Issuu

A report from Equality California Institute

2026 SAFE & SUPPORTIVE SCHOOLS REPORT CARD

Equality California Institute 1150 S. Olive Street Los Angeles, CA 90015 323-848-9801 safeschools@eqca.org www.eqca.org ©2026 Equality California Institute Equality California brings the voices of LGBTQ + people and allies to institutions of power in California and across the United States, striving to create a world that is healthy, just, and fully equal for all LGBTQ+ people. We advance civil rights and social justice by inspiring, advocating, and mobilizing through an inclusive movement that works tirelessly on behalf of those we serve. Equality California is made up of Equality California and Equality California Institute. Equality California is an I.R.S. 501(c)(4) organization that utilizes electoral, advocacy, and mobilization programs to achieve its mission. Equality California Institute is an I.R.S. 501 (c)(3) organization that utilizes advocacy, education, and mobilization programs to achieve its mission. Graphic design: Ash Anderson Electronic versions of this report are available at www.eqca.org/category/publications/ Suggested citation: Arendse E., Atilano V., Lawlor A. (2026) Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card. Los Angeles, CA: Equality California Institute.

A report from Equality California Institute

2026 SAFE & SUPPORTIVE SCHOOLS REPORT CARD

Acknowledgments

The work of the Safe and Supportive Schools program at Equality California Institute is guided and informed by our Safe and Supportive Schools Advisory Committee, a group of representatives from districts, teachers’ unions, and community organizations that provides feedback and assistance in our work. We acknowledge all the members of the Advisory Committee: Ariana Rodriguez, Erica Hasenbeck, Gabby Doyle, Kena Hazelwood, Dr. Jon Paul, Justin Tindall, Kim Westheimer, Maureen Muir, Rebeca Cerna, Rebby Kern, Rick Oculto, Stephanie Camacho-Van Dyke, Suzanne Wallace, Tifany Eden, Dr. Vinnie Pompei, and others. We are grateful for your time, support, expertise, and dedication to students. We would like to thank our pro-bono partners, Latham & Watkins, LLP, especially Amy Quartarolo, Micah Long, T (Teddy) Finneran, Tim Plummer, Brandon Scheirman, and Diana Casas for their guidance and support throughout the last year. Their support on research, editing, technical support, and many other areas has been essential. We are also deeply grateful for the testimonials contributed by the district staff. These testimonials, along with the qualitative data we collected expand our understanding of the survey results and the broader landscape of how unified school districts are creating safe and supportive environments in a variety of circumstances.

Table of Contents

Letter from the Executive Director �� 1 Letter from the State Superintendent �� 3 Background �� 5 Survey Development, Methodology, & Application �� 9 Moving Forward �� 12 How To Use This Report �� 13 Key Findings �� 15 Analysis �� 21 Recommendations �� 27 District Summary Responses �� 35 Appendices �� 43

LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

1 | E Q U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

Equality California’s Safe and Supportive Schools Report Card aims to ensure all students can learn and grow in a school environment that is welcoming, inclusive, supportive, and safe. This report collates and publicizes district-level policies designed to enhance student safety and well-being by reducing bullying, fostering teacher cultural competency, building community among students and staff, and ensuring equal access to resources, facilities, and activities, among other strategies. For more than twenty-five years, Equality California has partnered with legislators and the community to pass state laws establishing these policies. However, effective implementation requires ongoing support to school districts in understanding, funding, building capacity, and forming partnerships with parents, educators, and the broader community. By gathering information on the educational landscape and publishing it, we help policymakers and the community identify areas of need and excellence, promote transparency that will allow school districts to share best practices, resources, and approaches, with the common goal of improving the climate in California’s schools for LGBTQ+ youth and all students. This year, we are calling on educators, administrators, education partners, and families to rise up for LGBTQ+ students. Across the country, LGBTQ+ students face a relentless wave of attacks on their rights, identities, and safety. California has worked to meet this moment, and must continue to do so, through stronger protections such as the SAFETY Act and the PRISM training requirement. Now is the time to rise up for our LGBTQ+ youth. The following report presents self-reported responses from 109 unified school districts to our 2025 Safe and Supportive Schools survey, a 37 question survey about school

policies regarding student, staff, and community support for LGBTQ+ youth. The data presented here does have limitations. For example, responses are self-reported by district administrators and reflect only the presence of a policy, not successful implementation. Many districts face real barrier to fulsome implementation due to budget constraints and intentional obfuscation of human rights by the federal administration. Additionally, the survey is conducted by Equality California Institute, not the California Department of Education, and therefore is entirely voluntary. District participation also varies from cycle to cycle, and any longitudinal conclusions must therefore be held lightly. With all of this in mind, this report presents data carefully, thoughtfully, and in conversation with the data’s limitations. For example, we have organized the data so that readers can view responses across geography and district size, highlighting some of the real strengths, limitations, and opportunities for improved policies in similar districts. We urge advocates, community stakeholders, and school district staff to use this report as an advocacy tool for change and a conversation starter about progress and gaps in school climate for LGBTQ+ students across California. LGBTQ+ youth continue to face bullying, harassment, and discrimination because of who they are, often at the cost of their mental health, academic success, and sense of belonging. Addressing these disparities is a collective responsibility. Together, We Rise Up.

In Partnership,

TONY HOANG Executive Director Equality California Institute

EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card | 2

LETTER FROM THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT

3 | EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card | 4

BACKGROUND

5 | E Q U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

The Need Over the past two decades, California has made significant legislative strides toward enhancing the rights and wellbeing of LGBTQ+ students within the educational system. This ongoing progress reflects a broad commitment to civil rights and inclusivity by legislators, educators, and advocacy organizations working in partnership, resulting in major advancements including robust anti-bullying initiatives specifically tailored for the educational sector and increased adoption of LGBTQ+-inclusive curricula in classes and libraries. However, this progress currently stands under severe threat from politicians who have weaponized LGBTQ+ identities and played on the average American’s protectiveness of children, along with the widespread misunderstanding of transgender identities, in a cynical grab for power. The last two years have seen the passage of policies in some school districts that mandate the disclosure of a student’s transgender or genderexpansive identity to their parents or guardians, even without the student’s consent. These forced outing policies, coupled with the broader politicization of transgender youth, have significant impacts on student well-being and represent a direct challenge to the protections California has built. Research continues to demonstrate that LGBTQ+ students who face discrimination and lack support in school are at higher risk for mental health issues, absenteeism, and lower academic performance. Data from GLSEN’s 2025 National School Climate Survey shows that schools nationwide remain hostile

environments for a significant number of LGBTQ+ students, the majority of whom regularly hear antiLGBTQ+ language and experience discriminatory policies or practices at school. Additionally, around 30% of LGBTQ+ students report being physically harassed or assaulted based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. These hostile environments contribute to increased absenteeism, with LGBTQ+ students being three times more likely to miss school due to feeling unsafe. Conversely, supportive school environments that implement protective and affirming policies can significantly improve the mental health and academic outcomes of LGBTQ+ students. Schools with comprehensive anti-bullying policies, LGBTQ+inclusive curricula, and visible support from staff report significantly lower rates of depression and suicidality among LGBTQ+ students. Research from The Trevor Project’s 2025 National Survey on the Mental Health of LGBTQ+ Young People highlights that LGBTQ+ youth who have access to at least one supportive adult are meaningfully less likely to attempt suicide. This underscores the need for schools to adopt and effectively implement the protective laws and policies California has enacted. The 2026 Safe and Supportive Schools Report Card arrives at a critical moment for LGBTQ+ youth in California and across the United States. Federal actions, legislative efforts in other states, and local district-level debates about forced outing policies have placed LGBTQ+ students at the center of a national conversation about privacy, identity, and educational equity. Against this backdrop, California has continued to strengthen its legal protections, and the data from 109 participating districts provides an important snapshot of how fully those protections are being adopted on the ground.

EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card | 6

E xisting State Policies Recognizing the profound impact that school experiences have on the life trajectories of LGBTQ+ young people, Equality California has sponsored a number of state laws in California through the years. As a result, California has enacted several key pieces of legislation aimed at safeguarding these students and ensuring their educational success.

2011 SETH’S LAW These laws strengthen antibullying measures, mandating that schools adopt specific policies that address bullying based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression, and require school personnel to intervene if bullying occurs. (Education Code Sections 234, 234.1, 234.2, 234.3, 234.5)

2013 BULLYING & SCHOOL SAFETY PLANS These provisions require the inclusion of anti-bullying procedures in school safety plans and mandate training for school personnel on bullying prevention. This includes provisions around interdistrict school transfers for students who have experienced bullying. (Education Code Sections 32261, 32282, 32283, 46600, 48900)

7 | EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

THE FAIR EDUCATION ACT This act mandates the inclusion of the historical contributions of LGBTQ+ Americans and other marginalized groups in school curricula, particularly within social sciences. (Education Code Sections 51204.5, 51500, 51501, 60040, 60044)

SCHOOL SUCCESS & OPPORTUNITY ACT This law ensures that all students have access to school facilities and programs that align with their gender identity. (Education Code Section 221.5)

2015

2018

2023

2024

CALIFORNIA HEALTHY YOUTH ACT

ANTIBULLYING & SUICIDE PREVENTION TRAINING IN SCHOOLS

SAFE & SUPPORTIVE SCHOOLS ACT

THE SAFETY ACT

This legislation enhances the sexual health curriculum to be inclusive of LGBTQ+ perspectives and mandates comprehensive HIV education. (Education Code Sections 51930-51939)

These laws focus on suicide prevention training for teachers and school staff, emphasizing the dynamics of bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide prevention strategies tailored to high-risk groups including LGBTQ+ students. (Education Code Section 32283.5 and Education Code Section 215)

This legislation creates a centralized resource for LGBTQ+focused educational materials to support districts in enhancing school climates and offers LGBTQ+focused training for certificated school staff in grades 7-12. This legislation also requires Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to provide at least one hour of mandatory LGBTQ+ cultural competency training annually to certificated employees serving grades 7-12.

