Williams Institute at UCLA Law School

/ /

New Study Reveals What LGBT Adults Aged 50 and Older Experienced During the COVID-19 Pandemic

LGBT older adults, defined in this study as those over 50 years old, face significant and unique challenges to health and well-being as they age. They are more likely than their straight/cisgender peers to experience social and economic barriers that prevent healthy aging. Research has shown that the COVID-19 pandemic has increased economic and social instability for LGBT people of all ages. However, precarity is not new for LGBT older adults and COVID-19 may be viewed as part of a continuum of disruptive events that impact the aging experiences of LGBT older adults.

Using data from the U.S. Census Household Pulse Survey (HPS) collected July 21, 2021 to August 8, 2022, we explore the demographics, health, and economic experiences of older LGBT adults during the COVID-19 pandemic as compared with straight/cisgender older adults. This analysis used the first U.S. Census Bureau data that has included questions about sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), which gives researchers an opportunity to use a nationally representative sample to describe the health and well-being of LGBT and straight/cisgender older adults. The analytic sample was limited to 533,179 survey respondents who were over age 50 and could be classified as LGBT or non-LGBT based on their responses to the survey questions.

Key Findings

Demographic Characteristics 

  • More people aged 50–64 identified as LGBT than those aged 65 years and older (4.4% vs. 2.4%, respectively).
  • In both 50–64 and 65+ age cohorts, more men than women identified as LGBT; the opposite is true for younger LGBT adults.
  • In both the age cohorts, more LGBT than straight/cisgender adults obtained higher levels of education (50–64 cohort: 67% vs. 59%; 65+ cohort: 71% vs. 57%, respectively), and more LGBT adults lived alone (50–64 cohort: 18% vs. 8%; 65+ cohort: 25% vs. 15%, respectively).
  • Although far more LGBT people had never been married (50–64 cohort: 36% vs. 8%; 65+ cohort: 29% vs. 4%, respectively), LGBT and straight/cisgender people had similar rates of divorce/separation in both cohorts (50–64 cohort: 20% vs. 21%; 65+ cohort: 21% vs. 17%, respectively).

Source: U.S. Census Household Pulse Survey (July 2021–August 2022)
Note: Bolded values indicate LGBT people are statistically different from straight/cisgender people.

  • Overall, LGBT people showed more economic insecurity compared to straight/cisgender people. In both cohorts, more LGBT than straight/cisgender people received SNAP benefits and had household incomes that fell below 100% of the federal poverty level.
  • Not only did LGBT people have lower incomes and were more food insecure than straight/ cisgender people, they also more frequently depended on alternative forms of income and assistance to support themselves, such as relying on credit cards or loans, savings or retirement accounts, borrowing money from friends and family, and government nutrition and rental assistance to supplement their incomes.
  • Additionally in both cohorts, more LGBT people than straight/cisgender people rented their homes instead of owned them (50–64 cohort: 31% vs. 21%; 65+ cohort: 21% vs. 13%, respectively).

Source: U.S. Census Household Pulse Survey (July 2021–August 2022)
Note: Bolded values indicate that race/ethnicity is statistically different from White.

Among LGBT people there was pronounced economic disparity by race/ethnicity. In both cohorts, more Black, Hispanic, and Multiracial LGBT adults had household incomes that fell below the federal poverty level compared to White and Asian LGBT adults. Among those aged 50–64, exponentially more Black LGBT people were receiving SNAP benefits, while few Asian LGBT people were. In the 65+ cohort more Hispanic than White LGBT people were receiving SNAP benefits.

Additionally, compared to White LGBT people, more Black LGBT adults from both cohorts reported not having enough food to eat (50–64 cohort: 9% vs. 15%; 65+ cohort: 3% vs. 14%), renting rather than owning their homes (50–64 cohort: 24% vs. 53%; 65+ cohort: 18% vs. 51%), and having trouble paying household expenses (50–64 cohort: 28% vs. 46%; 65+ cohort: 18% vs. 41% ).

  • Compared to White LGBT people, more Hispanic LGBT adults from both cohorts reported not having enough food to eat (50–64 cohort: 9% vs. 21%; 65+ cohort: 3% vs. 14%), renting rather than owning their homes (50–64 cohort: 24% vs. 46%; 65+ cohort: 18% vs. 39%), having trouble paying household expenses (50–64 cohort: 28% vs. 47%; 65+ cohort: 18% vs. 40%), and keeping the temperature of their homes at unsafe levels (50–64 cohort: 20% vs 33%; 65+ cohort: 14% vs. 27%).
  • In both cohorts, compared to White LGBT adults, Multiracial LGBT adults reported keeping the temperature of their homes at an unsafe level (50–64 cohort: 20% vs. 31%; 65+ cohort: 14% vs. 33%, respectively).
  • Additionally, among those 65 years of age and older, the proportion of Black and Hispanic LGBT people who reported living in poverty, being food insecure, having trouble paying bills, expenses, and rent were about twice that of White LGBT people.

