z” respondents (those 
born between 1995 and 2012) identify as “exclusively 
heterosexual”; Gen Z respondents reported being far more 
gender fluid than respondents from previous generations.iii 
Law enforcement will continue to increasingly engage 




3 NYPD Police Officers standing in a crowd, facing away from the camera. One officer has a rainbow LGBTQ pride flag/American flag patch sewn onto their hat. 

LGBTQ+ communities, and needs the tools to do so in a way 
that builds mutual trust and respect. 






end result is an erosion in trust that makes it both harder and 
more dangerous for law enforcement professionals to do 
their jobs. 
LGBTQ+ communities are very diverse, and there are 
LGBTQ+ individuals within all other communities—people 
of many different races, ethnicities, faiths, gender identities, 
abilities, body types, nationalities, sexual orientations, 
education levels, ages, and income levels. Failure to 
establish a strong, respectful, trusting relationship with the 
LGBTQ+ community risks law enforcements’ legitimacy with 
society as a whole. 
Just as communities change while remaining diverse and 
vibrant, societal institutions must change as well—a tenant 
that undergirds community and relational policing. Starting 
is simple: it begins with acknowledging the mistakes of the 
past and vowing to do better. Then engage the community 
in honest, open, and 
meaningful conversation 
around how to make 
improvements. These 
two initial steps are the 
foundation of mutual 
trust and respect, the two 
ingredients necessary 
to foster a positive and 
lasting relationship with 
LGBTQ+ communities. 

Young man of color with a beard ,applying mascara to his eyes

HISTORY OF POLICING IN LGBTQ+ COMMUNITIES

To understand the current distrust of law enforcement 
by LGBTQ+ communities, it’s important to consider 
law enforcement’s historical actions with this particular 
community. When law enforcement began selectively 
enforcing state and local laws that criminalized being 
LGBTQ+, it effectively became a tool of oppression against 
LGBTQ+ people—for example, selectively enforcing anti-
sodomy laws, as well as punishing public displays of 
affection by same-sex couples. During the mid-20th century, 
law enforcement routinely engaged in raids that targeted 
LGBTQ+ establishments. While law enforcement did not 
write or pass legislation that targeted LGBTQ+ individuals, 
law enforcement was the mechanism for enforcing these 
discriminatory practices, sometimes violently.
Throughout the history of the United States, local, state, and 
national governments—backed by medical and mental health 
fields—have criminalized being LGBTQ+ in myriad ways. 
Examples include listing homosexuality as a mental disorder 
by the American Psychiatric Association, anti-sodomy 
laws that prohibited same-sex sexual acts, and the federal 
government’s purging of out and suspected homosexuals2 
from federal work, fearing them to be “security risks.”v 
In an effort to identify and remove LGBTQ+ people from 
the federal government and any federally funded private 
contractor, the FBI engaged state and local police officers to 
supply arrest records of thousands of individuals picked up 

2 Note: the use of the word “homosexual” here is time-bound and was the language 
of this time in history.




for “morality” charges, irrespective of convictions.vi During 
the 1950s alone, more than 12 million workers, or slightly 
more than 20% of the U.S. labor force, faced loyalty-security 
investigations. Anti-homosexual policies spread from the 
federal government to all levels of employment in the United 
States. During this time and even up until the present day, 
many LGBTQ+ individuals did not feel safe and certainly did 
not feel that law enforcement or the criminal justice system 
was there to protect them. 
On June 28, 1968, the police raided the Stonewall Inn 
under the pretext of enforcing liquor-licensing infractions. 
The patrons of the Stonewall Inn, like many other LGBTQ+ 
patrons at bars across the country, were accustomed to 
police raids, and were fed up with the oppressive tactics of 
police targeting establishments simply because they were 
frequented by LGBTQ+ individuals. The patrons resisted 
the police in an effort to protest the oppressive conduct and 
started a riot. While there were other, smaller responses and 
rejection of police and government oppression of LGBTQ+ 
people during the 1950s and 60s, the Stonewall Riot was a 
watershed moment and marks the beginning of the modern 
LGBTQ+ rights movement. Many Pride celebrations—going 
back to the first parade in 1970—are held on June 28 each 
year to commemorate this event. 
Although the American Psychiatric Association reversed 









throughout the remainder of the 20th century. New laws and 
policies were put in place to continue to oppress LGBTQ+ 
communities, including “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” in 1992 and 
the “Defense of Marriage Act” in 1996. 
Although many states either overturned or stopped 
enforcing anti-sodomy laws by the later part of the 20th 
century, it was not until 2003 that the U.S. Supreme Court 
declared in Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558) that state 
statutes prohibiting sexual acts between consenting same-
sex individuals are unconstitutional. Despite this ruling, 
several states still have sodomy laws listed in their penal 
codes. Not purging these laws sends a message to all 
members of the community that these states do not value 
LGBTQ+ people as fully equal residents, thereby continuing 
the reluctance of LGBTQ+ individuals to trust government. 
Throughout the rest of the first two decades of the 21st 
century, strides continued toward LGBTQ+ equality. The 
Defense of Marriage Act was ruled unconstitutional, Don’t 
Ask Don’t Tell was repealed, and in 2015 same-sex marriage 
was made legal in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges. In 
2012, the American Psychiatric Association made a major 
announcement supporting transgender individuals 
by stating:
“Being transgender or gender variant implies no impairment 
in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or 
vocational capabilities; however, these individuals often 
experience discrimination due to a lack of civil rights 
protections for their gender identity or expression. 
Transgender and gender variant persons are frequently 
harassed and discriminated against when seeking housing 
or applying to jobs or schools, are often victims of violent 



hate crimes, and face challenges in marriage, adoption and 
parenting rights.”viiiUnfortunately, in today’s culture, law enforcement continues 
to have a reputation of being disrespectful and even 
physically threatening to LGBTQ+ people, particularly 
transgender individuals. Similarly, officers report interactions 
with transgender people as one of the most challenging 
LGBTQ+ issues they face. By focusing reparative efforts on 
transgender community relations, law enforcement has the 
opportunity to create great gains in LGBTQ+ trust. 
Implementing policies and procedures is important, but 
understanding the history, acknowledging mistakes, and 
sincerely vowing never to repeat them not only creates 
cultural competency but establishes legitimacy with the 
community as a law enforcement entity. It’s as simple 
as respect.



young adult Black gender nonconforming person walks outside at night down a well-lit street wearing a winter coat.

Impact of History on LGBTQ+ and Law Enforcement 

Relations Today

National studies demonstrate ongoing distrust between 
LGBTQ+ communities and law enforcement. A 2012 















Abuse, mistreatment, and misconduct by law enforcement 
were consistently reported at higher frequencies by 







“LGBTQ+ victims of crime are less likely to seek services or 
assistance from police when they need it.”



