Protected and Served-2022 Community Survey of LGBTQ+ People and People Living With HIV's Experience With Criminal Legal System

• Locations: United States of America • Topics: Gay/Lesbian, HIV/AIDS, Prison Rape Elimination Act

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

PROTECTED

&SERVED

2022 Community Survey
of LGBTQ+ People and
People Living with HIV’s Experiences
with the Criminal Legal System
By Somjen Frazer, Richard Saenz,
Andrew Aleman, and Laura Laderman

Table of Contents
A Message from Lambda Legal
A Message from Black and Pink National

VI
VIII

Acknowledgments

Suggested Citations

Introduction

How the Survey was Conducted

How Data Analysis was Conducted

Understanding the Statistics in This Report

Findings

Who Took the Survey?

How did we measure and express the gender identities of participants?

How did we measure race and ethnicity and how do we refer to racial and
ethnic groups?

What questions were asked of participants in detention?

Trust in Government Institutions

Experiences and Expectations of Police Behavior

Experiences of Crime and Hate Incidents

What do population-based surveys tell us about experiences of crime?

How did we measure experiences of crime and hate incidents?

Aftermath of IPV and Hate Incidents

Reporting Crime and Hate Incidents to Police and Others

Reasons Participants Chose Not to Report Crime

Police Attitudes and Behavior After Reporting Crime

Court Experiences

How did we measure negative experiences in court?

How did participants describe their experiences in court?

Sex Work

How are “sex work” and “trafficking” defined?

How are condoms used as evidence of sex work?

Youth

Detention

How do we define sexual misconduct in detention?

What does the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) say about sexual
contact and abuse in detention?

Do federal disability protections cover gender dysphoria and HIV?

Conclusion

Recommendations

For Community Members

For Advocates and Policymakers

For People Working in the Criminal Legal System

Glossary

Reference List

Figure List
FIG 1

Identities of Participants

FIG 2

Age

FIG 3

Gender Identity

FIG 4

Race and Ethnicity

FIG 5

Sexual Orientation

FIG 6

Education of Those Age 25 and Older

FIG 7

Income in 2021

FIG 8

Disability

FIG 9

Homelessness

FIG 10

Trust in Institutions

FIG 11

Transgender and GNCNB Participants Have Lower Levels of Trust in Local Police

FIG 12

Participants Who Had Contact with Police in Past Five Years Have Lower Levels of Trust in
Local Police

FIG 13

Trust in the Prison System by Detention Experience

FIG 14

Trust in Local Police by Race and Ethnicity

FIG 15

Police Treatment: Expectations Among Participants Who Did Not Have Contact With Police and
Experiences Among Those Who Did

FIG 16

Reason for Police Contact Was Suspected Sex Work

FIG 17

Police Asked for Proof of Immigration Status

FIG 18

Police Behavior in Most Recent Face-to-Face Contact

FIG 19

Experiences of Crime

FIG 20

Experienced Any Crime by Race and Ethnicity

FIG 21

Experienced Any Crime Among TGNCNB and Cisgender Participants

FIG 22

Identity Targeted in Most Recent Hate Incident

FIG 23

Experienced Any Hate Incident by Race and Ethnicity

FIG 24

TGNCNB Participants Targeted for a Hate Incident Based on Gender Identity or Expression

FIG 25

Effects of Domestic or Intimate Partner Violence

FIG 26

Effects of Hate Incident

FIG 27

Reported Crime or Hate Incident to Police

FIG 28

Reported Negative Experience to Nonprofit or CBO

FIG 29

Reported Negative Experience to No One

FIG 30

Reported Hate Incident to the Police by Gender

FIG 31

Reasons for Not Reporting Property Crime

FIG 32

Reasons for Not Reporting Physical Assault

FIG 33

Reasons for Not Reporting Sexual Assault

FIG 34

Reasons for Not Reporting Intimate Partner Violence

FIG 35

Did Not Report Negative Event for Police-Related Reasons

FIG 36

Reasons for Not Reporting Hate Incident

FIG 37

Police Treatment After Physical Assault

FIG 38

Police Treatment After Intimate Partner Violence

FIG 39

Police Treatment After Hate Incident

FIG 40

Court Role Among Participants Who Had Been in Court

FIG 41

Negative Experiences in Court

FIG 42

Transgender Status Inappropriately Revealed in Court by Race and Ethnicity

FIG 43

Wrong Name or Pronoun Used in Court by Gender

FIG 44

Police Misconduct Against Sex Workers

FIG 45

Arrest Charges Against Sex Workers

FIG 46

Negative Consequences of Sex Work Arrest

FIG 47

Negative Experiences with School Security

FIG 48

Abuse Experiences in Jail

FIG 49

Abuse Experiences in Prison

FIG 50

Abuse Experiences in Immigration Detention

FIG 51

Abuse Experiences in Juvenile Detention

FIG 52

Sexual Contact or Assault in Detention

FIG 53

Sexual Contact or Assault in Detention by Gender

FIG 54

TGNCNB Participants Housed with Different Gender in Detention

FIG 55

Missed Medication for Two Weeks or More in Detention

FIG 56

Missed Medication for Two Weeks or More in Detention Among Selected Groups

A Message from Lambda Legal
It’s no secret that LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV have had a
tumultuous relationship with the criminal legal system. Just look at our history.
From Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera leading the Stonewall Riots in 1969
in protest of police violence and the raids of queer bars, to the enactment of
HIV criminalization laws during the AIDS pandemic, to the use of sodomy laws
to mark LGBTQ+ people as “unindicted felons” until Lambda Legal’s Lawrence v.
Texas victory in the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003, the criminal legal system has
been used as a weapon to surveil, police, criminalize, discriminate, and harass us.
This is especially true for people who hold multiple marginalized identities, such
as transgender people of color. That’s why for 50 years, we at Lambda Legal
have challenged policies and government agencies that enable discrimination
against or target LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV.
And we continue to do so today because, sadly and painfully, these abuses
persist: States across the country are proposing and enacting laws that
criminalize young trans and nonbinary people and their families for seeking
health care, LGBTQ+ people continue to be incarcerated at higher rates than
non-LGBTQ+ people, and states continue to criminalize people living with HIV
and people engaged in sex work.
Bias and discrimination against our communities run rampant in the systems
that are supposed to “protect and serve” us. We know this because Lambda
Legal continues to receive countless requests for help from people who have
had negative experiences throughout the criminal legal system. We have also
served as counsel in groundbreaking cases challenging discriminatory practices
by prison systems and police departments. We have worked with community
members and policymakers to repeal unconstitutional laws and push for more
protections to keep our community members safe. And Lambda Legal’s Fair
Courts and Youth in Out-of-Home Care projects are busy advocating for systemic
change to our judicial and child welfare systems.
Lambda Legal’s first-ever Protected and Served? survey in 2012 looked at
government misconduct by the police, courts, prisons and jails, and school
security. And it confirmed what we already knew through our own experiences
and the experiences of our community members: Whether it’s by the police,
courts, prisons, or school security, our communities experience significant
discrimination at the hands of government agents. Over the years, that first
report has been an invaluable tool in informing litigation and policy work and
has been cited over 150 times by litigators, advocacy groups, scholars, the press,
and government entities, including the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights.
Since the release of our first report, we’ve made tremendous progress in the
fight for LGBTQ+ and HIV civil rights, which has been met with widespread, often

violent backlash. The criminal legal system continues to enable discrimination
and inflict violence against LGBTQ+ people, people living with HIV, Black people,
and many other marginalized communities. But public awareness and anger have
surged, and the calls for drastic reform, accountability, and abolition are louder
and more united than ever.
At this pivotal moment, we share with you our findings from the Protected
and Served? 2022 community survey, which we hope will be a vital resource
for our communities. This time around, we expanded the survey to include the
experiences of detained people, young people, people engaged in sex work,
and immigrants, and we asked questions about their interactions with the court
system, the U.S. immigration system, government systems focused on youth,
and broader law enforcement.
In addition, for this latest iteration, we are honored to partner with Black and
Pink National, a prison abolitionist organization dedicated to ending the criminal
punishment system and liberating the LGBTQIA2S+ people and people living
with HIV/AIDS who are affected by that system through advocacy, support, and
organizing. The goal of this partnership is to lift up and center the experiences
of LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV who are or have been detained,
whose stories too often are out of public view and largely ignored. Black and
Pink National’s expertise informed and helped guide this survey and report.
Because the 2022 survey included new areas of focus and framed many
questions differently from the 2012 survey, it was not designed to provide
specific measures of stasis or change over the past ten years. But on at least
two measures, the disparities most likely will leap off the page, just as they did
in our 2012 report—people who identify as Black, Indigenous, and people of color
(BIPOC) and/or as transgender, gender nonconforming, or nonbinary (TGNCNB)
still report significantly worse experience with the criminal legal system.
These disparities are stark and raise a moral call to focus and to act. Thus,
we hope that this report, like the 2012 report, will inspire, inform, and support
your research, advocacy, litigation, and policy efforts to address the abuse
experienced by LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV in the criminal legal
system. And we also hope it reminds you that your experiences and lives matter,
and that your voices can make a difference.

Kevin Jennings (He/Him)
CEO
Lambda Legal

A Message from Black and Pink National
Liberation. Freedom from shackles. Life expectancy beyond 35. Autonomy.
Choice. Are these hopes, dreams, and desires unreasonable? Or beyond what
one should aspire to? For decades, Black and Brown LGBTQ+ people, especially
Black and Brown trans people, have fought to access even a bite-sized sample of
“Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” You see, the criminal legal system
has always done what it was intended to do: keep Black and Brown people in
order. It’s time we call for an end to over-policing, mass incarceration, and the
mistreatment of our people at the hands of these systems.
It is for this reason that Black and Pink National was excited to join efforts with
Lambda Legal and Strength in Numbers for the second iteration of Protected
& Served?. All too often the experiences of LGBTQ+ people and people living
with HIV are downplayed or altogether dismissed, especially within the criminal
legal system. We witnessed this first-hand in 2015 when Black and Pink National
released our report Coming Out of Concrete Closets. Incarcerated members
from across the country shared their experiences of navigating the system while
inside. These experiences included the emotional pain and hurt from having to
hide their gender identity and/or sexual orientation, excessive use of solitary
confinement, sexual assault, little to no access to necessary medical care, and
so much more. Disturbingly, eight years following the release of Coming Out
of Concrete Closets and 10 years after the release of Lambda Legal’s first-ever
Protected & Served? report, LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV have
shared the exact same, or similar, experiences in the Protected & Served?
2022 survey. It is unsurprising that many participants from the current survey
reported some level of mistrust in the criminal legal system.
As an abolitionist organization, Black and Pink National believes in building upon
the work started by community leaders and movement builders such as Angela
Davis, Ruth Wilson Gilmore, Mariame Kaba, Mia Mingus, Shira Hassan, and many
more. These movements turn to abolition and transformative justice in the
eventual dismantlement of the prison industrial complex. Furthermore, Black
and Pink National stresses the importance of community care for both freeworld
and incarcerated members. These parallel processes are essential to ensure that
those who are currently experiencing harm while incarcerated or in community
are still receiving care and mutual aid. We call on other organizations, especially
those who cite racial and/or social justice as a value, to join us in calling out
these governmental acts of aggression, invest in BIPOC and TGNCNB leadership,
and continue exploring transformative justice practices.
Finally, and most importantly, we want to thank the community for making
this report possible. Due to the number of inside members who bravely shared
their experiences with us, participants inside at the time of the survey reflected
almost 20% of total participants. The stories and information collected here are

essential as we call out the real life experiences of governmental misconduct.
Similarly, trust from and collaboration with the sex work community directly
impacted the way in which we asked questions, as well as the quantity of
responses we received from sex workers (almost 20% of participants).
Therefore, we were able to highlight the importance of seeing sex work as
an LGBTQ+ issue. Lastly, we thank the national staff and national volunteer
chapter network for getting surveys in front of members across the country. For
everyone who played a role, this report is as much yours as it is ours.
In Solidarity,

Andrew Aleman, LCSW
Deputy Director of People Power & National Partnerships
Black and Pink National

Acknowledgments
Lambda Legal, Black and Pink National, and Strength in Numbers extend
deep appreciation to the community members, LGBTQ+ organizations, HIV
organizations, sex worker advocates, and other allies for supporting this
important work and for sharing the Protected and Served? survey.
We would also like to thank the staff of Black and Pink National, Lambda Legal,
and Strength in Numbers, including Dominique Morgan, former Executive
Director, Black and Pink National; Jasmine Tasaki, Director of Advocacy, Black
and Pink National; Kenna Barnes, Advocacy Manager, Black and Pink National;
the Sex Worker Liberation Project at Black and Pink National; Kristine Kippins,
Deputy Legal Director for Policy, Lambda Legal; May Head, Paralegal, Lambda
Legal; Lambda Legal’s Fair Courts Project, HIV Project, Non-Binary and
Transgender Project, Youth in Out-of-Home Care Project, Communication and
Development departments; Shannon Cheung, Qualitative and Multi-Method
Research Associate, Strength in Numbers; and Stephanie Hasford, Junior
Research Associate, Strength in Numbers. Thank you to our consultants Graciela
González, Clare McGranahan, Abigail Miller, and Mary Paul.
Finally, and most importantly, we want to thank those who took the time
to share their lived experiences with us. We are especially grateful to those
who completed the survey while detained. Without the trust, support, and
vulnerability from all of you this report would not exist. This report is as much
yours as it is ours.

Suggested Citations
Frazer, S., Saenz, R., Aleman, A., & Laderman, L. (2023). Protected and Served?.
Lambda Legal and Black and Pink National. http://protectedandserved.org/2022report-full-report
Somjen Frazer, Richard Saenz, Andrew Aleman & Laura Laderman, Protected and
Served? (2023), http://protectedandserved.org/2022-report-full-report

■ I.AMBDA

■■ LEGAL
lambdalegal.org

\I I .I V

BLACK~PINK

blackandpink.org

protectedandserved.org

STRENGTH IN NUMBERS
C )N' J

II'

GROl P

strengthinnumbersconsulting.com

Introduction
OUR VOICE IS OUR POWER: In 2022, Lambda Legal, in partnership with
Black and Pink National, launched the Protected and Served? community survey.
With this project, we aimed to learn more about the experiences of lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ+) people and people living
with HIV with the criminal legal system, to assess these communities’ levels of
trust in government institutions, and to create a new resource for community
members, advocates, policymakers, and researchers for LGBTQ+ and HIV
liberation.
This report describes the findings of Protected and Served?. In addition to asking
structured questions that provide a quantitative (numerical) account of the
participants’ experiences, the survey also asked for qualitative data (open-ended
questions); these answers were analyzed systematically, and the qualitative
findings are included throughout the report.1 Protected and Served? focuses
on the widespread harm caused to LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV
by the criminal legal system, including the adult carceral system, immigration
system, juvenile systems, the courts, and schools. The report also examines
intersectional disparities within these impacted groups of people. 2
TEN YEARS IN THE MAKING: In 2012, Lambda Legal first published
Protected and Served?, a groundbreaking report that explored government
misconduct and harm by police, prisons, school security, and courts against
LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV in the United States. The survey
found low trust in institutions and high rates of government misconduct against
LGBTQ+ people, especially people of color and transgender people, in the
criminal legal system. Advocates, government officials, and community members
used the original report to support legal arguments; educate the public; train
judges, attorneys, and others involved in the legal system; and in many other
ways to help identify and uproot discrimination and bias and hold government
actors accountable.

Protected and
Served? focuses
on the widespread
harm caused to
LGBTQ+ people and
people living with
HIV by the criminal
legal system,
including the adult
carceral system,
immigration
system, juvenile
systems, the
courts, and
schools.

Since that original survey, awareness of the ways that the criminal legal system
harms Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC), LGBTQ+ people, people
living at those intersections, and others who experience marginalization has
grown significantly, thanks in no small part to the 2020 racial uprisings against
police violence in response to the murder of George Floyd, a Black cisgender
man, by a white Minneapolis Police Department officer. LGBTQ+ people and
1 This survey is an unusual sample of participants. While all LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV in
the United States were invited to take the survey, those who chose to take it appear to have experienced
crimes and misconduct much more frequently than one would expect of a representative sample. Therefore,
it is most appropriate to refer to the findings as representing participants in the survey and not as
representative of LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV overall.
2 Intersectionality is the idea that systems of inequality and marginalization are all connected,
overlapping, and interdependent—LGBTQ+ people of color (for example) experience marginalization not only
as “LGBTQ+ people” and as “people of color,” but also in a unique way as “LGBTQ+ people of color.”

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
1

organizations have been at the forefront of protests against police violence and
the push to address the systemic violence against marginalized communities
inflicted by the criminal legal system in this country.
OUR LEGACY OF PROTEST AND FIGHTING BACK: Queer leaders like
Bayard Rustin and Pauli Murray helped shape the civil rights movement of the
1960s, which fought for Black dignity and lived equality, including freedom from
harassment and violence from police. The modern movement for LGBTQ+
rights and liberation was sparked by protests against police violence and
the government’s failure to acknowledge, much less address, the needs of
our communities. At the Stonewall Inn in New York City in 1969, and even earlier
at Cooper Do-Nuts in Los Angeles in 1959 and at Compton’s Cafeteria in San
Francisco in 1966, drag queens and transgender women bravely led resistance
against constant police harassment and violence and demanded dignity and
respect. In the 1980s, the AIDS epidemic ravaged our communities, and while
we mourned so many lives, we also organized, confronted the U.S. government’s
indifference to the death and suffering of tens of thousands of our community
members, fought against systemic discrimination, and took some of these fights
to the courts, where we experienced both wins and losses.
For years, we fought for dignity and our basic rights in direct opposition to state
laws that criminalized LGBTQ+ people for merely existing. Such laws were used
to justify discrimination and violence by both public and private institutions in
employment, schools, health care, public spaces, and family law. And for our
communities, the scourge of systemic racism and poverty further compounded
anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination, leading to increased policing, arrests, and
incarceration and further reinforcing marginalization.
The impact of policing and excessive community surveillance enraged activists,
who witnessed the mass incarceration of their community members along with
the rapid growth of the prison industrial complex (PIC). Communities worked
together to build abolitionist and anti-capitalist movements which fought against
these systems and worked to address social, political, and economic issues within
their spheres. LGBTQ+ leaders have played a major role in the advancement and
sustainability of these movements. Abolition has always been a queer and trans
movement.
In 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas the Supreme Court of the United States held that
the U.S. Constitution protects the liberty of LGBTQ+ people to forge intimate
personal relationships and engage in private, consensual sexual conduct. While
Lawrence was a watershed case for LGBTQ+ equality, it was also a victory over
police, government misconduct, and the laws that criminalized us. We have
made many legal advancements since Lawrence, including marriage equality and
protections against discrimination in employment, in schools, and in health care.
Yet our communities continue to experience high rates of incarceration, school
bullying, family rejection of young LGBTQ+ people, and violence.

