11/13/13 8:25 PM 2013 2013 11/13/13 8:25 PM 2013 l lAw l lAw A A icip icip l w lA A of MuN icip of MuN tioN tioN of MuN luA luA tioN evA evA luA evA wide wide wide tioN tioN tioN Municipal Equality Index Equality Municipal A NA Municipal Equality Index Equality Municipal A NA Municipal Equality Index Equality Municipal A NA
2013 Municipal2013 Equality Municipal Index Equality A NAtioNwide Index evAlu AAtio NNA tioof MuNwideNicipA evAl lAwluAtioN of MuNicipAl lAw (202) 628-4160 (800) 777-4723 esk: d ree: t (202) 347-5323 : (202) 216-1572 roN f oll- t fAx: 1640 Rhode Island Ave. N.W. 1640 Rhode Island 20036-3278 DC Washington, f ttY HRC-cover.indd 1 (202) 628-4160 (202) 628-4160 (800) 777-4723 (800) 777-4723 esk: esk: d d ree: ree: t t (202) 347-5323 (202) 347-5323 : (202) 216-1572 : (202) 216-1572 roN f oll- roN f oll- fAx: 1640 Rhode Island Ave. N.W. 1640 Rhode DC 20036-3278 Washington, f ttY t fAx: 1640 Rhode Island Ave. N.W. 1640 Rhode DC 20036-3278 Washington, f ttY t HRC-cover.indd 1 AckNowledgeMeNts tAble of coNteNts
Frequently Asked Questions An Introduction
HowAbout weR etH teH eseAut HoR HowtH eAR Meei t HteeAM scoRes cANWe o oweNly many cities thanks iN tost JessieAtes 4 TheA Municipal Letter from Chad Equality Griffin, PresidentIndex wouldof the Human not Rightshave Campaign been possible Foundation without the valuable 5 A Letter from Rebecca Isaacs, Executive Director of the Equality Federation Institute citiesCathryn cH OakleyoseN? is Legislative Counsel, cAThelcul 2013Ated? MEI is a project that witSheffield,H good Sam lA Anderson,ws get Limorgood Finkel contributions made by state and local advocates. A particular thanks therefore goes ThisState year, and the Municipal cities rated Advocacy are: the at the Citiesrequires are rated a significant on a scale breadth of 0-100, and scoandR es?Jennifer Pike who jumped in when 6 “Enduring Growth for Cities Is Driven by Diversity,” by Richard Florida 50 Humanstate capitals, Rights Campaign the 150 largest Foundation. Inbased depth on ofthe expertise city’s laws, to pullpolicies, off, and Definitelywe needed not. extraThe MEI hands, was and also to out to the following: citiesaddition in the to United conducting, States, managing, the 3 and benefits,fortunately and services. the team There of people are who specificallythe law fellows designed and tointerns measure who helpedthe largestpublishing cities theor municipalities Municipal Equality in Index, 100support standard this points project and is 20 more bonus than up lawsout and throughout policies theof the process. municipality, Paul eachshe state, is responsible the city home for assisting to the state pointsto the (bonus task. points are awarded for not Guequierrethe state. While has been state an lawindispensable might How It Works state’sand largestlocal legislators public university and advocates programming or actions that apply addfriend to a city’sto and score, a voice positive of municipal state 12 Executive Summary (includingin enacting undergraduate laws that further and LGBT to someAs ever, but this not project all cities). simply For would more not lawequality. is not necessary Aisha Satterwhite for a city has to been 14 2013 MEI Scorecard graduateequality. enrollment) She is a member and 75 of cities HRC informationhave been on possible the scoring without system, Sarah scorea patient 100 points. and helpful In fact, guide. some Janice cities 16 City Selection andFoundation’s municipalities field that team. have high seeWarbelow page 17. and Whitney Lovell, each withoutHughes positive and Bob state Villaflor law did made score sure 17 Scoring Criteria Parts I - VI proportions of same-sex couples of whom dispensed truly incredible 100everything points in wasthis beautiful,year’s index. informative 26 Acknowledging Context (seeCathryn page 16is afor member more information).of the Virginia wHeRamountse did of wisdomtHe iN andfoRMAtio support—notN and on time, and Soung Wiser and • Not All Cities Are Created Equal Futurebar andeditions practiced of the family Municipal law before fotoR mentiontHese elbowsco Resgrease—and are is tCarolineHis A RANkiBrickell Nofg The of General tHe • Accounting for City Size Equalityjoining Index the Human will continue Rights Campaignto coresponsibleMe fRoM? for making this project bestDesign cities Co. are fo responsibleR lgbt people for the • Balancing State and Local Laws increaseFoundation. the number She is aof graduate cities rated. of Theactually MEI team happen. conducted the to incrediblelive iN? design. George Mason University School of research, compiled it into a draft No. This is not a ranking of a city’s • Understanding Restrictive State Law didLaw you and k SmithNow College. tHAt ___ isN’t scorecard,This year and the sentMEI owesit to the a particular city for atmospherefiNAlly, or but quality especi of life. AItlly, is we • Effect of Enforcement and Lived Experience A city? review.debt Citiesof gratitude had an to opportunityMichael Porcello, to an evaluationtHANk ou of Rthe p ARcity’stNeR lawss and At tHe Yes. A few of the places rated in reviewResearch the draft Fellow scorecard Extraordinaire, and offer who policiesequ andAlity an examinationfedeRAtio ofN. how the MEI are “census-designated anyprovided feedback vital prior research, to publication. logistical, and inclusiveThis partnership city services has are been of aLGBT delight and places” that are not incorporated as moral support to the MEI 2013. The people.has brought Some high-scoringreal value to the cities project What We Found cities. In that case, we rated the local dramatic expansion of this project may not feel truly welcoming for all from the start. It has been a particular 38 Summary of Results government that actually serves that would not have been possible without LGBT people, and some low-scoring pleasure to work so closely with Ian 41 Table of 2013 Scores census-designated place, which is him, and the MEI benefited greatly from cities may feel more welcoming than Palmquist, and the MEI owes a real 54 Take Action for Equality usually the county. This is explained his months of hard work collecting, their policies might reflect. debt of gratitude to Ian, A.J. Bockelman, 55 Changes to the MEI in 2014 further on page 16. managing and assessing thousands of Brandie Balken, Chuck Smith, Katie 58 Acknowledgements pieces of data. We offer him a heartfelt Belanger and Ted Martin for sharing acknowledgement of everything that he their thoughtful advice about growing contributed to this project and we will and improving the MEI. We thank miss him next year. those Equality Federation partners who Success Stories shared their story in this publication. Research ProcessPamela O’Leary joined the MEI team The participation of so many state 13 San Antonio, Texas by Mayor Julian Castro this year and jumped in right away— leaders has made this project a much 18 Missoula, Montana by City Councilmember Caitlin Copple The information reflected in this Ourwe team are sentthankful out fora letter her enthusiasm, by Themore feedback robust window and useful lasted educational several tool, 22 Equality Maryland by Executive Director Carrie Evans publication was gathered by the emaildedication, and certified and many mail hardin April hours to of months.and a Finally,very special cities thanks were sentgoes out to 29 Atlanta, Georgia by Mayor Kasim Reed MEI team and compiled into draft mayorswork. and Her city contribution managers was notifying critical to theirevery final Equality scorecards Federation and information member who 40 Fairness Kentucky by Executive Director Chris Hartman scorecards using publicly available themthe that project’s their citiessuccess were and being we were glad aboutprovided the 2014 feedback— MEI inplease the same see the 44 South Carolina Equality by Executive Director Ryan Wilson information. Cities were then rated.to haveThe hadletter her was on followedboard. by way.facing Equality page Federation for the logos Institute of groups 49 Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce by Director of Public Policy Joe Grace offered an opportunity to review a draft scorecard sent to the mayors statethat groups were alsoparticularly were able engaged to in 53 Equality Ohio by Deputy Executive Director Kim Welter the scorecards, ask any questions, and city managers in July also via reviewmaking the scorecardsthe MEI a success and provide this year. andFor submit questionsany additional information or additional email and certified information, mail. feedbackWe look to forward the MEI to team. working with you they wished for the MEI team again next year for MEI 2014! to consider.please contact [email protected]. © 2013 by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation. The Human Rights Campaign Foundation owns all right, title, and interest in and to this ISBN 978-1-934765-28-9 publication and all derivative works thereof. Permission for reproduction and redistribution is granted if the publication is (1) reproduced in its ISBN 1-934765-28-7 entirety and (2) distributed free of charge. The Human Rights Campaign and the Equality logo are trademarks of the Human Rights Campaign. The Human Rights Campaign Foundation and design incorporating the Equality logo are trademarks of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation.
IFC258 AN w iNtRHAt oductiowe fouNdN hrc.org/meihrc.org/mei hrc.org/meihrc.org/mei wHAt we fouNd 1 59
f-HRC-MEI.inddf-HRC-MEI.indd 2-1 58-59 11/13/1311/13/13 7:59 PM8:00 PM tAble of coNteNts
An Introduction
4 A Letter from Chad Griffin, President of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation 5 A Letter from Rebecca Isaacs, Executive Director of the Equality Federation Institute 6 “Enduring Growth for Cities Is Driven by Diversity,” by Richard Florida
How It Works
12 Executive Summary 14 2013 MEI Scorecard 16 City Selection 17 Scoring Criteria Parts I - VI 26 Acknowledging Context • Not All Cities Are Created Equal • Accounting for City Size • Balancing State and Local Laws • Understanding Restrictive State Law • Effect of Enforcement and Lived Experience
What We Found
38 Summary of Results 41 Table of 2013 Scores 54 Take Action for Equality 55 Changes to the MEI in 2014 58 Acknowledgements
Success Stories
13 San Antonio, Texas by Mayor Julian Castro 18 Missoula, Montana by City Councilmember Caitlin Copple 22 Equality Maryland by Executive Director Carrie Evans 29 Atlanta, Georgia by Mayor Kasim Reed 40 Fairness Campaign by Executive Director Chris Hartman 44 South Carolina Equality by Executive Director Ryan Wilson 49 Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce by Director of Public Policy Joe Grace 53 Equality Ohio by Deputy Executive Director Kim Welter
© 2013 by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation. The Human Rights Campaign Foundation owns all right, title, and interest in and to this isBn 978-1-934765-28-9 publication and all derivative works thereof. Permission for reproduction and redistribution is granted if the publication is (1) reproduced in its isBn 1-934765-28-7 entirety and (2) distributed free of charge. The Human Rights Campaign and the Equality logo are trademarks of the Human Rights Campaign. The Human Rights Campaign Foundation and design incorporating the Equality logo are trademarks of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation. hrc.org/mei 1 f-HRC-MEI.indd 2 11/14/13 9:33 AM AN iNtRoductioN
f-HRC-MEI.indd 3 11/14/13 9:33 AM Dear Friends The message is clear. Equality isn’t just for the coasts anymore. Real leadership is happening from Atlanta to Missoula to Salt Lake City and everywhere in between.