Although each police department cannot singularly bear the 
brunt or responsibility of decades of police mistreatment 
of LGBTQ+ individuals, there are practical, proactive steps 
that departments can take to help heal the wounds of the 
past and advance toward a more equitable experience for 
all community members. A commitment to change, and a 
willingness to engage in the process of positive relational 
policing, will have a great impact. The rest of this document 
outlines suggested activities for departments to consider 
undertaking and implementing. 

“LGBTQ+ people of color were six times more likely than 
white LGBTQ+ people to avoid calling the police when in 
need of police services.”



10 WAYS TO BUILD STRONGER RELATIONSHIPS WITH 
LGBTQ+ COMMUNITIES 

While many departments and agency leaders may realize 
a need to improve relations with LGBTQ+ community 
members, some departments may be unsure where or how 
to start. The following “top 10” list outlines programming 
that departments should consider implementing. The 
recommendations include both internal, “inward-facing” 
agency work as well as external community relations 
work. They are not meant to imply a linear process, 
nor are they presented in order of importance or 
significance. In fact, many actions outlined here could 
be completed simultaneously. 
These recommendations are also designed as starting 
points for departments, rather than a comprehensive list 
of tasks to accomplish. Not all departments will be able 
to incorporate all steps. Agencies will need to consider 
how best to allocate resources in order to implement the 
recommendations. As mentioned previously, agency leaders 
are strongly encouraged to reach out to community partners 
for assistance and input about what is most needed. 
Collaboration with community groups on any of these 
efforts can only enhance the process and make resulting 
programming more effective and robust. Much of the 
suggested work outlined here can be tailored and adapted 
for best local implementation. 

Collaboration with community groups on any of these 
efforts can only enhance the process and make resulting 
programming more effective and robust.



The 10 suggested recommendations below can be split into 
two categories: (1) internal/inter-departmental work within 
agencies and (2) external, public-facing activities. 

INTERNAL DEPARTMENTAL WORK INCLUDES: 

 ĥAgency assessments and inventories 
ĥCultural awareness and inclusivity training on LGBTQ+ 
communities 
ĥData collection on LGBTQ+ community relations and 
incidents 
ĥRecruitment strategies inclusive of LGBTQ+ individuals 
ĥPolicy and procedure review, creation, and 
implementation 
ĥExternal-facing work includes: 
ĥCommunication and outreach strategies for better 
LGBTQ+ relations 
ĥEstablishment of LGBTQ+ liaison programming 
ĥEstablishment of community/law enforcement advisory 
boards or feedback forums 
ĥParticipation and Visible Support for LGBTQ+ 
Community Events and Celebrations 
ĥSpecial initiatives that support LGBTQ+ communities






Internal Department Work

1

) Agency Assessments and Internal Inventories 

Before beginning new programs or implementing policy 
changes, it may be helpful to conduct an agency self-audit. 
Determine what is already working well with respect to 
LGBTQ+ community relations, as well as known problems or 
areas of conflict. Use the following as a checklist of items to 
consider:

 `What programs addressing community–law 
enforcement relations already exist? 
`What feedback (positive and negative) has the agency 
received pertaining to LGBTQ+ community relations? 
`Does the department have a glossary or guidance on 
appropriate terms to use when interacting with LGBTQ+ 
community members? 
`What best practice models have you seen other 
departments adopt that you have considered for 
the department? 
`What community groups does the agency already 
consult with who could help support this work (LGBTQ+ 
specific, human/equal rights organizations, civil rights 
organizations, etc.)? 
`How often do agency members receive training on 
LGBTQ+ issues? 



`Does the department have self-identified or out 
LGBTQ+ members on the police force and/or law 
enforcement staff? 
`How are LGBTQ+ personnel supported and protected 
from discrimination from within the department? 
`Does the department conduct policy and procedures 
review related to interactions with LGBTQ+ people? 
`What mechanisms for measurement and accountability 
are in place? 
`How does the agency track complaints of anti-LBGTQ+ 
bias or mistreatment from officers? 
Having a sense of where the department already is will help 
identify and determine how to reach the long-term goals. 

2) Cultural Awareness and Inclusivity Training on LGBTQ+ 
Communities

The importance and value of training all agency members 
across ranks and disciplines on LGBTQ+ community 
relations cannot be overstated. While departmental 
trainings often include general information on broad cultural 
sensitivity, a specific focus on issues that uniquely affect 
LGBTQ+ communities is worthwhile. Certain crimes have 
unique or specific attributes and the way they impact 
communities can vary.






WHAT TOPICS SHOULD TRAINING COVER? 

Sexual orientation and gender identity topics should be 
incorporated into new and existing training on a variety of 
broader topics. However, some LGBTQ+ specific training is 
also highly recommended. Training on these topics should 
be ongoing but conducted at least yearly due to the evolving 
nature of language and terminology. While the following list 
of topics is not exhaustive, it can help point departments in 
the right direction: 
ĥTerminology: Training on respectful language that 
agency personnel should use when working with 
LGBTQ+ populations. Personnel’s use of current and 
proper terminology denotes respect; addressing 
community members the way they want to be treated 
and addressed is important. Terms people use to 
describe their identities evolve, and while no one will 
remember all terms, a willingness to try goes a long way 
toward building relationships. Moreover, the benefits 
of using proper terminology and forms of address 
extend beyond trust-building—the right words can help 
personnel avoid escalation of incidents, increasing staff 
and community safety. 
ĥTransgender, Gender Non-Conforming, and Non-
Binary Individuals: Training on working with transgender 
individuals and other people whose gender identities or 
gender expression differ from societal norms. 
ĥLGBTQ+ Youth-Specific Topics: Subjects include 
homelessness, delinquency, suicidality, and trafficking, 
among others. 



ĥIntimate Partner Violence and Sexual Assault: 
Reporting, documenting, outing, access to shelter and 
other services. LGBTQ+ victims of these crimes have 
unique needs and studies have shown that they often 
do not receive as thorough of a response from law 
enforcement, as other victims of the same crimes do (but 
perceptions and responses are changing and improving 
with more awareness).xiv Collaborating with national and 
local organizations is important in producing effective 
and accurate trainings, consider starting with these 
resources: International Association of Chiefs of Police 
(IACP), National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 
and National LGBTQ Institute on IPV. 
ĥCultural Competency and Sensitivity: Understanding 
how LGBTQ+ people’s experience may differ based 
on race, ethnicity, housing access, economic realities, 
religion, disability, age, and other attributes. 
ĥHuman Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV): Training for law 
enforcement about HIV transmission and the realities of 
individuals living with HIV today, as well as guidelines for 
law enforcement handling matters of alleged HIV (and 
other sexually transmitted infections) non-disclosure. 
While important for any department, training on HIV is 
particularly relevant for departments in jurisdictions with 
HIV-specific criminal exposure laws. 
ĥBias-Motivated and Hate Crimes: Some states have 
hate crime laws that are meant to protect LGBTQ+ 
individuals with regard to both sexual orientation and 
gender identity. Some such state laws only include sexual 
orientation protections; some do not include either. 
Several states have no hate crimes legislation for any 






bias motivator.xv While some jurisdictions may be limited 
in their response because of state penal codes, agency 
personnel should be aware of and familiar with federal 
hate crime protections. Moreover, even states that do not 
have hate crimes legislation can still report incidents of 
bias-motivated acts to the FBI for better federal reporting 
and publication of these incidents. Staff can also refer 
victims of LGBTQ+ bias-motivated incidents to 
the local U.S. Attorney’s Office Victim/Witness 
Assistance Program.