While Lawrence
was a watershed
case for LGBTQ+
equality, it was
also a victory over
police, government
misconduct, and
the laws that
criminalized us.

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
2

TODAY, OUR FIGHT CONTINUES: Transgender, gender nonconforming,
and nonbinary (TGNCNB) people are under relentless attack. The year 2023
holds the distinction of having the highest total number of anti-trans bills
introduced in state legislatures across the United States, disproportionately
impacting TGNCNB youth. And once again, those in power weaponize the law
and the authority of the state to criminalize our existence by banning access to
health care, legalizing censorship and discrimination in schools, and punishing
parents and caretakers who support and affirm their LGBTQ+ children.
We continue to fight against unjust laws that disproportionately harm LGBTQ+
people and people living with HIV. Since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic,
states, law enforcement, and prosecutors have used laws that criminalize
and stigmatize people because of their HIV status. For decades, arms of law
enforcement have harassed and discriminated against LGBTQ+ people, and
specifically trans women of color, with loitering laws—now commonly referred
to as “Walking While Trans” laws—which can criminalize trans people on the
suspicion that they are engaged in sex work because of how they are dressed or
where they are standing. But today, advocates are building support not just to
eliminate the loitering laws that often are tools of police harassment, but also to
decriminalize sex work, showing that government justifications for those age-old
laws tend to be a mix of paternalism, selective morality, and hypocrisy. As our
movements have come together, more organizations and lawmakers have joined
the fight.
Recognizing that our communities continue to face discrimination and
abuse by government entities, we must be equipped with facts and data to
bring about urgent and necessary change. Our hope is that Protected and
Served? will support new research, advocacy, litigation, and policy efforts to
address discrimination, bias, harassment, and violence against LGBTQ+ people
and people living with HIV by the criminal legal system and hold government
entities accountable. Additionally, we hope that this project will contribute to
conversations about abolition of the prison industrial complex and reform of the
system by working within or with it, two important movements seeking an end to
systemic oppression and violence against marginalized communities in the name
of the “law”.

Our hope is that
Protected and
Served? will
support new
research, advocacy,
litigation, and
policy efforts
to address
discrimination,
bias, harassment,
and violence
against LGBTQ+
people and people
living with HIV
by the criminal
legal system and
hold government
entities
accountable.

How the Survey was Conducted
In spring 2022, Strength in Numbers conducted 17 interviews with
representatives from LGBTQ+ and HIV-focused organizations, sex worker
advocates, and allies to inform the content of the survey, outreach techniques,
and the wording of survey questions.
From May 1 to September 30, 2022, the survey was available online at www.
ProtectedAndServed.org in English and Spanish using a platform called

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
3

Qualtrics. Participants were eligible to take the survey if they consented to take
it, identified as LGBTQ+ and/or living with HIV, were age 18 or over, and lived
in the United States (including Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and
American Samoa). Consenting organizational partners and supportive people
disseminated the survey website link to their networks, typically via email and/or
social media. The survey was also promoted by the P&S? team via social media,
as well as by paid social media ads on Facebook and Instagram. And for one day,
the survey was promoted on the Grindr application. Because of the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic, there was limited in-person advertising at community
events, such as Pride marches, educational panels, and conferences.
The survey contained eight sections: (1) trust in institutions; (2) experiences of
crime and reporting crime; (3) other experiences with police (for those who had
them), including police misconduct and how misconduct was addressed, as well
as expectations of how police or other law enforcement officer would behave
in face-to-face contact (for those who had not had experiences with them); (4)
court experiences; (5) detention experiences; (6) sex work experiences (for those
who had done sex work); (7) youth experiences (for those ages 18–24 at the
time of the survey); and (8) demographic information. At the ends of sections 2
through 7, the survey asked open-ended qualitative questions, each of which was
structured as “Is there anything else you would like to tell us about . . .”.
In addition to the online survey, a more limited paper version was available
for detained people to take, which also provided an opportunity for qualitative
responses. Completed paper surveys were mailed back to the team, who entered
and combined the data with the responses from the online survey. See page 12
for more information on the differences between the online and paper surveys.
The surveys were anonymous. All data are self-reported. The responses describe
the perceptions of the survey participants and, like all self-reported data, are
limited in this way.

How Data Analysis was Conducted
Quantitative data were analyzed in Stata and R, commonly used statistical
packages for data analysis. All statistics were checked by a second analyst. To
preserve anonymity and assure that statistics are based on sufficient sample
sizes, percentages with fewer than 20 participants in the denominator or five in
the numerator are not shown.
Qualitative data were analyzed in Dedoose, a coding software for qualitative
data analysis. Inductive and deductive coding were used. The open responses
included descriptions of treatment by the government actors and institutions
described in the survey, the impact of treatment, and a few themes that came
up across questions, such as the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), domestic

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
4

violence, racism, trust, and examples of positive and negative behavior by
government actors.
Further information about methods is available upon request from the authors.

Understanding the Statistics in This Report
This report is written for a wide variety of audiences; thus, certain terms
may be more familiar to some audiences than others. We include sidebars
comparing the differences between this sample, which is heavily composed of
those affected by the criminal legal system, and other samples, such as those
drawn from population-based surveys. These comparisons are included for
context and broad themes only; direct comparisons between samples are not
appropriate because of the differences in sampling techniques and source
populations. The same is true for comparisons between this report and the 2012
report. We designed this survey with results of the prior survey in mind, to give
closer attention to particular elements of the criminal legal system and frame
questions differently to gather more information in particular areas. Still, even
with these differences, at least two common themes emerge unmistakably—the
disproportionally greater rates of abuse by law enforcement, and the resulting
diminution of trust in law enforcement, reported by BIPOC and TGNCNB survey
participants.
Just as some terms are more familiar to those more experienced in this topic,
some ways of expressing statistics may be new to some audiences. The report
uses phrases like “more common” when we mean that something was more
commonly reported in one subgroup or another who took the survey, regardless
of whether the difference referenced is a statistically significant one.
For readers who are not familiar with odds ratios, we offer the following
information. Odds ratios (ORs) above one (1) mean that something is “more
likely,” while odds ratios under one (1) mean it is “less likely.” We use phrases
such as “more likely” to indicate that the odds of one thing being reported by
one group are statistically significantly more likely. Odds ratios in parentheses
indicate how much more or less likely. For example, if we said, “Survey
participants who had face-to-face contact with police were twice as likely to say
that they did not trust local police at all compared to those who did not have
face-to-face contact with the police (31.6% vs. 18.7%, OR=2.00),” this means
that the odds of people who have had face-to-face contact with police saying
that they do not trust local police at all (which are just under 1 to 2) divided by
the odds of those who have NOT had face to face contact with police saying that
they do not trust police at all (which are just under 1 to 4) is 2.00.
Odds are different from percentages, which may be a more familiar way of
presenting data, because they compare the frequency of an attribute to the

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
5

absence of that attribute (out of 100 people, 30.6 say that they do not trust the
police at all, meaning 69.4 say that they trust the police at least a little bit rather
than showing the percentage who have that attribute—in this case, 30.6%).
The p-value, which accompanies an odds ratio (and some other types of
statistical tests), refers to how certain we are that the finding is correct. When
we report significant statistics, we report those with p-values smaller than 0.05,
which means that we are at least 95% certain that the differences between the
groups are actually there. This is a standard level of statistical significance in
many texts.

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
6

Findings
Who Took the Survey?
There were 2,546 survey participants;3 they came from all 50 states, Puerto
Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The largest number of responses were from
California (14.6%), followed
by New York (12.6%) and
Fig 1 Identities of Participants
Texas (8.5%).
In order to take the survey,
4.9%
participants had to report
that they were LGBTQ+
LGBQ+
25.0%
and/or living with HIV.
TGNCNB
About half (51.9%) of
LGBQ+ and Living with HIV
51.9%
participants were LGBQ+
LGBQ+ and TGNCNB
only (not TGNCNB or living
with HIV) and another
All Three or Other Combination
14.8%
quarter (25.0%) were
3.3%
LBGQ+ and TGNCNB. About
one-seventh (14.8%) were
LGBQ+ and living with HIV,
and smaller numbers of participants held other combinations of these identities.

■
■
■
■
■

The largest age group in the survey was age 30–39 (27.5%); about one in ten
participants were 18–24 (9.6%) and 5.3% were age 70 and older.

Fig 2

5.3%

Age

9.6%

9.5%
17.2%
13.9%

16.9%
27.5%

■ 18–24
■ 25–29
■ 30–39
■ 40-49
■ 50–59
60–69
70 and Up

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?
3 We received a total of 8,979 survey responses; however, 6,300 (the round number is coincidental) were
determined to be bots, were ineligible to take the survey, or did not complete at least 50% of the survey.
Details about bot cleaning methodology are available by request of the first author.

•
7

The most commonly
Fig 3 Gender Identity
selected gender identity
56.4%
(participants could
choose as many gender
identities as described
them) was male or
40%
masculine (56.4%),
followed by female
or feminine (24.0%).
About one-third (33.1%)
24.0%
of participants were
20%
21.2%
transgender, gender
nonconforming, and/or
nonbinary. Of the 21.2%
10.9%
who were transgender,
26.8% were
0%
Man/Male/
Woman/
Transgender
Nonbinary
transfeminine, 16.8%
Masculine
Female/
Femme or
were transmasculine,
Feminine
and 56.4% were trans
and selected either both
feminine and masculine or neither feminine nor masculine.

9.4%
1.8%
Gender
Nonconforming
or Genderqueer

Other

Of those who identified as transgender, 29.4% identified as transfeminine, 16.8%
as transmasculine and 53.7% as transgender and neither masculine nor feminine
or as both masculine and feminine.

How did we measure and express the gender identities of participants?
On the survey, we asked participants to answer the following question:
What is your current gender identity? Please check all that apply.
□ Man/male/masculine
□ Woman/female/femme or feminine
□ Transgender
□ Nonbinary
□ Gender nonconforming or genderqueer
□ I prefer not to disclose
□ A gender identity not listed here (please specify):

We then recoded some of the categories for some analyses we conducted; for example, “transfeminine”
participants are those who selected both “woman/female/femme or feminine” and “transgender.” GNCNB
participants include all those who selected “nonbinary” and/or “gender nonconforming or gender queer,” as
8

well as those who selected both “man/male/masculine” and “woman/female/femme or feminine.” It is also
worth noting that some trans people identified as neither male/masculine nor female/feminine—or as both. In
the text, we refer to this group of people as “trans, neither/both” when we are examining the distribution of
genders within transgender participants.

While the most common
Fig 4 Race and Ethnicity
race or ethnicity
64.7%
(participants could
60%
select all that applied
to them) among all
participants was white
(64.7%), 43.0% of
40%
survey respondents
were people of color.
Over one in six (17.8%)
were African-American,
20%
Afro-Caribbean, or
Black, 15.1% were
17.8%
15.1%
Latina/o or Hispanic and
11.2%
11.2% were biracial or
8.1%
3.7%
multiracial. Fully 8.1%
0%
were Native American,
White
Black
Latinx
Multiracial Indigenous
API
American Indian or
Indigenous and 3.7% were Asian, Asian-American, or Pacific Islander. About one
percent (27 people, or 1.1%) took the survey in Spanish.

--2.5%

1.5%

MEAA

Other

How did we measure race and ethnicity and how do we refer to racial and ethnic
groups?
While the U.S. Census has long measured race and ethnicity in two separate questions, many survey
researchers have begun to use a “check all that apply” method that asks people to indicate all of the racial
and ethnic categories that they identify with. The survey asked participants to do this in the following
question:
How do you describe your racial and/or ethnic identity? Please check all that apply.
□ Native American, American Indian, or Indigenous
□ African-American, Afro-Caribbean, or Black
□ Latina/o or Hispanic
□ White or Caucasian
□ Middle Eastern or Arab-American
□ Asian, Asian-American, or Pacific Islander
9

□ I prefer not to disclose
□ A race/ethnicity not listed here (please specify):

Those who selected more than one race or ethnicity were included in the categories they selected and also
in a “biracial/multiracial” category. This category also included those who wrote “biracial” or “multiracial” in
the “please specify” line of this question.
In this report, we use shorter labels to indicate racial and ethnic categories: Indigenous, Black, Latinx,
white, MEAA (for Middle Eastern or Arab-American), API (for Asian and Pacific Islander), and multiracial. We
use “people of color” to refer to those who selected one or more of these categories, in contrast to those
who selected only “white” and no other race or ethnicity. We use “people of color” in analyses to show
patterns when all of the groups of people of color have similar differences from those that are white only
(for example, when every group of people of color has a higher, and similar, rate of an outcome compared to
white participants). Graphs that show race and ethnicity do not include groups that did not meet sample size
criteria.

A plurality (46.4%) of participants identified as gay and nearly one in three
(29.5%) identified as bisexual. About one in six (16.1%) identified as queer, 12.0%
as lesbian, and 11.4% as pansexual.
Fig 5

46.4%

Sexual Orientation

40%

30%
29.5%

20%

16.1%
10%

12.0%

11.4%
5.9%

5.0%

0%
Gay

Bisexual

Queer

Lesbian

Pansexual

Straight or
SameHeterosexual GenderLoving

--2.8%

1.7%

0.4%

Asexual

Other

Demisexual

The survey also asked participants about their immigration status. Nearly nine
in ten (89.4%) were U.S. citizens, and a further 6.0% were permanent residents.
There were also 2.4% who were undocumented, 2.1% who were on student or
employment visas, and 0.2% who had a temporary status such as Temporary
Protected Status (TPS) or Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief
Act (NACARA).

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
10

Among survey participants ages 25 and older, the most common educational
status was having completed “some college” (23.2%). About one-sixth (17.6%)
had a high school degree
or General Educational
Fig 6 Education of Those Age 25 and Older
Development (GED)
diploma, while just over
7.0%
one in five (21.0%) had a
21.0%
graduate or professional
Less than a High School Diploma
17.6%
degree.
High School Diploma or GED
Income varied: most
participants earned
between $20,000 and
$75,000 in 2021 (the
survey did not ask
participants who were
detained at the time of
the survey about their
income).

■
■ Some College (No Degree Completed)
■ Associate's Degree
■ Four-Year College Degree
■ Graduate or Professional Degree

21.0%
23.2%
10.2%

About one in five (18.3%) had children under 18 living with them at least part of
the time.
Fig 7

Income in 2021

16.2%

15%

14.4%
13.2%
12.3%
10%
9.2%

9.0%

6.8%
5%

5.2%
4.5%

0%
No Income

Less than
$10,000

$10,000—
$20,000

$20,000—
$35,000

$35,000—
$50,000

$50,000—
$75,000

$75,000—
$100,000

$100,000— $150,000—
$150,000 $250,000

$250,000
or more

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
11

Over one-third (36.6%) were living with a disability.
Fig 8

Disability

36.6%

■ Yes
■ No

63.4%

Experiences of homelessness were common: 4.8% of participants were currently
homeless and 22.6% had been homeless in the past five years.
Fig 9

Homelessness

4.8%

22.6%

72.6%

■ Currently
Five Years
■ InNotPast
■ in Past Five Years

What questions were asked of participants in detention?
This box describes the differences between the main survey, which was available online through Qualtrics, and
a modified paper survey that was available for detained participants.
There were 421 survey participants who were in detention at the time they took the community survey.
Because the survey was initially designed to be taken online and programmed to show only relevant
questions, it had to be modified to apply to this population and to be taken on paper.
Detained participants reported on their experiences with the court system in the past five years as
defendants in criminal court only. The modified paper survey did not include questions on other roles or
experiences in other courts. As with other participants, if detained participants had not appeared in court
during this timeframe, their responses to any other questions about court experiences were not included
in the analysis. The survey asked whether detained participants experienced mistreatment by any court
employee as it related to their disability, immigration status, HIV status, sexual orientation, gender, or race
while appearing as a defendant in the criminal court system.
12

Participants also reported on their experiences with assault in detention and if they were granted
accommodations for disabilities as well as accommodations that matched their gender identity. They were
asked about their trust in institutions (e.g., local police, other police, the immigration system). Alongside
demographic questions about race, age, gender identity, sexual orientation, education, and immigration
status, they were asked to report on their HIV status, their experience with homelessness, and any
interruptions in needed medication. Participants in detention were not asked to report on any victimizations
with property crime, domestic violence, hate incidents, personal assault, sex work, or any police encounters
in the past five years. The paper survey also excluded questions relating to participants’ childhood and
adolescence (experience with foster care and police or security in high school).
For more information on the experiences of detained participants, please explore the companion Spotlight
Report: Detained Participants.