Between last year’s inaugural on the coasts) where legal equality for the MEI continues to inspire progress edition of the Municipal Equality LGBT people is nearly a reality, and in cities across the country—until those Index and this year’s second another America where even the most two Americas are united under a single installation, equality for lesbian, basic statewide legal protections are banner of fairness and equality. gay, bisexual and transgender non-existent. Yet the 2013 MEI reveals people has taken unprecedented that, even in this second America, Finally, HRC Foundation offers a steps forward. municipalities are leading a quiet heartfelt thank you to our partners pro-equality transformation. at the Equality Federation for their What’s more, this year’s MEI reveals leadership and partnership on the that our progress this year didn’t begin Forty-two percent of the 78 million MEI. This report is a testament to and end at the U.S. Supreme Court—it people who live in MEI-rated cities have the important work that is going on reached cities and towns in each and more comprehensive legal protections in towns, cities, and states across every state in this country. at the local level than they do at the the country, and HRC Foundation is state level. Ninety-four percent of those committed to continuing to support From Vicco, Kentucky to Coeur d’Alene, have local laws that are more inclusive these vital efforts until full equality Idaho to San Antonio, Texas, fairness of transgender and gender non- reaches every person in every town in and equality are surging ahead. In every conforming people. all 50 states. corner of America, local governments are taking action, even where statewide As the MEI enters its third year, we protections are missing. For the first want to continue this race to the top. Sincerely, time, Southern cities are among those We offer this edition as a blueprint for scoring 100 points on the MEI. progress—a roadmap for cities that are motivated by moral and economic This summer’s historic Supreme Court imperatives to treat their LGBT citizens rulings underscored the fact that there with the same dignity as everyone else. cHAd gRiffiN are two Americas when it comes to As HRC Foundation fights for equality President LGBT issues—one America (mostly everywhere, for everyone, we hope that Human Rights Campaign Foundation
4 AN iNtRoductioN hrc.org/mei Dear Readers Municipal victories aren’t simply making cities and counties more inclusive places to live, work, and build a family. They’re also fueling the movement for equality in states across this nation.
this year marks the second edition local leaders are taking important In a year when we’ve seen historic of the Municipal Equality Index steps to provide lGBt people victories at both the federal and state (Mei), and the equality federation with the protections and security level, it’s easy to forget about these is proud to partner with the Human they’re denied by statewide and local wins. But while they may not rights campaign foundation to federal laws. And because of this have the far-reaching implications of release this critical report. In just leadership, many cities and counties a Supreme Court ruling or command one year, we’ve already seen significant are emerging as welcoming the excitement of a bill signing, they’re advances toward equality in cities and communities where LGBT people are worth celebrating. counties in every corner of this nation. treated with the dignity and respect they’ve always deserved. every local win puts us one step In communities across this country, closer to full and lasting equality in advocates and activists are winning In addition to providing real protections every state. critical support at the municipal level for for LGBT people living our communities, policies that truly improve the lives of local campaigns contribute significantly Thank you to the local leaders, to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender to movement building efforts in each the state-based LGBT advocacy (LGBT) people. state. They provide opportunities to organizations, to HRC Foundation engage in positive, productive public and our national partners, and to the As you will see in the 2013 MEI report, education. They strengthen the capacity activists who worked so hard to bring we’ve seen incredible leadership of our movement organizations and about the advances detailed in this from local lawmakers—from enacting expand the skills of our leaders. They year’s Municipal Equality Index. It’s discrimination protections and build political momentum and create because of you that we have much to recognizing domestic partners to political allies. celebrate. providing training to government officials and ensuring that the LGBT Sincerely, community is always included.
RebeccA isAAcs Executive Director Equality Federation Institute
hrc.org/mei AN iNtRoductioN 5
f-HRC-MEI.indd 5 11/14/13 9:33 AM Enduring Growth for Cities is Driven by Diversity Openness and tolerance are not just moral imperatives they are economic ones as well. A key indicator of that is openness to the LGBT community.
©Jaime Hogge
Cities used to think they could orientation and more—that we as a orientation, and 57 percent prohibit generate jobs and economic growth society have imposed on ourselves. discrimination on the basis of gender by luring companies with huge tax creativity—and economic growth— identity. Offering these benefits and abatements and other subsidies. But require diversity. protections gives these companies today, more and more we know that an edge when it comes to attracting enduring growth for cities and I’ve boiled it down to a formula I call and retaining talented people, whether for nations comes from an open, the 3Ts of economic growth. Thriving, they are LGBT or not. The same applies diverse, tolerant social environment prosperous communities are strong to cities. that is appealing to a diverse range across all 3 Ts’—technology, talent of creative and talented people. and tolerance to prosper and thrive. The Municipal Equality Index offers Openness to the LGBT community is a an important benchmark for LGBT Nowadays, it’s not just people who key indicator of this kind of tolerance and straight people alike who are relocate to be near businesses; and openness. choosing where to locate, and for cities businesses will move to take advantage who understand the value of investing of dense clusters of talent. The roughly The research I’ve conduced with Gary in equality. 50 million members of the creative Gates of UCLA’s Williams Institute class—the scientists, engineers, has shown that embracing the LGBT and entrepreneurs, researchers and community isn’t just the morally academics, architects and designers, right thing to do; it is an economic RicHARd floRidA artists, entertainers and professionals growth imperative. Director of the Martin Prosperity in business, media, management, Institute at the University of Toronto’s healthcare and law—cluster in cities When a city is inclusive of LGBT Rotman School of Management; that have competitive/collaborative people, it sends a signal that it is diverse Global Research Professor at ecosystems that inspire and stimulate and meritocratic, that it embraces New York University, and Senior Editor innovation, and enabling infrastructures differences of all kinds. This is a with The Atlantic that allow their ideas to be brought message that resonates with more than swiftly and efficiently to market. just LGBT people. The Fortune 500 has long recognized this, which is why The creative class cannot be 62 percent of them offer domestic bound by the social categories— partner benefits, 88 percent prohibit of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual discrimination on the basis of sexual
6 AN iNtRoductioN hrc.org/mei
f-HRC-MEI.indd 6 11/14/13 9:33 AM Why Cities Should Invest in Equality
Beyond the important issues The Fortune 500 has long recognized The competition to attract new business of fairness and equality lies an that top talent is attracted to will only get more fierce as the disparity additional reason for cities to take inclusiveness. In fact, the private sector between the two Americas—the one matters of equality seriously: has been using fair workplaces as a America where states offer near-legal it is good for business. tool to recruit and retain top talent equality for LGBT people and the for years, because fair workplaces other where even the most basic state Cities are in constant competition for enhance an employer’s reputation, protections do not exist—continues residents, business, and employees: increase job satisfaction, and boost to grow. Businesses will increasingly inclusiveness is an important factor employee morale. have to evaluate the legal landscape that attracts all three. A growing body offered by a potential new location in of research has shown that cities Cities are subject to the same their calculation of where to expand that have vibrant gay and lesbian incentives for their employees, and operations. In the America where communities have higher levels of must compete with the private sector state protections are weak, cities are income, life satisfaction, housing in offering inclusive policies and under additional competitive pressure values, and emotional attachment benefits for their LGBT employees to institute municipal protections that to their community as well as higher or risk losing their best employees to make up for the deficiencies at the concentrations of high-tech business. more inclusive employers. Cities would state level. be well-advised to respond to the Richard Florida’s fascinating work on workplace considerations measured by this subject reveals a link between a the MEI, some of which are associated city’s inclusivity and its ability to attract with minimal cost and pay dividends in top talent and innovative business. productivity and retention.
Businesses will increasingly have to evaluate the legal landscape offered by a potential new location in their calculation of where to expand operations.
hrc.org/mei AN iNtRoductioN 7
f-HRC-MEI.indd 7 11/14/13 9:33 AM f-HRC-MEI.indd 8 11/14/13 9:33 AM How it woRks
f-HRC-MEI.indd 9 11/14/13 9:33 AM cities RAted by tHe Mei
The Municipal Equality Index rates municipalities of varying sizes drawn from every state in the nation.
2012 137 cities witH A populAtioN totAl of 55,853,651 2013 sAMe 137 fRoM 2012 plus MoRe tHAN double tHe NuMbeR foR A totAl of 291 cities witH A populAtioN totAl of 77,851,822 +
10 How it woRks hrc.org/mei
f-HRC-MEI.indd 10 11/14/13 9:33 AM hrc.org/mei How it woRks 11
f-HRC-MEI.indd 11 11/14/13 9:33 AM eXecutive suMMARy
Momentum for Municipal Equality
This year cities across the country, tHe pReseNce of AN opeNly lgbt elected oR AppoiNted including in Idaho, Kentucky, Georgia, officiAl is coRRelAted to HigHeR scoRes Montana, and Missouri, continued to prove that municipalities will act to support equality for lesbian, gay, average score 78 pts 45 pts bisexual, and transgender people even where states and the federal fully inclusive non-Discrimination law 77% 48% government have failed to do so. city employee non-Discrimination policy 80% 31% city employee Domestic partner Benefits 94% 7% These cities reflect a movement that is happening at the local level witH witH out across the country. The Municipal Equality Index demonstrates the ways that many cities can—and do— serve the LGBT people who live and MuNicipAlities Act wHeRe cities witH sAMe-seX work in those cities. the results of this stAtes HAve Not couples eXcelled year’s evaluation tell the story of the Municipal law provides powerful Cities with high proportions of same- momentum of municipal equality protections, especially to transgender sex couples tended to outperform other and gender non-conforming people. cities, regardless of city size; however, • In 2012 we rated 137 cities with larger cities with a high proportion of a total population of 55,853,651; • Of the 78 million people living in MEI same sex couples did exceptionally well. in 2013 we rated 291 cities with a rated cities, 33 million of these have population total of 77,851,822. more comprehensive municipal laws • 25 cities received perfect scores than state laws, and 3 largest (100 points) in 2013; 11 did in 2012. • 31 million have gender identity • Of cities that scored 100, 8 cities came cities in the state or expression protections at the average 55 from states without comprehensive municipal level that they do not have relationship recognition and without on the state level. statewide non-discrimination laws; average 2 did in 2012. lgbt liAisoNs 95 Cities that have LGBT liaisons in points
10% scored their police department significantly same-sex over 96 outperformed the national average. couples average 80 average 25% scored • 95% of all 2013 cities with liaisons over 78 reported hate crimes statistics 87 including sexual orientation motivated points half scored over crimes to the FBI, and 150 60 • 72% of 2013 rated cities without largest cities liaisons reported. average 59 the average score 57
25% scored fewer than 35 3.5% scored fewer than 10 points
12 How it woRks hrc.org/mei
f-HRC-MEI.indd 12 11/14/13 9:33 AM success stoRy: sAN ANtoNio, teXAs
When it comes to issues of equality, our nation’s cities are leading the charge because we know that prosperous cities gain great economic strength from celebrating and cultivating diversity.
At a time when partisanship too this proactive approach, we have often trumps practical policy in our made it perfectly clear that San national and state legislative bodies, Antonio is a welcoming and inviting municipalities are leading the way city that is ready to compete in the on key issues that impact the day-to- 21st century global economy. day lives of most Americans. When it comes to issues of equality, As with other civil rights struggles, our nation’s cities are leading the road to inclusion can be the charge because we know challenging, but history is the that prosperous cities gain great ultimate judge. economic strength from celebrating and cultivating diversity. I believe that the same principle applies to today’s struggle for In that regard, san Antonio is LGBT equality and it is my hope that the new face of the American generations to come will continue dream. As the nation’s 7th largest to build upon the progress that has city (as well as one of the fastest been made to ensure equality under growing cities in the United States), the law for every citizen. San Antonio has taken important steps to ensure there are no second- JuliAN cAstRo class citizens. This year we passed Mayor a wide-ranging ordinance that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in housing, public accommodations, city contracting, and city employment. I am proud that this improved San Antonio’s MEI score from a 48 in 2012 to an 86 in 2013. By taking
hrc.org/mei success stoRy 13
f-HRC-MEI.indd 13 11/14/13 9:33 AM 2013 Mei scoRecARd
CITY, STATE 1/2 2013 MUNICIPAL EQUALITY INDEX SCORECARD
I. Non-Discrimination Laws STATE COUNTY CITY AVAILABLE
This category evaluates whether Employment discrimination on the basis of sexual 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 orientation and gender identity is Housing prohibited by the city, county, or state in 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 areas of employment, housing, and public accommodations. Public Accommodations 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3
SCORE 0 out of 18
II. Relationship Recognition STATE COUNTY CITY AVAILABLE
Marriage, civil unions, and comprehensive Marriage Equality, Civil Unions, domestic partnerships are matters of state or Domestic Partnerships 0 12 policy; cities and counties have only the Municipal Domestic Partner Registry power to create domestic partner registries. 0 0 12
SCORE 0 out of 12
BONUS Municipality was forced to stop providing a domestic partner registry +0 +2 as a result of restrictive state law.
III. Municipality as Employer CITY AVAILABLE
By offering equivalent benefits and Non-Discrimination in City Employment protections to LGBT employees, and by 0 0 5 5 awarding contracts to fair-minded businesses, Domestic Partner Health Benefits municipalities commit themselves to treating 0 4 LGBT employees equally. Legal Dependent Benefits 0 2
Equivalent Family Leave 0 2
City Contractor Non-Discrimination Ordinance 0 0 2 2
City Contractor Equal Benefits Ordinance 0 4
SCORE 0 out of 26
BONUS Grossing Up of Employee Benefits. +0 +3
BONUS Transgender-Inclusive +0 +4 Healthcare Benefits. BONUS Municipality is a Welcoming +0 +2 Place to Work.