T his law prohibits school districts from enacting or enforcing policies that forcibly disclose a student’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression without the student’s consent. It also provides resources to parents and families of LGBTQ+ students and protects educators who create inclusive school environments from retaliation. (Assembly Bill 1955)

(Education Code 218)

EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card | 8

SURVEY DEVELOPMENT, METHODOLOGY, & APPLICATION

9 | E Q U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

An estimated half-million LGBTQ+ students are learning and growing in California’s public schools. (1)(2) California’s schools must provide a safe and supportive environment for all students because all children deserve to learn in a place where they are respected and protected. In the last decade, the state of California and many individual school districts have made significant strides toward ensuring that school environments are safe and nurturing for all. However, in recent years, antitransgender and anti-LGBQ+ policies, Executive Orders, and judicial rulings have led to instability and a lack of clear

protections for LGBTQ+ youth. Transgender students are facing elevated rates of bullying, harassment, discrimination, and lack of acceptance at school. As a result, LGBTQ+ students are more likely than their non-LGBTQ+ peers to miss instruction, see their academic performance suffer, drop out, and consider self-harm or suicide. The good news is that when districts implement policies that protects students from bullying, prevent discrimination, and uplift LGBTQ+ identities, queer students and staff become free to bring their best selves to school campuses and thrive.

1 http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBTQ-Youth-CA-Public-Schools-Oct-2017.pdf 2 https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/ceffingertipsfacts.asp

EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card | 10

Safe and Supportive Schools Program Equality California Institute developed the Safe and Supportive Schools Program to help address disparities in health and well-being faced by LGBTQ+ students. This program aligns with the organization’s mission to create a world that is healthy, just, and fully equal for all LGBTQ+ people. As part of this program, the Safe and Supportive Schools Report Card measures and catalogues California school districts’ policies and best practices that foster supportive and affirming learning environments for LGBTQ+ students. PROGRAM EVOLUTION AND ADVISORY SUPPORT In 2016, Equality California Institute partnered with Latham and Watkins LLP to design the first iteration of the report card. Latham and Watkins LLP conducted initial research into laws relating to LGBTQ+ students in California. Equality California Institute then drafted the first iteration of the survey that informs this report. This work was guided by an advisory committee composed of education experts, teachers, school board members, school district administrators, teachers’ union representatives, and LGBTQ+ and civil rights advocates.

2017

130

/344

2021

118

/344

2023

146

/345

2025

109

/345

The inaugural survey was sent to school districts in 2017 and 130 districts responded, resulting in the first report card released in May 2019. A second survey was distributed in 2021 with results published in 2022. A third survey was conducted in the 2023-24 school year with 146 of the 345

invited unified school districts responding, and the resulting report card was released in October 2024. This report presents findings from the 2025 survey (fourth survey) in which all 345 unified school districts in California were invited to participate and 109 submitted complete responses.

SURVEY FOCUS

The survey, accompanied by a glossary, FAQ, and letters from Equality California’s Executive Director and the California Superintendent of Public Instruction, was sent to all 345 unified school districts in California. School districts were invited to respond through an online portal.

The 2025 Survey asked school district officials to provide objective and verifiable information regarding their districts’ supports, policies, and practices across three domains: Student Supports, Staff Supports, and Community Supports. SURVEY DISTRIBUTION AND ENGAGEMENT In October 2025, Equality California Institute staff distributed the 2025 survey with the continued support of Latham and Watkins LLP and the Safe and Supportive Schools Advisory Committee.

11 | EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

Throughout the 2025-26 school year, Equality California Institute staff conducted extensive outreach to support and encourage survey responses. This included emails, phone calls, and in-person and virtual meetings. The deadline was extended multiple times to ensure maximum participation. Of the 345 California unified school districts invited, 109 responded. Each response was reviewed for completeness.

Key Limitations As with any survey of this kind, the application of the results is limited by several factors. It is important that these limitations be acknowledged so that local communities can apply the information in this report thoughtfully and appropriately.

∂

The 2025 Survey was distributed specifically to the 345 unified school districts in California. Of those, 109 completed the survey (31.6%). Future rounds aim to include other types of school districts to make the survey more representative of all schools in California.

∂

The data gathered relies on self-reported information from unified school districts through a voluntary survey focused on district policy rather than student and staff experiences. Those who consult the report results may want to request a copy of a given policy from their school district to confirm and account for potential policy updates.

∂

While the 2025 Survey assesses the reported presence or absence of districtwide policies, it does not fully capture the extent to which those laws and policies are actively implemented and enforced at the district level or in individual campuses or classrooms.

∂

While a core group of districts has consistently participated in the survey across the past four cycles, each cycle also includes many first-time respondents, and some previous respondents do not participate every year. The report therefore provides a valuable snapshot of policies and practices among responding districts during each survey cycle. However, because the pool of participating districts changes, statewide comparisons across cycles should be interpreted with appropriate context and additional analysis.

∂

For districts that want to maximize the usefulness of the survey and report card, Equality California Institute encourages consistent participation cycle over cycle. Robust and consistent participation across the state would also signal to LGBTQ+ students and their families that their school district is a safe and supportive educational home.

MOVING FORWARD This report provides objective and verifiable information from school district records and official policies. Equality California Institute encourages parents, students, teachers, staff, and advocates to use this material as a starting point for conversations with their local school districts. Improvement in school climate for LGBTQ+ students will require strengthened relationships with school districts and continued advocacy for increased funding and resources at the state and local levels. For more information, please visit schools.eqca.org.

EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card | 12

HOW TO USE THIS REPORT

13 | E Q U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

At its core, the 2026 Safe and Supportive Schools Report Card is two things: a transparency tool for district administrators and an advocacy tool for student, staff, and parent stakeholders. The report provides data on policies and best practices to support a positive school climate for all students in unified (K-12) school districts in California, with a particular focus on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) students.(3) The report is intended for use in self-evaluation, sharing best practices, identifying gaps in policy and implementation, celebrating progress, and advocating for further change. It should serve as a conversation starter about specific, concrete actions that districts can take to improve the school climate for LGBTQ+ and all students. 3 Due to capacity limitations, only unified school districts in California—school districts that generally include and operate primary schools (kindergarten through middle school or junior high) and high schools under the same district control—were invited to complete the 2025 Safe and Supportive Schools Survey. We hope to expand to additional types of school districts in the future. The full survey attached as an appendix to this report so that community members can conduct an independent evaluation of their district’s policies.

HOW CAN THIS REPORT SUPPORT LEADERSHIP AS A DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR?

HOW CAN THIS REPORT BE USED AS AN ADVOCACY TOOL IN A LOCAL DISTRICT?

∂

Use the report card to measure district progress year on year in establishing best practices and policies that build a safe and supportive school climate. Set benchmarks and district goals for growth and celebrate successes over prior cycles.

∂

Reach out to districts that share similar student population sizes and demographics to share best practices and strategies for campus buyin on policy creation and implementation. This can be particularly helpful where a district has successfully created a policy that another district is still in the process of developing.

Closely examine what the unified school district has shared in terms of policies and best practices for creating a safe school climate, and work with the district to address any discrepancies between the Report Card data and the actual experiences of staff and students on campus.

∂

Compare the district to neighboring districts or those similar in size, demographics, and resources, and create a benchmark that identifies both positive practices and areas for improvement.

∂

If a district declined or was not eligible to participate in the 2025 survey, the attached sample survey in Appendix II can be used to complete an independent evaluation of the district’s policies. Districts are required to make their policies available to the public and can commonly be found on districts’ board of directors website.

∂

Consider engaging the local teachers’ union, parent-teacher association, LGBTQ+ studentled organization, and other stakeholders to construct a district-specific plan of action, using the survey criteria as a starting point.

∂

Consider conducting a district climate survey to determine the effectiveness of current policies and practices. Asking students, staff, and parents about their day-to-day experiences regarding the implementation and application of district policies provides important context beyond what the survey can capture.

For support in setting a meeting with a local district to discuss the report, contact Equality California Institute at safeschools@eqca.org. Please refer to the full survey reports available at schools.eqca.org for details regarding survey questions and how each unified school district responded.

EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card | 14

KEY FINDINGS

15 | E Q U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

Statewide Key Findings at a Glance The following data points reflect self-reported survey responses from unified school districts that participated in the 2025 Survey. Of the 345 unified school districts in California that were invited to participate, 109 responded. All percentages reflect the share of participating districts.

We organized key findings into three bands: success, opportunity, and risk. An area is a success if more than 75% of responding districts have a pro-equality score. An area is an opportunity if between 50% of and 74% of responding districts have a pro-equality score. An area is a risk if fewer than 50% of responding districts have a pro-equality score. The Community Supports domain (Q33-Q37) has no metrics below 50%, the strongest domain in the survey.

DOMAINS

STUDENT SUPPORTS (Q1-Q21)

STAFF SUPPORTS (Q22-Q32 )

COMMUNITY SUPPORTS (Q33-Q37 )

SUCCESS (ABOVE 75%) 93% (101/109) of districts confirmed their sexual health curriculum includes diverse body types and same-sex relationships, reflecting near-universal adoption of LGBTQ+inclusive instructional content.

90% (98/109) of districts explicitly name all three categories of protected LGBTQ+ identities in their staff anti-discrimination policy: actual or perceived gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.

81% (88/109) of districts have a suicide prevention policy that includes all four required components: prevention, intervention, postvention, and parent notification procedures.

OPPORTUNITY ( 50-74%) Only 53% (58/109) of districts meet all 9 recommendations in their Anti-Bullying or Hate-Motivated Behavior Policy. Nearly half are missing critical protections such as those for student transfer rights, victim resource provisions, and confidential complaint tracking.