Trust in Government Institutions
Similar to the Protected and Served? 2012 report, this survey measured trust
in eight government institutions. Most recent research finds that trust in these
types of institutions—the federal government and police in particular—is declining
(Gallup, 2022). In the P&S? 2022 survey, the government institution most
commonly “not trust[ed] at all” was the prison system, with over half (58.5%) of
participants saying they “do not trust [the prison system] at all.” In contrast, just
17.5% said they do not trust the school system at all.
Fig 10
100%

6.8%

8.9%

8.5%

7.6%

27.4%

26.5%

Trust in Institutions
10.8%

13.2%

11.1%

28.8%

29.8%

12.6%

15.4%
19.2%
75%

28.9%

19.2%

39.3%
26.0%

50%

31.9%

33.7%

29.4%

27.4%

30.5%
30.6%

58.5%
25%

45.9%
32.2%

32.2%

30.9%

30.7%

Trust
■ Completely
Trust
■ Somewhat
a Little Bit
■ Trust
■ Do Not Trust at All

28.6%
17.5%

0%
The Prison
System

The U.S.
Immigration
System

The Court
System

The U.S.
Federal
Government
as a Whole

Other
Police in
Your Area

Your Local
Police
Department

Child
Protective
Services or
your Local
Equivalent

The School
System

Levels of trust differed
Fig 11 Transgender and GNCNB Participants Have Lower
meaningfully by age
Levels of Trust in Local Police
100%
and gender, but race/
8.0%
8.2%
15.3%
ethnicity had very little
effect. Those over age
17.7%
18.4%
50 trusted institutions
75%
34.2%
more and were more
Completely Trust
26.3%
27.7%
likely to say they “trust a
Somewhat Trust
little bit” or “somewhat
50%
Trust a Little Bit
trust” than younger
28.0%
participants (ORs
Do Not Trust at All
ranged from 1.29 for the
25%
47.3%
46.4%
immigration system to
22.5%
2.50 for the local police;
all were statistically
0%
significant). Both trans
Transgender
GNCNB
Cisgender
and GNCNB participants
were more likely to answer “do not trust at all” about all eight institution types
(ORs ranged from 1.50 for schools to 3.00 for other police for trans vs. nontrans participants and from 1.44 for schools to 3.00 for other police for GNCNB
participants vs. non-GNCNB participants).

■
■
■
■

As the next section will illustrate, many survey participants had contact with
the police in the past five years. These participants were particularly unlikely to
say that they trusted their local police. Almost twice as many of those who had
contact with police said they do not trust their local police at all compared to
those who did not have contact with police (31.6% vs. 18.7%, OR=2.00).
Fig 12

Participants Who Had Contact with Police in Past Five
Years Have Lower Levels of Trust in Local Police
100%
14.2%

75%

16.8%

Participants who
had contact with
the police in the
past five years
were twice as likely
to say that they do
not trust their local
police at all.

26.7%
38.0%

50%
27.5%

26.4%
25%
31.6%
18.7%

Trust
■ Completely
Trust
■ Somewhat
a Little Bit
■ Trust
■ Do Not Trust at All

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

0%
Had Contact Did Not Have
with Police
Contact
with Police

•
14

Unsurprisingly, those
who were currently
detained were much
more likely to say
that they do not trust
the prison system at
all (OR=4.86, 84.7%
vs. 53.3%). More
surprisingly, those who
had been detained in the
past five years (but were
not currently) reported
similar levels of trust
in the prison system as
those who had not been
detained in the past five
years.
Fig 14

Fig 13

Trust in the Prison System by Detention Experience
100%

3.4%

8.1%

8.2%

16.3%

17.5%

11.4%

75%

Trust
■ Completely
Trust
■ Somewhat
a Little Bit
■ Trust
■ Do Not Trust at All

19.8%

25.6%

50%
84.7%

25%

54.6%

50.0%

0%
Currently
Detained

Detained
in Past
Five Years

Not Detained
in Past
Five Years

Trust in Local Police by Race and Ethnicity

100%
13.3%

75%

24.4%

10.7%

17.3%

11.8%

27.8%

17.7%

24.2%

29.6%
31.1%

10.8%

12.7%

21.6%

23.7%
24.3%

50%

17.7%

26.7%

31.3%

31.7%

29.1%

Indigenous

Latinx

30.1%

30.6%
26.2%

25%
31.1%

36.0%

40.3%

37.1%

Trust
■ Completely
Trust
■ Somewhat
a Little Bit
■ Trust
■ Do Not Trust at All

30.9%

0%
API

Black

MEAA

Multiracial

White

The differences in trust in local police between racial and ethnic groups were
small; the only statistically significant differences were among Black (36.0%
of Black participants did not trust the police at all vs. 29.5% of non-Black
participants, OR=1.34) and multiracial (37.1% vs. 29.9%, OR=1.38) participants,
and these differences are not statistically significant when differences in age
distributions are accounted for (Black and multiracial participants were younger,
on average, than their counterparts, and younger participants had lower levels
of trust in the police, so what look like racial differences can be explained by age
differences). Finally, noncitizens were more likely to trust each institution type
listed compared to citizens (data not shown).

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
15

Experiences and Expectations of Police Behavior
Police and other law enforcement officers are charged with protecting and
serving the public. The modern movement for LGBTQ+ rights and liberation
was sparked by protests against police violence and the government’s failure
to acknowledge, much less address, the needs of our communities. These
issues continue today. In 2020, throughout the United States and across the
globe, people engaged in protests and demonstrations against racial and
police violence. For BIPOC LGBTQ+ people, police violence and misconduct are
compounded based on race or ethnicity as well as sexual orientation or gender
identity (Lambda Legal, 2015).
LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV face disparate levels of policing
in all aspects of our lives, and many of us experience bias and discrimination
in interactions with law enforcement, including when seeking help. The 2012
Protected and Served? survey found that 73% of participants reported face-toface contact with law enforcement in the past five years (Lambda Legal, 2015).
Other studies have found that LGBQ people are more likely to be stopped by
the police than straight, cisgender people, including while driving and even
while walking on the sidewalk (Luhur, Meyer, & Wilson, 2021). For decades,
police have targeted LGBTQ+ people through profiling, stings, and raids.
Law enforcement officials persistently profile LGBTQ+ people, particularly
transgender women of color and LGBTQ+ youth of color, as being engaged in
sex work (Stoudt, Fine, & Fox, 2012; see also Mogul et al., 2012; Make the Road
New York, 2012). Due to homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia within police
departments, LGBTQ+ people of color, transgender people, and youth experience
particularly high rates of harassment and discrimination by law enforcement
(Mallory, Hasenbush, & Sears, 2015).

LGBTQ+ people and
people living with
HIV face disparate
levels of policing in
all aspects of our
lives, and many of
us experience bias
and discrimination
in interactions with
law enforcement,
including when
seeking help.

Since the 2012 survey, a number of police departments have made changes
to their guidelines and training materials to address biases and prejudices in
their interactions with LGBTQ+ people. These changes have largely been driven
by litigation and community advocacy against abusive and discriminatory
practices that target communities of color and LGBTQ+ people. Even with these
new policies and training requirements, studies show that law enforcement
departments and government agencies continue to fall short when it comes
to providing proper oversight, enforcing these policies, and providing ongoing
training or accountability measures to ensure that officers understand and
comply with them (U.S. President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 2015;
New York City Department of Investigation, 2017).
For the Protected and Served? 2022 report, we wanted to dig deeper and better
understand the experiences of LGBTQ+ communities and people living with
HIV with police and other systems of law enforcement. The survey found that
participants’ experiences and levels of trust in police and other law enforcement
varied based on their identities and lived experiences. Some survivors of

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
16

harassment and violence said that the police took their reports seriously and
treated them with courtesy and respect. Others, however, indicated that the
police did not take their complaint seriously, treated them badly, or were even
the perpetrators of the harm.
Over half (57.2%) of those who participated in the survey had face-toface contact with police in the past five years. Of those, less than a quarter
(23.6%) had contact once, 56.7% had contact two to five times, and about one
in five (19.7%) had contact more than five times. Those under age 50 were about
85% more likely to have had contact with police compared to those age 50 and
over (59.6% vs. 44.5%, OR=1.84). Of those who had contact with police, those
under age 50 were particularly likely to have had contact more than five times
(21.1% vs. 9.5%, OR= 2.56).
People of color overall were no more likely to have had contact with police in
the past five years than those who were white only (data not shown); however,
multiracial and Black participants were more likely to have had contact with
police. There were significant differences between those who were multiracial
compared to those who were one race only (64.7% vs. 56.3%, OR=1.42)4 and
those who were Black compared to those who were not Black (64.0% vs. 55.8%,
OR=1.41).
TGNCNB participants were also more likely to have had contact with police in the
past five years (66.3% vs. 53.2%, OR=1.74). Nearly three-quarters (74.4%) of
Black TGNCNB participants had had contact with police.

Nearly twothirds of Black
participants had
contact with police
in the past five
years compared
to slightly over
half of non-Black
participants.

The survey asked those who did have contact with police how the officers
behaved toward them during their most recent face-to-face experience. They
were asked three types of questions about their treatment, measuring how
seriously the police took them (vs. how skeptical or dismissive they were), how
fairly they were treated, and how courteously they were treated (vs. being
treated with hostility).
Participants reported mixed experiences, with over one-quarter (26.5%) saying
the police took them very seriously and a similar percentage saying the police
treated them with skepticism or dismissed them (26.1%). Just about one in four
(24.8%) said the police treated them very fairly, while about one in five (20.2%)
said the police treated them very unfairly. About three in ten (29.3%) said they
were treated courteously, while under one in ten (9.0%) were treated with
hostility.
Those who did not have contact with police had more positive expectations of
their encounters than the reality of those who did have contact with the police.
For example, while over three in ten (31.0%) said they expected to be treated
fairly, only about one in four (24.8%) said the police did treat them fairly. Just
4 When controlling for age, those who were multiracial were marginally statistically significantly different
in terms of their contact with police (p=0.06).

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
17

4.0% expected to be treated with hostility, while nearly one in ten (9.0%)
experienced this.
Fig 15

Police Treatment: Expectations Among Participants Who Did Not Have Contact
With Police and Experiences Among Those Who Did
Courteousness

100%

4.0%

Seriousness

9.0%

Fairness
8.8%

14.2%

20.2%

26.0%

19.4%

19.3%

23.5%
75%

22.5%
24.3%

45.6%
50%

38.3%

■
■
■
■

Hostile

27.1%

Mostly Hostile
Mostly Courteous

29.7%

Courteous

20.4%

■
■
■
■

Skeptical or
Dismissive
Somewhat Skeptical
or Dismissive
Took Me Somewhat
Seriously

■
■
■
■

40.9%
30.8%

Took Me Seriously

Very Unfair
Somewhat Unfair
Somewhat Fair
Very Fair

25%
30.9%

29.3%

Expectation

Experience

33.6%

26.5%

31.0%

24.8%

0%
Expectation

Experience

Expectation

These gaps between expectations and experiences were also evident among
trans people, gender nonconforming and nonbinary people, and people of color.
Overall, in terms of both expectations and real experiences, trans people, gender
nonconforming/nonbinary people, and people of color were more likely to say
that police were or would be very hostile, very skeptical, and very unfair to them
(not all data are shown). For example, compared to those who were not TGNCNB,
TGNCNB people were over four times as likely to expect that the police would
be very unfair to them (19.6% vs. 5.7%, OR=4.03). TGNCNB people who had
experience with the police were also over twice as likely to report that the police
treated them very unfairly (28.6% vs. 15.8%, OR=2.14).
Open-ended responses illustrated that police behaved differently toward trans
participants after they transitioned compared to before. As one white trans
nonbinary participant said, “Every interaction I have had with police in my
lifetime, especially after I came out as trans and started appearing more gender
nonconforming, has been overwhelmingly negative.” A white transwoman also
explained, “I am a transwoman. The police have viewed me as the one at fault
and/or treated what I had to say as being worth nothing. Wasn’t that way before I
transitioned.”
The survey also asked those who had face-to-face contact with police if they
had been stopped because police thought they were doing sex work; 15.5%
said yes, while a further 8.9% were not sure. Being stopped because police

Experience

Overall, in terms of
both expectations
and real
experiences, trans
people, gender
nonconforming/
nonbinary people,
and people of color
were more likely
to say that police
were or would be
very hostile, very
skeptical, and very
unfair to them.

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
18

suspected them of engaging in sex work was more common among trans
survey participants compared to non-trans survey participants (21.0% vs. 14.1%,
OR=1.61) (excluding those who were not sure). This was particularly true of those
who identified as trans but did not identify as male or female or who identified
as both male and female (31.8% vs. 13.5%, OR=2.98). People who were not
U.S. citizens were much more likely to have been stopped because the police
suspected they were doing sex work (41.9% vs. 11.5%, OR=5.56). Finally, people
of color (26.0% vs. 8.3%, OR= 3.86), particularly those who were Black (37.0%
vs. 11.3%, OR=4.62) or Indigenous (29.3% vs. 14.7%, OR=2.40), were more likely
to say they had been stopped because police perceived or assumed they were a
sex worker.
Additionally, of those who had face-to-face contact with police, 23.6% said
police asked for proof of their immigration status. People of color were more
likely than were those who were white (only) to be asked for proof of their
immigration status (40.8% vs. 11.4%, OR=5.35). This was particularly true of
Black participants (56.6% vs. 17.0%, OR=6.38, see figure 17).
Fig 16

“Every interaction
I have had
with police in
my lifetime,
especially after
I came out as
trans and started
appearing
more gender
nonconforming,
has been
overwhelmingly
negative.”
— a white trans
nonbinary
participant

Reason for Police Contact Was Suspected Sex Work

100%
14.8%

14.5%

10.1%
18.3%

13.5%

12.6%

62.2%

64.6%

6.3%

75%

48.5%
52.4%
50%

68.6%

72.2%

84.1%

Sure
■ Not
■ No
■ Yes

25%
37.0%
29.3%
21.4%

24.3%

22.8%

13.0%

9.6%

0%
API

Black

Indigenous

Latinx

MEAA

Multiracial

White

Those who were not U.S. citizens were much more likely to have been asked for
proof of their immigration status compared to U.S. citizens (77.9% vs. 15.5%,
OR=19.11).
Nearly half (45.2%) of participants who encountered the police face-to-face
indicated they experienced misconduct, such as being accused of an offense
they did not commit (31.2%), being verbally assaulted (25.1%), or being sexually
harassed (13.4%). Unsurprisingly, people of color (57.6% vs. 37.0%, OR=2.31),
particularly those who were Black (71.3% vs. 40.2%, OR=3.68), were more
likely to indicate that they experienced police misconduct, as were those who
were living with HIV (60.9% vs. 38.1%, OR=2.53), who were non-citizens (76.1%

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
19

Fig 17

Police Asked for Proof of Immigration Status

100%

43.4%

75%

57.9%

59.0%
66.7%

71.9%

73.9%

87.3%

■ Yes
■
No

50%

56.6%

25%

42.1%

41.0%
33.3%

28.1%

26.1%

12.7%
0%
API

Fig 18

Black

Indigenous

Latinx

MEAA

Multiracial

White

Police Behavior in Most Recent Face-to-Face Contact

34.0%
30%

31.2%

25.1%
20%

13.4%
10%

12.8%
10.7%
7.3%

0%
Physically
Searched

Accused of
Offense Did
Not Commit

Verbally
Assaulted

Sexually
Harassed

Physically
Assaulted

Planted
Evidence

Sexually
Assaulted

vs. 40.3%, OR= 4.73), or who were TGNCNB (55.7% vs. 40.0%, OR=1.89). In
addition to these forms of misconduct, 34.0% of participants who had face-toface contact with police were searched by them.
Of those who experienced misconduct, one-third (33.3%) reported the
misconduct to another police or law enforcement officer, official, or monitoring
board. Of those, less than half (46.6%) had their complaint fully addressed. Just
12.2% who knew the status of their claim had seen the officer’s actions found to

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
20

be improper and disciplinary action taken against the officer, while 13.3% had
withdrawn their complaint, 31.7% had their claim dismissed, and 13.3% indicated
that the officers had been cleared.

What do population-based surveys tell us about experiences of crime?
Because this survey is not a representative sample, we cannot make comparisons between these findings
and population-based data; however, these statistics are helpful reference points for understanding our data
in context.
From 2016 to 2020, there were 14,122,389 property-crime incidents and 14,191,683 offenses reported.
Overall, the five-year prevalence of property crime in the population (per 100,000 people) decreased from
2.45% in 2016 to 1.96% in 2020 (FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program, n.d.).
Overall, the five-year prevalence of assault decreased from 0.92%, or 2.4 million reported cases, in 2016 to
0.78%, or 2.5 million reported cases, in 2020 (Morgan & Thompston, 2020).
The five-year prevalence of rape/sexual assault slightly increased from 0.06%, or 162,940 reported cases
in 2016, to 0.07%, or 192,820 reported cases in 2020. Within this five-year window, the highest number of
reported cases was in 2018 at 0.13%, or 347,090 reported cases (Morgan & Thompson, 2020).
The prevalence of intimate partner violence among sexual and gender minorities for lifetime experience
ranges from 8.8% to 56.9%. Within a 12-month period, the prevalence ranges from 8.6% to 27.5% (Brown &
Herman, 2015).

Experiences of Crime and Hate Incidents
The survey asked participants whether they had experienced certain crimes in
the past five years, including property crime (37.4%), physical assault (27.5%),
intimate partner violence (22.7%), and sexual assault (20.2%). Experiences
of crime were common among participants, with 54.6% having at least one
crime experience. Younger participants (under age 40) were more likely to have
experienced each of these crimes (data not shown, differences between younger
and older participants were statistically significant for all types of crime).
People of color were particularly likely to experience crime (66.0% vs. 47.1%,
OR=2.18)5. Nearly three-quarters (74.8%) of Black participants had experienced
at least one of the crimes measured in the survey; this was true of Indigenous
participants as well (74.8%). Middle Eastern and Arab American participants
experienced crime at high rates (71.7%), as did multiracial participants (69.8%).
5 This was true even when controlling for the differences in age between people of color and those who
were white only.