3 hrc.org/mei
14 How it woRks hrc.org/mei CITY, STATE 2/2 2013 MUNICIPAL EQUALITY INDEX SCORECARD
IV. Municipal Services STATE COUNTY CITY AVAILABLE
This section assesses the efforts of the city Human Rights Commission to ensure LGBT constituents are included in 0 7 city services and programs. LGBT Liaison in the Mayor’s Office 0 5
Enumerated Anti-Bullying School Policies 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3
SCORE 0 out of 18 BONUS City provides services to particularly vulnerable populations of the LGBT +0 +2 community.
V. Law Enforcement CITY AVAILABLE
Fair enforcement of the law includes LGBT Police Liaison or Task Force responsible reporting of hate crimes and 0 8 engaging with the LGBT community in a Reported 2011 Hate Crimes Statistics thoughtful and respectful way. to the FBI 0 10
SCORE 0 out of 18
VI. Relationship with the LGBT Community CITY AVAILABLE
This category measures the city leadership’s Leadership’s Public Position on LGBT Equality commitment to fully include the LGBT 0 5 community and to advocate for full equality. Leadership’s Pro-Equality Legislative or Policy Efforts 0 3
SCORE 0 out of 8
BONUS Openly LGBT elected or appointed +0 +3 municipal leaders. BONUS City engages with the LGBT +0 +2 community. BONUS Cities are pro-equality despite +0 +2 restrictive state law.
TOTAL SCORE 0 + TOTAL BONUS 0 = Final Score 0 CANNOT EXCEED 100
PTS FOR SEXUAL ORIENTATION PTS FOR GENDER IDENTITY + BONUS PTS for criteria not accessible to all cities at this time.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT CITY SELECTION, CRITERIA OR THE MEI SCORING SYSTEM, PLEASE REFER TO PAGE 17 OR VISIT HRC.ORG/MEI. All cities rated were provided their scorecard in advance of publication and given the opportunity to submit revisions. For feedback regarding a particular city’s scorecard, please email [email protected].
hrc.org/mei 2
hrc.org/mei How it woRks 15 city selectioN
How Cities Were Selected for Rating
The 2013 Municipal Equality Index Some of these small “cities” are in fact criteria. Unlike the cities rated in rates 291 municipalities, including the unincorporated census-designated the MEI, however, Washington, D.C. is 50 state capitals, the three largest places. To be consistent we rated a federal district. cities in each state, the 150 largest all 25 of these small cities, even the cities in the country, the cities home unincorporated census-designated This means that it has powers and to the state’s largest public university places, based on the laws and policies limitations so significantly different from (including graduate and undergraduate of the local level of government the municipalities the MEI rates that enrollment), and the 25 small, 25 applicable (the entity actually rated—for the comparison would be unfair— midsize, and 25 large cities with the the unincorporated places this is usually for example, no city rated by the highest proportion of same-sex couples. the county—will be clearly indicated). MEI has the legal capacity to pass marriage equality, as Washington, D.C. These 75 cities with highest proportions Significant overlap between these did in 2009. of same-sex couples are drawn from categories of cities brings the total an analysis of the 2010 census results number of cities rated in the 2013 MEI While the District of Columbia is not by the Williams Institute at the UCLA to 291. This is more than double the a state, either, it is more properly School of Law, which identified the number of cities rated last year, and as compared to a state than it is to a city. 25 large cities (population exceeding the publication goes on the number of For that reason, Washington, D.C. is 250,000), 25 mid-size cities (population cities rated will continue to increase. included in HRC Foundation’s annual between 100,000 and 250,000), Equality From State to State report. and 25 small cities (population below wHy isN’t wAsHiNgtoN, d.c. 100,000) with the highest proportion RAted? More information on Washington, D.C.’s of same-sex couples. Washington, D.C. is not rated by laws and policies can be viewed the MEI, even though it has a high on the maps of state laws located at proportion of same-sex couples and www.hrc.org./resources/entry/maps-of- fits into several of the city selection state-laws-policies.
sMAll cities witH HigHest PRoPoRtioN 25 oF sAMe-seX coUPles MidsiZe cities witH HigHest PRoPoRtioN 291 oF sAMe-seX coUPles MUNICIPALITIES 25 lARgest cities lARge cities witH HigHest PRoPoRtioN 3 iN eAcH stAte 25 oF sAMe-seX coUPles stAte MillioN lARgest cities 50cAPitAls 78 PeoPle 150 iN tHe coUNtRy 50 cities – HoMe to eAcH stAte’s lARgest PUBlic UNiVeRsity
16 How it woRks hrc.org/mei
f-HRC-MEI.indd 16 11/14/13 9:33 AM scoRiNg cRiteRiA
I. Non-Discrimination Laws
it should not be legal to deny In each category, cities receive tHese poiNts cAN coMe someone the right to work, rent a 3 points for prohibiting discrimination fRoM stAte lAw, home, or be served in a place of on the basis of sexual orientation and couNty lAw, oR city lAw. public accommodation because 3 points for prohibiting discrimination If the state or county has a of his or her sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. comprehensive and inclusive non- gender identity. All non-discrimination laws ought discrimination law that applies within to be fully inclusive of lesbian, gay, the city limits, a city may conclude it is This category evaluates whether bisexual, and transgender people, and an inefficient use of resources to pass discrimination on the basis of sexual acknowledging sexual orientation-only a local non-discrimination ordinance. orientation and gender identity is protections as simply that does not So long as the protections of a state prohibited within the city in areas imply they are sufficient; they are not. or county law apply within the city of employment, housing, and public limits, the city will be marked as having accommodations. such protections. If there is no state or county law, but the city has passed an ordinance of its own volition, the city will receive credit for those non- discrimination protections. However, this section is capped at 18 points maximum; therefore, where laws exist at both the city and the state (or county) level, the city will not receive double (or triple) points.
live in cities that cover 31 TRANS MILLION FOLKS PEOPLE at the city level alone.
hrc.org/mei How it woRks 17
f-HRC-MEI.indd 17 11/14/13 9:33 AM success stoRy: MissoulA, MoNtANA
It’s called an LGBT movement for a reason. We can and must advance equality at every level of our democracy until LGBT Montanans are treated the same as LGBT Washingtonians.
wHy tHe MissoulA RegistRy HeRe’s wHy as well as better treatment from MAtteRs • It’s called an LGBT movement for a first responders and hospitals. One of my proudest moments in my reason. We can and must advance Registration doesn’t replace the two years of service on the Missoula equality at every level of our need for statewide mandates or an City Council came last June, when democracy until LGBT Montanans advanced medical directive (To make we voted unanimously to establish are treated the same as LGBT sure you have all your bases covered, a domestic partnership registry. The Washingtonians. Incremental see: http://www.hrc.org/resources/ unanimous part mattered, because it and inadequate as a city registry entry/protecting-your-visitation- meant my 11 colleagues believe that may seem, it is an important step decision-making-rights). The wallet my relationship is good enough— on the path to full equality, just card offers proof for employers that that same-sex couples deserve the as inclusive non-discrimination want to do the right thing despite dignity of public recognition like ordinances pave the way to bad state law, and something that any other couple. With that vote, statewide change. emergency and hospital personnel my colleagues acknowledged that can point to in your time of need. Montana law is unjust, and that the • It shows the State of Montana City of Missoula will do everything that cities will do everything they No oNe sHould settle foR it can to be a safe, welcoming, can for LGBT people despite MeRe city-level doMestic and respectful place for all people, discriminatory laws. Municipal pARtNeRsHip RecogNitioN. regardless of sexual orientation or domestic partnership registries I’m certainly not going to. That’s why gender identity. change state policies. We’ve seen I hope you will join me in continuing this in 58 other cities across 23 to support local organizations let’s be HoNest, A doMestic states, many which lacked any working on non-discrimination pARtNeRsHip RegistRy relationship recognition prior to the ordinances across Montana, as well doesN’t souNd veRy seXy establishment of local registries. as the HRC, which won’t rest until It doesn’t carry as much weight as LGBT Americans are treated equally full marriage equality, or even civil • Municipal domestic partnership in all 50 states. unions at the state level. So why registries help same-sex partners even bother doing it? get health insurance coverage, cAitliN copple Missoula City Council Member
18 success stoRy hrc.org/mei
f-HRC-MEI.indd 18 11/14/13 9:33 AM II. Relationship Recognition
Marriage equality, civil unions, scope of municipal power and is not and comprehensive domestic a moral or legal valuation of municipal partnerships are matters of state domestic partner rights being equivalent policy. to marriage equality.
cities and counties only have the Further, a city may have little incentive power to create domestic partner to create a domestic partner registry registries or very limited domestic where the state recognizes same-sex partnerships. These do not come with relationships in a more comprehensive all the same benefits as state-level way. Therefore, a city will receive relationship recognition but they full credit on the basis of city, county, do offer some benefits, privileges, or state-level relationship recognition, and protections to lGBt people if applicable. seeking to have their relationships legally recognized. However, cities may not earn double points in this section for having Because the MEI is an evaluation of domestic partner registries and municipalities, not states, and marriage statewide recognition. There are is a state-level policy, this section is 2 bonus points available if a city weighted so that an equal number of had previously recognized same-sex points are awarded for marriage and relationships but was prohibited from municipal domestic partner registries. continuing to do so by state law. This is a practical matter based on the
291 totAL CitiEs
None % 2
4
58% of cities
1
2
%
have relationship
Local Only
%
6
1 3
State 0
% recognition.
State & Local
hrc.org/mei How it woRks 19
f-HRC-MEI.indd 19 11/14/13 9:33 AM III. Municipality as Employer
This section is the most heavily city offeRs doMestic city RequiRes its weighted because almost every pARtNeR beNefits, legAl coNtRActoRs to offeR municipality has immediate control depeNdeNt beNefits, ANd equAl beNefits over its employment policies. equivAleNt fAMily leAve An equal benefits ordinance requires a More information on all of these Employees are extended certain benefits municipality’s contractors to offer equal criteria are available on the web that are sometimes tied to marital status; health insurance and other benefits to on www.hrc.org/mei. respect this means employees in same-sex their employees (4 points). This ensures for lGBt employees is clearly relationships are often not afforded that employees with same-sex spouses demonstrated by the inclusiveness equivalent employee benefits. Cities may and employees with domestic partners of these employment policies. rectify this by offering medical benefits receive the same compensation (salary to a domestic partner or same-sex and benefits) as do their heterosexual city pRoHibits spouse (4 points), by recognizing that counterparts; it also ensures that the discRiMiNAtioN iN city the legal dependent of an employee’s city does not unwittingly engage in or eMployMeNt same-sex partner or spouse is also encourage discrimination by awarding Cities can adopt internal hiring policies a dependent of the employee and bids to contractors who treat employees that prohibit employment discrimination extending equivalent benefits (2 differently based on their sexual (including hiring, promotions, points); and ensuring that family leave orientation. Cities may receive partial termination, and compensation) on the policies recognize the true scope of an credit if they have no such ordinance basis of sexual orientation (5 points) employee’s family (2 points). but instead give preference to city and gender identity or expression contractors who offer equal benefits. (5 points). It is a fundamental principle city RequiRes its of fairness that an employee should be coNtRActoRs to judged not because of who he or she is, HAve iNclusive NoN- but based on his or her ability to perform discRiMiNAtioN policies the responsibilities of a position. Cities that take fair workplaces seriously also require city contractors to have inclusive non-discrimination policies. An equal opportunity ordinance, as these are sometimes known, requires city contractors to adopt non-discrimination policies that prohibit adverse employment actions on the basis of sexual orientation (2 points) and gender identity or expression (2 points).
5% of cities rated offer trans-inclusive healthcare benefits.