Only 61% (67/109) of districts have explicitly communicated to staff that they are permitted to display LGBTQ+ affirming symbols, such as safe space stickers and rainbow flags, in the classroom.

Only 72% (79/109) of districts have a suicide prevention policy that specifically addresses the needs of LGBTQ+ youth, despite LGBTQ+ students being four times more likely to attempt suicide.

RISKS ( BELOW 50%) Only 49% (53/109) of districts have all 3 recommended privacy protections for transgender students in place: official records updating, unofficial records updating, and segregation of birth name records. 8% have no protections at all.

Only 17% (18/109) of districts have a district-wide LGBTQ+ staff affinity group. 83% of California districts offer no formal community structure for LGBTQ+ identifying staff at the district level.

All five Community Supports metrics (Q33-Q37) score 72% or above. This is the strongest performing category across the 2025 Survey.

EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card | 16

Statewide Data Points

STUDENT SUPPORTS, POLICIES, AND BEST PRACTICES

TRANSGENDER, GENDER EXPANSIVE, AND INTERSEX ( TGI ) STUDENTS ∂

49% (53/109) of responding districts include all three recommended privacy protections for transgender students: a process for updating official school records, a process for updating unofficial records, and physical and electronic segregation of birth name records. 35 districts (32%) have official and unofficial records processes but no records segregation. 9 districts (8%) have no policy on privacy protections for transgender students.

∂

72% (78/109) of responding districts include all three gender support practices: requiring use of asserted names and pronouns, allowing gender-aligned facility use, and allowing gender-aligned class and activity participation. 8 districts (7%) have no policy on school participation for transgender students.

∂

78% (85/109) of responding districts have at least one all-gender or non-gendered bathroom in an easily accessible location in every school. (5)

SCHOOL CLIMATE ∂

84% (92/109) of responding districts require schools to track complaints related to Anti-Bullying or Hate Motivated Behavior Policy violations.

∂

65% (71/109) of responding districts recognize and observe LGBTQ+ days or events such as Pride Month, Harvey Milk Day, Transgender Day of Visibility, and Day of Silence at a district level. The survey does not inquire about observations at the campus level.

∂

96% (105/109) of responding districts allow the formation of a Gender and Sexuality Alliance (GSA) or other similar affinity club for students.

∂

34% (37/109) of responding districts have GSAs in all middle schools. 17% have GSAs in 50% or more of their middle schools. Another 13% of districts have GSAs in fewer than 50% of their middle schools.(4)

∂

48% (52/109) of responding districts have GSAs in all high schools. 23% have GSAs in 50% or more of their high schools. Another 6% have GSAs in fewer than 50% of their high schools.(4)

∂

88% (96/109) of responding districts have a gender-neutral dress code applicable to all students regardless of gender.

CURRICULUM ∂

56% (61/109) of responding districts review textbooks and curricular materials every 24 months or more frequently.

∂

53% (58/109) of responding districts have adopted FAIR Education Act-aligned instructional materials at all three school levels. Fourteen districts (13%) adopted

4 The survey did not collect data GSA or affinity club in elementary schools. 5 Gender-neutral restrooms should be in an accessible location relative to other restrooms and not, for example, across campus in a nurse’s office. This limitation avoids excess learning disruption caused by inaccessible gender-neutral restrooms.

17 | EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

for Middle and High School only. 11 districts (10%) for High School only. 18 districts (17%) have not adopted materials at any level.

∂

87% (95/109) of responding districts require 1 or more hours of LGBTQ+ related training annually for grade 7 – 12 staff; 10% (11/109) require 0 hours.

∂

98% (107/109) of responding districts require student participation in sexual health education, with an allowance for parental opt-out.

∂

96% (105/109) of responding districts require student participation in HIV prevention education, with an allowance for parental opt-out.

82% (89/109) of responding districts include general cultural competency (gender and sexual diversity, terminology) in their LGBTQ+ training topics. 28% offered cultural competency and policy training only. 25% offered cultural competency, policy, and curriculum training. 5% offered all four training topics.

SAFETY ACT ∂

81% (88/109) of responding districts have a pupil non-disclosure policy ensuring that employees are not required to disclose information related to a student’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression without the student’s consent.

COMMUNITY SUPPORTS, POLICIES, AND BEST PRACTICES ∂

81% (88/109) of responding districts have a suicide prevention policy that includes all four required elements: prevention, intervention, postvention, and parent notification procedures. 8 districts (7%) include prevention, intervention, and postvention only.

∂

74% (81/109) of responding districts have a mandatory suicide awareness and prevention training program completed by all staff. 18% have a program that is not mandatory or not completed by all staff. 6% have no program at all.

∂

88% (96/109) of responding districts confirm their suicide awareness training addresses risk factors specific to marginalized groups, including LGBTQ+ youth.

∂

90% (98/109) of responding districts have identified and publicized relevant mental health services outside the school site for students and families in crisis.

STAFF SUPPORTS, POLICIES, AND BEST PRACTICES ∂

11% (12/109) of responding districts have campus-specific affinity groups for LGBTQ+ identifying staff.(6)

∂

32% (35/109) of responding districts include LGBTQ+ specific training in their LCAP goals or activities.

∂

85% (93/109) of responding districts require 1 or more hours annually of LGBTQ+ training for certificated staff, consistent with the PRISM mandate under Education Code Section 218.3(c); 13% (14/109) require 0 hours. 50% (55/109) of responding districts require 1 or more hours of LGBTQ+ related training annually for classified staff; 48% (52/109) require 0 hours.

This can vary due to different factors unique to each school district such as population size of LGBTQ+ staff and allocation of resources.

EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card | 18

Data Points by District Size STUDENT SUPPORTS, POLICIES, AND BEST PRACTICES

CURRICULUM ∂

SCHOOL CLIMATE ∂

istrict size was not a significant variable D in whether districts had their anti-bullying policy distributed via website, posted in public areas, and via print/mail. Compliance in all size districts ranged from 33% to 39%.

∂

When asked if all high schools have a GSA, 66% of large districts responded yes compared to 17% of small districts, 43% of medium districts, and 33% of extra-large districts.

∂

For district middle schools, 8% of small districts had GSAs in all middle schools while 43% of medium sized districts, 39% of large districts, and 22% of extra-large districts had GSAs in all middle schools.

∂

Over 95% of all districts allowed formation of GSAs in some capacity, regardless of district size.

∂

58% of small districts had dress codes that allowed students to wear gender aligned clothing, while over 80% of all larger districts had dress codes that allowed students to wear clothing aligned with their gender.

∂

68% of all responding small districts had a gender-neutral dress code while over 85% of all medium, large, and extra-large districts had a gender-neutral dress code in place.

TGI STUDENTS ∂

Less than 60% of districts of all sizes offered all three recommended privacy protections for TGI students. Only 25% of small districts offered all three recommended privacy protections, 46% of medium districts, 55% of large districts, and 56% of extra-large districts.

19 | EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

25% of small districts had adopted FAIR act materials at all three school levels while 43% of medium sized districts, 66% of large districts, and 61% of extra-large districts had used the materials.

SAFETY ACT ∂

District size was also not a significant variable in adherence to the Safety Act; 75% of small districts had a student non-disclosure policy in place, while 77% of medium districts, 82% of large, and 89% of extra-large districts had established non-disclosure policies.

STAFF SUPPORTS, POLICIES, AND BEST PRACTICES ∂

None (0%) of responding small districts reported having either a campus-wide or district-wide LGBTQ+ staff affinity group. By comparison, 6% of medium districts, 14% of large districts, and 44% of extra-large districts reported having a district-wide affinity group.

COMMUNITY SUPPORTS, POLICIES, AND BEST PRACTICES ∂

When asked if there were LGBTQ+ specific training listed in LCAP goals, 17% of small districts answered affirmatively compared to 20% of medium sized districts, 41% of large districts and 44% of extra-large districts.

DATA POINTS BY REGION ASSESSMENT NETWORK The California Department of Education separates the state into eleven regions, to develop assessment and accountability systems in California school districts. These are known as Regional Assessment Network (RAN). The 2026 report card examined data points within these eleven regions to determine any relevant patterns or findings for recommendation. ∂

∂

REGION 1: Sonoma, Lake, Humboldt, Del Norte, and Mendocino Counties Three (of 24 invited districts) responded to the 2025 Safe and Supportive Schools Survey. The average score for this region is 34.8/65. REGION 2: Butte, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama, and Trinity Counties Four (of 24 invited districts) responded to the 2025 Safe and Supportive Schools Survey. The average score for this region is 40/65. REGION 3: Alpine, Colusa, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, Sierra, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba Counties Five (of 28 invited districts) responded to the 2025 Safe and Supportive Schools Survey. The average score for this region is 52.4/65.

∂

REGION 4: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Solano Counties Twenty-two (of 42 invited districts) responded to the 2025 Safe and Supportive Schools Survey. The average score for this region is 47.4/65.

∂

REGION 5: Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties Eight (of 11 invited districts) responded to the 2025 Safe and Supportive Schools Survey. The average score for this region is 46.9/65.

∂

REGION 6: Amador, Calaveras, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne Counties Six (of 21 invited districts) responded to the 2025 Safe and Supportive Schools Survey. The average score for this region is 45.9/65.

∂

REGION 7: Fresno, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, and Tulare Counties Thirteen (of 38 invited districts) responded to the 2025 Safe and Supportive Schools Survey. The average score for this region is 44.1/65.

∂

REGION 8: San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Kern Counties Twelve (of 33 invited districts) responded to the 2025 Safe and Supportive Schools Survey. The average score for this region is 47.4/65.

∂

REGION 9: Imperial, Orange, and San Diego Counties Fourteen (of 30 invited districts) responded to the 2025 Safe and Supportive Schools Survey. The average score for this region is 49.3/65.

