Fire department grooming policies have always been a source of discussion and debate. It was certainly easier in the old days when departments could just tell their all-male workforce to cut their hair short, shave off their facial hair and refrain from getting a tattoo — assuming they complied. But those days are long gone.
The fire service today includes people of different genders, races, ages and ethnicities. Grooming standards designed for one sex or demographic simply don’t work anymore.
| READ NEXT: Policy and procedure in the fire service: The crucial difference
Military roots — and adjustments
Consider hair standards. Decades ago, many fire departments had hair standards that were only designed for men. When women were hired, some departments tried to impose those strict standards on them as well, requiring women to get military-style haircuts to be in compliance. This was clearly not workable, and some women went to extreme lengths to adhere to the policy, such as wearing compliant wigs over their naturally longer hair.
The fire service often characterizes itself as a paramilitary organization, so it is not surprising that our policies on grooming standards reflected those in the American military. But those policies have also undergone major changes in recent years.
In 2021, the Army made some substantial changes to its existing grooming policy, allowing for more latitude related to hair management, makeup, jewelry and tattoos. Some of these policies were aimed at accommodating soldiers of different races, such as allowing cornrows and locs.
However, in 2025, the military pivoted again on grooming standards, making requirements stricter and more specific in some areas, but more lenient in others. For example, hair and makeup standards for women have been significantly tightened, as have facial hair requirements for men, while tolerance for tattoos has been expanded.
Fire department policy shifts
Unlike the military, fire department grooming policies are developed at the local level, and there is significant variation among them. Whereas one policy states that all hairstyles “shall be neatly trimmed, arranged and conservatively cut,” others specify the exact length someone’s bangs can be. One policy explicitly allows ponytails for women; another expressly forbids them.
One area where there has been noticeable movement in grooming policies is tattoos. Older grooming policies often still require that any visible tattoo be covered while in uniform. However, fire departments, like the military, are recognizing the reality that American attitudes and practices regarding tattoos have changed — and that change is reflected in newer policies.
According to Pew Research, nearly half of Millennial or Gen Z individuals have at least one tattoo. Women are as likely to have tattoos as are men. Whereas tattoos may have once been perceived as fringe or alienating, now it is normal to see one on the arm of your medical provider or child’s preschool teacher.
For example, the Los Angeles Fire Department had a policy in place until 2024 prohibiting tattoos from being visible while on duty. That policy has now changed to allow visible tattoos with some exceptions, such as tattoos on one’s face, head or neck. (The Army’s policy is actually more liberal in this regard.)
The bottom line with grooming standards should always be safety and professionalism. Long, loose hair is a safety hazard, and most people agree it should be restrained when on duty, but exactly how that should be done may be a matter of debate. Likewise, while most organizations have expanded their tattoo policies to be more inclusive, every policy still prohibits the display of obviously offensive body art. (The LAFD policy devotes nearly an entire page to clarifying what types of tattoos would be prohibited based on this standard.)
Maintaining respectful dialogue is key to developing grooming policies that are fair and functional. This type of dialogue was utilized when the LAFD recently modified its tattoo policy — they actively reached out to both members of the organization and the community for input on the issue.
Final thoughts
It is reasonable for fire departments to have uniform policies regarding professional appearance. On-duty firefighters are representatives of their departments first. They must present an image that embodies trust and must always maintain a state of preparedness for any emergency response. When grooming policies are framed around these priorities, they are likely to achieve the greatest buy-in from department members and those in the communities they serve.