20 How it woRks hrc.org/mei
f-HRC-MEI.indd 20 11/14/13 9:33 AM boNus poiNts: surgery, and other medically necessary gRossiNg up of eMployee care. Cities should work with their beNefits insurance carriers or administrators to Under federal law, until recently, the remove transgender exclusions from contribution made by an employer the group health insurance plans to an employee’s same-sex spouse and ensure that at least one of or partner’s benefits was considered the insurance options available to taxable income to the employee, employees affirmatively states that where such a contribution made it provides transgender-inclusive by the employer to an employee’s insurance coverage (4 bonus points). opposite-sex spouse’s benefits was not taxable income. The discrepancy Because many cities rated in the MEI in tax treatment created a tax penalty participate in public health exchanges 129 74 88 for employees who received domestic that do not provide transgender- cities cities cities partner benefits; grossing up policies inclusive policy options, these points are address this penalty by offsetting it (3 bonus points in 2013; however, as there has been so much progress made in WORKPLACE POLICIES bonus points). While this federal law has been overturned with regard to opening these exchanges, these points FOR CITY EMPLOYEES legally married same-sex couples, it is will be converted into standard points still in place for couples in a civil union on the 2014 MEI and beyond. The Non-Discrimination Policies Inclusive of nature of these points this year does Gender Non-Discrimination Orientation and Gender Policies Identity or domestic partnership and some not imply that transgender exclusions in Non-discriminationInclusive of Sexual Policies onOrientation the Basis and states continue to have similar state ofGender Sexual Orientation Identity only tax policies. Because the need for this health insurance policies are anything No Non-discrimination Policies on the Basis type of program is no longer universal, but unacceptable and discriminatory. of No Sexual Non-Discrimination Orientation or Gender Identity Policies and because grossing up is a policy that on the Basis of Sexual Orientation is fairly new to the public sector, these boNus poiNts: or Gender Identity points are bonus points. MuNicipAlity is A welcoMiNg plAce to woRk Non-Discrimination Policies on the This section measures whether the Basis of Sexual Orientation Only boNus poiNts: tRANsgeNdeR-iNclusive city is a welcoming workplace for LGBT HeAltHcARe beNefits employees as measured by Cities, like other employers, provide the following: the city actively recruits health benefits to their employees, but LGBT employees, conducts LGBT- some employees routinely have critical inclusive diversity training, or has an and medically necessary treatment LGBT employee affinity group (a total excluded from the healthcare options of 2 bonus points are awarded if any they are offered. of these exist).
Transgender employees are routinely denied healthcare coverage for gender-affirming care such as hormone replacement therapy, sex reassignment
hrc.org/mei How it woRks 21
f-HRC-MEI.indd 21 11/14/13 9:33 AM success stoRy: equAlity MARylANd
Having these local laws helps us demonstrate, especially to state legislators representing these areas that these laws operate without any of the “doomsday” scenarios our opponents testify will happen if these laws get passed.
equality Maryland has been Local legislative campaigns keep working to add gender identity our skills sharp, our community and expression to the state engaged, and build momentum and anti-discrimination laws since support for the statewide law. the early 2000s. part of our strategy in Maryland As with many statewide LGBT has involved passing local legislative efforts, these laws often anti-discrimination laws for take many years to pass. transgender people. We started Therefore, the strategy for passing in Baltimore City in 2002, followed a statewide law usually involves by Montgomery County in 2007, pursuing incremental steps Howard County in 2011 and and wins. Baltimore County in 2012. These jurisdictions comprise about 47% of in the case for statewide the state’s population. Having these transgender laws this may mean four local laws helps us demonstrate, passing local laws. especially to state legislators representing these areas, that other These small steps serve two elected (local) officials are supportive purposes—first, they help people and that these laws operate without right now and second, the issue any of the “doomsday” scenarios our becomes more palatable to opponents testify will happen if these state legislators and the public. laws gets passed. Additionally, it provides an opportunity for trans people and cARRie evANs their allies to advocate, share their Executive Director stories and witness elected officials support their efforts.
22 success stoRy hrc.org/mei
f-HRC-MEI.indd 22 11/14/13 9:33 AM IV. Services and Programs
Census data shows that LGBT people boNus poiNts: live in virtually every city in the country, seRvices foR vulNeRAble but not every city recognizes that populAtioNs their LGBT constituents can have The MEI also evaluates city services different needs. this section that address segments of the LGBT assesses the efforts of the city to population who are particularly include lGBt constituents vulnerable and may have specific and in city services and programs. acute needs. While all people age, battle illness, struggle to fit in, and HuMAN RigHts coMMissioNs work hard to improve their lot in life, Human Rights Commissions these struggles can be different and (7 points) do important work to identify particularly difficult for LGBT people. and eliminate discrimination; even in Cities can address these challenges jurisdictions where LGBT equality by offering services—or supporting a isn’t explicitly a part of the commission’s third party provider of these services— charter, these commissions to LGBT youth, LGBT elderly, LGBT investigate complaints, educate homeless people, or people who are the city, and sometimes enforce non- HIV positive or living with AIDS (2 discrimination laws. bonus points total if the city offers any one or more of these types of services). Human Rights Commissions serve as important bridges between constituents ANti-bullyiNg policies and their city. Similarly, an LGBT iN scHools liaison to the Mayor’s office (5 points) Finally, anti-bullying policies in schools 180 is responsible for looking at city policies are also included in the MEI. A state, Have Bullying Protections on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and services through an LGBT lens county, or city may prohibit bullying on and Gender Identity and speaking up when a policy or the basis of sexual orientation (3 points) service might exclude LGBT people. and gender identity or expression This position is also known to be a (3 points). Credit will also be given if all 34 friendly ear to constituents who want school districts within city limits have Have Policies on the Basis to bring LGBT-related issues to the city such policies. of Sexual Orientation Only government but are fearful they might +77 be dismissed or misunderstood. Have No Bullying Protections on the Basis of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity While all people age, battle illness, 291 struggle to fit in, and work hard to total cities improve their lot in life, these struggles can be different and particularly difficult for LGBT people.
hrc.org/mei How it woRks 23
f-HRC-MEI.indd 23 11/14/13 9:33 AM V. Law Enforcement
the relationship between law lgbt police liAisoN enforcement and the lGBt An LGBT police liaison (8 points) can community is often fraught with serve as an important bridge between suspicion, misunderstanding, the community and law enforcement. and fear. LGBT people are vulnerable The liaison is an advocate for fair and to violence arising from bigotry and respectful enforcement of the law as ignorance, and this danger is only well as an officer that the community exacerbated when police are perceived can rely upon to appropriately respond to be part of the problem. A police force to sensitive issues. can ensure safety for all by treating LGBT people with understanding and RepoRtiNg of HAte cRiMes respect, remaining mindful of the LGBT stAtistics community’s unique law enforcement Respectful and fair enforcement concerns and engaging the community includes responsible reporting of hate in a positive way. crimes, including for hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity, to the FBI (10 points).
Such reporting demonstrates law enforcement’s attention to these crimes and ensures that the larger law enforcement community is able to accurately gauge the scope and responses to them.
LGBT people are vulnerable to violence arising 95% from bigotry and of all cities with police liaisons reported hate crime ignorance, and statistics including sexual this danger is only orientation to the FBI exacerbated when police are perceived to be part of the problem.
24 How it woRks hrc.org/mei
f-HRC-MEI.indd 24 11/14/13 9:33 AM VI. Relationship with the LGBT Community leadership is an aspect of policy lGBt youth are twice as likely as leAdeRsHip’s pRo-equAlity that is not fully captured by their peers to say they will need effoRts executive orders or the passage of to move from their hometown in The persistence of the city leadership legislation into law. order to feel accepted. When elected in pursuing legislation or policies that leaders speak out on matters of further equality is rated (on a scale of When a mayor marches in a Pride equality, their constituents do hear—and 0 - 3 points). Note that even small or parade, a city council dedicates a park it informs their constituents’ perception unsuccessful efforts are recognized to an LGBT civil rights leader, or a of safety, inclusion, and belonging. in this category, and that these efforts city paints its crosswalks in rainbow may be heavily weighted if the city’s colors, it sends a message to LGBT This category, therefore, measures political environment is not conducive people that they are a valued part of the the commitment of the city to include to passing pro-equality legislation. community. the LGBT community and to advocate for full equality. tHRee oppoRtuNities to At first glance, these actions may seem eARN boNus poiNts: to be more symbol than substance; leAdeRsHip’s public • First: for openly LGBT people holding however, as HRC Foundation reported positioN oN equAlity elected or appointed office in the in its groundbreaking youth report in City leadership is rated (on a scale of municipality (3 bonus points). 2012, four in ten LGBT youth surveyed 0 - 5 points) on its public statements on said the community in which they live matters of equality, particularly where • Second: for direct engagement is not accepting of LGBT people, and the city leadership pushes for equality with LGBT constituents through 60% of the youth surveyed said they in the face of substantial adversity. participation in Pride or partnership heard negative messages about being For example, a city would be awarded with LGBT advocacy groups LGBT from elected leaders. points if the city council passed a (2 bonus points). resolution in support of marriage equality—while this is not something • Third: for cities who do all they can in the city can legislate, it is a powerful the face of state law that restricts their statement of the city’s principles ability to pass LGBT-inclusive laws or nonetheless. policies (2 bonus points).
When elected leaders speak out on matters of equality, their constituents do hear— and it informs their constituents’ perception of safety, inclusion, and belonging.
hrc.org/mei How it woRks 25 AckNowledgiNg coNteXt
Not All Cities Are Created Equal
some cities have the autonomy boNus poiNts and wherewithal to pass inclusive First, in addition to the 100 standard laws and offer cutting-edge city points for city laws and services, the services; other cities are hampered MEI includes 20 bonus points. Bonus by severe state-imposed limitations points are awarded for essential on their ability to pass inclusive laws, or programs, protections, or benefits that they have found that the small scope are not attainable or are very difficult of their local government limits their to attain for some cities; therefore, capabilities. cities with the item are rewarded, but cities without it are not penalized. The MEI is designed to understand Bonus points can also provide some the unique situation of each city and leeway for cities that face challenges is structured to reward the specific in accomplishing the specific achievements of a local government. achievements the MEI measures, and The efforts and achievements of each they ensure that every city has the city can only be fairly judged within that ability to improve its score for next year. city’s context; while imposing a score may seem to strip a city of its context, coNsideRAtioN of the MEI honors the different situations stAte lAw from which the selected cities come in Second, the MEI weights state and three major ways: municipal law such that the effect of excellent or restrictive state law does not determine the city’s ability to score well.
legislAtive leAdeRsHip Third, it also rates the city leadership’s public position on LGBT equality and gives credit for legislative efforts (even unsuccessful efforts), so if a city has outspoken advocates for equality who are unfortunately still in the minority, the city will still receive credit for the efforts it has made.
The efforts and achievements of each city can only be fairly judged within that city’s context.
26 How it woRks hrc.org/mei
f-HRC-MEI.indd 26 11/14/13 9:33 AM Fair Assessment Respects Legal Differences
The Municipal Equality Index is questioN 1 questioN 3 carefully designed to rate cities in How could the MEI fairly take state law What do MEI scores say about the detail while respecting that a number into account, particularly as the disparity atmosphere for LGBT people living and of factors may boost or inhibit a city’s between states with pro-equality laws working in a particular place? ability or incentives to adopt the laws and states without pro-equality laws and policies this project rates. continues to grow? ANsweR Even the most thoughtful survey of Given the range of authority and ANsweR laws and policies cannot objectively incentives that cities have, and The answer is balance. The rating assess the efficacy of enforcement and acknowledging that our effort to rate system would not be fair if cities it certainly cannot encapsulate the lived small cities as well as large cities were not able to score a 100 on the experience of discrimination that many exacerbates these challenges, the MEI without being in a state that had LGBT people—even those living in Mei had to wrestle with three major favorable state law. Allocating the 100-point cities—face every day. questions in its initial design. points carefully to respect the dynamic relationship between state and local Therefore, it is important to emphasize government was a must, and we that the MEI is an evaluation of concentrated on what the state law municipal laws and policies. It is not meant for the city being rated. a rating of the best places for LGBT people to live, nor is it an evaluation of the adequacy or effectiveness of questioN 2 enforcement. It is not an encapsulation How could the MEI assess a list of of what it feels like to be an LGBT cities as diverse as those selected while person walking down the street. While acknowledging that the smaller places some LGBT people may prefer to live rated may understandably have less in cities that respect and include them, capacity to engage on LGBT issues? there are undoubtedly many other factors that make a place a welcoming, ANsweR inclusive place to live. We addressed concerns about a small city’s capacity to affect change by building flexibility into the scorecard To be clear, the MEI specifically rates through the use of bonus points and cities on their laws and policies while by providing multiple avenues toward respecting the legal and political earning points. context the city operates within. It is not a measure of an LGBT person’s lived experience in that city.