WHO SHOULD RECEIVE LGBTQ+ 
CULTURAL TRAINING? 

Trainings on this population should be department-wide, 
including officers of all ranks, dispatch, and any employed 
non-sworn personnel. Certainly, training on these subjects 
should be part of recruit and academy training, but also 
should be provided for veteran officers and other personnel, 
with lessons incorporated into ongoing professional 
development. Training should be tailored to specific needs 
of various personnel; specific and tailored advance training 
on specialized topics should be provided for detectives and 
investigators and those who will be working with LGBTQ+ 
populations in specific ways. For instance, special victims’ 
investigators and detectives (such as domestic violence or 
sex crimes) should receive enhanced training on the unique 
realities of how those crimes have a distinct impact on 
LGBTQ+ individuals. First-line personnel should be 
sure to receive training on respectful terminology and 
proper procedures for working with transgender/ 
non-binary individuals. 



Trainings on this population should be department-wide, 
include officers of all ranks, dispatch, and any employed 
non-sworn personnel. … Training should be tailored to 
specific needs of various personnel; specific and tailored 
advance training on specialized topics should be provided 
for detectives and investigators and those who will be 
working with LGBTQ+ populations in specific ways.

Training related to these issues should be ongoing, as 
departments face turnover and officer reassignments and 
deployments. Concise training bulletins could be provided at 
roll call and other meetings. 

WHO COULD BEST DEVELOP/WRITE THE TRAINING? 

The inclusion of subject matter experts from the local 
community will greatly enhance and enrich training. 
Consider organizations with experience designing public 
education modules and training for diverse groups of 
people, especially organizations with their own expertise or 
established consultant relationships.

WHAT TYPE OF TRAINING IS BEST? 

Trainings that emphasize attention to adult learning 
styles are most effective. Trainings should incorporate 
relevant, practical information about working with LGBTQ+ 
populations that is directly relatable to the experiences of 
personnel. Research on law enforcement training shows that 
officers respond well to and learn best from incident-based 
trainings that use case scenarios and role plays. These types 
of training techniques emphasize learning modules that are 






easily applied to on-the-ground conditions.xvi Some examples 
of case scenarios and incidents regarding the unique ways 
in which officers might interact with and have contact with 
LGBTQ+ populations include: incidents of intimate partner 
violence, homeless youth, reports of bias or hate crimes, and 
how to respond to calls regarding people using the “wrong” 
restroom or locker room. Trainings can be evaluated by 
conducting both participant satisfaction surveys with the 
training but also pre- and post-tests to measure learning. 



Research on law enforcement training shows that officers 
respond well to and learn best from incident-based trainings 
that use case scenarios and role plays. These types of 
training techniques emphasize learning modules that are 
easily applied to on-the-ground conditions.

WHO SHOULD CONDUCT THE TRAINING? 

Some departments “outsource” all special populations 
training to community groups, such as local or statewide 
equal rights organizations, local LGBTQ+ specific agencies, 
or university or campus-based organizations. Other 
departments keep things “in-house” and only have officers 
provide trainings. Agencies are strongly encouraged to use 
a co-facilitation model that includes and incorporates input 
and perspectives of community members in both the design 
and delivery of the trainings. Trainings should always include 
law enforcement personnel, as officers learn best from other 
officers. However, collaborations with community allies can 
provide direct community examples, round out perspectives, 
and foster community partnerships. 



Some departments have found it helpful to establish 
a training working group. Such a group, comprised of 
community members and law enforcement personnel, 
can outline learning objectives, set expectations, and 
work together to provide a well-rounded training. Law 
enforcement trainers can ensure the material covered 
speaks directly to the officers’ learning needs. Community 
members can speak directly to their experiences and may 
also be aware of existing training materials that could be 
beneficial for departments. Community members can assist 
in the training by being part of role plays, facilitating case 
scenarios, sharing their own experiences, and ensuring 
that messages about LGBTQ+ people are accurate 
and respectful. 
The inclusion and involvement of supervisors, leadership, 
or administrators in the training design can validate 
the importance of the information. Oversight by and 

Eileen Donahoe, U.S. Ambassador to the Human Rights Council, a white woman; and Brett Parson, Head of the LGBT Liaison Unit of the Washington DC Police, a white man; presenting on a panel 

involvement of superior personnel can also help ensure the 
implementation of an adherence to procedures and policies 
resulting from the training. 
If the department already conducts LGBTQ+ sensitivity 
and inclusivity training, consider consulting with local 
LGBTQ+ community organizations for feedback about how 
the trainings can be improved and enhanced. Additionally, 
consider regularly reviewing new legislation and case law 
with local state or district attorney’s offices to ensure that 
the material presented to agency members is accurate and 
up-to-date. 
A few training resources can be found here: 
ĥTo request a training to be hosted in your area, and/or for 
assistance in designing a training for your department, 
please contact FORGE, Sergeant Michael Crumrine, or 
Rebecca Dreke. 
ĥOut to Protect provides LGBT Awareness for Law 
Enforcement, as well as hosting an online training 
platform. 
ĥThe U.S. Department of Justice’s Community 
Relations Service (CRS) produced a training video for 
law enforcement which provides information, tools, 
and techniques to help ensure that interactions with 
members of the transgender community are respectful, 
professional, and safe for all involved.






ĥThe Seattle Police Department SPD Partners With 
Transgender Community on Policyproduced a training 
video in partnership with members of the transgender 
community, highlighting the steps officers will take to 
ensure transgender individuals are treated with dignity 
and respect during all contacts with police. The video 
includes personal stories from transgender individuals in 
the community.