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
21

Fig 19

Experiences of Crime

37.4%

30%
27.5%

22.7%

20%

20.2%

10%

0%
Property
Crime

Fig 20
74.8%

Physical
Assault

Intimate
Partner
Violence

Sexual
Assault

Experienced Any Crime by Race and Ethnicity
74.8%
71.7%

69.8%

60%
59.5%

58.6%

48.7%
40%

20%

0%
Black

Indigenous

MEAA

Multiracial

API

Latinx

White

People living with HIV were about twice as likely to experience crimes as those
not living with HIV (68.0% vs. 48.36%, OR=2.27); this difference held even when
controlling for race, gender, and age (data not shown). This was particularly true
for assault: people living with HIV were over three times as likely as those
not living with HIV to indicate they had been assaulted (45.9% vs. 19.2%,
OR=3.58). People with lower incomes (under $35,000 in 2021) were much more
likely to experience crimes. Odds ratios ranged from 1.56 for hate incidents to

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
22

2.36 for sexual assault and were statistically significant even
when controlling for race and age.
Of trans participants, transmasculine people (68.8%) were
more likely than transfeminine (59.7%) or trans (both/neither)
(67.0%) participants to have experienced one of the crimes
measured in the survey. TGNCNB people were more likely than
those who were not TGNCNB to experience physical assault,
sexual assault, intimate partner violence (IPV), and hate
incidents. Odds ratios for TGNCNB people ranged from 1.81 for
assault to 2.47 for hate incidents, and significance held even
when accounting for differences in race, age, and income.6
Hate incidents—which may or may not have been considered
crimes—were more common than any of the types of crime
the survey asked about: 53.3% of participants indicated that
they experienced one or more hate incidents in the past five
years. These participants were further asked if the most recent
hate incident was related to their sexual orientation, gender
identity, HIV status, race or ethnicity, disability, or immigration
status.
Fig 22

Fig 21 Experienced Any
Crime Among TGNCNB and
Cisgender Participants
60%

50.4%
40%

20%

0%
TGNCNB

Identity Targeted in Most Recent Hate Incident

75.2%

60%

62.4%

61.9%
58.8%

40%
38.1%
30.5%
20%

0%
TGNCNB,
Most Recent
HI Targeted
Gender

Living with HIV,
Most Recent
HI Targeted
HIV Status

LGBQ+,
Most Recent
HI Targeted
Sexual Orientation

POC,
Most Recent
HI Targeted
Race

Non-U.S. Citizen,
Most Recent
HI Targeted
Immigration
Status

65.4%

Cisgender

Hate incidents—
which may or
may not have
been considered
crimes—were
more common
than any of the
types of crime
the survey asked
about: 53.3%
of participants
indicated that
they experienced
one or more hate
incidents in the
past five years.

Living with
Disability,
Most Recent
HI Targeted
Disability

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?
6 TGNCNB people were more likely to experience property crime as well, but this difference did not hold
when controlling for race, age, and income.

•
23

How did we measure experiences of crime and hate incidents?
Many readers will be curious about how we measured the experiences of crime and hate incidents that are
described in this section. Below are the question wordings we used that are summarized by the phrases
“property crime,” “assault,” “sexual assault,” “intimate partner violence,” and “hate incident” in the text and
graphs; these include original formatting for clarity and emphasis.
Property Crime: In the past five years, have you been robbed or experienced vandalism, arson, or
another property crime?
Assault: In the past 5 years, did an incident of personal assault (e.g. being hit, beaten up, hit,
attacked with a weapon) happen to you other than domestic or intimate partner violence? Please do
not include sexual assault in this question as this will be asked separately.
Sexual Assault: In the past 5 years, did an incident of sexual assault happen to you other than
domestic or intimate partner violence?
Intimate Partner Violence: In the past 5 years, have you experienced domestic or intimate partner
violence?
Hate Incident: In the past 5 years, have you experienced any negative experience you know or
suspect was a result of bias or prejudice (a hate incident)?
When conducting surveys about crime and reporting of crime, it is important to remember that participants
may have had experiences that they did not share in the survey. This is also true of other experiences,
such as accounts of reporting negative experiences to police or other parties and negative outcomes of
experiences they have had.

Fig 23

Experienced Any Hate Incident by Race and Ethnicity
72.9%

71.8%
68.4%

60%

63.0%

62.0%

52.1%

49.9%

40%

20%

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•

0%
MEAA

Black

Multiracial

API

Indigenous

Latinx

White

Hate incidents also could have been based upon more than one identity
category. For example, among TGNCNB people targeted for a hate incident
based upon their gender identity or expression, over two-thirds indicated that
there was another reason they experienced the same hate incident, such as
sexual orientation (24.6%) or race/ethnicity (5.8%).
Fig 24

TGNCNB Participants Targeted for a Hate Incident
Based on Gender Identity or Expression

28.5%

31.1%

1.3%
5.2%
5.8%
3.6%

24.6%

Identity or Expression (GI/E) Only
■ Gender
and Sexual Orientation
■ GI/E
and HIV Status
■ GI/E
and Race/Ethnicity
■ GI/E
and Disability
■ GI/E
GI/E and Immigration Status

Among TGNCNB
people targeted
for a hate incident
based upon their
gender identity
or expression,
over two-thirds
indicated that
there was another
reason they
experienced
the same hate
incident, such as
sexual orientation
(24.6%) or race/
ethnicity (5.8%).

GI/E and More Than One Other Identity Category

Aftermath of IPV and Hate Incidents
The survey asked those who responded that they had experienced IPV or a
hate incident in the past five years about a series of negative consequences
that may have occurred after. Sadness and depression were very common after
IPV (76.5%) and hate incidents (79.7%), as were feelings of isolation (49.5% of
those who experienced IPV and 33.5% of those who experienced hate incidents).
Additionally, many survivors of IPV and hate incidents lost jobs or access to
income, had ongoing medical issues, or lost access to housing.

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
25

Fig 25

Effects of Domestic or Intimate Partner Violence

80%
76.5%

60%

49.5%
40%

27.5%
20%

24.7%
19.8%

0%
Felt
Upset,
Depressed,
Sad

Felt
Isolated
from Friends,
Community

Fig 26

Lost
Access
to Job or
Income

Have
Ongoing
Medical
Issues

Lost
Access to
Housing

-6.2%

1.1%

Other

None of
These

Effects of Hate Incident

80%
79.7%

60%

40%

33.5%
20%
19.3%
15.3%
11.5%
7.5%
0%
Felt
Upset,
Depressed,
Sad

Felt
Isolated
from Friends,
Community

Lost
Access
to Job or
Income

Have
Ongoing
Medical
Issues

Lost
Access to
Housing

Other

5.8%

None of
These

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
26

Reporting Crime and Hate Incidents to Police and
Others
Participants were asked to think about the most recent instance of each type
of crime (or hate incident) experienced in the past five years and asked where
they had reported the crime (if at all): to police, a nonprofit or communitybased organization (CBO), friends and family, another place, or nowhere. For all
four types of crime measured in the survey, reporting to the police was more
common than reporting to a friend or family member, to a nonprofit or CBO, or
to no one. Participants could select more than one location where they reported
crime.
Participants who had experienced property crime (63.7%) more frequently
reported it to police than participants who had experienced other crimes (e.g.,
assault, sexual assault, and IPV). Reporting property crimes is common because
when survivors are insured, they cannot collect insurance payments without a
police report (Tarling & Morris, 2010).
Fig 27
60%

Reported Crime or Hate Incident to Police
63.7%
58.8%

44.3%

40%

36.1%

25.4%

20%

0%
Property
Crime

Physical
Assault

Sexual
Assault

IPV

Hate
Incident

Reporting sexual assault, IPV, and hate incidents (which may or may not have
been crimes) was less common than reporting property crime or physical
assault. Recent statistics show that about half of instances of IPV are reported;
LGBTQ+ people report crime at lower rates than the overall population (Morgan
& Thompson, 2020). The findings from the P&S? survey echo previous research
on this topic.
While reporting to a nonprofit or CBO was less common than reporting to police,
one in five IPV survivors (20.0%) reported to a CBO, as did nearly as many
survivors of physical assault (19.5%).

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
27

40%

Reported Negative Experience to Nonprofit or CBO

Fig 28
20%

19.5%

20.0%
17.2%
14.5%

12.1%

0%
Property
Crime

Physical
Assault

Sexual
Assault

IPV

Hate
Incident

60%

Fig 29

Reported Negative Experience to No One
48.3%

40%

34.1%
29.7%
20%
19.3%

17.3%

0%
Property
Crime

Percentage of Participants Who Experienced Hate Incident

Fig 30

Physical
Assault

Sexual
Assault

IPV

Hate
Incident

Reported Hate Incident to the Police by Gender
35.1%

30%

26.2%
23.5%
20%

Nearly half of all
hate incidents
were unreported
(48.3%), a much
higher prevalence
than property
crime or physical
assault.

20.8%
18.8%

10%

0%
Female / Femme

Cisgender

Transgender

GNCNB

Male / Masc

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
28

Those who did not report the crimes they experienced were more likely to
say they do not trust the police at all. For example, among participants who
experienced sexual assault, those who said they do not trust the police at all
were about one-fifth as likely to report it as those who said they trust the police
a little, somewhat, or completely (20.4% vs. 58.0%, OR=0.19).
Of the top
five reasons
participants gave
for not reporting
property crime to
the police, three
had to do with the
police.

Reasons Participants Chose Not to Report Crime
Of the top five reasons participants gave for not reporting property crime to
the police, three had to do with the police (police will not think it is important,
police are inefficient or ineffective, police are biased or will harass). In total,
slightly over half (50.2%) of those who did not report property crime did so
for reasons related to the police (the three listed above plus “police were the
perpetrator[s]”).
Fig 31

Reasons for Not Reporting Property Crime
30.7%

Police Not Think is Important

28.6%

Could Not Identify Offender, No Proof
22.6%

Police Inefficient or Ineffective

20.1%

Police Biased or Will Harass

18.0%

Private or Personal Matter

17.3%

Fear Offender Retaliation
13.8%

Not Clear Was a Crime

13.4%

Did Not Want to Get Offender in Trouble

12.0%

No Insurance Cover
Not a Big Deal
Too Much Time, Inconvenient
Other
Advised Not to
Offender Was Police or Law Enforcement

---

11.0%
8.1%
7.4%

5.7%

5.3%

10%

20%

The top three reasons that participants did not report physical assault were
related to the police, including police being biased or harassing the survivor
(28.0%), police thinking it is not important (25.0%), or the police being
inefficient or ineffective (24.2%). In all, 55.5% of those who had experienced
physical assault did not report due to police-related reasons. Further, 14.0% of
those who did not report said it was because police themselves had perpetrated
the physical assault.

30%

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
29

Fig 32

Reasons for Not Reporting Physical Assault
28.0%

Police Biased or Will Harass

25.0%

Police Not Think is Important

Fear Offender Retaliation

20.3%

Could Not Identify Offender, No Proof

20.3%
18.2%

Private or Personal Matter
Offender Was Police or Law Enforcement

14.0%

Not Clear Was a Crime

14.0%
11.0%

Did Not Want to Get Offender in Trouble
No Insurance Cover
Too Much Time, Inconvenient
Not a Big Deal
Advised Not to
Other

10.2%

9.3%
8.5%
8.1%

4.2%

Fig 33

The top three
reasons
participants gave
for not reporting
physical assault or
sexual assault to
the police all had
to do with their
expectations of
police behavior.

24.2%

Police Inefficient or Ineffective

10%

20%

30%

Reasons for Not Reporting Sexual Assault
32.6%

Police Not Think is Important

30.9%

Police Biased or Will Harass
Police Inefficient or Ineffective

23.7%

Not Clear Was a Crime

23.7%
23.3%

Could Not Identify Offender, No Proof

22.5%

Fear Offender Retaliation

21.2%

Private or Personal Matter
13.6%

Did Not Want to Get Offender in Trouble
Other
Too Much Time, Inconvenient
Not a Big Deal
No Insurance Cover
Advised Not to
Offender Was Police or Law Enforcement

---

10.6%
8.5%
8.1%

5.1%

PROTECTED

4.7%

&SERVED ?
10%

20%

•

30%

Fig 34

Reasons for Not Reporting Intimate Partner Violence
34.7%

Private or Personal Matter
23.7%

Did Not Want to Get Offender in Trouble

22.7%

Fear Offender Retaliation

21.7%

Police Not Think is Important

19.7%

Police Inefficient or Ineffective

19.3%

Police Biased or Will Harass

16.7%

Not Clear Was a Crime

14.3%

Not a Big Deal

13.0%

Could Not Identify Offender, No Proof
Too Much Time, Inconvenient
No Insurance Cover
Other
Advised Not to
Offender Was Police or Law Enforcement

---

8.7%
8.0%
7.7%
7.7%

4.3%

10%

20%

Among those who did report the crime they experienced to police, the responses
to open-ended questions largely reflected traumatic experiences such as
mockery, victim blaming, racism, homophobia, and transphobia. A white gay
male participant wrote, “As a victim, the indifference I was confronted with
[from the police] may have been more insidious than outright hostility, but no
less traumatic than the incident itself.” A multiracial trans nonbinary participant
explained, “Every time I have reported an incident to the police it had been met
with general disinterest, like it was a chore for them and blatant homophobia/
transphobia. I’ve even had assault dismissed by an officer as ‘deserved.’“
Among those who did not report, police-related reasons applied to 55.5% of
those who had experienced physical assault, 51.3% of those who experienced
sexual assault, and 50.2% of those who experienced a property crime. These
percentages were slightly smaller for hate incidents (47.0%) and intimate
partner violence (42.0%).

30%

“Every time I
have reported an
incident to the
police it had been
met with general
disinterest, like
it was a chore for
them and blatant
homophobia/
transphobia. I’ve
even had assault
dismissed by
an officer as
‘deserved.’”
— a multiracial
trans nonbinary
participant

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
31

Fig 35

Did Not Report Negative Event for Police-Related
Reasons
55.5%
51.3%

50.2%
47.0%

40%

42.0%

20%

“As a victim, the
indifference I was
confronted with
[from the police]
may have been
more insidious
than outright
hostility, but no
less traumatic
than the incident
itself.”
— a white gay male
participant

0%
Physical
Assault

Fig 36

Sexual
Assault

Property
Crime

Hate
Incident

Intimate
Partner
Violence

Reasons for Not Reporting Hate Incident
33.0%

Police Not Think is Important
26.6%

Private or Personal Matter

23.6%

Police Biased or Will Harass

20.0%

Not Clear Was a Crime
Fear Offender Retaliation

19.3%

Could Not Identify Offender, No Proof

19.0%
14.0%

Not a Big Deal

13.4%

Too Much Time, Inconvenient
Other
Did Not Want to Get Offender in Trouble
Offender Was Police or Law Enforcement
Advised Not to
No Insurance Cover

One-third of
participants who
did not report a
hate incident to
the police said this
was because they
felt that the police
would not think
the incident was
important.

22.7%

Police Inefficient or Ineffective

---

8.2%

5.8%

4.5%

4.4%

3.8%

10%

20%

30%

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
32

The prevalence of police-related reasons for not reporting crime did not vary
significantly by race; however, TGNCNB people were much more likely to say that
they did not report crime because of police-related reasons (with the exception
of property crime). For example, they were more than twice as likely as cisgender
people to say they did not report intimate partner violence because of policerelated reasons (52.2% vs. 32.9%, OR=2.23).
Survey participants who reported hate incidents to police were particularly
likely to also respond to open-ended questions on the survey with accounts of
police being very dismissive. As one white lesbian described, “In minimizing what
happened, I was told they get threatened all the time.” Participants expressed
a great deal of frustration and eroding trust in law enforcement. As one white
trans nonbinary person explained, “I think I was discriminated against and
ignored. When I reported to them, I often could not get good help. They would tell
me that I could not exercise some rights due to busy work or law, and I could not
even get their protection. This made me very frustrated, and I didn’t know who
could help me when the problem happened.”
Others explained how reporting hate crimes to police put them in more danger.
As one white gender nonconforming pansexual participant stated, “I was almost
arrested for reporting that my neighbor threatened to shoot me. When they
took their suspect into custody, I told them that they had the wrong person, and
then they accused me of lying. They also exposed my face to their suspect (the
[perpetrator’s] brother).”

TGNCNB people
were much more
likely to say that
they did not report
crime because
of police-related
reasons (with
the exception of
property crime).
For example, they
were more than
twice as likely as
cisgender people
to say they did not
report intimate
partner violence
because of policerelated reasons
(52.2% vs. 32.9%).

Police Attitudes and Behavior After Reporting
Crime
Those who reported crime to the police encountered a variety of attitudes
and responses. For example, over one-quarter (27.1%) of those who had been
physically assaulted indicated that the police were skeptical or dismissive of
them, and a similar number (26.6%) said the police treated them very unfairly.
However, nearly three in ten (27.5%) said the police treated them courteously.
Fewer of those who experienced sexual assault said that the police treated them
very fairly, with under one in ten (9.3%) agreeing with this statement, and nearly
one-third of those who had experienced sexual assault (25.5%) or IPV (30.5%)
said that the police were skeptical or dismissive.
TGNCNB participants were much more likely to say that the police treated
them very unfairly after they reported property crime (25.5% vs. 17.2%,
OR= 1.66) or IPV (39.2% vs. 21.1%, OR=2.41). They were also more likely
to say that police treated them very skeptically or dismissively after assault,
property crime, IPV, or hate incidents (data not shown) compared to those who
were not TGNCNB. Participants’ accounts of police responses after reporting
crime did not differ significantly by race. Some indicators differed by age or
income (data not shown).

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
33

Fig 37

Police Treatment After Physical Assault

100%
8.5%
26.6%

27.1%
23.9%
75%

50%

40.2%

■
■
■
■

Hostile

29.5%

Mostly Hostile
Mostly Courteous
Courteous
27.7%

■
■
■
■

Skeptical or
Dismissive
Somewhat Skeptical
or Dismissive
Took Me Somewhat
Seriously

30.8%

Took Me Seriously
28.1%

25%

■
■
■
■

Very Unfair
Somewhat Unfair
Somewhat Fair
Very Fair

27.5%
15.8%

14.4%

Seriousness

Fairness

0%
Courteousness

Fig 38

Police Treatment After Intimate Partner Violence

100%
12.3%
27.3%

30.5%
75%

20.9%

50%
41.1%

■
■
■
■

Hostile
Mostly Hostile

24.6%

Mostly Courteous
Courteous
24.6%

■
■
■
■

Skeptical or
Dismissive
Somewhat Skeptical
or Dismissive
Took Me Somewhat
Seriously

28.6%

Took Me Seriously
24.8%

■
■
■
■

Very Unfair
Somewhat Unfair
Somewhat Fair
Very Fair

25%

25.8%

20.4%

19.3%

Seriousness

Fairness

0%
Courteousness

Participants who reported a hate incident to the police had the highest
prevalence of experiences of police who were skeptical or dismissive (32.4%) of
the five types of negative experiences measured in the survey. The police were
also slightly less courteous to them than to participants who reported any type
of crime rather than a hate incident.