Health and Well-Being

Source: U.S. Census Household Pulse Survey (July 2021–October 2021)
Note: Bolded values indicate LGBT people are statistically different from straight/cisgender people.

  • In both age cohorts, almost all LGBT people had received a COVID-19 vaccine and this proportion was slightly higher than among the straight/cisgender cohorts.
  • Additionally, in both age cohorts, White and Asian LGBT adults showed the highest rates of COVID-19 vaccination.
  • Among those who had not received the vaccine, more LGBT than straight/cisgender adults in both cohorts said they planned to get the vaccine (50-64 cohort: 23% vs.; 65+ cohort: 21% vs. 15%, respectively).
  • Similar proportions of LGBT and straight/cisgender people in both cohorts had tested positive or been diagnosed with COVID-19 (50–64 cohort: 38% vs. 41%; 65+ cohort: 25% vs. 28%, respectively).
  • Among the 50–64 cohort, 50% of Asian, 46% of Hispanic, 43% of Multiracial, 36% of White, and 30% of Black LGBT adults said they had COVID-19.
  • Among the 65+ cohort, 45% of Hispanic, 36% of Asian, 23% of Multiracial, 22% of White, and 14% of White LGBT adults said they had COVID-19.

Source: U.S. Census Household Pulse Survey (July 2021–August 2022)
Note: Bolded values indicate LGBT people are statistically different from straight/cisgender people.

  • In both cohorts, more LGBT than straight/cisgender people reported experiencing anxiety and depression symptoms (sx).
  • In addition, more LGBT than straight/cisgender people in both cohorts were prescribed medication for their mental health (50–64 cohort: 35% vs. 23%; 65+ cohort: 29% vs. 20%, respectively), were going to therapy (50–64 cohort: 18% vs. 8%; 65+ cohort: 9% vs. 5%, respectively), and reported needing help from a mental health professional but not getting it (50–64 cohort: 16% vs. 8%; 65+ cohort: 7% vs. 4%, respectively).
  • Compared to White LGBT people, more Multiracial LGBT people were experiencing anxiety and depression symptoms in the 50–64 cohort (Anxiety sx: 30% vs. 40%; Depression sx: 22% vs. 31%, respectively), and more Multiracial LGBT people were experiencing depression symptoms in the 65+ cohort (12% vs. 36%, respectively).

Source: U.S. Census Household Pulse Survey (July 2021–August 2022)
Note: Bolded values indicate that race/ethnicity is statistically different from White.

  • Compared to White and Multiracial LGBT people in the 50–64 cohort, fewer Hispanic, Black, and Asian LGBT people were prescribed medication; more Multiracial LGBT people were going to therapy compared to White and Hispanic LGBT people, and more Multiracial LGBT people needed therapy but did not get it compared to White and Asian LGBT people.

Source: U.S. Census Household Pulse Survey (July 2021–August 2022)
Note: Bolded values indicate that race/ethnicity is statistically different from White and Black.

  • Compared to White and Black LGBT people in the 65+ cohort, fewer Asian LGBT people were prescribed medication or were going to therapy.

/ /

LGBQ people are six times more likely than the general public to be stopped by police.

Research has shown that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (LGBQ) youth and adults are disproportionately incarcerated. The root cause of LGBQ overrepresentation in the criminalization system is unclear, but scholars and advocates have pointed to police surveillance as one important factor.12 Reviews of LGBQ people’s experiences with police indicate a history of targeted surveillance—much of this documented in public spaces, like parks, and sex work domains.3 Here we present findings of a study of frequency and types of police interactions in a national probability sample of LGBQ people (Generations study). We compare these findings to results from the Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS)—a survey of the U.S. general population conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (see the Methods Note below for additional methodological details). 