The MEI specifically rates cities on their laws and policies while respecting the legal and political context the city operates within.
hrc.org/mei How it woRks 27
f-HRC-MEI.indd 27 11/14/13 9:33 AM cities leAd wHeRe stAtes HAve Not
25 peRfect scoRes peRfect scoRes iN stAtes 8 witH No suppoRtive lAws 291 cities suRveyed
28 How it woRks hrc.org/mei
f-HRC-MEI.indd 28 11/14/13 9:33 AM success stoRy: AtlANtA, geoRgiA
I am proud to be mayor of the first deep Southern city to achieve a perfect score on the Municipal Equality Index.
i am proud to be mayor of gay marriage. I consistently helped Atlanta’s history of civil rights the first deep southern city defeat state bills that would ban gay leadership is rooted in the belief to achieve a perfect score on adoption. On the national level, that our diversity makes our city the Municipal Equality Index. I was a vocal advocate for the repeal stronger. As a result, Atlanta is Atlanta’s diversity is part of what of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and for home to one of the largest and most makes our city great. Residents, allowing LGBT individuals to serve vibrant LGBT communities in the businesses, film producers, artists, openly in the military. country. As Mayor, I will continue my college students- a large part of efforts to achieve equal protection what brings them to Atlanta is the My commitment to lgbt rights and equal treatment of Atlanta’s quality of people who live and work continues as Atlanta’s Mayor. LGBT residents, workers and visitors. here. This city has a rich history In 2012, I expressed my support of upholding human rights and of marriage equality for same-sex kAsiM Reed providing equal opportunity to all couples; marriage is a fundamental Mayor people. Atlanta’s commitment right for all loving couples regardless to equality includes outlawing of their sexual orientation. I recently discrimination based upon a appointed Robin Shahar as my person’s sexual orientation and Mayoral Advisor on LGBT issues. gender identity. She will identify and provide counsel on areas of community concern, lgbt equality has been an and will recommend strategies for important issue for me advancing LGBT equality citywide. throughout my career. As a In July, I proudly signed a bill member of Georgia’s House of updating the Atlanta Code to Representatives, I was the chief ensure that all non-discrimination sponsor of Georgia’s first and only provisions include gender identity as Hate Crimes Bill that protected a protected class. This September, LGBT individuals. As a State I signed on as a co-chair of the Senator, I led the effort to oppose a national Mayors for the Freedom to constitutional amendment banning Marry campaign.
hrc.org/mei success stoRy 29
f-HRC-MEI.indd 29 11/14/13 9:33 AM Accounting for City Size
The MEI rates municipalities as small for LGBT-specific recruitment for city as Rehoboth Beach (population employment opportunities, but if the 1,373) and as large as New York City city is too small to actively recruit it can (8,336,700). Such a range in city earn those same points either through size creates concerns about ensuring an inclusive workplace diversity training that the efforts of small cities are or facilitating a Pride group for city not diminished in comparison to the employees. Having alternative paths capabilities of large cities. to the same points and classifying some points as bonus accommodates fairness dictates that the Mei the varying needs and capabilities of not measure small cities against different sized cities. a standard only the metropolitan giants of the country can meet. an analysis of the Mei’s results shows these efforts to The MEI is designed to ensure that accommodate small cities worked: small cities have the same ability to small cities were able to score score well on the MEI as larger cities do. comparably with the large cities.
First, while some of the criteria might Last year the data clearly showed that be more challenging for a small city a city’s score was not well predicted by to accomplish, none of the non-bonus its size, and this year’s results show the criteria are prohibitive for small cities. same. In 2013, small cities (population Further, flexibility was built into the under 100,000 people) boasted three scoring system to acknowledge that perfect scores and four cities in the a small city may accomplish the ninetieth percentile, with 42 percent of criteria in a slightly different manner: small cities scoring in the top half. Small for example, an LGBT liaison may have cities averaged 53 points, narrowly many other duties, and a Human Rights beating the average of 52 points Commission might be all-volunteer. for medium sized cities (populations between 100,000 and 250,000), Second, the MEI uses bonus points although both averaged less than large to ensure cities are not being held cities (more than 250,000 people) at accountable for services that they 71 points. Small cities make up just simply are unable to provide. Points over a third of all cities rated. pertaining to a city’s infrastructure are generally bonus points and there In 2013, small often are multiple paths to earning the same set of points. A city can earn cities boasted “Welcoming Workplace” bonus points 3 perfect scores and 4 cities in the 90th percentile.
30 How it woRks hrc.org/mei city size Not pRedictive of Mei scoRe
100
80
60
40 Mei scoRes
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2MiL popULAtioN (in 1000s)
sMALL city MediUM city LARGe city
hrc.org/mei How it woRks 31
f-HRC-MEI.indd 31 11/14/13 9:33 AM Balancing State and Local Laws
cities are creations of the state. On the other hand, many states have Cities are granted the power to govern passed pro-equality legislation— by their states, and some states including marriage equality, non- have multiple classes of cities that discrimination laws, and anti-bullying are invested with varying degrees of laws—which may render similar autonomy. protections at the local level duplicative.
Some cities are granted so much The MEI balances the influence of power that they have nearly complete LGBT-inclusive state law by weighting independence, but other cities— state and local laws equally, and by particularly smaller cities—are more not awarding double points to a city limited in the scope of their city fortunate enough to have protections at government. both the state and local levels.
To be a worthwhile survey of cities If a state has a comprehensive and across states the MEI must be inclusive non-discrimination law, a respectful of how different cities are city may not be incentivized to pass from one another. This is especially an ordinance extending duplicative true when LGBT law is the subject protections, but it should still have those being surveyed. Some cities operate protections reflected in its score. under state law (known as the Dillon’s Rule) that severely limits the ability of Conversely, the city should be able to municipalities to offer more generous achieve a perfect score on the basis of protections than the state has chosen municipal law alone—otherwise the MEI to offer. would not be a true evaluation of cities. The success of this balanced approach While this law isn’t explicitly anti-LGBT, is demonstrated by a number of cities some states have used it to block that were able to achieve perfect scores municipalities from extending non- despite being in states that do not have discrimination and other protections pro-equality laws. to LGBT constituents and employees. Other states have passed laws that expressly prevent cities from adopting LGBT-inclusive laws or policies.
The city should be able to achieve a perfect score on the basis of municipal law alone.
32 How it woRks: AckNowledgiNg coNteXt hrc.org/mei
f-HRC-MEI.indd 32 11/14/13 9:33 AM Mei All-stARs
High Scores in States without Supportive State Law
89 NEW HOPE 100 100 PHILADELPHIA 90 PHOENIX 91 85 TUCSON FORT WORTH DALLAS
100 91 86 NEW AUSTIN ORLEANS SAN ANTONIO 83
100 CLEVELAND
ATLANTA 100 86 EAST COLUMBUS 88 90 LANSING ANN CINCINNATI ARBOR 84 87
TALLAHASSEE 100 SALT LAKE MISSOULA CITY 100 89 KANSAS 100 CITY TAMPA ST. LOUIS
hrc.org/mei How it woRks 33
f-HRC-MEI.indd 33 11/14/13 9:33 AM Understanding Restrictive State Law
Some states restrict their cities from Bonus points are offered for testing passing inclusive laws either by passing the limits of these state restrictions, specific legislation that prohibits cities while standard points reflect city from doing so or through application leadership advocating against the state of the Dillon’s Rule (which prevents restrictions. These bonus points help cities from providing broader non- to level the playing field for restricted discrimination protections than those cities; however, a city with these offered under state law) to LGBT- state restrictions will find it extremely inclusive legislation. challenging—and, in some cases, perhaps impossible—to score a 100 An example of restrictive legislation on the MEI. is a Tennessee law that prohibits municipalities from passing non- While this may initially appear to be discrimination ordinances that affect at odds with the MEI’s purpose of private employees. Application of the evaluating what cities do, the bottom Dillon’s Rule also prevents cities in line is that these vital protections Virginia from providing domestic partner don’t exist for the folks who live benefits to LGBT city employees and work in these cities. That these because the state does not grant those cities will face an uphill battle in earning benefits to its employees. points for certain criteria on the MEI is a reflection of the actual difficulties they Because of these types of restrictions, face as a result of restrictive state law. not every city has the power to enact Ameliorating the effect of a restrictive the types of legislation that the MEI state law on the MEI score would measures. Cities with a dedication to be a dishonest representation of the equality that are in Virginia, Tennessee, protections that the city truly does offer. and North Carolina, for example, will never be able to score as well as A final note on this subject: where a cities with comparable dedication to city has passed laws protecting LGBT equality that exist in states without the people and continues to enforce restrictive laws. those laws, even when those laws are arguably unenforceable but have not the Mei provides avenues for cities definitively been invalidated by case law that are dedicated to equality—as or statute, the MEI gives the city credit some cities in Virginia, North Carolina, for the law. and Tennessee are—to have that dedication reflected in their score despite restrictive state law.
Not every city has the power to enact the types of legislation that the MEI measures.
34 How it woRks hrc.org/mei
f-HRC-MEI.indd 34 11/14/13 9:33 AM Effect of Enforcement and Lived Experience
The MEI is an encapsulation of the The MEI can make some limited, truly experienced zero hate crimes of best practices of inclusion followed blunt judgments about the existence any kind in five years. While this is a by cities nationwide. It is a blueprint of enforcement, if not its quality. judgment call, it is the best measure the for positive change and an opportunity For example, one of the harder MEI has to determine if hate crimes are for cities to become aware of best questions the MEI faces is evaluating being taken seriously at the local level. practices in municipal equality. It is not how seriously police departments take a ranking of the friendliest cities in anti-LGBT related violence. a 100-point city, then, may have which to live. it neither attempts to terrific policies—a well-trained quantify how respectfully cities While the MEI awards points to cities police force, a police liaison, and enforce their laws, nor does it try that report hate crimes statistics to the consistent hate crimes reporting—but to gauge the experience of an lGBt FBI, it does not evaluate whether the nevertheless have an atmosphere person interacting with the police report made by the police department to in which lGBt people have intense or city hall. the FBI is an accurate reflection of hate fear of tangling with the police crimes, whether detectives competently department. Fair and respectful implementation collected evidence related to proving a of the best practices described by hate-related motivation for the violence This fear may be magnified for LGBT the MEI is crucial if the policies are to or whether the police department people of color or undocumented have any meaning. Realistically, the created a safe space for victims to LGBT immigrants, and the MEI reflects MEI simply has no objective way of come forward. discrimination against those populations measuring the equality of enforcement. in only a general way. On the other Even the most thoughtful survey of Collecting and assessing such data hand, a police department in a laws and policies cannot objectively in an objective, thorough way would 40-point city could have none of assess the efficacy of enforcement and be impossible. However, a city will these policies but have a reputation it certainly cannot encapsulate the lived not receive credit for reporting hate for fair and respectful enforcement. experience of discrimination that many crimes if the city hasn’t reported any LGBT people—even those living in hate crimes of any kind this year or for The MEI specifically rates cities on their 100-point cities—face every day. five previous years. The MEI deems laws and policies; it is not a measure this effectively non-reporting because of an LGBT person’s lived experience in the probability is very low that a city that city.