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
34

Fig 39

Police Treatment After Hate Incident

100%
12.8%
26.5%

32.4%
75%

29.1%

50%
35.3%

■
■
■
■

25%

Hostile
Mostly Hostile

27.6%

Mostly Courteous
Courteous

■
■
■
■

Skeptical or
Dismissive
Somewhat Skeptical
or Dismissive
Took Me Somewhat
Seriously

33.0%

Took Me Seriously

26.9%

28.8%

13.1%

11.7%

■
■
■
■

Very Unfair
Somewhat Unfair
Somewhat Fair
Very Fair

22.9%
0%
Courteousness

Seriousness

Fairness

Court Experiences
LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV are in court every day as parties
to a case, witnesses, jurors, attorneys, and judges, and have a vital role in the
administration of justice. For some, the courthouse is a symbol of justice and
fairness, but for many LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV, the courts are
simply another place where they are mistreated, face discrimination, and have
their privacy violated.
Studies have found a high prevalence of discrimination and harassment
directed at LGB people in courts (Judicial Council of California, 2001; Bowen
& Zuckerman, 2001). In 2012, Protected and Served? found that “as with all
forms of discrimination, respondents with multiple marginalized identities—such
as being a lesbian living with HIV, a gay man with a disability or a low-income
transgender person of color—were more likely to report misconduct and abuse”
(Lambda Legal, 2015). In 2015, the largest national survey of transgender and
nonbinary people, with over 27,000 respondents, conducted by the National
Center for Transgender Equality, found that 13% of respondents who visited
courthouses over the previous year experienced discrimination or harassment
by court staff based on knowledge or belief that they were transgender (James
et al., 2016). In addition, studies have shown that bias and prejudice can influence
jurors’ decisions in all types of cases involving LGBTQ+ people (Hill, 2000; White
& Robinson, 2002; Kraus & Ragatz, 2011).
Experiences of harassment, mistreatment, and discrimination when accessing
the courts cause serious emotional and physical harm to LGBTQ+ people
and people living with HIV. In fact, the “injury caused by the discrimination

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
35

is made more severe because the government permits it to occur within the
courthouse itself” (Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc., 1991). When people
are mistreated in the courts, they stop trusting the court system. Discrimination
and harassment in the court system prevents people from doing their jobs,
performing their civic service, accessing justice, and maintaining confidence in
the judicial system.
Over one-third (35.1%) of survey participants had been in court in the past five
years.7 Of those who had been in court and selected at least one role they had
had, the most common role was as the person involved in the legal case (plaintiff
or defendant), 66.5%, followed by juror (21.6%). Participants could have multiple
roles in court over the past five years, and could appear in multiple types of
court. The survey measured experiences in several types of courts, including
civil, criminal, traffic, housing, family, immigration, juvenile, and tribal courts.8
Fig 40

Court Role Among Participants Who Had Been in Court
66.5%

60%

40%

20%

21.6%

13.4%

11.2%
2.7%

0%
Person Involved
in Legal
Proceeding

Juror

Witness

Attorney

Court
Employee

0.6%
Judge

Overall, 85.3% of participants who had been in court were involved in a legal
proceeding or served as a juror or witness, while 6.8% served a role related to
7 Approximately 200 participants responded that they had more than three different roles in court (in
other words, in the past five years they had been a judge, an attorney, a witness, and a juror, or some other
combination of four or more roles) or that they had been in more than three types of court. Because this
is a very uncommon experience in reality, the researchers decided to exclude those responses, concluding
that the participants misunderstood the question in some way. Those participants were not excluded
from any other analysis, as their other responses to other sections of the survey did not show any such
misunderstandings. For further details about the responses and how the data were cleaned, please contact
the first author.
8 Because participants were only asked what type of court they had been in if they reported a negative
experience, it is not possible to calculate the total number of participants who were in each type of court in
the past five years.

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
36

employment in the court (attorney, court employee, or judge). Surprisingly, 8.0%
served in both types of roles.
Negative experiences were common in court. Of participants who had appeared
in court, 22.2% of those who were sexual or gender minorities, women, or living
with HIV indicated that someone (judge, public defender, prosecutor, court clerk,
court security, or any other court employee) “made negative comments” to or
about them relating to sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or HIV
status. Similarly, 22.7% of those who appeared in court and were people of color,
living with a disability, or were not currently a citizen experienced this in relation
to their “race, disability, or immigration status.”
Fig 41

Negative Experiences in Court

55.3%

40%

30.1%
25.0%
20%
17.3%

0%
Used the
Wrong Name
or Pronoun
(of TGNCNB)

Inappropriately Inappropriately Inappropriately
Revealed
Revealed
Revealed
Transgender
HIV Status
Sexual
Status (of
(of Those
Orientation
Trans)
Living with HIV)
(of LGBQ+)

In addition to hearing negative comments, participants also experienced
a number of other negative incidents in court. About three in ten (30.1%)
transgender participants had their transgender status inappropriately revealed;
a smaller proportion, 17.3% of those who were LGBQ+, experienced having their
sexual orientation inappropriately revealed, while 25.0% of those who were
living with HIV said that their HIV status, which is private health information, was
inappropriately revealed in court. Transgender participants of color were more
likely to have their transgender status revealed in court than were those who
were white (38.0% vs. 21.8%, OR=2.20).
Over half (55.3%) of all TGNCNB participants with experience in court stated
that a court employee misgendered them. Indigenous TGNCNB participants
were more likely than those who were not Indigenous to experience being
misgendered in court (77.0% vs. 52.9%, OR=2.97). Transfeminine participants

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
37

were much more likely to be misgendered compared to transmasculine
participants (76.8% vs. 52.3%, OR =3.02).
Fig 42

40%

Transgender Status Inappropriately Revealed in
Court by Race and Ethnicity
42.9%

42.3%

34.5%
30%

31.7%

23.3%

20%

10%

0%
Indigenous

Fig 43

Black

Latinx

Multiracial

White

Wrong Name or Pronoun Used in Court by Gender

80%
76.8%

60%

61.2%
52.3%

40%

43.0%

20%

0%
Transfeminine

Trans (Neither
Masc nor Femme)

Transmasculine

GNCNB

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
38

How did we measure negative experiences in court?
Survey participants who indicated they had been in court in the past five years were asked if a judge, public
defender, prosecutor, court clerk, court security, or any other court employee had done any of the following:
•

Inappropriately reveal your sexual orientation

•

Inappropriately reveal that you are transgender

•

Inappropriately reveal your HIV status

•

Use the wrong name or pronoun to refer to you (referred to in this report as being
“misgendered”)

•

Make negative comments to you or about you relating to your sexual orientation, gender identity
or expression, or HIV status

•

Make negative comments to you or about you relating to your race, ethnicity, disability status, or
immigration status

Those that indicated they had experienced one of the last two were asked follow-up questions about which
types of negative comments they heard. Those for whom the question was not applicable were removed
from the question during data cleaning (for example, those who were not transgender were removed from
“inappropriately reveal that you are transgender”).

Participants who had negative experiences were asked which type of court they
were in when the negative experience happened. Court options with sufficient
responses for separate analysis included civil, criminal, and family court. Traffic,
immigration, tribal, juvenile, housing, and “other” courts were combined due to
small sample sizes. Only participants who had negative experiences were asked
which courts they appeared in, so the percentages below show which type of
court those who had each type of negative experience were in when the negative
experience occurred. It is not possible from these data to make statements
about how common it is to experience a given negative experience in a particular
type of court.
The misconduct participants experienced took place largely in criminal court,
suggesting that this was the most common court where participants were
present in the past five years.

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
39

How did participants describe their experiences in court?
Participants provided hundreds of qualitative responses to contextualize their court experiences.
“I had to correct the prosecutor at least three (3) times in open court
and ask the court to order the State to use correct pronouns (she,
her, Miss.). The prosecutor argued that since I was housed in a male
prison, I should be deemed male even though my name and gender
marker had been updated to gender affirming already.”
— a white transfeminine participant
Several participants described the professional and personal impacts of having their sexual orientation, trans
status, or HIV status inappropriately revealed in court.
“The court openly disclosed that I was a homosexual causing
extremely painful issues between my family and myself. My family
is conservative and having the court inform my family that I was gay
before I ever had the chance has caused horrible heartache and a
complete disruption in my relationship with my parents. It was far
worse than the actual case itself.”
— a gay nonbinary participant
“Prosecutor intentionally outed me in information released to the
media. (I had been semi-closeted due to my profession as a high
school teacher in a conservative area). Prosecutor used both my
orientation and my profession to paint me as dangerous, despite NO
evidence to that effect.”
— a white gay male participant
Participants also described experiencing blatant racism, homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia from judges
and lawyers—especially public defenders.
“My court appointed lawyer told me he didn’t want to defend me
because I was African American, a homosexual, and due to the
circumstances of my charge–told me that he didn’t want to help me
at all.”
— a Black gay male participant
“I told my lawyer that I identify as transgender female after I told her
it was like she didn’t want to fight for me at all and kept calling me by
the wrong pronouns.”
— a white transfeminine participant

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
40

“My public defender somehow knew I was bisexual and to me he [did
not] seem to really want to defend me or take a real interest in my
case because of my sexuality.”
— a Mexican bisexual participant
Those who had been to court described many instances of judges or lawyers encouraging them to keep parts
of their identities hidden. In several cases, it was unclear if lawyers were trying to protect their clients from
the potential bias they might have experienced if their HIV status, trans status, sexual orientation, or other
details were made public, while at other times, participants were told to keep that information to themselves
out of disgust from the court staff.
“I revealed my gender identity to my public defenders, and they told
me to keep my mouth shut and to keep that info to myself.”
— an Indigenous trans participant
“The judge asked for context regarding my illegal behavior—drug use/
distribution—so I told him of some traumas I’ve had that I believe
have led to a life of addiction. My sexuality was discussed to provide
context and the judge asked me to keep that stuff private. He acted
like I was his son who just came out to him. He was appalled and
disgusted.”
— a white nonbinary participant
Other participants described positive experiences in court, including examples of judges and lawyers
correcting others who misgendered them or calling others out for weaponizing participants’ sexual
orientation, gender identity, or HIV status in the courtroom.
“The judge actually stepped in without prompting and corrected an
attorney who intentionally was misgendering me.”
— a white transfeminine participant
The example above is mixed, because the judge’s correction was a positive intervention—but one that was
only necessary because an attorney misgendered the participant in the first place.
“My ex tried to take custody of my children for being NB/trans,
stating it was a risk to our kids. The judge scolded [my ex’s] attorney
at the end of the case and told her to look up the definition of risk
before she submits anything so hateful again in his courtroom.”
— a white trans and gender nonconforming participant

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
41

Sex Work
For the purposes of this report and survey, all participants who answered
yes to the question, “In the past five years, have you ever exchanged sex or
sexual performance for money or other things of value?” are included under
the umbrella term “sex worker.” Those participants were then asked further
questions about their experiences. Over one in six (18.4%) participants had
engaged in sex work in the past five years. People of color disproportionately
reported engaging in sex work (27.0% vs. 12.7% of white participants, OR= 2.54).
Black and Indigenous participants had high rates of engaging in sex work (40.0%
and 31.5%, respectively). TGNCNB participants (25.4% vs. 15.4%, OR=1.88)
were more likely to report that they had done sex work than those who were not
TGNCNB.
Transfeminine people had high rates of experiences of sex work (20.5%), as
did those who identified as trans (both/neither) (33.9%). Sex workers were
disproportionately under age 40 (21.5% of those ages 18–24, 28.2% of those
ages 25–29, and 22.1% of those ages 30–39).

Nearly half (49.7%)
of sex workers
experienced some
form of police
misconduct while
working in this
capacity.

Nearly half (49.7%) of sex workers experienced some form of police misconduct
while working in this capacity. The most common was demanding money
(25.9%), followed by demanding sex (17.6%). It was also common for police to
take sex workers’ phones to use for “sting” operations (looking for customers

How are “sex work” and “trafficking” defined?
This report defines sex work as the exchange of sex or sexual performance for money or other things of
value. We worked directly with the sex work community in crafting this language. Sex work is rooted in the
values of autonomy, choice, and consent. Many identities exist within the sex work community, including
some who may not identify as a “sex worker.” For the purpose of discussing the survey findings in this
report, all participants who answered yes to the survey question, “In the past five years, have you ever
exchanged sex or sexual performance for money or other things of value?” are considered under the
umbrella term sex worker.
Human trafficking consists of two forms: sex trafficking and labor trafficking. For adults, both forms of
human trafficking are defined as obtaining sex or labor from another person through the means of force,
fraud, or coercion. This definition remains the same for minors and labor trafficking. However, sex trafficking
of a minor is defined as recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining a minor for the
purposes of commercial sex.
These definitions are extremely important to understand, as sex trafficking and sex work are often conflated.
These conflations, and aspects of the anti-trafficking movement, can lead to enactment of laws such as
the federal Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act – Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act
(FOSTA-SESTA). This law directly took away tools sex workers use for safety and communication with each
other, highlighting one of many reasons why the decriminalization of sex work is important.
42

to arrest) (15.9%). As one white gender
nonconforming sex worker said, “In the
last two years I was sexually assaulted
by a sex work client. He was an officer.”
Another participant, who was Black
and female said, “They [the police]
demanded sexual favors, or they would
take my money.” A nonbinary sex
worker wrote, “Simplemente ha sido
notable la vigilancia que nos tienen.”
(“The surveillance they have on us has
simply been remarkable.”)
Forty-five percent (45.0%) of sex
workers had been arrested while doing
sex work in the past five years. The
most common charges were trafficking
(23.9%), prostitution (23.1%), drug
charges (23.0%), and loitering (22.0%),
each of which affected over one in five
sex workers arrested in the past five years.
Fig 45

Fig 44

Police Misconduct Against Sex Workers
25.9%

20%

17.6%
15.9%

10%

2.8%
0%
Extorted
Money

Demanded
Sex to Not
Arrest

Took Phone
to Use for
Sting

Other
Misconduct

Arrest Charges Against Sex Workers

25%
23.9%

23.1%

23.0%
22.0%

Percentage of All Sex Workers

20%

17.4%
15%

10%

11.2%

0%
Trafficking

Prostitution

Drug Charges

Loitering

Solicitation

In over half of cases (51.6%), condoms were used as evidence that the survey
participant was engaging in sex work during the arrest, plea process, or trial. A
further 5.0% of sex workers who had been arrested were not sure if this had
occurred or not.

Other Charges

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
43

How are condoms used as evidence of sex work?
In many jurisdictions in the United States, police and prosecutors consider the mere possession of condoms
to constitute evidence of intent to engage in prostitution or prostitution-related crimes. Arresting and
prosecuting people who carry condoms discourages the use of an extremely effective and affordable
prevention tool, particularly for people engaged in (or profiled as likely to engage in) “street level” sex work.
Such policies make managing sexual health more difficult, forcing individuals to weigh the risk of prosecution
for a prostitution-related crime against the risk of transmitting or acquiring HIV and other sexually
transmissible infections (STIs).

Many participants experienced negative consequences in the aftermath of their
arrests, including being denied access to subsidized housing (47.5%), being
denied a job (36.1%), being denied a Pell Grant (28.5%), and being denied access
to food stamps or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits
(26.6%).
Fig 46

Negative Consequences of Sex Work Arrest

Percentage of Arrested Sex Workers

47.5%
40%

36.1%
30%
28.5%
26.6%
20%

10%

12.0%

12.0%
9.5%

0%
Denied Access
to Subsidized
Housing

Denied a Job

Denied Pell
Grant or
Student Loan

Denied Access
to Food Stamps
or SNAP

No Negative
Consequence

Immigration
Consequences,
Deportation

Children
Removed
from Home

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
44

Youth
LGBTQ+ young people interact with law enforcement and government
institutions on a daily basis. For over a decade, researchers and advocates have
documented that LGBTQ+ youth are disproportionately represented in child
welfare, juvenile justice, and runaway and homeless youth systems (“out-ofhome care systems”) compared to the general population. Further, transgender,
gender expansive, and gender nonconforming (TGNC) youth, who may identify
across the sexual orientation spectrum, are in these systems at even higher
rates than youth who identify as LGBQ (Wilson Remlin, Cook, & Erney, 2017).
Approximately 20% of youth in juvenile facilities identify as LGBTQ+ (Center for
American Progress & Movement Advancement Project, 2016).
Many LGBTQ+ young people are in the child welfare system or experience
homelessness because when they came out to their families, they were rejected
and forced to leave their homes. Once in the child welfare system, these young
people are often met by staff who are ill-equipped to provide competent care
to LGBTQ+ youth. LGBTQ+ youth are more vulnerable to discrimination and
harassment, which often leads to conflict that is punished and criminalized,
turning the child welfare system into a direct pipeline into the juvenile justice
system.
Black and Pink National’s Coming Out of Concrete Closets report found, “Close
to two thirds (58%) of respondents’ first arrest occurred when they were under
the age of 18. Black and [Latinx] [participants] were more likely to have their first
arrest occur when they were under 18 compared to white [participants] (66%
versus 51%, respectively)” (Lydon et al., 2015).

LGBTQ+ youth are
more vulnerable
to discrimination
and harassment,
which often leads
to conflict that
is punished and
criminalized,
turning the child
welfare system into
a direct pipeline
into the juvenile
justice system.