3) Data Collection on LGBTQ+ Community Relations 
and Incidents 

Many departments already compile a variety of local 
statistical reports. These reports include data about specific, 
reported crimes and are often shared annually with federal 
and other reporting partners. Departments that are not 
already doing so may want to consider tracking hate or 
bias-motivated incidents against LGBTQ+ people, including 
incidents motivated by victims’ actual or perceived sexual 
orientation and/or gender identity. Tracking these points of 
data may foster accountability and lead to better problem 
solving in policing efforts with these communities.
Departments could also consider tracking the number 
of interactions with self-identified LGBTQ+ community 
members. For instance, departments could record the 
number of individuals detained and searched who self-
identify as transgender or non-binary. Additionally, if 
complainants of domestic or sexual violence self-identify 
as LGBTQ+ (or share that their identity was a factor in 
their abuse or assault), this disclosure should be recorded 






by agencies. Data can be important for departmental 
assessment but also for community accountability.3Departments should also review their forms and 
demographic tools to ensure that there are multiple options 
for gender. Although a person’s legal gender may be 
required for some fields, data collection should also include 
gender options for how an individual identifies, which 
might be male or female, but may also be another gender. 
Offering additional options, such as “transgender,” “non-
binary,” or providing “another gender” with a write-in option 
will allow individuals to feel their identity is validated and 
acknowledged.
The FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) 
bias-motivated incident codes have been modified to 
better capture incidents against LGBTQ+ people, including 
the addition of specific codes related to anti-transgender 
and anti-gender-nonconforming individuals. Although 
state penal codes may not include crime classifications for 
incidents motivated by bias against LGBTQ+ individuals, 
departments should still consider developing a mechanism 
to track these incidents, and consider reporting them to the 
FBI to be included in the Uniform Crime Reporting program 
(UCR). Hate and bias-motivated incidents against LGBTQ+ 
people (and other marginalized individuals) are highly 
underreported, and capturing better data is essential for 
creating more equitable criminal justice, policy, and victim 
service responses nationwide. Collection and publication 

3 Unless an individual specifically states that they are part of the LGBTQ+ 
community, or the officer asks as part of relevant information-gathering during 
an investigation, a person’s identity should not be assumed or guessed at 
solely for tracking purposes. 



of local LGBTQ+ bias data, regardless of state or federal 
mandates, can also help build transparency and trust with 
the community. 

The FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System 
(NIBRS) bias-motivated incident codes have been modified 
to better capture incidents against LGBTQ+ people, 
including the addition of specific codes related to anti-
transgender and anti-gender-nonconforming individuals.

4) Recruitment Strategies Inclusive of LGBTQ+ Individuals

Many law enforcement departments have taken steps 
to better understand and demographically reflect the 
communities they serve. Recruiting and proactively hiring a 
diverse pool of individuals, including LGBTQ+ people, as law 
enforcement officers and other agency personnel can help 
meet that goal. 

IN REVIEWING RECRUITMENT EFFORTS, CONSIDER: 

 ĥDoes the department specifically advertise to LGBTQ+ 
populations? 
ĥDo recruitment efforts specifically mention the 
department being welcoming to LGBTQ+ personnel? 
ĥHow might the department indicate to potential new 
recruits that they will be welcomed and valued? 






SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR POSITIVE RECRUITMENT 

STRATEGIES INCLUDE: 

 ĥAdvertise in publications read by the LGBTQ+ 
community, with input from community members 
and organizations. 
ĥConsult with LGBTQ+ organizations to make them aware 
of the agency’s recruitment efforts. 
ĥReach out to LGBTQ+ community groups. 
ĥReach out to partnering agencies. 
ĥEmphasize inclusion of LGBTQ+ people in all 
publicized materials. 
ĥEstablish LGBTQ+ officer working groups as part of 
recruitment efforts. These officers can assist with 
suggestions both for improved outreach and recruitment 
efforts, and for thinking through how to best solve issues 
that may arise with transgender officers who transition 
on the job.xvii 
ĥUse applications, testing, and other hiring practices that 
are gender neutral.4In addition to recruitment efforts, emphasize the 
department’s commitment to inclusion by incorporating it as 
a metric for promotion. Promotion decisions can include an 


4 The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department provides a guide for transgender 
and gender non-conforming employees. See Los Angeles County Sheriff’s 
Department, “An LASD Guide: Transgender & Gender Non-Conforming Employees” 
(2014), available at http://www.sxpolitics.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/lasd-







examination of officers’ interpersonal and professional skills 
and whether they work effectively and collaboratively with 
diverse communities.
Some positive examples of LGBTQ+ police recruiting 
efforts include those of the Baltimore Police Department, 
the Dallas Police Department, and the San Jose Police 






ĥResponse protocols for LGBTQ+ complaints of hate and 
bias-motivated incidents 
ĥResponse protocols for solicitation, public lewdness, 
loitering, vagrancy, and disorderly conduct to identify 
any possible LGBTQ+ bias, especially regarding 
selective enforcement 
Drafting and implementing new policies related to 
interactions with LGBTQ+ individuals can be an important 
step toward improving community relations. A few areas of 
policy development to consider are: 
ĥNon-discrimination and zero tolerance for LGBTQ+ 
harassment or bias 
ĥExplicit and specific procedures for the respectful 
treatment of transgender people (including information 
related to documenting gender identity, searches, arrest, 
custody procedures, and the explicit prohibition of 
searches conducted for the purpose of assigning gender 
based on anatomical attributes and features) 
ĥA “quick tips” or simple glossary for officers and other 
agency personnel on appropriate language for engaging 
with LGBTQ+ individuals (this guide should be easily 
accessible by all staff, so that personnel are not required 
to search through pages of procedure manuals, and local 
LGBTQ+ organizations should be consulted broadly with 
to complete this task) 
ĥProcedures regarding “early warning systems” to address 
and retrain/discipline/reassign officers who engage in 
insensitive or abusive behavior






ĥExplicit prohibition of sexual harassment, assault, and 
misconduct by officers and other personnel against 
LGBTQ+ community members 
ĥAppropriate documentation of sexual orientation and 
gender identity in public reports and affidavits 
ĥIn addition to male and female, gender options on 
forms and paperwork should be available for individuals 
to self-identify 
ĥProcedures for responding to incidents with elements of 
LGBTQ+ hate or bias motivations 
Considering how to implement new policies, as well as 
how to ensure adherence, is also critical. Policies, however 
well written, are only effective when well implemented. 
Moreover, agency member training and buy-in is 
also important. 




CONSIDER: 

 ĥHow will agency members receive training on the policy? 
ĥHow will new policies be evaluated for effectiveness? 
ĥHow will the department receive feedback from 
community members who are affected by the policies 
or procedures? 
ĥWhat types of supervisory enforcement 
mechanisms exist? 
ĥHow will policy violations be addressed? 
ĥHow will violations be documented? 






Finally, departments should consider making policies 
transparent and publicly accessible on departmental 
websites. This simple step can communicate the agency’s 
commitment to fostering public trust. 
ĥFor examples of publicly available policies from several 
departments regarding interactions with transgender 
individuals, please see: 
\Philadelphia Police Department Directive 4.15 
\Hartford Police Department Departmental Directive 
DD 17-01 
\San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Police 
Department Policy Recommendation - Interactions 
with Individuals Identifying as Transgender 
ĥFor sample policy language to adapt regarding 
interactions with transgender individuals, please see the 
Police Department Model Policy on Interactions with 
Transgender People written by the National Center for 
Transgender Equality. 
ĥFor direct, technical assistance in crafting new policy 
related to LGBTQ+ community interactions, please 
contact FORGE.