Results

Prevalence of contacts with the police 

A larger proportion of LGBQ adults compared with the general population reported contacts with the police over a one-year period. This included being approached by the police, being involved in an incident that involved the police, and self-initiated contact with the police (Table 1). Compared with the general population, almost six times as many LGBQ people were stopped by the police in a public space (6% vs. 1%), and nearly seven times as many LGBQ people were stopped by the police for reasons other than involving a vehicle (driving or being a passenger). Additionally, twice as many LGBQ people approached or sought help from the police (22% vs. 11%) as compared to those in the general population. 

Other findings include more common experiences of police stops while driving among LGBQ (19%) than non-LGBQ (8%) people, being a passenger (12% vs. 2%), or being involved in an accident to which the police were called (6% vs. 3%). The findings were similar across sex and race. In general, more LGBQ adults, both White and people of color, as well as female and male adults, reported contacts with the policy as compared with the general population. The groups did not differ in the average amount of contact with the police. Both adult LGBQ and people in the general population reported an average of 1.8 police contacts in one year, and this did not differ by sex and race. Among LGBQ people, 13% said they did not call the police even when they needed help (this was not measured in the general population so we cannot compare this figure). There were some statistically significant differences between Black and White respondents in the PPCS, but they are similar to the differences reported here for the general category of non-White. There were no statistically significant differences between Black and White respondents in the Generations sample (not shown). 

Satisfaction with police interactions 

The surveys then asked people to reflect on the most recent contact they have had with the police. Most people reported satisfaction with the police response in their most recent contact (Table 2). But compared with the general population, fewer LGBQ adults agreed that police behaved properly during their contact (81% vs. 91%). Additionally, more LGBQ people were unlikely to contact the police again (22%) as compared with the general population (6%). Fewer female LGBQ adults report satisfaction with the police (69%) compared to females in the general population (85%). Fewer female and White LGBQ people reported agreement that the police behaved properly (73% and 80%, respectively) compared to their peers in the general population (91% and 91%, respectively). Lastly, fewer female LBQ (33%), and both White and non-White LGBQ people (22% and 21%, respectively), reported that they were less likely to contact the police in the future compared to their general population peers (6%, 6%, and 7%, respectively). 

*Bolded numbers indicate that the LGBQ group proportion is statistically significantly different than the general population proportion.
#The general population survey asks about participants’ “sex” with response options “male” and “female.” The data on LGBQ people come from the Generations study, which differentiated between assigned sex at birth and current gender identity. The LGBQ categories for female and male refer to sex assigned at birth. We use the term sex for consistency with the general population data. Transgender people were not surveyed in the Generations study and were not identifiable in the general population survey.

*Bolded numbers indicate that the LGBQ group proportion is statistically significantly different than the general population proportion.
#The general population survey asks about participants’ “sex” with response options “male” and “female.” The data on LGBQ people come from the Generations study, which differentiated between assigned sex at birth and current gender identity. The LGBQ categories for female and male refer to sex assigned at birth. We use the term sex for consistency with the general population data. Transgender people were not surveyed in the Generations study and were not identifiable in the general population survey.

Summary

More LGBQ adults than people in the general population have had interactions with the police, including when they were approached by the police and when they contacted the police. When we make these comparisons to the general population, we use this as a proxy for comparison to heterosexual cisgender adults, who make up 95.5% of the general population. The much higher rates of LGBQ adults reporting being approached by the police is consistent with the idea that LGBQ people are over-policed and raises the issue of bias-based profiling of LGBT communities in general.4 LGBQ adults are also less likely than people in the general population to report that the police “behaved properly” or that they would contact the police in the future. This may reflect the lower levels of trust the LGBTQ community has with the police, perhaps as a consequence of both over or under-policing, such as being stopped by the police for no cause, or when the police do not adequately respond to crimes against LGBT individuals. Notably, while LGBQ adults do not differ from the general population regarding satisfaction with the police, LGBQ women were less satisfied compared to women in the general population, which is perhaps a function of criminalization of non-heteronormativity of LGBQ women. Although data about transgender people were not available in the datasets analyzed for this brief, research indicates that transgender people, particularly women of color, are at heightened risk of negative police interactions, including harassment and assault.56 As police reform is being discussed nationally, it is important that reforms include attention to policing of LGBTQ populations across race and gender. 

Methods Note

Dataset 

To obtain comparisons between the general population and LGBQ adults in the United States, we utilized the Bureau of Justice Statistics Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS) 20157 for the general adult population prevalence estimate and the Generations study,0 a national probability sample of LGBQ adults, for the LGBQ prevalence estimate. Weighted proportions and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using the recommended sampling weights. Analyses were performed using Stata 14. Statistically significant differences were determined by non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals (assuming an alpha of 0.05).