∂

REGION 10: San Bernardino, Inyo, Riverside, and Mono Counties Ten (of 45 invited districts) responded to the 2025 Safe and Supportive Schools Survey. The average score for this region is 44.3/65.

∂

REGION 11: Los Angeles County Twelve (of 49 invited districts) responded to the 2025 Safe and Supportive Schools Survey. The average score for this region is 46.3/65.

EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card | 20

ANALYSIS

21 | E Q U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

Statewide Analysis

SCHOOL CLIMATE EFFECTIVE ANTI-BULLYING OR HATE MOTIVATED BEHAVIOR POLICY An Anti-Bullying or Hate Motivated Behavior Policy is only as effective as the protections it puts into practice. While 84% of responding districts require schools to track complaints, only 53% have a policy that includes all nine recommended protections(7) , the elements that determine whether a student experiencing bullying can get help and resolution. The protections most often missing are also among the most consequential to a student’s ability to seek recourse. A student transfer process for bullying victims is present in only 73% of policies. Confidential complaint tracking requirements are present in 79%. Specific victim resource provisions are present in 76%. Each missing protection limits how effectively a policy can function for the students who need it most, regardless of whether an Anti-Bullying Policy technically exists on paper.

LGBTQ+ VISIBILITY AND DAYS OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE 65% of responding districts recognize and observe LGBTQ+ days or events such as Pride Month, Harvey Milk Day, and the Day of Silence at the district level. Since the survey measures district level observance only, individual campuses may recognize these days even where their district does not. This represents a critical form of visible institutional affirmation that research consistently links to better mental health outcomes for LGBTQ+ youth. The remaining 35% of responding districts (one in three districts statewide) have not yet adopted this low-cost, high-visibility practice, representing a meaningful gap in institutional affirmation across California. PEER AFFINITY GROUPS GSA and affinity groups continue to vary widely across districts and school levels. While 96% of responding districts allow the formation of GSA clubs, actual GSA presence in schools remains inconsistent. Only 48% of districts report GSAs in

Please see appendix II (Question 1) for a list of all 9 protections.

EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card | 22

all high schools, and only 34% in all middle schools. Students may encounter barriers to starting clubs including concerns for privacy, inability to find a staff facilitator, or lack of administrative support. LGBTQ+ staff are often expected to take on this role, underscoring the connection between staff support infrastructure and student-facing outcomes.

INCLUSIVE CURRICULUM FAIR EDUCATION ACT COMPLIANCE FAIR Act compliance remains one of the most significant policy gaps in the 2025 Survey results. Only 53% of responding districts have adopted FAIRaligned instructional materials at all three school levels. 17% of districts have no FAIR Act materials at any school level, representing a clear compliance gap. When districts have adopted materials, coverage is most common at the high school level and least common at the elementary level. Ensuring that all California students encounter the contributions and history of LGBTQ+ people across all grade levels requires continued outreach, resource sharing, and technical assistance from county offices of education and statewide advocacy organizations. COMPREHENSIVE SEXUAL HEALTH CURRICULUM Responding districts score exceptionally high on sexual health education compliance. 98% of districts require sexual health education on a mandatory opt-out basis and 93% confirm their curriculum includes discussions of diverse body types and same-sex relationships. This nearuniversal performance reflects the strength of California’s California Healthy Youth Act framework and demonstrates that state policy, when clearly articulated and consistently enforced, can drive equitable outcomes across the state.

23 | EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

TGI STUDENTS ALL GENDER RESTROOMS 78% of responding districts have at least one accessible all-gender bathroom in every school. 22% of districts have not yet met this standard, with cost and facility retrofitting challenges being the most cited barriers. California state law, SB 760, requires all K-12 schools to have all-gender restrooms by July 2026. Districts that have not yet complied should prioritize this as a foundational, physical accommodation for TGI students. PRIVACY PROTECTIONS AND GENDER SUPPORT POLICIES Only 49% of districts have all three recommended protections in place. 32% have official and unofficial records processes but no record segregation, and 8% have no policy on protections for transgender students at all. The combination-based data is important here: a district may report having at least one protection in place, but the presence of two protections without the third leaves students meaningfully exposed to inadvertent disclosure.

KEEPING LGBTQ+ EDUCATORS IN SCHOOLS LGBTQ+ STAFF AFFINITY GROUPS Staff support is crucial to maintaining a diverse and inclusive environment. The 2025 Survey data reveal a gap between policy and practice in this domain. 90% of districts have comprehensive staff nondiscrimination policies, but only 17% have a districtwide LGBTQ+ staff affinity group. Without formal community structures for LGBTQ+ staff to connect

and support each other, districts risk losing educators who feel isolated or unsupported. Although this finding can vary due to numerous factors including LGBTQ+ staff population at various school sites. TRAINING The implementation of the PRISM training represents a critical new benchmark in the 2025 Survey. 85% of districts report that certificated staff serving grades 7-12 are required to complete one or more hours of LGBTQ+ specific training annually. This reflects meaningful early compliance with the mandate, which took effect for the first time in the 2025-2026 academic year. However, classified staff remain significantly less likely to be included in training requirements, and curriculum-specific training that prepares teachers to actively deliver LGBTQ+ inclusive instruction was included in the training offerings of only a minority of responding districts. Additionally, reports from outside of the 2025 survey indicate that the training courses being used by districts may not align with the full requirements of LGBTQ+ cultural competency training mandated by state law. PRISM remains the only training that fully complies with state law. LCAP

orientation, gender identity, or gender expression without the student’s consent. Because the law took effect partway through the 2025-26 school year, the 2025 Survey is the first cycle to measure statewide compliance, and the high early adoption rate suggests that many districts had already aligned their practices with this protection in advance of the legal requirement. The remaining 19% of responding districts do not yet have a student nondisclosure policy in place, leaving students in those districts without this specific privacy protection and out of compliance with current California law. This finding takes on added significance in light of Mirabelli v. Bonta, in which the U.S. Supreme Court, acting on its emergency docket in March 2026, vacated a Ninth Circuit stay and reinstated a federal district court injunction with respect to parent plaintiffs who object on religious grounds to school policies withholding a student’s gender identity from parents without consent. While the SAFETY Act remains California law and continues to prohibit districts from adopting blanket forced outing policies, the Court’s order has introduced real tension between state law and an evolving body of federal case law, leaving many educators uncertain about how to apply district non-disclosure policies.

The LCAP remains an underutilized accountability mechanism: only 32% of districts include LGBTQ+specific training as a formal LCAP goal.

SAFETY ACT 81% of responding districts have adopted a student non-disclosure policy, consistent with the requirements of the SAFETY Act (AB 1955), which took effect on January 1, 2025. This prohibits district policies that require disclosure of a student’s sexual

EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card | 24

District Size Analysis

SMALL DISTRICTS

MEDIUM DISTRICTS

Less than 1,000 students, 12 participating districts

1,000-4,999 students, 35 participating districts

Twelve small districts filled out the safe and supportive schools survey. Responses showed that in the areas of student support, staff support, and community support only 25% of districts had all 3 recommended privacy protections for transgender students (official records, unofficial records, and segregation), and only 42% had all 3 gender support practices for transgender students (pronouns, facilities, activities).

The 35 medium districts that participated had better metrics than small districts in most survey areas. Both small and medium sized districts have similar strengths in Safety Act Compliance, Suicide Prevention, and Curriculum. To improve, these districts could implement more cultural competency training by including LGBTQ+ specific training in their LCAP goals and require training for classified and TK-6 grade staff.

Of note was that only 17% of districts had GSAs at all high schools. This could be because it is common for students to do the initial work of founding GSAs at their high schools, and with small student populations LGBTQ+ and allied students may not feel that they have broad enough support to do so. The same might be true for the low number of districts with affinity spaces for LGBTQ+ staff members, either on campus or district wide.

It was also notable that 80% of districts had translated their anti-bullying policy and 77% also translated the complaint policy and form. Over 80% of districts also had gender neutral dress codes that applied to all students and dress codes that allowed students to wear clothing that aligns with their gender identity.

The responses from small districts showed most promise in the areas of curriculum, following the SAFETY act, and suicide prevention. All districts have sexual health education, HIV prevention education, and an inclusive sexual health education curriculum.

25 | EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

LARGE DISTRICTS 5,000-20,000 students, 44 participating districts The 44 large district respondents were successful in many surveyed areas. Most notably, large districts were more likely than medium- or extra-large districts, (82%) to have at least one all-gender bathroom in every school. The group also had the highest percentage of districts that review textbooks/curriculum at least every 24 months. Large districts could improve the most in staff support. Only 14% of these districts offer any type of affinity group for LGBTQ+ staff. Given the broader capacity of large districts, creating community spaces for staff could benefit districts in terms of employee retention, engagement, and productivity.

EXTRA-LARGE DISTRICTS 20,000+ students, 18 participating districts The 18 extra-large districts had results that overall reflected more best practices than all other district sized groups. In the school climate subject area, extra-large districts did very well. One hundred percent of these districts allowed formation of GSA clubs and celebrated LGBTQ+ days and events. These districts could improve by creating GSAs in more middle and high schools. Compared to large districts, the secondary schools in extra-large districts were less likely to have a GSA or similar club. At the same time, they were more likely to have a staff affinity group for LGBTQ+ employees.

EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card | 26

RECOMMENDATIONS

27 | E Q U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

This report highlights both the significant progress districts have made and the substantial gaps that remain in creating safe and supportive school environments. Responding districts report widespread implementation of positive school climate policies and practices, including robust anti-bullying tracking and near-universal suicide prevention infrastructure. At the same time, the 2025 survey results reveal important gaps in policies, compliance,

and support that continue to affect LGBTQ+ students and school communities. Equality California Institute envisions a future in which districts continuously identify areas for growth, share successes and challenges, and implement meaningful improvements to better support LGBTQ+ students and all students. To help advance that work, this report outlines recommendations across six priority areas.

EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card | 28

Ensuring Anti-Bullying and Hate-Motivated Behavior Policies Work

An anti-bullying or hatemotivated behavior policy is only as effective as the protections it puts into practice. While nearly all responding districts have a policy on paper, only 53% include all nine recommended protections, which are the elements that determine whether a student experiencing bullying can get help and find resolution. The protections most often missing are also among the most consequential: a student transfer process for bullying victims, confidential complaint tracking requirements, and specific victim resource provisions. Each missing protection limits how effectively a policy can function for the students who need it most.

29 | EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

∂ PRIORITIZE ADDRESSING GAPS IN POLICIES: Districts should conduct a review of their anti-bullying policy focused specifically on the protections most commonly absent, including student transfer processes, confidential complaint tracking, and victim resource provisions, and prioritize adding these elements rather than treating the policy as a general compliance checklist. ∂ MAKE POLICIES ACCESSIBLE AND ACTIONABLE: A policy students and families cannot find or understand cannot protect them. Districts should ensure their Anti-Bullying Policy is translated into as many languages as are used in their district, distributed through multiple channels, and communicated in a way that makes clear how to file a complaint and what to expect. ∂ TRACK OUTCOMES, NOT JUST REPORTS: 84% of districts require schools to track bullying complaints, but tracking complaints alone does not tell a district whether students are being helped. Districts should move toward tracking outcomes, including resolution timelines, recurrence rates, and student satisfaction to ensure their policy is working as intended for LGBTQ+ students and all students.

Implement Training with Depth, Not Just Compliance

The LGBTQ+ cultural competency training mandate under Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5) requires a minimum of one hour of LGBTQ+ cultural competency training annually for all certificated staff serving grades 7-12, effective through the 2029-30 school year. 85% of districts report early compliance with this mandate. However, meaningful gaps remain in both the depth and scope of the training being offered.

∂ EXPAND BEYOND THE MINIMUM: Districts should treat the onehour annual minimum as a floor, not a ceiling. More robust training programs increase staff confidence in creating and uplifting supportive environments. Cultural competency training should include curriculumspecific instruction that prepares teachers to actively deliver LGBTQ+ inclusive content in the classroom.

∂ MAKE PRISM THE DEFAULT: Districts should adopt PRISM as their standard cultural competency training. While the state mandate requires training and technically permits alternatives, PRISM is currently the only course that meets all state requirements. It was developed in consultation with key stakeholders and was specifically designed to meet all state training requirements. ∂ INCLUDE CLASSIFIED STAFF: The training mandate applies to certificated employees, but districts should extend LGBTQ+ training to classified staff as well. Currently, fewer than half of districts require any training hours for classified staff. ∂ LCAP INCLUSION: Districts should include LGBTQ+ specific professional development as a formal LCAP goal, creating accountability for funding and sustaining LGBTQ+ professional development beyond the statutory five-year mandate.

EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card | 30

Build Community and Support for LGBTQ+ Educators

The near-universal absence of LGBTQ+ staff affinity groups across all size groups is the most persistent cross-cutting gap in the 2025 survey data. Low affinity group rates may reflect several factors, including small LGBTQ+ staff populations in some districts and the reality that educators in more conservative communities may not feel comfortable identifying themselves as LGBTQ+ in a professional setting. Antidiscrimination policies for staff are the foundation, but they are not sufficient on their own.

31 | EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

∂ AFFINITY GROUPS: Establish and support affinity groups for LGBTQ+ educators at the district level. For smaller districts, unionrun or regional affinity groups may help LGBTQ+ educators feel a stronger sense of belonging without exhausting internal resources. ∂ FOSTER A VISIBLE AND SUPPORTIVE STAFF CLIMATE: Districts should explicitly communicate to all staff that they are permitted to display LGBTQ+ affirming symbols in the classroom, reinforcing that LGBTQ+ people are welcome, supported, and valued. This visibility should be paired with accessible mental health resources tailored to the needs of LGBTQ+ educators, and a recognition that staff should not be expected to serve as the sole experts on LGBTQ+ issues in their schools.

∂ INVEST IN LGBTQ+ EDUCATORS THROUGH PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCES: Districts should treat LGBTQ+ educators as professionals with expertise worth developing, not just policy implementers. This includes access to LGBTQ+ specific professional development, opportunities for leadership and mentorship, and formal recognition that the lived experience of LGBTQ+ educators brings institutional value to schools.

Fully Protect Transgender and Gender-Expansive Students

∂ COMPLETE PRIVACY PROTECTION IMPLEMENTATION: Districts should conduct a gap analysis on their Gender Support Policy to ensure all protections are in place: processes for official records, processes for unofficial records (including attendance sheets, school IDs, report cards, and diplomas), and physical and electronic segregation of birth name records.

∂ ALL-GENDER RESTROOMS: SB 760 requires every K-12 school district to provide and maintain at least one allgender restroom at every school site, with a compliance deadline of July 1, 2026. Districts that have not yet achieved full compliance should treat this as an immediate priority and designate a staff point of contact responsible for implementation and ongoing maintenance.

Transgender and genderexpansive students continue to face gaps in the foundational protections California law provides. Districts that have adopted some, but not all privacy protections, leave students exposed to the harms of forced outing.

∂ SAFETY ACT COMPLIANCE: All districts should review their policies to ensure full compliance with the SAFETY Act (AB 1955), which prohibits policies requiring disclosure of a student’s gender identity without consent. The 19% of districts that do not yet have a student non-disclosure policy should prioritize adoption immediately. Districts should also be aware of the ongoing litigation in Mirabelli v. Bonta. The U.S. Supreme Court’s March 2026 emergency docket order is currently being litigated. Districts should consult their legal counsel to ensure compliance with applicable state laws.

EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card | 32

Promote LGBTQ+ Inclusive Curriculum and Formalize LCAP Accountability

∂ INCLUSIVE CURRICULUM ADOPTION: Prioritize FAIR Act compliance at the elementary school level, where adoption rates are lowest. County offices of education should provide model materials lists and procurement guidance for districts that have not yet adopted. The 17% of districts with no FAIR Act materials at any school level represent a clear compliance gap requiring immediate attention.

Adoption of LGBTQ+ inclusive textbooks and educational materials must be more consistent across districts and grade levels. Ensuring that all students learn about the history and contributions of LGBTQ+ people is both a legal requirement under the FAIR Act and a foundational equity commitment.

33 | EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

∂ RESOURCE ACCESSIBILITY: Develop and disseminate resource lists and provide access to LGBTQ+ inclusive materials for teachers and students. Increasing shared resources across districts will facilitate continual improvement of instructional materials. ∂ LCAP ACCOUNTABILITY: Districts should include LGBTQ+ specific professional development and curriculum adoption as formal LCAP goals. County offices of education and statewide advocacy organizations should provide direct technical assistance to small and medium districts on including these commitments in their LCAP, along with model goal language, outcome metrics, and implementation timelines.

Strengthen the Reach and Effectiveness of LGBTQ+ Visibility Initiatives

65% of responding districts recognize and observe LGBTQ+ days and events. However, the 2025 survey did not capture who coordinates these observances or whether they are implemented as a district-wide initiative or left to individual schools, teachers, or studentled clubs. Understanding this distinction matters because observances that depend on a single motivated teacher or student club are more vulnerable to discontinuation than those backed by district-level coordination and resources.

6 ∂ CLARIFY OWNERSHIP: Districts should designate clear responsibility for LGBTQ+ visibility initiatives, whether through a district equity office, a designated staff liaison, or a formal partnership with student clubs, so these observances do not depend solely on individual teachers or students. ∂ MOVE TOWARD DISTRICT-WIDE COORDINATION: Where observance is currently left to individual schools or staff, districts should explore a coordinated, district-wide approach to strengthen consistency, expand reach across all school sites, and reduce the burden placed on any one educator or club.

EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card | 34

DISTRICT SUMMARY RESPONSES

35 | E Q U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

District Results District scores are separated into the three domains: Student Supports, Staff Supports, and Community Supports. A weighted score and whether district uploaded their policies are also indicated.

Equality California Institute reached out to all 345 unified school districts in the state of California to offer them an opportunity to submit responses. 109 unified school districts responded. 236 unified school districts did not respond.