As a general rule, any newly created policy should be cross-
referenced with other Standard Operating Procedures 
(SOPs), patrol guides, and general or standing orders, to 
ensure consistency across written materials and safeguard 
against contradictory information being presented to 
officers and agency personnel. 



“Taking the time to write policies is definitely important. 
But getting community partners involved in the process 
is key. Having their involvement can help establish buy-in 
and give community members some “ownership” over the 
policies being written—that are about them! When you get 
them to weigh-in on policies, it shows you are going to be 
accountable to them.” 
— SGT. DENISE JONES, CLARK COUNTY, OHIO, SHERIFF’S OFFICE

Two women of color police officers, wearing their police uniforms and rainbow regalia, smiling.

External-Facing Work: Community Relations Work 
with LGBTQ+ Communities

6) Communication and outreach strategies for better 
LGBTQ+ relations

Developing strong outreach strategies, crafting public 
messaging, and maintaining open dialogue with LGBTQ+ 
community members help foster positive relations. As 
was discussed previously, many LGBTQ+ individuals feel 
underserved and under-protected by law enforcement. 
Departments are sometimes perceived by the public as 
inaccessible and reluctant to serve LGBTQ+ communities. 
Therefore, taking proactive steps to remind the local 
LGBTQ+ community that the department exists to serve and 
protect everyone is crucial. 
Improved and open communication will also expand law 
enforcement’s collaboration with and access to these 
communities. To improve dialogue, departments can 
leverage existing relationships, use key public information 
officers, and tailor outreach with specific objectives in mind. 
For instance, does the department want to encourage 
reporting of crimes against LGBTQ+ victims? Does the 
agency want to show support for particular community 
events (e.g., during Pride month)? Does the department want 
to establish a safe zone project and seek community input? 
The following outreach suggestions are examples from real 
departments and should be tailored to best fit the needs of 
the agency. 
ĥCapitalize on the versatility of social media to cast a wide 
net. Communications can take several different forms: 



 \Craft social media campaigns and messaging 
around specific issues and events. For example, law 
enforcement agencies/departments can post, or 
repost, information about LGBTQ+ community events, 
specific issues that impact LGBTQ+ populations, or 
LGBTQ+ individuals during other awareness months 
(such as LGBTQ+ domestic violence facts during 
Domestic Violence Awareness month in October). 
\Be creative and innovative with public information 
messaging, and engage in current trends and 
campaigns. For instance, many law enforcement 
agencies/departments participated in the widely 
popular “It Gets Better” project. 
\Use social media marketing tools to reach LGBTQ+ 
individuals and remind the public that the department 
serves and protects everyone in the community. 
\Be present on emerging social media platforms, as 
these are more widely used by younger generations. 
ĥUse Public Information Officers but also liasons, district 
representatives, and others to carry the messages. 
ĥWrite a column for a local newspaper about an LGBTQ+ 
topic; use media to spread the word about efforts your 
department is taking to improve LGBTQ+ relations. 
ĥInvite community members to the department for a 
sit-down, or host an open house with the chief or 
other leaders. 
ĥParticipate with exhibits and tables at local events 
targeted to the local LGBTQ+ community. 









ĥPartner with other law enforcement agencies (municipal, 
county, state, and even federal) in organizing support for 
an LGBTQ+ issue or participate collectively in events. 
ĥInvite leaders from LGBTQ+ organizations to your 
department and ask them how you can demonstrate to 
their community that you are an inclusive department. 
ĥAttend other community meetings and events, when 
invited or appropriate. 




“As with any healthy relationship, communication is the key 
element for success.” 
— OFFICER JIM RITTER, SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT

7) LGBTQ+ Liaison Programming

The designation of an LGBTQ+ liaison is one example of an 
increasingly common departmental practice that fosters 
improved community relations. Liaisons can help build trust, 
respect, and understanding between law enforcement and 
the local LGBTQ+ community.
LGBTQ+ liaisons serve as a point of contact for the 
LGBTQ+ community. Often liaisons are spokespeople for 
the department on local LGBTQ+ issues. These individuals 
can play advisory roles, represent the interests of the 
department to the community, and be community outreach 
coordinators. Some department liaisons monitor statistical 
information regarding crimes committed against LGBTQ+ 
individuals. If the agency has a Student Resource Officer 



(SRO) program, the LGBTQ+ liaison officer (or unit) should 
also be involved with work in the schools regarding LGBTQ+ 
student issues. 

LGBTQ+ liaisons serve as a point of contact for the 
LGBTQ+ community. Often liaisons are spokespeople for 
the department on local LGBTQ+ issues. These individuals 
can play advisory roles, represent the interests of the 
department to the community, and be community 
outreach coordinators.

LIAISONS CAN: 

 ĥAssist in developing policy regarding 
LGBTQ+ interactions 
ĥAssist with enacting policies and procedures related to 
the department’s diversity and equity goals 
ĥCoordinate among various jurisdictional departments, 
agencies, and offices to improve LGBTQ+ individuals’ 
safety and access to services 
ĥProvide education to the department about the needs of 
the local LGBTQ+ community 
ĥAttend community events and conduct outreach 
ĥTake incident/criminal reports from community members 
and conduct follow-up on these reports 
ĥProvide feedback to the department regarding ongoing 
LGBTQ+ community concerns or complaints






FOR AGENCIES CONSIDERING ESTABLISHING AN 

LGBTQ+ LIAISON, HERE ARE SOME SUGGESTIONS: 

 ĥEnsure liaisons are active and responsive to the local 
LGBTQ+ community 
ĥEnsure liaisons are overseeing LGBTQ+ and law 
enforcement interactions, as well as providing resources 
ĥEnsure liaisons have access to the chief or 
senior leadership 
ĥEnsure there is an established liaison role for providing 
input into policy and decision-making 
ĥEnsure liaison duties go beyond simply serving as a 
repository for community grievances and concerns 
ĥEnsure that a department-wide Standard Operating 
Procedure outlines the roles and responsibilities 
of liaisons 
ĥUnderstand that it may take time to build trust, particularly 
if trust has been absent or broken in the past, and that it is 
important to stick with the program and obtain feedback 
from the community throughout the process 




COMMON AGENCY QUESTIONS INCLUDE:

 ĥDo liaisons have to be LGBTQ+ identified? Liaisons 
do not have to specifically identify as lesbian, gay, 
bisexual, transgender, or queer. However, a commitment 
to LGBTQ+ equality, understanding of the issues facing 
the community, and superior interpersonal skills are 
important qualities for anyone serving in this role. 