The MEI is not a measure of an LGBT person’s lived experience in that city.
hrc.org/mei How it woRks 35
f-HRC-MEI.indd 35 11/14/13 9:33 AM WhAT We fOUND
36 AN INTRODUCTIONiNtRoductioN hrc.org/mei hrc.org/mei AN INTRODUCTION 37
f-HRC-MEI.indd 36 11/14/13 6:27 PM f-HRC-MEI.indd 37 11/14/13 6:27 PM wHAtWhAT weWe fouNdfOUND
36 AN INTRODUCTION hrc.org/mei hrc.org/mei AN INTRODUCTIONiNtRoductioN 37
f-HRC-MEI.indd 36 11/14/13 6:27 PM f-HRC-MEI.indd 37 11/14/13 6:27 PM suMMARy of Results
Success from Coast to Coast
The results of this year’s MEI These cities and many more cities tHAt did prove that cities of all sizes in states demonstrated that cities across pARticulARly well iN 2013 across the country take matters of the country have a commitment weRe cities cHoseN foR equality seriously. Of the 25 cities to lGBt equality that is unbridled tHeiR HigH pRopoRtioN of that scored 100 points, only six (24%) by regionalism and not confined to sAMe-seX couples have populations of over a million the parts of the country many people these cities scored 80 points on people. Seven have populations of assume are most LGBT-friendly. average. For those cities that fell between a half million and a million within multiple city selection criteria, people, and nine have populations of overall, cities rated in the 2013 Mei the positive influence of same-sex between one hundred thousand and averaged 57 points, which is down couples was magnified: a city with a five hundred thousand people. slightly from last year’s average score high proportion of same-sex couples of 59 points. As cities rated in 2012 averaged 88 points if it was also a state tHRee 100-poiNt cities tended to improve their scores in 2013, capital; 87 points if it was also one of HAve populAtioNs of this is explained by the addition of new the 150 largest cities; 95 points if it less tHAN oNe HuNdRed cities in the MEI 2013. Generally, cities was also one of the three largest cities tHousANd people. being rated for the first time in 2013 in the state; and 93 points if it was also One city—Missoula, Montana—that tended to perform worse than the cities a university city. does so without the help of statewide rated in 2012; this is likely because the relationship recognition or non- criteria used to select cities last year None of the other combinations had discrimination laws. This highlights captured cities that were more likely to this type of effect. Further, where three the momentum for municipal equality have already taken steps to make their or more city selection criteria applied that has been sweeping through small laws and policies LGBT inclusive. this effect was even more pronounced: cities across the country. where one of those three criteria The average score for the three largest was that the city is home to a high tHis MoMeNtuM cities in each state was 55 points; the proportion of same-sex couples, the toucHes eveRy coRNeR average score for the 51-150 largest average score rose by over 25 points. of tHe couNtRy. cities in the country was 53 points; and Cities in the West had the highest the average score for the cities home to These findings underscore an important average score and consistently scored the state’s largest public university was point: when matters of equality come above 70 points; cities in the Great 61 points. These scores brought down up, cities of all sizes in all parts of Lakes and New England regions the overall average of all participating the country respond by adopting followed closely behind; and cities in cities. This comes despite the overall more inclusive laws and policies. Mountain and Mid-Atlantic states came rise in scores being rated for the in above average. While cities in the second year. Both of these trends are Southeast, Southwest, and Plains states likely to persist in future editions of the tended to come in below average, there MEI, and the improvement of cities from were several notable scores in those year to year should not be obscured by regions: Saint Louis and Kansas City, a decrease in the overall average score. Missouri both received perfect scores, as did Austin, Phoenix, and Atlanta. New Orleans and Fort Worth each scored 91 points, with Tucson scoring 90, Tampa 89, San Antonio 86, Dallas 85 and Tallahassee 84.
38 wHAt we fouNd hrc.org/mei
f-HRC-MEI.indd 38 11/14/13 9:33 AM equAlity AcRoss AMeRicA
Cities across the country have a commitment to LGBT equality that
is unbridled by regionalism and AVeRAGe lARGe cities not confined to the parts of the country MediuM cities many people assume are most sMAll cities LGBT friendly.
70 82 61 67 59 76 49 58 59 74 57 50 69 88 77 65
GReAt lAKes Mid-AtlANtic MouNtAiN New eNGlANd
45 66 45 33 37 59 35 28 44 59 26 50 74 79 71 73
PlAiNs soutHeAst soutHwest west
hrc.org/mei wHAt we fouNd 39
f-HRC-MEI.indd 39 11/14/13 9:33 AM success stoRy: fAiRNess cAMpAigN
Kentucky is a state of Fairness, and treating everyone with dignity and respect is just as much a rural value as an urban one.
From the hills of Appalachia to to build a groundswell of regional work for LGBTQ equality. When our our commonwealth’s capital and support through municipal Fairness state’s capital, Frankfort, became beyond, Kentuckians are mobilizing campaigns. the fifth city in our commonwealth around LGBTQ Fairness like never to outlaw LGBTQ discrimination before! And who could have Since Vicco’s historic step—and this August, it became clear there’s known it would be our rural its famed segment on The Colbert no turning back. Now two other coal country leading the way? Report—thousands of local residents Eastern Kentucky cities—Morehead Yet when the Appalachian town of have become deeply involved in and Berea—are making moves to Vicco, population 334, passed their grassroots Fairness movements that become the next municipalities with Fairness ordinance this January— span our entire commonwealth and Fairness, and it just keeps spreading! making it the smallest city in America work from a place of intersectional to ban LGBTQ discrimination—it liberation, holding immigrants’ rights, cHRis HARtMAN affirmed everything our Fairness anti-racism, trans rights, women’s Director Coalition has been hearing as we’ve rights, and others as central to our worked across the commonwealth: Kentucky is a state of Fairness, and treating everyone with dignity and respect is just as much a rural value as an urban one.
83% of all registered kentucky voters—Republicans, democrats, and independents alike—support simple anti-discrimination protections in employment, housing, and pubic accommodations based on sexual orientation and gender identity, according to a recent poll. But just under 11% of our state legislators have signed on to support a statewide ban on discrimination, Vicco’s Fairness Ordinance was featured on a segment of the Colbert Report entitled which is why we have endeavored “People Who Are Destroying America—Johnny Cummings.” The Colbert Report photo still courtesy of Comedy Central ©2013 Comedy Partners. All rights reserved.
40 success stoRy hrc.org/mei scoRes
fiNAl I. Non-DiscriminationII. Relationship Recognition boNus poiNtsscoRe III. MunicipalityIV. asServices Employer andV. Law Programs EnforcementVI. RelationshipRegulAR with poiNts stAte city LGBT Community
AlAbAMA Birmingham 9 0 9 Huntsville 17 0 17 Mobile 19 2 21 Montgomery 15 0 15 Tuscaloosa 10 0 10
AlAskA Anchorage 21 0 21 Fairbanks 2 0 2 Juneau 20 3 23
ARizoNA Chandler 20 2 22 Gilbert 31 2 33 Glendale 13 0 13 Mesa 37 4 41 Phoenix 96 9 100 Scottsdale 23 0 23 Tempe 66 6 72 Tucson 83 7 90
ARkANsAs Fayetteville 44 2 46 Fort Smith 16 0 16 Little Rock 16 5 21 North Little Rock 17 0 17
cAlifoRNiA Anaheim 59 4 63 Bakersfield 59 0 59 Berkeley 82 13 95 Brisbane 59 2 61 Cathedral City 81 11 92 Chula Vista 64 2 66 Concord 61 7 68 Fontana 62 0 62 Fremont 77 9 86 Fresno 68 2 70 Garden Grove 59 4 63 Glendale 64 2 66
No cRedit pARtiAl MiNoRity cRedit HAlf cRedit pARtiAl MAJoRity cRedit full cRedit
hrc.org/mei wHAt we fouNd 41
f-HRC-MEI.indd 41 11/14/13 9:34 AM scoRes
fiNAl I. Non-DiscriminationII. Relationship Recognition boNus poiNtsscoRe III. MunicipalityIV. asServices Employer andV. Law Programs EnforcementVI. RelationshipRegulAR with poiNts stAte city LGBT Community
cAlifoRNiA Guerneville 80 9 89 (Sonoma County) Huntington Beach 73 3 76 Irvine 54 0 54 Lancaster 83 4 87 Long Beach 100 9 100 Los Angeles 98 7 100 Modesto 58 0 58 Moreno Valley 64 0 64 Oakland 83 9 92 Oceanside 59 0 59 Ontario 59 6 65 Oxnard 61 0 61 Palm Springs 87 13 100 Pasadena 69 5 74 Rancho Cucamonga 59 0 59 Rancho Mirage 81 9 90 Richmond 73 4 77 Riverside 84 4 88 Sacramento 84 7 91 San Bernadino 60 0 60 San Diego 93 9 100 San Francisco 100 10 100 San Jose 80 7 87 Santa Ana 52 0 52 Santa Clarita 66 2 68 Santa Rosa 56 11 67 Signal Hill 84 9 93 Stockton 70 4 74 Vallejo 64 2 66 West Hollywood 96 9 100
coloRAdo Aurora 66 0 66 Boulder 81 6 87 Colorado Springs 58 2 60 Denver 90 9 99
No cRedit pARtiAl MiNoRity cRedit HAlf cRedit pARtiAl MAJoRity cRedit full cRedit
42 wHAt we fouNd hrc.org/mei
f-HRC-MEI.indd 42 11/14/13 9:34 AM scoRes
fiNAl I. Non-DiscriminationII. Relationship Recognition boNus poiNtsscoRe III. MunicipalityIV. asServices Employer andV. Law Programs EnforcementVI. RelationshipRegulAR with poiNts stAte city LGBT Community
coNNecticut Bridgeport 61 0 61 Hartford 92 7 99 New Haven 100 5 100 Storrs (Mansfield) 58 0 58
delAwARe Dover 55 2 57 Newark 50 2 52 Rehoboth Beach 57 5 62 Wilmington 54 0 54
floRidA Cape Coral 10 0 10 Fort Lauderdale 70 7 77 Hialeah 58 0 58 Hollywood 54 0 54 Jacksonville 23 2 25 Miami 60 7 67 Miami Shores 53 3 56 Oakland Park 80 5 85 Orlando 74 5 79 Pembroke Pines 43 0 43 Port Saint Lucie 0 0 0 St. Petersburg 61 5 66 Tallahassee 75 9 84 Tampa 80 9 89 Wilton Manors 75 7 82
geoRgiA Athens 44 0 44 Atlanta 96 5 100 Augusta-Richmond 10 2 12 Avondale Estates 49 7 56 Columbus 20 0 20 Decatur 22 5 27 North Druid Hills 15 0 15 (DeKalb County)
No cRedit pARtiAl MiNoRity cRedit HAlf cRedit pARtiAl MAJoRity cRedit full cRedit
hrc.org/mei wHAt we fouNd 43
f-HRC-MEI.indd 43 11/14/13 9:34 AM success stoRy: soutH cARoliNA equAlity
The MEI has helped us build avenues of communication that remain open after the scoring process and allow us to work together to better address other LGBT related issues as they arise in the community.
the Mei has given us a tool As these elected officials look to run in our conversations about for reelection, some of the work municipal equality with south that we have achieved together carolina cities. It has provided through the Mei has been a point an opportunity to sit down with of personal pride, which they have City of Columbia and Charleston shared publicly to let LGBT voters County leaders to discuss each know that they are working for them scoring criteria, identify the steps to make their cities and counties that would need to be taken to better places for equality. secure a higher score in that area, and then determine which options The MEI has helped us build avenues were shorter term actions and which of communication that remain options were more longer term goals. open after the scoring process and Then we worked together to make allow us to work together to better them happen. address other LGBT-related issues as they arise in the community. We because the Mei gives a hope more cities in South Carolina deadline for which to complete decide to take on the criteria of our efforts, it gives our partners the MEI, even if they are not currently an incentive to complete the being scored. projects in time to ensure the highest score for their cities. it is great RyAN wilsoN to see hard work rewarded with Executive Director higher scores.