The P&S? survey asked youth ages 18 to 24 about their past experiences in
high school. School systems in the United States have responded to challenges
such as violence and bullying on school campuses by increasing the use and
presence of “school safety officers” and disciplinary measures. Research shows
that this has led to increased rates of expulsion, surveillance, discrimination, and
harassment, further harming and marginalizing Black and brown students and
LGBTQ+ youth at disproportionately high rates compared to their white and nonLGBTQ+ peers. LGBTQ+ students, and TGNCNB students, specifically, are
also disciplined as a means of controlling their gender expressions. These
experiences can cause LGBTQ+ young people to feel unsafe at school and
ultimately to be “pushed out.” (Kosciw et al., 2022).
Survey participants between the ages of 18 and 24 (9.6% of the total, or 244
participants) were asked about their high school experiences with school
discipline and their experiences with foster care and the juvenile justice system
before age 18. A wealth of literature underscores the role that school security
and school discipline play in funneling youth into the legal system, and LGBTQ+
youth are disproportionately involved in the juvenile justice system (see, e.g.,

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
45

Development Services Group, 2014; Hunt & Moodie-Mills, 2012; Irvine & Canfield,
2018).
Over one in five (21.8%) participants ages 18–24 had been suspended from high
school, and 7.9% had been expelled. Many youth (22.7%) had been accused of
violating a dress code because of their gender expression, a number that was
higher among TGNCNB participants (33.0%). About two in five (42.1%) had
experienced at least one of these disciplinary measures. Many youth who had
been suspended felt that the school had failed to support them and their needs.
One white nonbinary young participant explained, “I was constantly suspended
and nearly expelled at all four schools I went to, and never offered mental health
care or assistance.” A Black transgender young participant simply stated, “The
school doesn’t like people like us.”

Fig 47

Percentage of Youth Ages 18 to 24

40%

“There’s no
difference
between a school
security guard and
a bully.”
— a Black
gay young
participant

Negative Experiences with School Security
41.5%

30%

31.0%

24.1%
20%

“The school doesn’t
like people like
us.”

14.1%
10%
9.2%

0%
Had Hostile
Attitude

Verbally
Harassed

Accused
of Offense
Did Not
Commit

Physically
Assaulted

Sexually
Assaulted

About three in four (72.5%) participants had school security, school safety
officers, or school police (called here “school security”) in their high school, and
of those, about two in five (41.5%) experienced hostility from school security,
including 10.6% of all who had school security who experienced hostility more
than five times. Over one in three (31.0%) participants were verbally harassed,
14.1% were physically assaulted, and nearly one in ten (9.2%) were sexually
assaulted by school security. Furthermore, 24.1% were accused by school
security of an offense they did not commit. Qualitative data explained this
further, as one Black gay young participant said, “There’s no difference between
a school security guard and a bully.”

— a Black
transgender
young
participant

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
46

About one in eight (12.5%) youth were in foster care at some time before age
18, and over one in ten (11.0%) had been arrested before the age of 18. Because
of what some have called the “foster care–to-prison pipeline,” youth with
experience in foster care merit specific attention in any juvenile justice system
interventions. However, small samples make it difficult to do many comparative
analyses.
Youth with a history of foster care were more likely to have survived physical
assault (63.0% vs. 27.1%, OR=4.57), sexual assault (55.6% vs. 24.6%, OR=3.83),
IPV (65.4% vs. 18.4%, OR=8.39) and/or a hate incident (80.0% vs. 54.1%,
OR=3.39) and were more likely to have been arrested before age 18 (37.0% vs.
7.4%, OR=7.35) compared to youth with no history of foster care.

Foster youth were
twice as likely to
indicate that they
had engaged in sex
work in the past
five years (36.0%
of foster youth
vs. 18.8% of nonfoster youth).

Foster youth were twice as likely to indicate that they had engaged in sex work
in the past five years (36.0% of foster youth vs. 18.8% of non-foster youth,
OR=2.43).

Detention
A 2017 study by the Williams Institute found that the rate of incarceration of
lesbian, gay, and bisexual people is approximately three times higher than the
already high general U.S. incarceration rate (Meyer et al., 2017). A shocking
47% of Black transgender people, and more than one in five (21%) transgender
women of all ethnicities, are incarcerated during their lifetimes (Grant et al.,
2017). In 2020, an estimated 11,940 detained people were living with HIV in state
and federal prisons, reflecting a slow but steady decline since 1998 (Maruschak,
2022). Among jail populations, Black men are five times as likely as white men,
and twice as likely as Latinx men, to be diagnosed with HIV (U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 2018). Black people are also disproportionately
represented among cases of AIDS-related deaths in prisons (Maruschak, 2022).

A shocking 47% of
Black transgender
people, and more
than one in five
(21%) transgender
women of all
ethnicities, are
incarcerated during
their lifetimes
(Grant et al., 2017).

Once detained, LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV experience high rates
of abuse, denial of medical care, and discrimination in prisons, jails, immigration
detention, and juvenile detention facilities. Under the U.S. Constitution, state
constitutions, and other laws, people who are detained have a right to be
protected from harm from other incarcerated people and staff. These harms
include failure to protect from physical and sexual violence, denial of medically
necessary care, and discrimination based on sexual orientation, sex, and
disabilities. These institutions all too often fail to meet the basic standards of
safety and treatment.
Black and Pink National’s Coming Out of Concrete Closets report found that
detained LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV experience additional harms.
For example, “78% of transgender, nonbinary gender, and Two-Spirit respondents
experienced emotional pain of hiding their gender identity during incarceration/

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
47

throughout their interactions with the criminal legal system” (Lydon et al., 2015).
Additionally, the pervasive use of solitary confinement harms many detained
LtGBTQ+ people. The report found that “85% of respondents have been in
solitary confinement at some point during their sentence; approximately half
have spent 2 or more years there. Altogether, respondents have spent a total of
5,110 years in solitary confinement” (Lydon et al., 2015).
Sexual assault of LGBTQ+ people is a pervasive problem in prison settings,
so much so that the U.S. Supreme Court has specifically articulated the
constitutional duty of prison officials to protect vulnerable people from
unnecessary risks of harm from sexual violence in their custody. In Farmer v.
Brennan (1994), a case filed by Dee Farmer, a Black transgender woman, the
Supreme Court ruled that incarcerated transgender people have a right to
reasonable safekeeping because “[b]eing violently assaulted in prison is simply
not ‘part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against
society.’” Ms. Farmer’s case was a catalyst for the Prison Rape Elimination Act
(PREA), a federal law designed to eliminate sexual abuse of detained people.
Despite laws and policies enacted to protect the rights of detained people, many
continue to face abuse and discrimination due to failure to enforce such laws and
the barriers they encounter in attempting to use the legal system. For example,
incarcerated people must comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA),
a federal law that makes it harder for people who are in prison to file complaints
in federal court, forcing the detained person to exhaust the system’s grievance
process before they are able to go to court. Reporting abuse can also lead to
harassment and retaliation from prison officials and staff, causing further harm.
Over three in ten (31.4%) of all those who took the survey had been detained
in prison, jail, immigration detention, or juvenile detention in the past five
years, including those who were detained in prison or jail at the time of the
survey (16.5% of the entire sample of participants.)9
The most common type of detention was prison (22.2%), followed by jail (12.5%),
immigration detention (5.2%), and juvenile detention (4.7%). Survey participants
9 Detained participants were not asked about recent experiences in types of detention that were not their
current detention location; for example, those detained in prison were not asked about whether they had
been in immigration detention and are not included in the analysis of data about recent but non-current
types of detention.

How do we define sexual misconduct in detention?
This report defines sexual harassment to include unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors,
and/or other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. The survey also asked about sexual assault
or any other sexual contact from a member of the staff. We intentionally did not provide legal definitions of
sexual harassment, sexual assault, or sexual contact. We also did not ask whether the participant consented
to any of these actions.
48

were asked about various types of misconduct staff members may have committed in the past five years
while they were detained, including verbal assault, physical assault, sexual harassment, sexual assault, other
sexual contact, accusing the survey participant of a crime they did not commit, or using the wrong name or
pronoun. The next section describes the findings about negative experiences in detention.
The most common offense experienced in prison, affecting over four in five (81.6%) participants who spent
time in prison, was verbal assault. In addition, many were also sexually assaulted (21.4%) or sexually harassed
(54.0%) by staff. Qualitative accounts expanded upon the quantitative data to describe these experiences.
“I was sexually assaulted and harassed by officers AND inmates.
When I put in a PREA complaint and got rape tested, I had officers
tell me ‘You are a dumbass. We’re not going to get charged, so why
try?’ and ‘You do this to yourself. If you didn’t flaunt yourself and
act like a fairy, this never would have happened.”
— a white nonbinary participant
Qualitative accounts also mentioned types of abuse that were not measured in the survey, such as breaking
property and being kicked out of programs for being LGBTQ+.
“Staff at [this prison] write false conduct violation reports . . . you are
always found guilty. [They p]urposely break property of inmates.
Verbally harass and make racial jokes at inmates of color.”
— a Black pansexual participant
“I’ve also been denied PC [protective custody] because of being
transgender. I’ve been given false disciplinary, denied programs, and
kicked out of programs due to being trans. I’ve had COs [correctional
officers] nitpick and harass me about my clothes and appearance
because of being trans when any other inmate at wearing the same
clothes would have been left alone. I’ve had COs and administration
ignore my rape complaints, and/or claim it ‘Must have been
consensual’, because I’m trans. I’ve also have had staff blame me far
being sexually assaulted / harassed because I ‘brought it on myself’
by being openly transgender.”
— a white transfeminine participant
“[The staff] always . . . make offensive comments. If you right
grievance it never goes thru, and they retaliate by threatening
disciplinary action by falsifying violations of facility [rules] and treat
you like crap.”
— an Indigenous trans participant
“I was verbally harassed about my sexual identity. I am a bisexual
man. I was discovered by [them] monitoring my mail.”
— a Black bisexual male participant

Fig 49
80%

Abuse Experiences in Prison

81.6%
72.7%

60%
60.5%
54.0%

40%

43.3%

20%

21.4%

24.4%

0%
Verbal
Assault

Physical
Assault

Fig 48

Sexual
Harrassment

Sexual
Assault

Sexual
Contact

Accused of
Offense Did
Not Commit

Wrong Name
or Pronoun

49.0%

Accused of
Offense Did
Not Commit

Wrong Name
or Pronoun

Abuse Experiences in Jail

80%

60%

64.0%

40%
38.9%
35.4%

20%

22.5%

23.7%

Sexual
Assault

Sexual
Contact

0%
Verbal
Assault

Physical
Assault

Sexual
Harrassment

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
50

Fig 50

Abuse Experiences in Immigration Detention

80%

71.3%
64.2%

60%
60.0%

57.9%

56.6%
51.6%
40%
37.1%

20%

0%
Verbal
Assault

Physical
Assault

Fig 51

Sexual
Harrassment

Sexual
Assault

Sexual
Contact

Accused of
Offense Did
Not Commit

Wrong Name
or Pronoun

Abuse Experiences in Juvenile Detention

80%
76.7%

60%

61.6%

60.0%

55.1%
51.2%

51.7%
47.6%

40%

20%

0%
Verbal
Assault

Physical
Assault

Sexual
Harrassment

Sexual
Assault

Sexual
Contact

Accused of
Offense Did
Not Commit

Wrong Name
or Pronoun

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
51

What does the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) say about sexual contact and
abuse in detention?
In 2003, Congress unanimously passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) to respond to the
overwhelming number of incidents of rape and other sexual abuse in government custody. PREA established
a “zero-tolerance standard” for rape in prisons. PREA recognized that gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender,
intersex, and gender nonconforming people face a heightened risk of sexual victimization. In 2012, the
Department of Justice released the final PREA Standards, which included comprehensive requirements
for local, state, and federal prisons; jails, community corrections, and lock-up facilities for adults; juvenile
detention facilities; and immigration detention facilities.
While PREA does not provide a private right of action, which means that you cannot sue under PREA, its
standards can be used to help show that constitutional rights or other laws have been violated. Under PREA,
any kind of sexual contact between an incarcerated person and a prison official qualifies as sexual abuse,
with or without consent of the inmate, detainee, or resident. Any sexual contact between incarcerated
people, without consent, is sexual abuse. Other federal and state laws criminalize sexual contact between
officials and people in their custody regardless of consent, assuming that consent is not possible given the
power dynamics in prisons.

Experiences of sexual contact with or
assault by staff were very common
across all facilities, but particularly
in juvenile detention (60.0%) and
immigration detention (54.0%). TGNCNB
participants experienced sexual contact
or assault in detention at higher rates
than cisgender participants (35.1% vs.
27.4%).
Sexual contact between staff and a
detained person is sexual assault due
to the power differences between
detained people and staff; sexual contact
and sexual assault were measured
separately on the survey because survey
participants may have distinguished
between them, and it was important to
capture all types of misconduct by staff.

Fig 52

Sexual Contact or Assault in Detention

60%
60.0%
54.0%

40%

31.2%
28.7%
20%

0%
Juvenile
Detention

Immigration
Detention

The federal PREA applies to local, state,
and federal prisons; jails, community
corrections, and lock-up facilities for adults; juvenile detention facilities; and
immigration detention facilities. A report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics
that is required under the PREA found that just 7.1% of incarcerated youth

Prison

Jail

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
52

experienced sexual
Fig 53 Sexual Contact or Assault in Detention by Gender
victimization in 2018;
42.5%
40%
only a small fraction
of the 51.7% found
38.1%
in this survey (Smith
33.1%
& Stroop, 2019). This
30%
suggests, as do many
28.9%
other studies, that
26.6%
incarcerated LGBTQ+
20%
youth are particularly
vulnerable to sexual
assault compared to
10%
cisgender, heterosexual
youth. Studies released
under the Bureau of
Justice Statistics found
0%
Trans
Transmasculine
GNCNB
Transfeminine
Cisgender
that incarcerated LGB
(Neither Masc
nor Femme)
people were much more
likely to experience
sexual abuse in prisons
(12.2%) and jails (8.5%) compared to other incarcerated people (Beck et al.,
2013).
Over half of TGNCNB survey participants who had been in juvenile detention,
prison, jail, and/or immigration detention had been placed in a single-sex facility
with a gender different from the one they identified with and where this was not
Fig 54

TGNCNB Participants Housed with Different Gender in Detention

100%

26.9%
34.3%
41.8%

40.5%

75%
16.7%

■ Was Housed with Different Gender,
Was Preferred
■ Which
Was Housed with Different Gender,
■ Which Was Not Preferred
Not Housed with Different Gender

50%
25.3%

34.3%
37.8%

25%

56.4%
32.9%

31.4%
21.6%

0%
Prison

Jail

Immigration
Detention

Juvenile
Detention

their preference in at least one detention setting (54.8%). This was particularly
common in prison (56.4%). Because participants might have been in more than
one facility, the percentage of participants who had experienced this overall is
higher than the percentage who report this for any one specific type of facility.
While transfeminine participants were particularly likely to say they were housed
with men and that this was not preferred (73.3%), small samples sizes did not
allow for analysis of transmasculine participants.
Participants were asked whether they took medication and whether they had
missed it while detained. Nearly two-thirds (62.7%) of those who took
medication and were detained missed it for two weeks or more while
detained. This was a particular problem in immigration detention, where 75.3%
of those who took medication missed it for two weeks or more. Although the
survey did not ask what type of medication they were taking, it is important
to note that this issue affects TGNCNB people, those with HIV, and those with
disabilities more profoundly than other populations, as they are more likely to
take medication and to experience stigma around their need for medication.
Fig 55

Missed Medication for Two Weeks or More in
Detention
75.3%
67.1%

66.3%

60%
57.2%

40%

20%

0%
Jail

Prison

Immigration
Detention

Juvenile
Detention

The open-response questions provided more context around experiences of
being denied needed medications. Survey participants wrote about missing
hormone replacement therapy, antiretrovirals, heart medications, and
psychotropic medications. The reasons participants could not access their
medications while in detention varied; some were very obviously related to
homophobia and transphobia, while others were related to logistical and
administrative barriers. One Black transfeminine participant said, “My gender

“My gender
dysphoria
diagnosis was
denied and
my previous
prescription for
hormones was
denied and now
is being slow
walked because
our doctor is only
in three days a
month.”
— a Black
transfeminine
participant

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
54

dysphoria diagnosis was denied and my previous prescription for hormones was
denied and now is being slow walked because our doctor is only in three days
a month.” A white transwoman said, “They refuse to diagnose me with gender
dysphoria, even though I know I have it.” Finally, one Black transgender person
living with HIV said, “My medications for HIV were self-carry. More than two
times when it came to getting my meds refilled, I ran out, and went without for
more than a week.” Delays and interruptions in receiving medication could cause
or put someone at risk of irreparable harm. Under the U.S. Constitution, denying
or intentionally delaying access to medical care, or intentionally interfering with
treatment once prescribed, could violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on
cruel and unusual punishment.
Fig 56

Missed Medication for Two Weeks or More in
Detention Among Selected Groups
72.0%
68.1%

67.1%

60%

65.6%
59.1%

“My medications
for HIV were selfcarry. More than
two times when
it came to getting
my meds refilled, I
ran out, and went
without for more
than a week.”
— a Black
transgender
participant

40%

20%

0%
Living with a
Disability

GNCNB

Transgender

Living with HIV

Age 18–24

Do federal disability protections cover gender dysphoria and HIV?
The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehab Act)
protect people with disabilities from discrimination in state and local government services, employment,
transportation, telecommunications, and public accommodations. A person living with HIV, whether
symptomatic or asymptomatic, has a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life
activities and thus is protected by federal laws. Similarly, as of the federal appellate decision in Williams v.
Kincaid (2022), federal laws do not exclude coverage for gender dysphoria. This means that a transgender or
nonbinary person who has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria that substantially limits one or more major
life activities has a disability as defined under these laws. Therefore, as defined under the ADA and Rehab
Act, a person living with HIV and/or with gender dysphoria is a person with a disability.
55

Conclusion
All people, including LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV, have a right
to be free from discrimination and violence when interacting with the criminal
legal system. Findings from the Protected and Served? 2022 survey sadly
confirm what we have known for a long time: discrimination and abuse
against LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV in the criminal legal
system is pervasive, systemic, and deeply entrenched. We do, however,
strongly believe that this report equips us with the data necessary to advocate
for and demand change.
As this report details, despite constitutional protections, laws, and policies
intended to protect LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV from abuse and
discrimination, the system continues to fail to do so. Government institutions
within the criminal legal system must be held accountable for misconduct, either
through oversight, the laws and courts, or community accountability measures—
the time to do so is now. We can no longer wait for change to happen.
It is our hope that the Protected and Served? report will be utilized as a tool for
further research, community-based advocacy efforts, litigation, and effective
policymaking to strengthen protections for LGBTQ+ people and people living
with HIV. It is our further hope that these efforts identify and uproot both
discrimination and bias within the criminal legal system, holding government
officials accountable.
Finally, we call upon every organization that serves or is led by people who
are LGBTQ+ or living with HIV, if they are not doing so already, to challenge
police violence, mass incarceration, and criminalization, as well as the systemic
harm happening to young people. We call on you to truly prioritize and center
community members who are most impacted by the criminal legal system—
including formerly and currently detained people, BIPOC, TGNCNB people,
and young people—within your organizations and through your support and
resources.