ĥDoes the liaison have to be one individual or could be 
a unit? Some departments select an individual officer to 
serve in this role and others establish a unit of officers of 
varying ranks and assignments. The composition of the 
department’s liaison unit should be determined based 
on agency size, community need, and available 
resource allocation. 
ĥAre liaison units expensive? Aside from personnel or 
staff time, liaison units do not need to be cost-prohibitive 
to departments. Adjusting an officer’s work duties to 
include these efforts can be an effective solution. 
ĥHow does a department let the community know it is 
assigning a liaison? In addition to press releases and 
social media announcements, consult and collaborate 
with local LGBTQ+ community organizations. Solicit 
feedback about what is most needed to help improve the 
relationship with community members. Ask them to help 
shape the roles and requirements of this position.
Specific and successful LGBTQ+ liaison programs have 
been implemented by Washington DC’s Metropolitan 












8) Community/Law Enforcement Advisory Boards 

 



or Feedback Forums

To best solicit input and ensure feedback 
from LGBTQ+ community members, some 
departments may need to establish a formal 
feedback mechanism. Feedback structures 
could include advisory boards, feedback 
forums, listening sessions, or working groups. 
In some jurisdictions, these groups already 
exist through governmental agencies or 
departments (e.g., mayor’s office on diversity 
and inclusion, or countywide LGBTQ+ 
working groups). If a jurisdiction has an existing body, 
ensure that law enforcement agency members are active 
participants. For other departments, law enforcement-
sponsored and -initiated groups may yield the best results. 
These groups can allow law enforcement agencies to learn 
more about current issues affecting the community and 
can be tailored to best meets the needs of the local area. 
Some groups convene only to work on certain issues (e.g., 
hate crimes reporting), only during certain times (e.g., in 
advance of and planning for Pride month), or with particular 
communities (e.g., LGBTQ+ youth). 
Other forums may be established to allow for civilian advice 
and oversight, which may include LGBTQ+ people or other 
individuals. These advisory boards should have diverse 
representation from within LGBTQ+ communities, including 
individuals or organizations representing LGBTQ+ people 
of color, transgender/non-binary individuals, youth, people 
with disabilities, and people experiencing homelessness. 

San Francisco Police sewn badge with rainbow outline

The groups can be formal, with set meetings and agendas, 
or informal (but still regularly scheduled and consistent) 
such as “Coffee with a Cop.” 
Jurisdictions that have organized civilian complaint review 
boards should be sure to recruit and include adjudicators 
specifically trained to address the complaints and incidents 
experienced by LGBTQ+ people.
Surveying the community to solicit feedback is also a 
promising practice. Departments can publish community 
surveys on department websites and promote them on 
social media. If you have a university or college in your 
jurisdiction, consider working with researchers there to help 
an agency design the survey.

9) Participation and Visible Support for LGBTQ+ Community 
Events and Celebrations

Departments should ensure they have a supportive 
presence at any public events that are important to LGBTQ+ 
communities. For many communities, this opportunity 
is during Pride marches. Law enforcement presence at 
these events serves to both provide security and, equally 
important, to demonstrate support for the community. 
Engagement with these community-wide events can also 
support LGBTQ+ identified agency members, prospective 
recruits, and agency members’ family and friends. 
While departments should check with community organizers 
to ensure that law enforcement presence is welcome, it 
is important that departments make the effort to reach 
out. In addition to Pride parades, there are usually many 
community events during Pride month; networking with 


and collaborating with 
community groups to learn 
how to best participate 
will help foster trust and 
ongoing communication. 
Many departments make 
special efforts to show 
their support of LGBTQ+ 
communities, especially 
during Pride month. 
Departments may choose 
to create special uniform 
polos, patches, or pins; 
change social media banners to display the rainbow colors 
of Pride; organize public events to recognize LGBTQ+ 
members of the department; or issue statements in 
support of Pride that acknowledge, and even apologize for, 
mistreatment of LGBTQ+ communities by law enforcement 
in the past.
Visibility is important to LGBTQ+ communities. Finding 
opportunities to visible support LGBTQ+ community 
members will enhance their perception of the department as 
a welcoming and affirming establishment. 

“What happened should not have happened. … The actions 
taken by the NYPD were wrong, plain and simple. The 
actions and the laws were discriminatory and oppressive, 
and for that, I apologize.” 
— NY POLICE COMMISSIONER NAME O’NEILL, DURING A 
SAFETY BRIEFINGxix



young, nonbinary white person rides in the passenger's side of a Seattle police cruiser during a LGBTQ pride parade, smiling and waving a rainbow flag.

10) Special Initiatives that Support LGBTQ+ Communities 

Law enforcement’s participation in initiatives specifically 
designed to address harms against, and develop positive 
responses to, LGBTQ+ communities can be an important 
way for departments to demonstrate their support and 
build trust. 
While there are many types of initiatives, the following 
examples are well-established programs, with 
comprehensive instruction manuals, training, and technical 
assistance support. 
ĥThe Seattle Police Department (SPD) Safe Place is 
a program initiated and managed by the SPD with 
input from community members and government 
collaborators. The program was created to address the 
lack of reported anti-LGBTQ+ bias crimes and bullying 
incidents. The SPD partnered with hundreds of local 
businesses and schools. These establishments place a 
rainbow sticker decal at the entrance of their building 
to indicate that any individual who is the victim of a bias-
motivated incident may ask that business or school to 
call law enforcement on their behalf, and they may stay 
safe in that premise until law enforcement responds. This 
initiative has been replicated by several departments 
across the country. Because it was designed by law 
enforcement and supported by community members, 
this program is a promising practice. 
ĥTo encourage LGBTQ+ youth to report, Safe Zone 
Project and Safe Space GLSEN curricula are designed 
to help school resource officers know how to best be 
allies for LGBTQ+ youth. Also, physical spaces can signal 






to youth that they are safe to be out: by maintaining a 
separate physical space in your department for youth 
to report incidents, and by posting outward signs of 
LGBTQ+ support (stickers, decals, posters), youth can 
feel more comfortable reaching out for help. 
ĥOther departments collaborate with local LGBTQ+ 
centers to facilitate reporting and complaints to the 
department. As LGBTQ+ victims are often reluctant to 
call law enforcement or go to the police department 
to report a bias-motivated incident or other crime, 
community centers can serve as “neutral” meeting 
grounds, where staff workers and advocates can call 
trusted liaison officers to take reports. Leveraging 
the trust of these established relationships ensures a 
more accurate and timely report, and also serves as 
an affirming process for the victim, as they are able to 
stay in a location where they feel safe. Designing and 
establishing these types of collaborative initiatives 
are low cost to departments but can yield high 
community goodwill. 
The development of special initiatives is only as limited 
as imagination and resources allow. Reaching out to local 
organizations and community groups to hear their thoughts 
and ideas is the most effective first step. 