44 success stoRy hrc.org/mei
f-HRC-MEI.indd 44 11/14/13 9:34 AM scores
final I. Non-DiscriminationII. Relationship Recognition bonus pointsscore III. MunicipalityIV. asServices Employer andV. Law Programs EnforcementVI. Relationshipregular with points state city LGBT Community
HAwAii Hilo (Hawaii County) 61 0 61 Honolulu 68 4 72 Manoa (Honolulu) 60 4 64 Pearl City (Honolulu) 60 4 64 idAHo Boise 54 2 56 Meridian 13 0 13 Nampa 24 0 24 illiNois Aurora 66 0 66 Champaign 74 0 74 Chicago 94 9 100 Rockford 69 0 69 Springfield 71 7 78 iNdiANA Bloomington 68 2 70 Evansville 39 0 39 Fort Wayne 30 0 30 Indianapolis 61 5 66 iowA Cedar Rapids 63 0 63 Davenport 85 5 90 Des Moines 81 7 88 Iowa City 84 6 90 kANsAs Kansas City 0 0 0 Lawrence 55 0 55 Overland Park 27 0 27 Topeka 29 3 32 Wichita 18 4 22 keNtucky Bowling Green 17 0 17 Frankfort 31 0 31 Lexington 44 9 53 Louisville 43 7 50
No cRedit pARtiAl MiNoRity cRedit HAlf cRedit pARtiAl MAJoRity cRedit full cRedit hrc.org/mei wHAt we fouNd 45 scoRes
fiNAl I. Non-DiscriminationII. Relationship Recognition boNus poiNtsscoRe III. MunicipalityIV. asServices Employer andV. Law Programs EnforcementVI. RelationshipRegulAR with poiNts stAte city LGBT Community
louisiANA Baton Rouge 5 2 7 New Orleans 84 7 91 Shreveport 16 0 16
MAiNe Augusta 64 3 67 Bangor 48 0 48 Lewiston 59 0 59 Orono 45 2 47 Portland 83 6 89
MARylANd Annapolis 63 7 70 Baltimore 92 9 100 College Park 55 7 62 Frederick 50 2 52 Rockville 58 0 58
MAssAcHusetts Amherst 49 0 49 Boston 92 9 100 Cambridge 94 9 100 Northampton 73 7 80 Provincetown 67 9 76 Springfield 52 4 56 Worcester 53 2 55
MicHigAN Ann Arbor 75 13 88 Detroit 63 9 72 East Lansing 79 7 86 Ferndale 40 5 45 Grand Rapids 49 7 56 Lansing 59 7 66 Pleasant Ridge 53 7 60 Warren 13 2 15
MiNNesotA Minneapolis 88 13 100 Rochester 61 5 66 Saint Paul 83 13 96
No cRedit pARtiAl MiNoRity cRedit HAlf cRedit pARtiAl MAJoRity cRedit full cRedit
46 wHAt we fouNd hrc.org/mei
f-HRC-MEI.indd 46 11/14/13 9:34 AM scoRes
fiNAl I. Non-DiscriminationII. Relationship Recognition boNus poiNtsscoRe III. MunicipalityIV. asServices Employer andV. Law Programs EnforcementVI. RelationshipRegulAR with poiNts stAte city LGBT Community
Mississippi Gulfport 10 0 10 Jackson 15 2 17 Southaven 0 0 0 Starkville 0 0 0
MissouRi Columbia 70 4 74 Jefferson City 10 2 12 Kansas City 94 7 100 Springfield 31 6 37 St. Louis 96 9 100
MoNtANA Billings 19 2 21 Great Falls 20 2 22 Helena 48 0 48 Missoula 89 11 100
NebRAskA Bellevue 6 0 6 Lincoln 42 4 46 Omaha 59 5 64
NevAdA Carson City 53 2 55 Enterprise 82 8 90 (Clark County) Henderson 53 2 55 Las Vegas 83 8 91 North Las Vegas 53 0 53 Paradise (Clark County) 82 8 90 Reno 59 2 61
New HAMpsHiRe Concord 53 2 55 Durham 65 6 71 Manchester 55 2 57 Nashua 48 0 48
New JeRsey Asbury Park 54 5 59 Jersey City 96 11 100 Lambertville 73 3 76 New Brunswick 71 6 77
No cRedit pARtiAl MiNoRity cRedit HAlf cRedit pARtiAl MAJoRity cRedit full cRedit
hrc.org/mei wHAt we fouNd 47
f-HRC-MEI.indd 47 11/14/13 9:34 AM scores
final I. Non-DiscriminationII. Relationship Recognition bonus pointsscore III. MunicipalityIV. asServices Employer andV. Law Programs EnforcementVI. Relationshipregular with points state city LGBT Community
New JeRsey Newark 74 2 76 Ocean Grove 74 3 77 Paterson 60 0 60 Trenton 55 2 57
New MeXico Albuquerque 55 7 62 Eldorado at Santa Fe 37 5 42 (Santa Fe County) Las Cruces 42 2 44 Rio Rancho 37 0 37 Santa Fe 69 9 78
New yoRk Albany 90 9 99 Buffalo 50 2 52 New York 95 13 100 Northwest Harbor 60 0 60 Rochester 89 9 98 Yonkers 69 0 69
NoRtH cARoliNA Charlotte 44 7 51 Durham 48 8 56 Fayetteville 23 0 23 Greensboro 40 2 42 Raleigh 37 6 43 Winston-Salem 34 0 34
NoRtH dAkotA Bismarck 17 0 17 Fargo 40 9 49 Grand Forks 28 2 30 oHio Akron 41 7 48 Cincinnati 79 11 90 Cleveland 79 4 83 Columbus 92 9 100 Toledo 66 4 70
No cRedit pARtiAl MiNoRity cRedit HAlf cRedit pARtiAl MAJoRity cRedit full cRedit
48 wHAt we fouNd hrc.org/mei success stoRy: pHilAdelpHiA, peNNsylvANiA
The Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce stands for equality in the workplace because it’s good for business, and because equality is a value we honor and cherish.
the greater philadelphia Secondly, the chamber has a chamber of commerce in 2013 long, strong history of supporting publicly came out in support of diversity and inclusion in the local legislation in philadelphia philadelphia workplace. We that incentivizes city businesses have a Diversity and Inclusion that voluntarily offer health care Committee that regularly meets benefits to the life partners of their and promotes more diverse boards employees. The legislation, offered and executive positions in the by City Councilman James Kenney, Philadelphia workplace. We carefully provides for a tax credit against local survey our member companies on business taxes for those companies how they value diversity in their that elect to provide health coverage daily businesses, and, suggest best to their employees’ partners. practices on how best to advance The law passed Council and was these values. signed by Mayor Michael Nutter earlier this year—the first of its kind Studies show that businesses in the country. that adopt and practice policies promoting a more diverse the chamber of commerce workplace are businesses that testified in support of the compete better, attract and retain legislation for two reasons. higher quality workers, and thrive in the marketplace. The Greater First, we look favorably towards Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce legislation that offers business a stands for equality in the workplace voluntary inducement to comply because it’s good for business, and with the substantive matter at because equality is a value we honor issue, in this case, providing health and cherish. coverage—as opposed to involuntary mandates, which we oppose. Joe gRAce Director of Public Policy, Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce
hrc.org/mei success stoRy 49
f-HRC-MEI.indd 49 11/14/13 9:34 AM scoRes
fiNAl I. Non-DiscriminationII. Relationship Recognition boNus poiNtsscoRe III. MunicipalityIV. asServices Employer andV. Law Programs EnforcementVI. RelationshipRegulAR with poiNts stAte city LGBT Community
oklAHoMA Norman 31 2 33 Oklahoma City 26 2 28 Tulsa 41 5 46
oRegoN Eugene 89 4 93 Portland 95 13 100 Salem 89 2 91
peNNsylvANiA Allentown 46 4 50 Harrisburg 71 5 76 New Hope 80 9 89 Philadelphia 100 13 100 Pittsburgh 69 3 72 State College 63 0 63 (University Park)
RHode islANd Cranston 67 0 67 Kingston 58 0 58 (South Kingstown) Providence 77 4 81 Warwick 67 2 69
soutH cARoliNA Charleston 47 7 54 Columbia 52 9 61 North Charleston 40 7 47
soutH dAkotA Aberdeen 10 0 10 Brookings 29 5 34 Pierre 13 0 13 Rapid City 17 2 19 Sioux Falls 22 2 24
teNNessee Chattanooga 10 5 15 Knoxville 34 4 38 Memphis 34 6 40 Nashville 50 11 61
No cRedit pARtiAl MiNoRity cRedit HAlf cRedit pARtiAl MAJoRity cRedit full cRedit
50 wHAt we fouNd hrc.org/mei
f-HRC-MEI.indd 50 11/14/13 9:34 AM scoRes
fiNAl I. Non-DiscriminationII. Relationship Recognition boNus poiNtsscoRe III. MunicipalityIV. asServices Employer andV. Law Programs EnforcementVI. RelationshipRegulAR with poiNts stAte city LGBT Community
teXAs Amarillo 16 0 16 Arlington 11 0 11 Austin 89 11 100 Brownsville 38 0 38 Corpus Christi 17 2 19 Dallas 76 9 85 El Paso 45 6 51 Fort Worth 82 9 91 Garland 17 0 17 Grand Prairie 21 0 21 Houston 54 9 63 Irving 16 0 16 Laredo 0 2 2 Lubbock 5 0 5 Plano 12 2 14 San Antonio 75 11 86
utAH Provo 10 0 10 Salt Lake City 80 7 87 West Valley City 42 0 42
veRMoNt Burlington 66 7 73 Essex 54 0 54 Montpelier 68 0 68 South Burlington 58 0 58
viRgiNiA Alexandria 57 13 70 Arlington County 65 11 76 Chesapeake 15 0 15 Fairfax County 34 6 40 Newport News 20 0 20 Norfolk 10 2 12 Richmond 32 4 36 Virginia Beach 28 4 32
No cRedit pARtiAl MiNoRity cRedit HAlf cRedit pARtiAl MAJoRity cRedit full cRedit
hrc.org/mei wHAt we fouNd 51
f-HRC-MEI.indd 51 11/14/13 9:34 AM scoRes
fiNAl I. Non-DiscriminationII. Relationship Recognition boNus poiNtsscoRe III. MunicipalityIV. asServices Employer andV. Law Programs EnforcementVI. RelationshipRegulAR with poiNts stAte city LGBT Community
wAsHiNgtoN Olympia 65 2 67 Seattle 100 13 100 Spokane 69 2 71 Tacoma 83 7 90 Vancouver 62 4 66 Vashon 86 9 95 (King County)
west viRgiNiA Charleston 60 4 64 Huntington 13 0 13 Morgantown 57 0 57 Parkersburg 16 0 16
wiscoNsiN Green Bay 46 2 48 Madison 91 9 100 Milwaukee 83 8 91
wyoMiNg Casper 10 0 10 Cheyenne 10 4 14 Laramie 10 0 10
No cRedit pARtiAl MiNoRity cRedit HAlf cRedit pARtiAl MAJoRity cRedit full cRedit
52 wHAt we fouNd hrc.org/mei
f-HRC-MEI.indd 52 11/14/13 9:34 AM success stoRy: equAlity oHio
Somewhere in these processes, I “fell in love” with helping municipalities find their pathways to equality.
In 2005, I became the founding For years, I have tracked municipal Executive Director of Equality Toledo. LGBT legislative work across Ohio. From our organizational inception, we worked with the University of Because of my experience assisting Toledo to create a Domestic Partner Ohio municipalities on their benefits offering. This was followed legislative journeys, I have been by an effort to pass the first City helping with the Human Rights Council-approved Domestic Partner Campaign Foundation’s Municipal Registry in Ohio. Somewhere in Equality Index (MEI) for the last two these processes, I “fell in love” with years. Given the increasing level helping municipalities find their of exposure from the MEI, cities pathways to equality. are working hard to improve their profiles. In 2008, I accepted a position with Equality Ohio and have continued it’s a growing trend, and lgbt- to assist municipalities in passing friendly cities are getting creative inclusive, forward moving ordinances. in how they compete to be more i have been able to act as a welcoming. This year I was able to resource, offering advice, data consult with City of Toledo leaders and samples for local advocates. to discuss the ways in which Toledo Occasionally, I have the opportunity can be even more inclusive. I love to be more involved as I was with the being a part of growing equality registry process in Dayton, Ohio. and helping Ohio’s municipalities become the very best they can be.
kiM welteR Deputy Director
hrc.org/mei success stoRy 53
f-HRC-MEI.indd 53 11/14/13 9:34 AM tAke ActioN foR equAlity
Bring Equality to Your Hometown
The scoring rubric applied by the MEI is 1. leARN About youR city’s very specific, and a detailed, long-form cuRReNt scoRe scorecard for each city rated is available The best place to begin is by examining at www.hrc.org/mei. the city’s scorecard carefully. Only summaries of each city’s scorecard These scorecards make clear which are printed in this report; go online to categories resulted in an award of www.hrc.org/mei to see the full-length, points to the municipality and which detailed scorecard for each city. did not. Once you know which parts of the scorecard are areas of opportunity 2. tAke stock of tHe for improvement, you should begin oppoRtuNities investigating how your city can go about No city scored every point available on changing that policy. the 2013 MEI. Every city assessed has an opportunity to do better in 2014, For help with this, please feel free to and identifying that opportunity for contact the Human Rights Campaign improvement is the second step. Foundation at [email protected] or your local Equality Federation Institute member. 3. sHARe ANd educAte Use the MEI to start conversations with your city council representative, your neighbors, and your friends. Impress upon these people the opportunities you’ve identified for your city. For help doing this, contact HRC Foundation at [email protected] and your local member of the Equality Federation.
4. MAke equAlity HAppeN Work with your city leadership to turn opportunity into reality. See your score 2013 Mei on the 2014 MEI improve. Repeat. scoRecARd A detailed, long-form scorecard for each city rated is available at www.hrc.org/mei.