TGI Student Support (7)

Curriculum (9)

STAFF SUPPORTS ( 19)

COMMUNITY SUPPORTS ( 9)

Q1-Q6

Q7-Q12

Q13-Q15

Q16-Q21

Q22-Q32

Q33-Q37

Acton-Agua Dulce

10.5

8.5

Alameda

Albany City

8.5

48.5

Alpaugh

8.5

43.5

Alvord

4.5

8.5

Antioch

6.5

55.5

Banta

Berkeley

5.5

8.5

Big Sur

POLICIES UPLOADED

Climate (8)

DISTRICT

TOTAL SCORE (65)

Anti-Bullying (13)

STUDENT SUPPORTS ( 37 )

EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card | 36

TGI Student Support (7)

Curriculum (9)

STAFF SUPPORTS ( 19 )

COMMUNITY SUPPORTS ( 9 )

Q1-Q6

Q7-Q12

Q13-Q15

Q16-Q21

Q22-Q32

Q33-Q37

Biggs

Bonsall

10.5

41.5

Cabrillo

7.5

8.5

Calexico

8.5

55.5

Calipatria

12.5

34.5

Carlsbad

7.5

46.5

Carpinteria

6.5

53.5

Castro Valley

12.5

51.5

Ceres

Claremont

Cloverdale

Coachella Valley

8.5

36.5

Coalinga-Huron

12.5

7.5

Corcoran Joint

6.5

41.5

Coronado

10.5

54.5

Culver City

Cuyama Joint

Desert Sands

7.5

58.5

Downey

7.5

52.5

Dublin

6.5

7.5

El Segundo

Elk Grove

Emery

6.5

36.5

Fairfield-Suisun

Farmersville

37 | EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

POLICIES UPLOADED

Climate (8)

DISTRICT

TOTAL SCORE (65)

Anti-Bullying (13)

STUDENT SUPPORTS ( 37 )

TGI Student Support (7)

Curriculum (9)

STAFF SUPPORTS ( 19 )

COMMUNITY SUPPORTS ( 9 )

Q1-Q6

Q7-Q12

Q13-Q15

Q16-Q21

Q22-Q32

Q33-Q37

Fillmore

Folsom-Cordova

6.5

50.5

Fontana

6.5

39.5

Fort Sage

Fremont

Fresno

Gilroy

5.5

55.5

Glendale

6.5

57.5

Golden Plains

9.5

40.5

Gustine

Irvine

6.5

53.5

Konocti

6.5

43.5

Laguna Beach

Lammersville Joint

Lindsay

4.5

44.5

Livermore Valley Joint

Lompoc

8.5

53.5

Los Alamitos

Madera

5.5

7.5

Manhattan Beach

7.5

44.5

Martinez

7.5

49.5

Milpitas

Monterey Peninsula

Moorpark

Morgan Hill

7.5

51.5

POLICIES UPLOADED

Climate (8)

DISTRICT

TOTAL SCORE (65)

Anti-Bullying (13)

STUDENT SUPPORTS ( 37 )

EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card | 38

TGI Student Support (7)

Curriculum (9)

STAFF SUPPORTS ( 19 )

COMMUNITY SUPPORTS ( 9 )

Q1-Q6

Q7-Q12

Q13-Q15

Q16-Q21

Q22-Q32

Q33-Q37

Mount Diablo

6.5

45.5

Mountain Empire

Natomas

9.5

55.5

Needles

Oak Park

6.5

53.5

Oakland

10.5

48.5

Oceanside

8.5

57.5

Ojai

Owens Valley

Palm Springs

Palo Verde

Paramount

4.5

28.5

Parlier

Patterson Joint

7.5

42.5

Piedmont City

Pittsburg

Pleasanton

7.5

51.5

Princeton Joint

Redondo Beach

Reef-Sunset

Rim of the World

Riverbank

Rowland

6.5

43.5

San Bernardino City

San Diego

39 | EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

POLICIES UPLOADED

Climate (8)

DISTRICT

TOTAL SCORE (65)

Anti-Bullying (13)

STUDENT SUPPORTS ( 37 )

TGI Student Support (7)

Curriculum (9)

STAFF SUPPORTS ( 19 )

COMMUNITY SUPPORTS ( 9 )

Q1-Q6

Q7-Q12

Q13-Q15

Q16-Q21

Q22-Q32

Q33-Q37

San Francisco

San Gabriel

12.5

48.5

San Jose

San Juan

10.5

8.5

San Lorenzo

San Lorenzo Valley

8.5

21.5

San Luis Coastal

San Marcos

6.5

43.5

San Ramon Valley

Santa Ana

Santa Paula

10.5

7.5

Simi Valley

Soledad

South San Francisco

Tehachapi

Tracy Joint

Trinity Alps

Upper Lake

Vallejo City

Ventura

9.5

48.5

Vista

7.5

51.5

West Covina

11.5

4.5

Woodlake

5.5

51.5

Woodland Joint

Yosemite

POLICIES UPLOADED

Climate (8)

DISTRICT

TOTAL SCORE (65)

Anti-Bullying (13)

STUDENT SUPPORTS ( 37 )

EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card | 40

Unresponsive Districts (236)

ABC Unified School District

Chino Valley Unified School District

Gonzales Unified School District

Alhambra Unified School District

Clovis Unified School District

Gridley Unified School District

Alpine County Unified School District

Coast Unified School District

Hacienda La Puente Unified School District

Amador County Unified School District

Colton Joint Unified School District

Hamilton Unified School District

Anderson Valley Unified School District

Colusa Unified School District

Hayward Unified School District

Apple Valley Unified School District

Compton Unified School District

Healdsburg Unified School District

Arcadia Unified School District

Conejo Valley Unified School District

Hemet Unified School District

Aromas/San Juan Unified School District

Corona Norco Unified School District

Hesperia Unified School District

Atascadero Unified School District

Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District

Hilmar Unified School District

Azusa Unified School District

Covina-Valley Unified School District

Holtville Unified School District

Baker Valley Unified School District

Cutler-Orosi Joint Unified School District

Hughson Unified School District

Baldwin Park Unified School District

Davis Joint Unified School District

Imperial Unified School District

Banning Unified School District

Death Valley Unified School District

Inglewood Unified School District

Barstow Unified School District

Del Norte County Unified School District

John Swett Unified School District

Bassett Unified School District

Delhi Unified School District

Jurupa Unified School District

Bear Valley Unified School District

Denair Unified School District

Kelseyville Unified School District

Beaumont Unified School District

Desert Center Unified School District

Kerman Unified School District

Bellflower Unified School District

Dinuba Unified School District

Kings Canyon Joint Unified School District

Benicia Unified School District

Dixon Unified School District

Klamath-Trinity Joint Unified School District

Beverly Hills Unified School District

La Canada Unified School District

Big Oak Flat-Groveland Unified School District

Dos Palos Oro Loma Joint Unified School District

Big Pine Unified School District

Duarte Unified School District

Lake Elsinore Unified School District

Big Valley Joint Unified School District

Durham Unified School District

Lake Tahoe Unified School District

Bishop Unified School District

Eastern Sierra Unified School District

Lakeport Unified School District

Black Oak Mine Unified School District

El Rancho Unified School District

Las Virgenes Unified School District

Bonita Unified School District

El Tejon Unified School District

Laton Joint Unified School District

Borrego Springs Unified School District

Escalon Unified School District

Laytonville Unified School District

Brea-Olinda Unified School District

Esparto Unified School District

Leggett Valley Unified School District

Burbank Unified School District

Eureka City Schools Unified School District

Lincoln Unified School District

Butte Valley Unified School District

Exeter Unified School District

Linden Unified School District

Calaveras Unified School District

Fall River Joint Unified School District

Live Oak Unified School District

Calistoga Joint Unified School District

Ferndale Unified School District

Lodi Unified School District

Capistrano Unified School District

Firebaugh-Las Deltas Unified School District

Lone Pine Unified School District

Carmel Unified School District

Fort Bragg Unified School District

Long Beach Unified School District

Caruthers Unified School District

Fowler Unified School District

Los Angeles Unified School District

Center Joint Unified School District

Garden Grove Unified School District

Los Banos Unified School District

Central Unified School District

Gateway Unified School District

Los Molinos Unified School District

Charter Oak Unified School District

Geyserville Unified School District

Lucerne Valley Unified School District

Chawanakee Unified School District

Glendora Unified School District

Lucia Mar Unified School District

Chico Unified School District

Golden Valley Unified School District

Lynwood Unified School District

41 | EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District

Mammoth Unified School District

Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District

Southern Kern Unified School District

Manteca Unified School District

Plumas Unified School District

Southern Trinity Joint Unified School District

Maricopa Unified School District

Pomona Unified School District

Stockton Unified School District

Mariposa County Unified School District

Porterville Unified School District

Stony Creek Joint Unified School District

Marysville Joint Unified School District

Potter Valley Community Unified School District

Sunol Glen Unified School District

Mattole Unified School District Maxwell Unified School District McFarland Unified School District Mendocino Unified School District Mendota Unified School District Middletown Unified School District Modoc Joint Unified School District Mojave Unified School District Monrovia Unified School District Montebello Unified School District Moreno Valley Unified School District Morongo Unified School District Mountain Valley Unified School District Muroc Joint Unified School District Murrieta Valley Unified School District Napa Valley Unified School District New Haven Unified School District Newark Unified School District Newman-Crows Landing Unified School District Newport-Mesa Unified School District North Monterey County Unified School District Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District Novato Unified School District Oakdale Joint Unified School District Orange Unified School District Orland Joint Unified School District Pacific Grove Unified School District Pajaro Valley Unified School District Palo Alto Unified School District Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District Paradise Unified School District Pasadena Unified School District Paso Robles Joint Unified School District Pierce Joint Unified School District

Poway Unified School District Ramona City Unified School District Redlands Unified School District Rialto Unified School District Ripon Unified School District River Delta Joint Unified School District Riverdale Joint Unified School District Riverside Unified School District Rocklin Unified School District Round Valley Unified School District Sacramento City Unified School District Saddleback Valley Unified School District Saint Helena Unified School District San Jacinto Unified School District San Leandro Unified School District San Marino Unified School District San Pasqual Valley Unified School District Sanger Unified School District Santa Barbara Unified School District Santa Clara Unified School District Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Scott Valley Unified School District Scotts Valley Unified School District Selma Unified School District Shandon Joint Unified School District Shoreline Unified School District Sierra Unified School District Sierra Sands Unified School District Sierra-Plumas Joint Unified School District Silver Valley Unified School District Snowline Joint Unified School District Sonoma Valley Unified School District

Surprise Valley Joint Unified School District Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District Temecula Valley Unified School District Temple City Unified School District Templeton Unified School District Torrance Unified School District Travis Unified School District Trona Joint Unified School District Tulelake Basin Joint Unified School District Turlock Unified School District Tustin Unified School District Twin Rivers Unified School District Ukiah Unified School District Upland Unified School District Vacaville Unified School District Val Verde Unified School District Valley Center-Pauma Visalia Unified School District Walnut Valley Unified School District Warner Unified School District Washington (Fresno) Unified School District Washington (West Sacramento) Unified School District Waterford Unified School District West Contra Costa Unified School District Western Placer Unified School District Westwood Unified School District Williams Unified School District Willits Unified School District Willows Unified School District Windsor Unified School District Winters Joint Unified School District