CLOSING NOTE FROM THE AUTHORS 

The authors of this guide hope that it will serve not only 
as a road map for how to improve relations with LGBTQ+ 
communities, but also encourage you and your agency 
to go on a journey. A journey where every member of the 
community you have the privilege of serving feels they are 
seen, heard, respected, trusted, appreciated, and most 
importantly safe. Go meet your community, get to know 
them, have coffee with them or buy them a taco and chat. 
Let the local LGBTQ+ community help you be a better 
officer, deputy, constable, agent, and agency. Learn from 
each other and see what kind of amazing experiences you 
can create. By no means is this guide a definitive list of the 
only avenues to use in improving relations with LGBTQ+ 
communities. As agencies work with their communities, they 
will find additional ways to build strong, positive relations 
with LGBTQ+ individuals and communities. This guide is a 
map for how to achieve better relations, but it is up to each 
person and agency to take the next step. 

“Over my many years of being a police officer, there’s been 
a strange juxtaposition: I have watched a profession that I 
love exhibit exclusionary and hurtful practices against the 
other community to which I love and belong (the LGBTQ+ 
community). But I have been honored to be part of the 
evolution towards positive change. The LGBTQ+ community 
is extremely resilient, as is the field of law enforcement. We 
can change, we can adapt, and we can find the right, fair, and 
just path to best protect all members of our community.” 
— SGT. MIKE CRUMRINE



GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Language that people within LGBTQ+ communities use to 
refer to themselves, and others, is constantly evolving. The 
glossary here presents some commonly used terms. 

Ally: A person who considers themself a friend to the 
LGBTQ+ community.
Asexual: The lack of sexual attraction to anyone, or low or 
absent interest in sexual activity. Sometimes referred to 
as Ace. 
Assigned male at birth, assigned female at birth: See 
sex assigned at birth. 
Biphobia: Prejudice, fear, or hatred directed toward 
bisexual people. 
Bisexual: A sexual orientation of a person who is 
romantically and/or sexually attracted to people of more 
than one gender (though not necessarily simultaneously, in 
the same way, or to the same degree). 



two gay men of color hugging each other and smiling in front of a lake; juxtaposed by one of the men smiling in his police officer uniform

Cisgender: A term used to describe a person whose gender 
identity aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth, or a 
person who is not transgender. 
Coming out: The process during which a person 
acknowledges, accepts, and appreciates their sexual 
orientation and/or gender identity, and/or shares this 
information with others. 
Documentation markers: The name and/or gender 
listed on a person’s various identification documents, such 
as driver’s license, birth certificate, Social Security card, 
passport/visa, and so forth. Some documents are more 
easily changed, others can be impossible. Transgender 
people often have documents that don’t all match each 
other, and/or don’t match the name and gender that they 
present in the world. 
Gay: A sexual orientation that means a person who is 
romantically and/or sexually attracted to people of the same 
gender. Gay is often used to describe men who are attracted 
to other men, but women who are attracted to other women 
may also refer to themselves as gay. Sometimes “gay” is 
used to describe the entire LGBTQ+ population.
Gender expression: The ways in which a person expresses 
their gender through clothing, grooming, speech, likes 
and dislikes, body language, social interactions, and other 
behaviors. Gender expression (also known as gender cues) 
may intentionally or unintentionally communicate gender 
to others, and may or may not conform to socially defined 
behaviors and characteristics typically associated with being 
either masculine or feminine. 





Gender identity: A person’s internal sense of self as being 
male, female, both, or neither. One’s gender identity is not 
necessarily visible to others. One’s gender identity can be 
the same or different from one’s sex assigned at birth.
Gender neutral: A term that describes something (such as 
a bathroom or clothing) that is not designed for or restricted 
to people of a specific gender. Some people also identify as 
gender neutral (or agender, or neutrois) in terms of gender 
identity, meaning they do not have an internal sense of 
themselves as a particular gender. 
Gender Non-conforming: A broad term referring to 
people who do not behave in a way that conforms to the 
traditional expectations of their gender, or whose gender 
expression does not fit neatly into a category. 
Homophobia: The fear and hatred of or discomfort with 
people who are attracted to members of the same sex. 
Intersex: A general term used to describe people who, for a 
variety of reasons, have biological attributes that don’t fit the 
typical definitions of female or male. 
Lesbian: A sexual orientation that describes a woman who 
is romantically and/or sexually attracted to women. 
Mis-gendering: The accidental or deliberate use of a name 
or gender pronouns that do not reflect the gender with 
which an individual identifies. 
Non-binary or gender non-binary: An umbrella term for 
gender identities other than male/man or female/woman. 





Some non-binary people identify as both woman and man 
(e.g., bigender people), some identify as a different gender 
entirely (e.g., genderqueer people), and some do not identify 
with any gender (e.g., agender people). Non-binary people 
may or may not identify as transgender.

Outing: Exposing someone’s LGBTQ+ identity to others 
without their permission. Outing someone can have serious 
repercussions on employment, economic stability, personal 
safety, or religious or family situations. 
Pansexual: A sexual orientation that describes romantic 
and/or sexual attraction toward people regardless of gender. 
Many pansexual people feel that gender is insignificant or 
irrelevant in their attraction to others.
Pronouns (personal pronouns): A word that is 
substituted for a person or a person’s name; the most 
common personal pronouns are she/her/hers and he/him/
his. Other personal pronouns include they/them/theirs 
(singular), ze/hir/hirs, ze/zim/zirs, and per/per/pers. For 
more on pronouns, see FORGE’s pronoun conjugation chart. 
Queer: Queer was originally used pejoratively against 
LGBTQ+ people but, beginning in the late-1980s, queer 
scholars, activists, and community members began to reclaim 
the word. It is now used as an umbrella term for people who 
are not heterosexual and/or cisgender, and as a specific 
identity with respect to sexual orientation and/or gender. 








Questioning: The questioning of one’s gender identity and/
or sexual orientation is a process of exploration by people 
who may be unsure, still exploring, and/or concerned about 
applying a social label to themselves for various reasons.
Sex assigned at birth: The determination that a newborn 
is male or female, usually based solely on the appearance of 
the genitals. The sex assigned at birth is what is recorded on 
an individual’s birth certificate.
Sexual orientation: A term describing a person’s inherent or 
immutable emotional, romantic, or sexual attraction (or none) 
to other people. Common sexual orientations are straight 
(heterosexual), gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, pansexual, and 
asexual. Transgender is not a sexual orientation; transgender 
people can be straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, 
pansexual, asexual, or any other sexual orientation.
Transgender or trans: An umbrella term for people whose 
gender identity or expression is different from cultural 
expectations associated with their sex assigned at birth. 
Transgender is an adjective, not a noun; thus, “transgender 
people” is appropriate but “transgenders” is disrespectful. 
Being transgender does not imply any particular sexual 
orientation; transgender people may identify as straight, gay, 
lesbian, bisexual, or any other sexual orientation. 
Transgender man or trans man: A person who identifies 
as male, a boy, or a man, and who was assigned female at 
birth. Sometimes also referred to as FTM, or female-to-male. 
Transgender woman or trans woman: A person who 
identifies as female, a girl, or a woman, and who was 





assigned male at birth. Sometimes also referred to as MTF, 
or male-to-female. 