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
56

Recommendations
The following recommendations include actions that can drive change in the criminal legal system at the
individual, community, and societal levels. Anti-LGBTQ+ bias, HIV stigma, classism, racism, and many other
biases are entrenched in our cultural norms and the way in which we operate as a society. It is for this reason
that a multifaceted approach, which should include both short-term and long-term goals, is necessary to
address the issues of government misconduct, discrimination, and violence within the criminal legal system.
It is essential that these vital and evolving recommendations speak to the issues brought forth by the
community, as well as center the needs and voices of those directly impacted.
Our recommendations are presented in sections organized by stakeholder; however, we stress that it
is important for stakeholders to work together in achieving goals. For this reason, this report openly
acknowledges the necessity of both reformist and abolitionist approaches to addressing the impacts of the
criminal legal system.

FOR COMMUNITY MEMBERS
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS Every person deserves to know and have the ability to exercise their
rights. This is one of the greatest tools community members have to fight back against injustice and
mistreatment. Various advocacy, legal, and civil rights organizations have “Know Your Rights” tool kits.
For resources from Black and Pink National, please visit www.blackandpink.org, and for resources from
Lambda Legal, please visit www.lambdalegal.org.
ATTEND BYSTANDER INTERVENTION TRAINING PROGRAMS Many organizations offer
bystander intervention training and other community safety programs that teach people how to
disrupt violence effectively. These models not only make communities safer by empowering people to
address violence as it’s happening, but also help shift attitudes and reduce tolerance for harassment
and violence within their communities.
EXPLORE TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE PRACTICES Mia Mingus, with the support of other
community leaders including Ejeris Dixon, Mariame Kaba, Andi Gentile and Javiera Torres, defines
transformative justice (TJ) as “a political framework and approach for responding to violence, harm
and abuse. At its most basic, it seeks to respond to violence without creating more violence and/or
engaging in harm reduction to lessen the violence. TJ can be thought of as a way of ‘making things
right,’ getting in ‘right relation,’ or creating justice together. Transformative justice responses and
interventions 1) do not rely on the state (e.g. police, prisons, the criminal legal system, I.C.E., foster
care system (though some TJ responses do rely on or incorporate social services like counseling); 2)
do not reinforce or perpetuate violence such as oppressive norms or vigilantism; and most importantly,
3) actively cultivate the things we know prevent violence such as healing, accountability, resilience, and
safety for all involved” (Mingus, 2019). For more information, visit www.transformharm.org.
GET INVOLVED IN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT Getting directly involved with issues that mean the
most to you or your community is the most effective way to create societal change. Examples of civic
engagement include voting; speaking at a city council meeting, school board meeting, or legislative
hearing; canvassing; protesting; and much more. Many of the concerns mentioned in this report could

FOR COMMUNITY MEMBERS, CONTINUED

be addressed through calls for stronger and enforceable accountability measures, legislation, and
a focus on community-led efforts. Organizing strategies, such as those used during the Black Lives
Matter Movement, can help bring attention and awareness to community concerns as well as spark
movements toward change.

FOR ADVOCATES AND POLICYMAKERS
SUPPORT THE DECRIMINALIZATION OF SEX WORK AS AN LGBTQ+ ISSUE Due to
the disproportionate impact of sex work criminalization on LGBTQ+ communities and communities of
color, sex workers along with several LGBTQ+ rights/justice organizations, including Lambda Legal and
Black and Pink National, support and advocate for the decriminalization of sex work. Lambda Legal
supports the decriminalization of sex work by acknowledging that there is no constitutionally adequate
basis to criminalize sex solely because one consenting adult pays another. Furthermore, abolitionist
organizations like Black and Pink National encourage efforts to support and advocate for the LGBTQ+
sex work community without the involvement of police or the criminal legal system, primarily due to
the disproportionate impact discussed in this report.
SUPPORT THE DECRIMINALIZATION OF HIV Most laws that criminalize HIV are based on
outdated science and directly interfere with public health goals. Most HIV criminalization laws were
written in the early days of the epidemic and criminalize behavior regardless of whether transmission
of HIV is possible. These laws disincentivize testing for HIV, as knowledge of one’s status could lead to
prosecution. They also weaken public health efforts by promoting stigma and shame that can delay or
deter treatment. Since HIV disproportionately affects communities of color, HIV criminalization laws
lead to further prosecution of these communities and create additional barriers to treatment. Lambda
Legal and Black and Pink National support the repeal of HIV criminalization laws.
SUPPORT TRANS, GENDER NONCONFORMING, AND NONBINARY-LED MOVEMENTS
Despite the vastly negative experiences of TGNCNB people within the criminal legal system apparent
in the survey results, TGNCNB-led movements often report lower levels of support and collaboration.
TGNCNB people, especially Black people, have led and/or played a major role in prominent civil rights
movements including movements around HIV/AIDS, Black Lives Matter, COVID-19 community response,
the Stonewall Riots, and other LGBTQ+ movements. For this reason, we recommend stronger, and
more intentional, forms of support and collaboration with values-aligned TGNCNB movements and
organizations.
WORK TOWARD COLLABORATION AND UNDERSTANDING AMONG ADVOCATES
WITH DIFFERENT APPROACHES For centuries, advocates have taken a variety of approaches
to successfully create a culture of change. Each generation creates, refines, and combines advocacy
approaches and strategies that attend to the unique perspectives and needs of their time. Due to the
vast range of experiences highlighted in this report, many strategies will be necessary to stop the
government misconduct, harm, and violence experienced by system-impacted LGBTQ+ people and
people living with HIV. It is for this reason that this report openly acknowledges the necessity of both
reformist and abolitionist approaches to addressing the impacts of the criminal legal system.

FOR ADVOCATES AND POLICYMAKERS, CONTINUED

SUPPORT COURT REFORM EFFORTS As this report makes clear, trust in the court system
among survey participants is low. But the general public also lacks confidence in the courts, in part
due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s erosion of our fundamental rights. Some current reform efforts that
Lambda Legal supports in the federal judiciary include adding seats to the U.S. Supreme Court to
match the number of federal Circuit Courts of Appeal and adopting an enforceable ethics code for
Supreme Court Justices, as well as expanding the lower federal courts to accommodate the increasing
demands on those courts.
PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION IN JURY SERVICE Most state court systems and the federal
judiciary do not explicitly prohibit discrimination in jury service based on sexual orientation or
gender identity. This means that in many places, LGBTQ+ people can be dismissed from jury service
simply because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression. Advocates and
policymakers at the state and federal levels must ensure that laws and court rules, such as the federal
Equality Act and the Jury ACCESS Act, are enacted to prohibit this discriminatory treatment.
CONGRESS SHOULD ELIMINATE BARRIERS TO ENFORCING CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS AND FEDERAL RIGHTS The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) makes it harder for
people to seek legal recourse for harms experienced while in prison. The Act requires people to first
exhaust often-complex grievance processes in administrative systems that are often fraught with
delays before they can go to court. This often means that they will have to continue to endure harm as
they wait for this process to unfold. Congress should make changes to the PLRA that will permit people
in prison to bring their claims to court sooner.
In addition, the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), despite its robust protections, does not provide a
private right of action to survivors or assault. This means that systems that fail to protect or fail to act
when someone has been sexually assaulted or raped often are not held accountable under the law that
was enacted to end such abuse. Congress should amend the PREA to give survivors of abuse a private
cause of action against prisons and jails, as well as officials.
WORK TO KEEP LGBTQ+ YOUTH SAFE IN SCHOOLS LGBTQ+ youth report high levels of
bullying and harassment at school. Oftentimes, their responses to these experiences, such as using
self-defense, skipping school, or running away, result in the youth’s involvement in the legal system.
Advocates and policymakers should work with school boards, administrators, and staff to create,
adopt, and enforce anti-harassment policies for LGBTQ+ students, but also to greatly limit—or entirely
prohibit—the use of disciplinary actions such as referrals to law enforcement, school-based arrests,
and expulsions. All policies should be cognizant of actual and/or perceived sexual orientation, gender
identity, and gender expression.
For all students, and specifically LGBTQ+ students, schools should adopt policies that prohibit
punishment as a means of policing gender expression. This includes prohibiting policies that dictate
gender-based dress codes, bar students from using restrooms that align with their gender identity, or
prevent students from utilizing a name that affirms their gender identity.

FOR PEOPLE WORKING IN THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM
INCREASE ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGHOUT THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM Stronger
and enforceable oversight and accountability are needed within the criminal legal system. Specifically,
this report recommends increased oversight of police departments and law enforcement agencies by
independent agencies and community review boards with the resources and authority necessary to
hold departments and officers accountable.
ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATORY BEHAVIOR AND LANGUAGE IN THE CRIMINAL LEGAL
SYSTEM It is necessary to adopt and enforce laws and policies that explicitly prohibit discrimination
based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and HIV status
in prisons, jails, immigration detention centers, juvenile facilities, and courtrooms. The establishment
of rules of professional responsibility and conduct for all professions and facilities within the criminal
legal system is also crucial.
More than 20 states do not have fully inclusive non-discrimination laws that protect all LGBTQ+ people.
Of those that do, a number of states do not explicitly include the court system, prisons, and jails as
places of public accommodation or government office to which the non-discrimination law applies.
Policymakers should amend laws to include these institutions.
Additionally, over half of survey participants who had been in court in the past five years were
misgendered. Misgendering someone in any setting is disrespectful, a violation of that person’s
privacy, and potentially dangerous for them. Every state should have ethics rules that include nondiscrimination requirements and explicitly protect LGBTQ+ people and people with disabilities,
including HIV and gender dysphoria. Judges and court personnel should receive training on LGBTQ+
issues and learn to treat LGBTQ+ people with respect. Attorneys, including public defenders and other
court-appointed attorneys, should also receive training on working with LGBTQ+ clients, including
appropriate client advocacy (e.g., using the correct name and pronouns).
BAN PROFILING AND OTHER DISCRIMINATORY LAW ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES
While a number of police departments and other law enforcement agencies have enacted policies
that purport to address LGBTQ+ bias, there remains a great need for explicit and enforceable bans on
profiling and discriminatory policing based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This includes
practices that lead to increased interaction with police and incarceration, such as so-called “Quality of
Life” or “Broken Windows” policies, as well as paraphernalia laws that use the possession of condoms
or safe-use kits as evidence against sex workers. LGBTQ+ people disproportionately experience
homelessness, engage in sex work, and live with disabilities, all of which are criminalized under these
policies.
PROTECT THE RIGHTS AND SAFETY OF DETAINED LGBTQ+ PEOPLE AND PEOPLE
LIVING WITH HIV Prisons, jails, immigration detention facilities, and juvenile facilities should at
a minimum follow PREA standards regarding searches and housing, taking into account a person’s
gender identity and safety. Systems must not permit the use of searches as punishment or for
discriminatory purposes. Systems should also prohibit the use of solitary confinement or “protective
custody,” conditions that are the same as solitary confinement, as routine or standard protective
placement for LGBTQ+ people or people living with HIV. Procedures that provide for differential
treatment or enhanced disciplinary measures because of a person’s HIV status should be repealed.

FOR PEOPLE WORKING IN THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM, CONTINUED

As the survey responses show, many participants missed medication in detention. Systems should
ensure that everyone in their custody has access to medical and mental health care and treatment
without delays or interruptions. For many TGNCNB people, treatment may include hormone therapy
and/or surgical interventions. Furthermore, TGNCNB people should not be prohibited from obtaining
commissary items because of their gender identity.
Finally, when systems fail to uphold standards and comply with the law, detained people should be able
to enforce their rights through reporting, investigations, and accessing the courts. People in detention
must be able to safely report violence and abuse without fear of retaliation and/or harassment.
PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF LGBTQ+ YOUTH Departments and agencies within the child-welfare
system, the juvenile system, and the runaway and homeless youth system should develop policies and
culturally competent training to protect the rights of LGBTQ+ youth. These policies and training should
be based on best practices and emphasize respect for LGBTQ+ young people’s self-determination.
Additionally, when systems fail to uphold standards and comply with the law, system-involved youth
should be able to report their experiences without fear of retaliation or harassment.
INVEST IN COMMUNITY-INFORMED ALTERNATIVES TO TRADITIONAL CRIMINAL
LEGAL SYSTEM OPTIONS While some alternatives to the criminal legal system, such as
transformative justice initiatives, take the needs of impacted communities into account, many other
programs that position themselves as alternatives do not include the priorities of those most affected
by that system. Including affected community members in the design, implementation, evaluation, and
scaling of alternatives is crucial to creating a better set of solutions.

Glossary
ABOLITION according to Critical Resistance, “abolition” is a political vision
with the goal of eliminating imprisonment, policing, and surveillance and creating
lasting alternatives to punishment and imprisonment. Abolition is not just about
getting rid of buildings full of cages. It is also about undoing the society we live
in, because the prison industrial complex (PIC) both feeds on and maintains
oppression and inequalities through punishment and violence, controlling
millions of people. Because the PIC is not an isolated system, abolition is a broad
strategy.
ADULT CARCERAL SYSTEM the various institutions and processes that
make up the criminal legal system for adults, including prisons, jails, and other
forms of incarceration. The term “carceral” is used to describe the system of
punishment and control that is exercised over people who are incarcerated.
AIDSan abbreviation for “acquired immune deficiency syndrome,” generally
used to refer to the most advanced stage of HIV, in which the immune system
becomes compromised, leaving the human body susceptible to opportunistic
infections.
ASEXUALan orientation describing people who experience little or no sexual
attraction. Many asexual people experience romantic and affectionate feelings
toward others but do not desire to express those feelings in a sexual way. Other
asexual people are uninterested in romantic relationships and focus instead on
forming platonic bonds. Like any community, asexual people are diverse.
BIPHOBIA a fear of or hostility toward bisexual people, often expressed as
discrimination, harassment, and/or violence.
BIPOCan acronym for “Black, Indigenous, and people of color.”
BISEXUALa sexual orientation describing people who are attracted to and/or
sexually active with more than one gender.
CHILD-WELFARE SYSTEM the system of services and agencies charged
with the care of youth not in the care of their families that includes child
protective services, foster care, group homes, residential facilities, and adoption
services.
CISGENDER a term referring to people whose gender identity is the same as
their assigned or presumed sex at birth.
CIVILIAN COMMUNITY REVIEW BOARD (CCRB) an oversight body
that reviews complaints of police misconduct and makes recommendations for
disciplinary action or policy changes within a police department. The aim of a
CCRB is to improve accountability and build trust between the police and the
community.

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
62

CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM the systems of government-sanctioned
punishment—policing, prosecution, courts, corrections, immigration detention,
juvenile facilities, and school security—in the United States. The term “criminal
legal system” is used as an alternative to “criminal justice system” because this
system does not necessarily deliver justice.
CRIMINALIZATIONthe process by which people and behaviors are labeled as
criminals and crimes, respectively.
DETAINED PEOPLEpeople who are under restraint or in custody by
law enforcement, which can include, but is not limited to, stops, arrests,
imprisonment, incarceration, and detainment. For this report, we include people
in immigration detention facilities and juvenile facilities as detained people
although this generally falls under civil law, and not criminal law.
DETENTIONprison, jails, immigration detention, and juvenile facilities.
DISABILITYa term referring to physical and/or mental impairment. This
report and survey use the word “disability” in a broad and general sense based
on survey participants’ self-identification.
FEMME a self-descriptor for a person, regardless of gender, who identifies as
a member of the LGBTQ+ community and who presents and acts in a feminine
manner. Not interchangeable with “feminine.”
GAYa sexual orientation describing people who are primarily emotionally and
physically attracted to people of the same sex and/or gender as themselves.
GENDER EXPANSIVE a broad term referring to aspects of gender
expression, identity, and interests that go beyond cultural binary prescriptions of
behaviors and interests associated primarily with boys or girls.
GENDER EXPRESSION the way a person outwardly expresses their gender
publicly, as in through their name, pronouns, clothing, hairstyle, mannerisms,
and other characteristics. Gender expression varies depending on culture,
context, and historical period.
GENDER IDENTITY a person’s inner and deeply held understanding of their
own gender, which may or may not be the same as assigned or presumed sex at
birth. Everyone has a gender identity.
GENDER NONCONFORMING (GNC) gender expression that is different
from society’s expectations of gender norms. Anyone, regardless of gender
identity, can be gender nonconforming. Additionally, being transgender is not
synonymous with being gender nonconforming; many transgender people
conform to gender norms.
GENDERQUEER a term used by some people who identify their gender as
being somewhere on the continuum between, or outside of, the binary gender
system. Genderqueer people may or may not also identify as transgender.