South Pasadena Unified School District

Wiseburn Unified School District

Southern Humboldt Joint Unified School District

Yuba City Unified School District Yucaipa Calimesa Unified School District

EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card | 42

APPENDICES

43 | E Q U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

APPENDIX I: ADVISORY COMMITTEE Equality California Institute is grateful to the members of the Safe and Supportive Schools Advisory Committee for the continued support and guidance throughout this process, as well as informing the design of survey, report card, and outreach efforts. MEMBERS Ariana Rodriguez, ACLU SoCal

Justin Tindall, It Gets Better Project

Rick Oculto, Community Advocate

Erica Hasenbeck, Fresno Unified School District

Kim Westheimer, Gender Spectrum

Stephanie Camacho-Van Dyke, The LGBTQ Center OC

Gabby Doyle, Trevor Project

Maureen Muir, Irvine Unified School District

Suzanne Wallace, Fresno Unified School District

Kena Hazelwood, San Francisco Unified School District

Rebeca Cerna, The West Ed

Tifany Eden, Trevor Project

Dr. Jon Paul Higgins, Rainbow Pride Youth Alliance

Rebby Kern, Human Rights Campaign

Dr. Vincent “Vinnie” Pompei, San Diego State University College of Education

APPENDIX II: THE 2025 SAFE AND SUPPORTIVE SCHOOLS SURVEY STUDENT SUPPORTS, POLICIES, AND BEST PRACTICES Anti-Bullying: The following questions refer to the district’s policies and procedures around bullying prevention. 1. Does the district’s Anti-Bullying or Hate Motivated Behavior Policy include the following (select all that apply)

Explicitly prohibits bullying based on actual or perceived gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation Applies to all school-related activities, including transportation to or from school and schoolrelated activities, and cyber-bullying Outlines specific procedures and a timeline for bullying investigations

California Education Code §200 California Education Code §201 California Education Code §218 California Education Code §220 California Education Code §234 California Education Code §234.1-7 California Education Code §32282 California Education Code §46600 California Education Code §49600 Best Practice

Requires school personnel to intervene if they witness bullying (when safe to do so) Requires maintaining a confidential record of bullying complaints and their resolutions Details statewide or local resources in place to aid the target/victim of bullying and their family (e.g., counseling services, a change in classroom/seat assignment, etc.) Outlines steps taken to address the behavior of the individual responsible for bullying and prevent recurrence (e.g., counseling, disciplinary action, etc.) Ensures protection against retaliation for those who report bullying or assist in the investigation. Addresses the ability of targets of bullying to transfer to a different school, including interdistrict transfers 2. Has the Anti-Bullying Policy and/or Hate Motivated Behavior Policy been translated and made publicly available in languages other than English?

Yes No

California Education Code Section 234.1(c) California Education Code Section 48985

EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card | 44

3. By which of the following methods is the Anti-Bullying Policy or Hate Motivated Behavior Policy made available and/or distributed? (Check all that apply)

Posted in a publicly accessible area in all schools and offices

California Education Code §234.1 (c) and (e)

Available on the district’s or schools’ website(s)

California Education Code §234.6

California Education Code §234.3

In print form, mailed to, or sent home with students 4. Has a Complaint Policy and Form been translated and made publicly available in languages other than English?

Yes No

California Education Code Section 234.1(c)

5. By which of the following methods is the Complaint Policy and Form made available and/or distributed? (Check all that apply)

Available on the district’s or schools’ website(s)

California Education Code Section 234.1(c) and (e)

In print form, mailed to, or sent home with students

California Education Code §234.3

Posted in a publicly accessible area

6. Does the district require schools to track complaints related to violations of the Anti-Bullying Policy and/or Hate Motivated Behavior Policy?

Yes No

a. Optional: If yes, by what method(s) does the district collect or track this data?

Short answer

Optional: Please upload the district’s AntiBullying Policy and/or Hate Motivated Behavior Policy and Complaint Policy and Form here.

Policy Upload

California Education Code Section 48985

Best Practice under California Education Code §234.6 (requiring posting on district’s website of “[a]ny additional information a local education agency deems important for preventing bullying and harassment”) California Education Code §234.1(b) and (f)

LGBTQ+ Visibility and General School Climate: The following questions focus on the district’s efforts and strategies regarding the visibility of LGBTQ+ individuals and the overall climate of inclusivity and acceptance in the schools. 7. Do schools within the district recognize and observe specific days or events related to LGBTQ+ contributions, individuals, or themes? For instance, do they host activities, presentations, or educational sessions for occasions such as Pride Month, Harvey Milk Day, LGBTQ+ History Month, Day of Silence, or National Coming Out Day?

Yes No

a. If yes, what activities, presentations, or celebrations are hosted? How many such events were held in the 2024-2025 academic year?

Short answer

8. Schools in California are generally required to treat all clubs equally. Either all types of student clubs, including GSAs, are allowed, or no student clubs are allowed to be formed.

Yes No

California Education Code §218

9. Does the district allow words such as “gay” and “queer” to be used in naming GSA or other affinity clubs?

Yes No Not applicable

Best Practice

10. How many middle schools in your district have a GSA or other similar club or organization?

All 50% or more Some, but fewer than 50% None

California Education Code §218

11. How many high schools in your district have a GSA or other similar club or organization?

All 50% or more Some, but fewer than 50% None

California Education Code §218

12. Is the district’s dress code gender neutral (any requirements are applicable to all students, rather than a code for boys and a code for girls)?

Yes No

Best Practice

Best Practice California Education Code encourages schools to use the resources provided by the Department of Education (California Education Code §218) Schools are required in social studies curriculum to recognize the contributions of LGBTQ Americans (California Education Code §51204.5)

California Education Code §234.1(d)

Does the district allow the formation of GSA or other affinity clubs?

45 | EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

California Education Code §234.1(d)

A. If the district has implemented one or more dress code or appearance policies, do each of these policies allow students to wear clothing that aligns with their gender identity or gender expression?

Yes No Not applicable (The district doesn’t have a dress code)

Best Practice

Transgender / Gender Non-Conforming Students: The following questions refer to the district’s policies and procedures around supporting Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Students. These policies are sometimes called Gender Support Policies. 13. Does the district’s policies and practices (e.g., a Gender Support Policy) establish protections for the privacy of transgender or gender nonconforming students’ birth names and assigned sexes through (check all that apply):

a process for changing a transgender or gender non-conforming student’s name and gender for purposes of official school records (e.g., student transcripts) or databases a process for changing a transgender or gender nonconforming student’s name and gender for purposes of “unofficial” school records (e.g., attendance sheets, school IDs, report cards, diplomas)

CSBA Guidance on Gender Support Policies (https://www.csba.org/-/media/ CSBA/Files/Advocacy/LegalAdvocacy/ Legal-Guidance-TransgenderLegal-10-2022) California Education Code §Section 220 California Education Code §221.5 Guidance from the California Department of Education (https://www. cde.ca.gov/pd/ee/supportlgbtq.asp)

Require that documents reflecting a transgender or gender non-conforming student’s birth name and assigned sex be segregated (physically and electronically) from records reflecting the student’s asserted gender identity and name No policy on protections for transgender students. 14. Does the district’s policies and practices (e.g., Gender Support Policy) (check all that apply):

Require that teachers and other personnel refer to transgender or gender non-conforming students according to the student’s asserted name and gender identity (e.g., asserted pronouns) Allow students to use school facilities, such as restrooms and locker rooms, that correspond with their gender identity during regular school hours, before and after school, as well as during field trips or any off-campus activities Allow students to participate in any sex-segregated classes (e.g. physical education classes), elective programs (e.g. boys choir), and competitive sports that correspond with the student’s gender identity No policy on school participation for transgender students.

15. Does every school in your district have at least one bathroom designated as all-gender or nongendered that is located in an easily accessible area (e.g. not located in the nurse’s office or teachers’ lounge and unlocked during school hours)?

Yes No

Optional 15A: Describe your district’s current outlook on bathroom accessibility and list any specific challenges or obstacles your district has encountered in your progress toward establishing all-gender or non-gendered bathrooms.

Short answer

Optional: Please upload the district’s Gender Support Policy or policies and Gender Support Plan Template here.

Policy Upload

California Education Code § 35292.5 (b)(1)

Curriculum: The following questions ask about the district’s educational content and instruction, specifically addressing the inclusion and representation of LGBTQ+ topics, history, and perspectives. 16. How frequently does the district review textbooks and curricular materials used in schools?

Every 24 months or more frequently

17. Has the district adopted instructional materials for history and social studies that align with the FAIR Education Act, specifically those inclusive of the roles and contributions of LGBTQ+ individuals? (Check all that apply.)

Elementary School Middle School High School None of the above

Less frequently than every 24 months California Education Code §51204.5 California Education Code §60040

EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card | 46

18. In which of the following subjects do the district’s adopted instructional materials align with the FAIR Education Act by including the contributions of LGBTQ+ individuals? (Check all that apply.)

History Social Studies / Government

California Education Code §51204.5

18A. Does your district adopt instructional materials that include contributions of LGBTQ+ individuals in other subjects beyond those required in the FAIR Education Act?

English Language Arts Science (any discipline) Mathematics Music and the Arts Physical Education and Sports Other

Best Practice

19. For sexual health education, is student participation mandatory (unless a parent or guardian submits an affirmative optout), or is the program optional (requiring parents to opt-in on behalf of their child)?

Mandatory/Opt-out only Optional/Opt-in only

California Education Code §51934

20. For HIV prevention education, is student participation mandatory (unless a parent or guardian submits an affirmative optout), or is the program optional (requiring parents to opt-in on behalf of their child)?