Transphobia: The fear and hatred of, or discomfort with, 
transgender people. 

Transition: The process a transgender/non-binary person 
goes through to authentically and intentionally live into their 
gender identity. Transition can include one or more of these 
components: 

ĥ Social transition: The process of sharing one’s true 
gender identity with others and being perceived and 
referred to authentically by family, friends, and/or other 
important people in one’s life. Often includes asking 
people to use a new name and/or pronouns. 
ĥ Legal transition: The process of changing one’s legal 
documentation to align with one’s gender identity. Often 
includes legally changing one’s name and/or gender 
markers. 
ĥ Medical transition: A process of aligning one’s body 
with one’s gender identity. Often includes the use of 
hormones and/or gender-affirming surgery(ies). Not all 
transgender people have a desire or the resources to 
medically transition. 


Two-Spirit: A contemporary term used by some 
Indigenous, Native North Americans to honor their heritage 
and provide an alternative to the Western labels of gay, 
lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. It is not a respectful term 
for non-Native people to use as an identifier. 



ENDNOTES

i Frank Newport, “In U.S., Estimate of LGBT Population Rises to 4.5%,” 
Gallup, May 22, 2018, available at https://news.gallup.com/poll/234863/
estimate-lgbt-population-rises.aspxii Frank Newport, “In U.S., Estimate of LGBT Population Rises to 4.5%,” 
Gallup, May 22, 2018, available at https://news.gallup.com/poll/234863/
estimate-lgbt-population-rises.aspxiii Shepherd Laughlin, “Gen Z Goes Beyond Gender Binaries in New 
Innovation Group Data,” J. Walter Thompson Intelligence, March 11, 2016, 
available at https://www.jwtintelligence.com/2016/03/gen-z-goes-beyond-
gender-binaries-in-new-innovation-group-data/
iv Michelle Page, “Forgotten Youth: Homeless LGBT Youth of Color and 
the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act,” Northwestern Journal of Law and 
Social Policy 12 (2) (2017): 17–45, available at https://scholarlycommons.
law.northwestern.edu/njlsp/vol12/iss2/2; Center for American Progress 
and Movement Advancement Project, Unjust: How the Broken Criminal 
Justice System Fails LGBT People of Color (2016), available at http://www.
lgbtmap.org/file/lgbt-criminal-justice-poc.pdf; Haeyoun Park and Iaryna 
Mykhyalyshyn, “LGBT People Are More Likely to Be Targets of Hate Crimes 
Than Any Other Minority Group,” The New York Times, June 16, 2016, 
available at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/16/us/hate-
crimes-against-lgbt.htmlv Erin Blakemore, “How LGBT Civil Servants Became Public Enemy No. 1 
in the 1950s,” History, October 10, 2019, available at https://www.history.
com/news/state-department-gay-employees-outed-fired-lavender-scarevi Brooke Sopelsa, “Justice Department Ordered to Release 1950s Gay 
‘Purge’ Documents,” NBC News, August 3, 2017, available at https://www.
nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/court-tells-justice-department-release-
1950s-gay-purge-documents-n789056 
vii The New York Times, “The APA Ruling on Homosexuality: The Issue Is 
Subtle, the Debate Is Still On,” December 23, 1973, available at https://www.
nytimes.com/1973/12/23/archives/the-issue-is-subtle-the-debate-still-on-
the-apa-ruling-on.html 






















viii American Psychological Association, APA Resolution on Transgender, 
Gender Identity, and Gender Expression Non-Discrimination (2008), available 
at https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-gender-identity.pdf 
ix Lambda Legal, “Protected and Served? The Executive Summary of 
Lambda Legal’s National Survey that Explores Discrimination by Police, 
Courts, Prisons and School Security Against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, 
Transgender (LGBT) People and People Living with HIV in the United States” 
(2015), available at https://www.lambdalegal.org/sites/default/files/ 
publications/downloads/ps_executive-summary.pdf 
x Sandy E. James and others, The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender 
Survey (Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality, 2016), 
retrieved from http://www.ustranssurvey.org/reportxi Christy Mallory and others, Discrimination and Harassment by Law 
Enforcement Officers in the LGBT Community (San Francisco, CA: Williams 
Institute, 2015), available at https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/ 
wp-content/uploads/LGBT-Discrimination-and-Harassment-in-Law- 
Enforcement-March-2015.pdf 
xii Christy Mallory, Amira Hasenbush, and Brad Sears, Discrimination 
and Harassment by Law Enforcement Officers in the LGBT Community 
(Los Angeles: The Williams Institute, 2015), available at https://
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBT-Discrimination-
and-Harassment-in-Law-Enforcement-March-2015.pdfxiii National Public Radio, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Harvard 
T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Discrimination in America: Experiences 














and Views of LGBTQ Americans (2017), available at https://www.rwjf.org/
en/library/research/2017/10/discrimination-in-america--experiences-and-
views.htmlxiv Brenda Russell, “Police Perceptions in Intimate Partner Violence 
Cases: The Influence of Gender and Sexual Orientation,” Journal of Crime 
and Justice 41 (2) (2018): 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2017.1282378; Jane A. Younglove, Marcee G. Kerr, and Corey J. Vitello, 
“Law Enforcement Officers’ Perceptions of Same Sex Domestic Violence: 
Reason for Cautious Optimism,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 17 (7) 
(2002): 760–772. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260502017007004 







xv Movement Advancement Project, “Equality Maps: Hate Crime Laws,” 
available at http://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/hate_crime_laws 
(accessed July 1, 2019).
xvi Tania Israel, Audrey Harkness, Todd A. Avellar, Kevin Delucio, Jay N. 
Bettergarcia, and Joshua A. Goodman, “LGBTQ-Affirming Policing: Tactics 
Generated by Law Enforcement Personnel” Journal of Police and Criminal 


Psychology 31 (2016): 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-015-
9169-2 
xvii Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, An LASD Guide: 
Transgender & Gender Non-Conforming Employees (2014), available at 
http://www.sxpolitics.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/lasd- 
transgender-employee-guide.pdf 
xviii Greg Miraglia, “Every Agency Needs an LGBT Liaison,” Out to Protect, 
November 17, 2016, available at 
https://www.comingoutfrombehindthebadge.com/commentary/ 
agency-lgbt-liaison/ 
xix Daniel Trotta, “New York Police Commissioner Apologizes for Stonewall 
Raid in 1969,” Reuters, June 6, 2019, available at https://www.reuters.com/
article/us-usa-lgbt-stonewall-nypd/new-york-police-commissioner- 
apologizes-for-stonewall-raid-in-1969-idUSKCN1T72IR