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
63

GNCNBan acronym for “gender nonconforming and nonbinary.”
GOVERNMENT MISCONDUCT actions or practices by government officials
or employees that violate the law, ethical standards, or a person’s civil rights.
HATE INCIDENTa negative experience a person knows or suspects was a
result of bias or prejudice based on their identity or identities. For purposes of
the survey, this definition is intentionally broad and includes experiences that
might not meet the legal definition of a hate crime under federal and/or state
laws.
HIVan acronym for “human immunodeficiency virus,” a retrovirus that targets
the human immune system. Progression of HIV can lead to a serious compromise
of immune system function, leaving the body susceptible to opportunistic
infections.
HOMOPHOBIA a fear of or hostility toward lesbian, gay, and/or queer people,
often expressed as discrimination, harassment, and/or violence.
IMMIGRATION SYSTEMthe institutions—courts, administrative agencies,
legal enforcement agencies, and detention facilities—that govern and enforce
the entry, exit, presence, and detainment of immigrants, including those who are
undocumented and those with lawful status, in the United States.
INCARCERATED PEOPLE people who have been convicted of or plead
guilty to committing a crime and are confined to a jail or prison.
INTERSECTIONALITYa concept coined by Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw
to describe the multidimensional ways in which various systems of oppression
can independently and concurrently harm people holding multiple marginalized
identities.
INTERSEXaccording to interACT, Advocates for Intersex Youth, “intersex” is
an umbrella term for differences in sex traits or reproductive anatomy. Intersex
people are born with these differences or develop them in childhood. There
are many possible differences in genitalia, hormones, internal anatomy, or
chromosomes, in addition to the usual two ways that human bodies develop.
Some people who are intersex identify as binary; others do not. Intersex people
should not be assumed to be transgender.
INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE (IPV)a pattern of behavior characterized
by the use of physical, sexual, or psychological abuse by one partner against
another in an intimate relationship. This can include relationships between
spouses, cohabiting partners, dating partners, and other types of intimate
relationships.
JUVENILE SYSTEM (OR JUVENILE LEGAL SYSTEM) the institutions
and agencies that deal with youth who are accused of committing crimes. The
juvenile system includes juvenile courts, correctional facilities, detention centers,
community-based programs, and specialized educational and treatment facilities.

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
64

LESBIAN a woman who is romantically and/or sexually attracted to and/or
sexually active with other women. “Lesbian” refers exclusively to women while
“gay” can refer to women, men, or TGNCNB people.
LGBTQ+ (LGBQ, LGB)an acronym used to describe people who identify
as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer/questioning. The “+” symbol is
used to include and acknowledge people with identities beyond lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning, but who are still a part of the
community of people who do not identify as straight or cisgender. The acronym
LGBTQIA2S+ also includes intersex, asexual, and two-spirit.
MISGENDER the act of using the wrong gender signifiers, such as pronouns,
honorifics, or other gendered language, when talking to or about someone.
MONITORING BOARD a group of people appointed to oversee and monitor
the implementation and compliance of specific government or policing policies
to ensure that the intended goals and objectives are being met and that there
is accountability and transparency. Monitoring boards are intended to promote
trust and confidence in the agencies they are overseeing.
NONBINARY (NB) a term used to describe gender identities that do not fit
within the binary of male or female. Refers to a spectrum of gender.
OUT-OF-HOME CARE the living arrangements of minors who have been
removed from their families, such as youth in the care of child protective
services, the juvenile legal system, the immigration system, and homeless
systems of care.
OVERSIGHT AGENCY a government or non-government organization that
is responsible for monitoring and regulating the activities of other institutions
to ensure adherence to laws, regulations, standards, and ethical principles. This
agency may also have the authority to enforce penalties or sanctions for noncompliance. An oversight agency is intended to promote trust and confidence in
the agencies it oversees.
PANSEXUAL a term used to describe a person’s sexual and/or romantic
attraction to people of all genders, regardless of their biological sex, gender
identity, or gender expression.
PEOPLE LIVING WITH HIV all people who live with the human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV), including people with an AIDS diagnosis.
PEOPLE OF COLOR people whose ethnic or racial origins are partly or wholly
non-white. The survey asked participants to check all that apply to their racial
and/or ethnic identity: Native American, American Indian, or Indigenous; African
American, Afro-Caribbean, or Black; Latina/o or Hispanic; Middle Eastern or
Arab-American; Asian, Asian-American, or Pacific Islander. For the purposes of
the report, “people of color” refers to those who selected one or more of these
categories, in contrast to those who selected only “white” and no other race or
ethnicity.

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
65

PIPELINE (AS IN “SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE,” “FOSTER
CARE–TO-PRISON PIPELINE,” “DISCRIMINATION-TOINCARCERATION PIPELINE,” ETC.) the phenomenon of practices within
institutions resulting in disproportionate numbers of people, including people of
color and LGBTQ+ people, leaving these systems and becoming further at risk
for poverty, homelessness, and/or incarceration.
PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX (PIC) according to Critical Resistance,
the “prison industrial complex” is a term used to describe the overlapping
interests of government and industry that use surveillance, policing, and
imprisonment as solutions to economic, social, and political problems.
PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION ACT (PREA) a federal law in the United
States that was enacted in 2003 with the goal of addressing and preventing
sexual abuse in detention facilities, such as prisons, jails, immigration detention
centers, and juvenile facilities.
QUEER an identity used by people who reject conventional categories such as
“LGBT” or who embrace “queer” as a political identity in addition to being LGB
and/or T. It also may include heterosexual people who embrace a non-normative
or counter-normative sexual identity.
QUESTIONING a process of exploration for people who may be unsure of
their sexual orientation or gender identity.
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE a system of justice that emphasizes repairing the
harm caused by offenses or crimes, typically by bringing together impacted
communities, those who caused harm, and community members to decide how
to respond, taking into account the impact of the harm on people, relationships,
and the community.
RUNAWAY AND HOMELESS YOUTH SYSTEMS institutions and
services, such as shelters, drop-in centers, and other programs, for young
people who have left home or are at risk of leaving home due to rejection, abuse,
neglect, family conflict, or other challenges.
SAME-GENDER-LOVING a term most often used in communities of color to
describe people with same-sex attractions, since gay, homosexual, bisexual, or
lesbian can carry negative connotations to some people.
SCHOOL SAFETY OFFICER a person employed by a local board of
education who has been appointed a special law enforcement officer in a school.
SCHOOL SECURITY the system of procedures and measures taken to ensure
the safety of school buildings, classrooms, and other facilities and the people in
them.
SEX WORK for purposes of this report, we define “sex work” as sex or sexual
performance for money or other things of value.

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
66

SEXUAL ORIENTATION people’s sexual attraction to same- or differentsex people. Sexual orientations include gay, lesbian, bisexual, heterosexual or
straight, and others.
STRAIGHTa sexual orientation where a person is primarily romantically and/
or sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex or gender as themselves. Can
also be described as heterosexual.
SURVIVORsomeone who has experienced physical, sexual, or emotional harm
at the hands of another person. This can include, but is not limited to, domestic
violence, sexual assault, child abuse, and other forms of violence and abuse.
TGNCan acronym for transgender and gender nonconforming.
TGNCNBan acronym for transgender, gender nonconforming, and nonbinary.
TRANSFEMININE a broad term that describes a transgender person who
identifies with feminine gender identities more than masculine gender identities.
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE a political framework and approach to
addressing harm and conflict that aims to transform the underlying conditions
that contribute to violence and oppression, without the involvement of the
criminal legal system. Transformative justice seeks to address the root causes
of harm and to create a more just and equitable society through a process of
healing, accountability, safety, and transformation.
TRANSGENDER a term referring to people whose gender identity—one’s
inner sense of being male, female, or something else—differs from their assigned
or presumed sex at birth.
TRANSMASCULINE a broad term used to describe a transgender person
who identifies with masculine gender identities more than feminine gender
identities.
TRANSPHOBIAhatred of, fear of, or discrimination against transgender or
gender nonconforming people based on their gender identity or expression.
TWO-SPIRITaccording to the Native Justice Coalition, “Two-Spirit’s
traditionally brought balance and healing into our communities. Two-Spirit is
an umbrella pan-Native American term it describes gender identity, gender
expression, and/or sexual orientation. Some Two-Spirit’s may align with colonial
LGBTQ+ identities while others may not. However, keep in mind that Two-Spirit
is not for non-Native people.” “Gender binaries, homophobia, colonial social
constructions around gender identity, gender expression as well as sexual
orientation didn’t exist in our communities prior to colonization.” Two-spirit is
often represented by “2S” in the LGBTQIA2S+ acronym.

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
67

Reference List
Amnesty International. (2016). Explanatory note on Amnesty International’s
policy on state obligations to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of sex
workers. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol30/4063/2016/en/
Beck, A. J., Ph.D., Berzofsky, M., DrPH, Caspar, R., & Krebs, C., Ph.D. (2013, May).
Sexual victimization in prisons and jails reported by inmates, 2011–12. Bureau of
Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/svpjri1112.pdf
Bowen, G. T., & Zuckerman, E. (2001, January 2). Final report of the Task
Force on Sexual Orientation Issues. Supreme Court of New Jersey, Task Force
on Sexual Orientation Issues. https://dspace.njstatelib.org/xmlui/bitstream/
handle/10929/56533/c58152001.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Brown, N. T., & Herman, J. L. (2015). Intimate partner violence and sexual abuse
among LGBT people. Williams Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wpcontent/uploads/IPV-Sexual-Abuse-Among-LGBT-Nov-2015.pdf
Center for American Progress & Movement Advancement Project. (2016,
August). Unjust: How the broken juvenile and criminal justice systems fail LGBTQ
youth. Movement Advancement Project. https://www.lgbtmap.org/file/lgbtcriminal-justice-youth.pdf
Basile, K. C., Smith, S. G., Kresnow, M., Khatiwada, S., & Leemis, R. W. (2022). The
national intimate partner and sexual violence survey: 2016/2017 report on sexual
violence. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/
violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs/nisvsReportonSexualViolence.pdf
Bryant, E. (2021, December 1). Why we say “criminal legal system,” not “criminal
justice system”. Vera Institute of Justice. https://www.vera.org/news/why-wesay-criminal-legal-system-not-criminal-justice-system
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a Black
feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist
politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989 (1:8). https://chicagounbound.
uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8/
Critical Resistance. (n.d.). What is the PIC? What is abolition? Retrieved March
21, 2023, from https://criticalresistance.org/mission-vision/not-so-commonlanguage/
Development Services Group, Inc. (2014). Literature review: LGBTQ youths in the
juvenile justice system. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/LGBTQYouthsintheJuvenileJusticeSystem.
pdf
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc., 500 U.S. 614, 628 (1991).
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994).

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
68

FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program. (n.d.). Federal Bureau of Investigation
Crime Data Explorer. Retrieved March 22, 2023, from https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/
LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend
Jones, J. M. (2022, October 11). Gallup: Trust in federal government branches
continues to falter. Targeted News Service. https://www.proquest.com/wirefeeds/gallup-trust-federal-government-branches/docview/2723472883/se-2
GLAAD. (2022). GLAAD media reference guide – glossary of terms: transgender.
Retrieved March 22, 2023, from https://www.glaad.org/reference/trans-terms
Gorenberg, H., & Saenz, R. (2016, October 12). The Constitution should protect
sex work. Lambda Legal. https://www.lambdalegal.org/blog/20161012_
constitution-should-protect-sex-work
Grant, J. M., Mottet, L. A., Tanis, J., Harrison, J., Herman, J. L., & Keisling, M.
(2011). Injustice at every turn: A report of the National Transgender Discrimination
Survey. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. https://www.thetaskforce.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/07/ntds_full.pdf
Hill, J. M. (2000). The effects of sexual orientation in the courtroom: A double
standard. Journal of Homosexuality, 39(2), 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J082v39n02_05
Hunt, J., & Moodie-Mills, A.C. (2012). The unfair criminalization of gay and
transgender youth: An overview of the experiences of LGBT youth in the juvenile
justice system. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.
org/article/the-unfair-criminalization-of-gay-and-transgender-youth
InterACT Advocates for Intersex Youth (n.d.). What is intersex? Retrieved March
22, 2023, from https://interactadvocates.org/
Irvine, A., & Canfield, A. (2017). Reflections on new national data on LGBQ/GNCT
youth in the justice system. LGBTQ Policy Journal, 7.
James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016,
December). The report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. National Center for
Transgender Equality. https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/
USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf
Jones 2, G. (2016, August 24). The difference between being femme and being
feminine. Bustle. https://www.bustle.com/articles/166081-what-does-femmemean-the-difference-between-being-femme-being-feminine
Judicial Council of California. (2001, January). Sexual orientation fairness in the
California courts: Final report of the Sexual Orientation Fairness Subcommittee
of the Judicial Council’s Access and Fairness Advisory Committee. https://www.
courts.ca.gov/documents/sexualorient_report.pdf

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
69

Kraus, S. W., & Ragatz, L. L. (2011, January). Gender, jury instructions, and
homophobia: What influence do these factors have on legal decision making in
a homicide case where the defendant utilized the homosexual panic defense?.
Criminal Law Bulletin, 47(2), 237–56.
Lambda Legal. (2015). Protected and Served?: A national survey exploring
discrimination by police, prisons and schools against LGBT people and
people living with HIV in the United States, executive summary. https://www.
lambdalegal.org/sites/default/files/publications/downloads/ps_executivesummary.pdf
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. (2015). LGBT rights organizations
join Amnesty International in call to decriminalize sex work. https://www.
lambdalegal.org/blog/20150820_decriminalize-sex-work
Luhur, W., Meyer, I. H., & Wilson, B. D. M. (2021, May). Policing LGBQ people.
Wilson Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/policing-lgbqpeople/
Lydon, J., Carrington, K., Low, H., Miller, R., & Yazdy, M. (2015, October). Coming
out of concrete closets: A report on Black & Pink’s National LGBTQ Survey. Black
& Pink National. https://www.blackandpink.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/
Coming-Out-of-Concrete-Closets-incorcporated-Executive-summary102115.pdf
Make the Road New York. (2012, October). Transgressive policing: Police abuse
of LGBT communities of color in Jackson Heights. https://search.issuelab.org/
resource/transgressive-policing-police-abuse-of-lgbtq-communities-of-color-injackson-heights-queens.html
Mallory, M., Hasenbush, A., & Sears, B. (2015, March). Discrimination and
harassment by law enforcement officers in the LGBT community. Williams
Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgbt-discrim-lawenforcement/
Maruschak, L. M. (2022, May). HIV in prisons, 2020—statistical tables (Report No.
NCJ 302601). Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/
hivp20st.pdf
Meyer, I. H., Flores, A. R., Stemple, L., Romero, A. P., Wilson, B. D. M., & Herman,
J. L. (2017). Incarceration rates and traits of sexual minorities in the United
States: National Inmate Survey, 2011–2012. American Journal of Public Health,
107(2), 267–73. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5227944/pdf/
AJPH.2016.303576.pdf
Mogul, J. L., Ritchie, A. J., & Whitlock, K. (2012, January 24). Queer (In)Justice:
The Criminalization of LGBT People in the United States. Beacon Press.

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
70

Morgan, R. E., & Thompson, A. (2020). Crime victimization, 2020 – supplemental
statistical tables. U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Retrieved March 22, 2023, from https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/
criminal-victimization-2020-supplemental-statistical-tables#:~:text=The%20
percentage%20of%20persons%20age,(7.9%20million)%20in%202020
Movement Advancement Project. (n.d.). Equality maps: Hate crime laws.
Retrieved December 15, 2022 from https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/
hate_crime_laws.
Native Justice Coalition. (n.d.) Two Spirit program Niizhojichaagwijig
Niganawenimaanaanig Ezhichigewin. Retrieved March 21, 2023, from https://
www.nativejustice.org/programs/twospirit/
Morgan, R. E., & Thompson, A. (2020). Crime victimization, 2020 — supplemental
statistical tables. U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Retrieved March 22, 2023, from https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/criminalvictimization-2020-supplemental-statistical-tables
Smith, E. L., & Stroop, J. (2019). Sexual victimization reported by youth in juvenile
facilities, 2018. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau
of Justice Statistics. Retrieved April 12, 2023, from https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/
publications/sexual-victimization-reported-youth-juvenile-facilities-2018
Stoudt, B.G., Fine, M., & Fox, M. (2012). Growing up policed in the age of
aggressive policing policies. New York Law School Law Review, 56(4), 1331–70.
https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1683&context=nyls_
law_review
Tarling, R., & Morris, K. (2010). Reporting crime to the police. British Journal of
Criminology, 50(3), 474–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azq011
The Trevor Project. (2021, August 23). Understanding gender identities. https://
www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/article/understanding-gender-identities/
Uplift Center for Grieving Children. (2021). Gender 101: how to avoid misgendering
and deadnaming. https://upliftphilly.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Gender101-Updated-Fall-2021.pdf
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018, February 12). HIV among
incarcerated populations in the United States. The Body Pro. https://www.
thebodypro.com/article/hiv-in-correctional-settings
U.S. Department of Justice. (2012, June 20). National standards to prevent,
detect, and respond to prison rape. Codified at 77 Fed. Reg. 37109. https://www.
federalregister.gov/documents/2012/06/20/2012-12427/national-standards-toprevent-detect-and-respond-to-prison-rape
U.S. Department of Justice. (n.d.). Learn about hate crimes. https://www.justice.
gov/hatecrimes/learn-about-hate-crimes/chart

PROTECTED

&SERVED ?

•
71

White, B. H., & Robinson Kurpius, S. E. (2002, March). Effects of victim sex and
sexual orientation on perceptions of rape. Sex Roles, 46, 191–200.
Wilson Remlin, C., Cook, M. C., & Erney, R. (2017, April). Safe havens: Closing the
gap between recommended practice and reality for transgender and genderexpansive youth in out-of-home care. Lambda Legal. https://www.lambdalegal.
org/sites/default/files/publications/downloads/tgnc-policy-report_2017_finalweb_05-02-17.pdf

■ L.AMBDA

■■ LEGAL
lambdalegal.org

\I I.I V

BLACK~PINK

blackandpink.org

protectedandserved.org

STRENGTH IN NUMBERS
CONSu TING GROUP

strengthinnumbersconsulting.com