Mandatory/Opt-out only Optional/Opt-in only

California Education Code §51930, 51933-51934

21. Does the sexual health curriculum include discussions about a variety of body types and relationships, beyond those of individuals who identify with the gender they were assigned at birth and relationships that are heterosexual?

Yes No

Optional: Please upload materials to show the breadth of LGBTQ+ inclusion in your curriculum and sexual health education (eg. list of LGBTQ+ library books, curriculum reviews, etc.)

Short answer: Need attachment option

California Education Code §60040

California Education Code §51938 California Education Code §51939

California Education Code §51933

STAFF SUPPORTS, POLICIES, AND BEST PRACTICES Teacher/Staff Climate: This section pertains to your district’s stance on anti-discrimination policies concerning staff. 22. Does the Teacher/Staff Anti-Bullying or NonDiscrimination Policy explicitly prohibit bullying based on the following: (Check all that apply.)

Actual or perceived gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation

California Education Code §200 California Education Code §201 California Education Code §220 California Education Code §234.1-6 California Education Code §32282

23. Is there a district-wide group or other association for LGBTQ+ identifying teachers and/or other staff?

Yes No

Best Practice

24. Are there campus-specific affinity groups or other associations for LGBTQ+ identifying teachers and/or other staff?

Yes No

Best Practice

a. If there are not district-wide or campus-specific affinity groups, are there specific barriers (e.g., staffing, lack of interest, or fear of retaliation) you have heard are preventing their formation?

Short Answer

25. Has the district explicitly informed staff that they are allowed to publicly display LGBTQ+ symbols such as safe space stickers and rainbow flags in the classroom?

Yes No

Optional: Please upload your district’s Staff Anti-Discrimination Policy here.

Policy Upload

California Education Code §218

Cultural Competency Training of District Employees: This section asks about staff training focused on diversity, anti-bias, cultural competency, and/or equity and inclusion. Please enter the resources or organizations utilized to facilitate training that included LGBTQ+ specific topics. 26. For which of the following school types does the district offer trainings related to LGBTQ+ topics? Select all that apply.

Elementary School Middle School High School None of the above

47 | EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

AB 493 AB 5 California Education Code §218

27. Does the district list LGBTQ+ specific training among its Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) goals or activities?

Yes No

California Education Code §218.3

28. How many hours of LGBTQ+ specific training are certificated employees of the district required to receive in a 12-month period?

0 1 2+

California Education Code §218.3

29. How many hours of LGBTQ+ specific training are classified employees of the district required to receive in a 12-month period?

0 1 2+

30. How many hours of LGBTQ+ specific training are employees serving TK-6 students required to receive in a 12-month period?

0 1 2+

California Education Code §218.3

31. How many hours of LGBTQ+ specific training are employees serving TK-6 students required to receive in a 12-month period?

0 1 2+

Best Practice

32. In the last 24 months, which LGBTQ+ specific training topics has the district offered:

General cultural competency (e.g., gender and sexual diversity, terminology, etc.) Policy (e.g., district policies on antibullying, suicide prevention, etc.) Curriculum (e.g., teaching LGBTQ+ topics in social science instruction, etc.) Other (option to provide a description)

Optional: At EQCA, we want to help identify resources. What training or ERGs have been most helpful to you?

Short answer

If these trainings are facilitated internally, please include the Employee Resource Group (ERG) or trainer’s name and contact information. Optional: What topics would you like to learn more about?

Short answer

COMMUNITY SUPPORTS, POLICIES, AND BEST PRACTICES The SAFETY Act: This section asks about district policies that protect students from having their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression disclosed to a third party without their consent, consistent with the SAFETY Act (AB 1955). 33. Does the district have a policy that ensures that employees are not required to disclose any information related to a pupil’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to any other person without the pupil’s consent unless otherwise required by state or federal law?

Yes No

California Education Code 220.1, 220.3, 220.5

Suicide Prevention: The following questions refer to the district’s policies and procedures around suicide prevention. 34. Does the district’s policy on pupil suicide prevention (grades 1-12) specify procedures related to the following (check all that apply)

Suicide prevention

California Education Code §215

Suicide intervention Suicide postvention (support for those impacted by suicide) Informing parents or guardians of the policy

35. Does the policy specifically address the needs of LGBTQ+ kids, teens, or young adults?

Yes No

California Education Code §215 (3)(D)

36. Has the district established a mandatory suicide Yes, it is mandatory and completed by all staff. awareness and prevention training program for staff? Yes, but it is not mandatory or not completed by all staff.

California Education Code §215 (4)

No 36a. Does this training address risk factors specific to marginalized groups, including LGBTQ+ youth?

Yes No

EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card | 48

37. As part of the training program, has the district identified and publicized relevant and appropriate mental health services outside of the school site for kids, teens, and young adults (and their families) in your community?

Yes No

Optional: Please upload or share a link to the relevant district’s suicide prevention policies.

Policy Upload

California Education Code §215 (4)(B)

Optional 38. Optional: Share a success story of LGBTQ+ belonging in your district. This is your chance to highlight your district or even a specific school, teacher, or event.

Short answer format

Disclaimer: Any stories shared might be used in the report card.

APPENDIX III: RESOURCES EDUCATION RESOURCES School Climate in California - State Snapshot https://glisten.org/wp-content/ uploads/2026/02/CaliforniaSnapshot-2019.pdf CA Department of Education Supporting LGBT Students Training and Resources Homepage https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/pl/supportlgbtq.asp Welcoming Schools, Human Rights Campaign https://www.hrc.org/our-work/ welcoming-schools Starting a GSA in 10 Steps https://www.gsanetwork.org/ pre2020-resources-archive/ resources/start-a-gsa-10-steps Supporting Transgender and Gender Diverse Students in Schools: Key Recommendations for School Administrators. https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/programs/safesupportive/lgbt/school-administrators.pdf. Welcoming Schools: Resources for Your School: Human Rights Campaign Foundation www.welcomingschools.org/ resources/school-tips/ Creating safe and inclusive teams for LGBTQ+ Athletes https://defendinged.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/04/GLSEN_ CTG2021_Coaches_Guide.pdf Schools In Transition A Guide for Supporting Transgender Students in K-12 Schools https://www.bcoe.org/documents/ Universal%20Wellness/LGBTQ%20Resources/

SCHOOLS%20IN%20TRANSITION%20-%20 A%20GUIDE%20FOR%20SUPPORTING%20 TRANSGENDER%20STUDENTS%20 IN%20K-12%20SCHOOLS.pdf Separation and Stigma: Transgender Youth & School Facilities. Movement Advancement Project, National Center for Transgender Equality, National Education Association, GLSEN, 2017. https://mapresearch.org/report/ separation-and-stigma-transgenderyouth-school-facilities/ California LGBTQ Youth Report: Human Rights Campaign Foundation https://reports.hrc.org/2023lgbtq-youth-report FAIR Education Act: Information and Resources for Educators and Families. http://www.faireducationact.com. Providing a Safe, Nondiscriminatory School Environment for Transgender and Gender-Nonconforming Students https://www.csba.org/~/media/ e68e16a652d34eada2bfdcd9668b1c8f.ashx

documents/2026/02/educationcomplaint-guide.pdf/ National Center for Transgender Equality - Know Your Rights: Schools https://transequality.org/knowyour-rights/schools. LGBT Bar Association https://lgbtqlawyersla.org Transgender Law Center https://transgenderlawcenter.org/ Lambda Legal https://lambdalegal.org/ CA vs. Hate https://www.cavshate.org/ HEALTH RESOURCES CA LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network https://californialgbtqhealth.org/

GSA Network Resource Library https://www.gsanetwork.org/resources

Talking About Transgender People and Restrooms https://mapresearch.org/messagingguide/talking-about-transgenderpeople-and-restrooms/

LEGAL RESOURCES

DATA RESOURCES

Legal Services Clearinghouse https://legal.eqca.org

LGBT Equality Maps https://mapresearch.org/equality/

ACLU Know your Rights for Students https://www.aclu.org/know-yourrights/students-rights

FAMILY RESOURCES

ACLU Know your Rights for LGBTQ People https://www.aclu.org/knowyour-rights/lgbtq-rights ACLU Education Complaint Guide https://www.aauw-ca.org/

PFLAG Support https://pflag.org/get-support/

49 | EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

Trans Family Support Service https://transfamilysos.org/

APPENDIX IV: SAMPLE POLICIES BULLYING PREVENTION Sample Policy for Bullying Prevention California Department of Education. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/ se/samplepolicy.asp

STAFF NON-DISCRIMINATION Model Staff Non-Discrimination Policy CSBA, Portola Valley School District. https://cdnsm5-ss11.sharpschool. com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_60962/ File/BP%204030.pdf

TRANSGENDER AND GENDERNONCONFORMING STUDENTS Model School District Policy on Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students. GLSEN & National Center for Transgender Equality. https://transequality.org/sites/default/ files/images/resources/trans_school_ district_model_policy_FINAL.pdf

SUICIDE PREVENTION Model School District Policy on Suicide Prevention. American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, The Trevor Project, American School Counselor Association, National Association of School Psychologists. https://afsp.org/model-schoolpolicy-on-suicide-prevention

EQ U A L I T Y C A L I F O R N I A | 2026 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card | 50

Equality California brings the voices of LGBTQ+ people and allies to institutions of power in California and across the United States, striving to create a world that is healthy, just, and fully equal for all LGBTQ+ people. We advance civil rights and social justice by inspiring, advocating, and mobilizing through an inclusive movement that works tirelessly on behalf of those we serve.

EQUALITY CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE LOS ANGELES HEADQUARTERS 1150 S Olive Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90015 (323) 848-9801 OTHER LOCATIONS Sacramento San Francisco San Diego Washington, DC Central Valley Las Vegas CONNECT WITH US!

eqca.org