54 wHAt we fouNd: tAke ActioN foR equAlity hrc.org/mei
f-HRC-MEI.indd 54 11/14/13 9:34 AM cHANges to tHe Mei iN 2014
New Point Distribution and Standards
the Mei 2014 will roll out an updAtes iNclude updated scoring system that will include a new point distribution and • Transgender-inclusive healthcare more rigorous standards. benefits have been converted into standard points, reflecting these updates reflect a changing the increased accessibility of legal landscape and the maturing of these benefits by cities across the the project. Cities rated in 2013 were country. alerted to these changes during the 2013 evaluation process. • Human Rights Commissions will be split into standard and bonus points there are two major ways in which to emphasize the importance of a the scoring for the Mei 2014 will be commission having enforcement different from scoring in previous ability. years. First, there will be some changes to the scorecard itself. Second, we • Two categories are being condensed: will be holding cities to a higher, more pre-emption of DP registries will now specific standard in awarding points for be accounted for in Facing State all criteria. Restrictions, and Engagement with the LGBT Community will now be A revised scorecard for 2014 is folded into City Leadership. reflected on the following page. It will continue to reflect 100 standard points • Services for Vulnerable Populations and 20 bonus points. will be expanded to have each of the four components be worth two bonus points rather than two bonus points total. Other point allocations have also been tweaked.
The 2014 MEI will roll out an updated scoring system.
hrc.org/mei wHAt we fouNd 55
f-HRC-MEI.indd 55 11/14/13 9:34 AM 2014 Mei scoRecARd
CITY, STATE 1/2 2014 MUNICIPAL EQUALITY INDEX SCORECARD
I. Non-Discrimination Laws STATE COUNTY CITY AVAILABLE
This category evaluates whether Employment discrimination on the basis of sexual X X X X X X 3 3 orientation and gender identity is Housing prohibited by the city, county, or state in X X X X X X 3 3 areas of employment, housing, and public accommodations. Public Accommodations X X X X X X 3 3
SCORE x out of 18
II. Relationship Recognition STATE COUNTY CITY AVAILABLE
Marriage, civil unions, and comprehensive Marriage Equality, Civil Unions, domestic partnerships are matters of state or Domestic Partnerships X 12 policy; cities and counties have only the Municipal Domestic Partner Registry power to create domestic partner registries. X X 12
SCORE x out of 12
III. Municipality as Employer CITY AVAILABLE
By offering equivalent benefits and Non-Discrimination in City Employment protections to LGBT employees, and by X X 5 5 awarding contracts to fair-minded businesses, Domestic Partner Health Benefits municipalities commit themselves to treating X 4 LGBT employees equally. Transgender-Inclusive Healthcare Benefits X 4
Legal Dependent Benefits X 2
Equivalent Family Leave X 2
City Contractor Non-Discrimination Ordinance X X 2 2
City Contractor Equal Benefits Ordinance X 34
SCORE x out of 29
BONUS Grossing Up of Employee Benefits +X +2
BONUS Municipality is a Welcoming +X +2 Place to Work
PTS FOR SEXUAL ORIENTATION PTS FOR GENDER IDENTITY + BONUS PTS for criteria not accessible to all cities at this time.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT CITY SELECTION, CRITERIA OR THE MEI SCORING SYSTEM, PLEASE VISIT HRC.ORG/MEI. All cities rated were provided their scorecard in advance of publication and given the opportunity to submit revisions. For feedback regarding a particular city’s scorecard, please email [email protected].
1 hrc.org/mei
56 wHAt we fouNd hrc.org/mei CITY, STATE 2/2 2014 MUNICIPAL EQUALITY INDEX SCORECARD
IV. Municipal Services STATE COUNTY CITY AVAILABLE
This section assesses the efforts of the city Human Rights Commission to ensure LGBT constituents are included in X 4 city services and programs. LGBT Liaison in the Mayor’s Office X 5
Enumerated Anti-Bullying School Policies X X X X X X 3 3
SCORE x out of 15
BONUS Enforcement mechanism in Human +X +3 Rights Commission
BONUS City provides services to LGBT youth +X +2
BONUS City provides services to LGBT +X +2 homeless BONUS City provides services to LGBT +X +2 elderly BONUS City provides services to people +X +2 living with HIV/AIDS
V. Law Enforcement CITY AVAILABLE
Fair enforcement of the law includes LGBT Police Liaison or Task Force responsible reporting of hate crimes and X 8 engaging with the LGBT community in a Reported 2011 Hate Crimes Statistics thoughtful and respectful way. to the FBI X 10
SCORE x out of 18
VI. Relationship with the LGBT Community CITY AVAILABLE
This category measures the city leadership’s Leadership’s Public Position on LGBT Equality commitment to fully include the LGBT X 5 community and to advocate for full equality. Leadership’s Pro-Equality Legislative or Policy Efforts X 3
SCORE x out of 8
BONUS Openly LGBT elected or appointed +X +3 municipal leaders BONUS Cities are pro-equality despite +X +2 restrictive state law
TOTAL SCORE XXX + TOTAL BONUS XX = Final Score XXX CANNOT EXCEED 100
hrc.org/mei 2
hrc.org/mei wHAt we fouNd 57 AckNowledgeMeNts
About tHe AutHoR tHe Mei teAM We owe many thanks to Jessie Cathryn Oakley is Legislative Counsel, the 2013 Mei is a project that Sheffield, Sam Anderson, Limor Finkel State and Municipal Advocacy at the requires a significant breadth and and Jennifer Pike who jumped in when Human Rights Campaign Foundation. In depth of expertise to pull off, and we needed extra hands, and also to addition to conducting, managing, and fortunately the team of people who the law fellows and interns who helped publishing the Municipal Equality Index, support this project is more than up out throughout the process. Paul she is responsible for assisting state to the task. Guequierre has been an indispensable and local legislators and advocates friend to and a voice of municipal in enacting laws that further LGBT As ever, this project simply would not equality. Aisha Satterwhite has been equality. She is a member of HRC have been possible without Sarah a patient and helpful guide. Janice Foundation’s field team. Warbelow and Whitney Lovell, each Hughes and Bob Villaflor made sure of whom dispensed truly incredible everything was beautiful, informative Cathryn is a member of the Virginia amounts of wisdom and support—not and on time, and Soung Wiser and bar and practiced family law before to mention elbow grease—and are Caroline Brickell of The General joining the Human Rights Campaign responsible for making this project Design Co. are responsible for the Foundation. She is a graduate of actually happen. incredible design. George Mason University School of Law and Smith College. This year the MEI owes a particular fiNAlly, but especiAlly, we debt of gratitude to Michael Porcello, tHANk ouR pARtNeRs At Research Fellow Extraordinaire, who tHe equAlity fedeRAtioN provided vital research, logistical, and iNstitute. moral support to the MEI 2013. The This partnership has been a delight and dramatic expansion of this project has brought real value to the project would not have been possible without from the start. It has been a particular him, and the MEI benefited greatly from pleasure to work so closely with Ian his months of hard work collecting, Palmquist, and the MEI owes a real managing and assessing thousands of debt of gratitude to Ian, A.J. Bockelman, pieces of data. We offer him a heartfelt Brandie Balken, Chuck Smith, Katie acknowledgement of everything that he Belanger and Ted Martin for sharing contributed to this project and we will their thoughtful advice about growing miss him next year. and improving the MEI. We thank those Equality Federation partners who Pamela O’Leary joined the MEI team shared their story in this publication. this year and jumped in right away— The participation of so many state we are thankful for her enthusiasm, leaders has made this project a much dedication, and many hard hours of more robust and useful educational tool, work. Her contribution was critical to and a very special thanks goes out to the project’s success and we were glad every Equality Federation member who to have had her on board. provided feedback—please see the facing page for the logos of groups that were particularly engaged in For questions or additional information, making the Mei a success this year. We look forward to working with you please contact [email protected]. again next year for MEI 2014!
58 wHAt we fouNd hrc.org/mei AckNowledgeMeNts tAble of coNteNts
Frequently Asked Questions An Introduction
HowAbout weR etH teH eseAut HoR HowtH eAR Meei t HteeAM scoRes cANWe o oweNly many cities thanks iN tost JessieAtes 4 TheA Municipal Letter from Chad Equality Griffin, PresidentIndex wouldof the Human not Rightshave Campaign been possible Foundation without the valuable 5 A Letter from Rebecca Isaacs, Executive Director of the Equality Federation Institute citiesCathryn cH OakleyoseN? is Legislative Counsel, cAThelcul 2013Ated? MEI is a project that witSheffield,H good Sam lA Anderson,ws get Limorgood Finkel contributions made by state and local advocates. A particular thanks therefore goes ThisState year, and the Municipal cities rated Advocacy are: the at the Citiesrequires are rated a significant on a scale breadth of 0-100, and scoandR es?Jennifer Pike who jumped in when 6 “Enduring Growth for Cities Is Driven by Diversity,” by Richard Florida 50 Humanstate capitals, Rights Campaign the 150 largest Foundation. Inbased depth on ofthe expertise city’s laws, to pullpolicies, off, and Definitelywe needed not. extraThe MEI hands, was and also to out to the following: citiesaddition in the to United conducting, States, managing, the 3 and benefits,fortunately and services. the team There of people are who specificallythe law fellows designed and tointerns measure who helpedthe largestpublishing cities theor municipalities Municipal Equality in Index, 100support standard this points project and is 20 more bonus than up lawsout and throughout policies theof the process. municipality, Paul eachshe state, is responsible the city home for assisting to the state pointsto the (bonus task. points are awarded for not Guequierrethe state. While has been state an lawindispensable might How It Works state’sand largestlocal legislators public university and advocates programming or actions that apply addfriend to a city’sto and score, a voice positive of municipal state 12 Executive Summary (includingin enacting undergraduate laws that further and LGBT to someAs ever, but this not project all cities). simply For would more not lawequality. is not necessary Aisha Satterwhite for a city has to been 14 2013 MEI Scorecard graduateequality. enrollment) She is a member and 75 of cities HRC informationhave been on possible the scoring without system, Sarah scorea patient 100 points. and helpful In fact, guide. some Janice cities 16 City Selection andFoundation’s municipalities field that team. have high seeWarbelow page 17. and Whitney Lovell, each withoutHughes positive and Bob state Villaflor law did made score sure 17 Scoring Criteria Parts I - VI proportions of same-sex couples of whom dispensed truly incredible 100everything points in wasthis beautiful,year’s index. informative 26 Acknowledging Context (seeCathryn page 16is afor member more information).of the Virginia wHeRamountse did of wisdomtHe iN andfoRMAtio support—notN and on time, and Soung Wiser and • Not All Cities Are Created Equal Futurebar andeditions practiced of the family Municipal law before fotoR mentiontHese elbowsco Resgrease—and are is tCarolineHis A RANkiBrickell Nofg The of General tHe • Accounting for City Size Equalityjoining Index the Human will continue Rights Campaignto coresponsibleMe fRoM? for making this project bestDesign cities Co. are fo responsibleR lgbt people for the • Balancing State and Local Laws increaseFoundation. the number She is aof graduate cities rated. of Theactually MEI team happen. conducted the to incrediblelive iN? design. George Mason University School of research, compiled it into a draft No. This is not a ranking of a city’s • Understanding Restrictive State Law didLaw you and k SmithNow College. tHAt ___ isN’t scorecard,This year and the sentMEI owesit to the a particular city for atmospherefiNAlly, or but quality especi of life. AItlly, is we • Effect of Enforcement and Lived Experience A city? review.debt Citiesof gratitude had an to opportunityMichael Porcello, to an evaluationtHANk ou of Rthe p ARcity’stNeR lawss and At tHe Yes. A few of the places rated in reviewResearch the draft Fellow scorecard Extraordinaire, and offer who policiesequ andAlity an examinationfedeRAtio ofN. how the MEI are “census-designated anyprovided feedback vital prior research, to publication. logistical, and inclusiveThis partnership city services has are been of aLGBT delight and places” that are not incorporated as moral support to the MEI 2013. The people.has brought Some high-scoringreal value to the cities project What We Found cities. In that case, we rated the local dramatic expansion of this project may not feel truly welcoming for all from the start. It has been a particular 38 Summary of Results government that actually serves that would not have been possible without LGBT people, and some low-scoring pleasure to work so closely with Ian 41 Table of 2013 Scores census-designated place, which is him, and the MEI benefited greatly from cities may feel more welcoming than Palmquist, and the MEI owes a real 54 Take Action for Equality usually the county. This is explained his months of hard work collecting, their policies might reflect. debt of gratitude to Ian, A.J. Bockelman, 55 Changes to the MEI in 2014 further on page 16. managing and assessing thousands of Brandie Balken, Chuck Smith, Katie 58 Acknowledgements pieces of data. We offer him a heartfelt Belanger and Ted Martin for sharing acknowledgement of everything that he their thoughtful advice about growing contributed to this project and we will and improving the MEI. We thank miss him next year. those Equality Federation partners who Success Stories shared their story in this publication. Research ProcessPamela O’Leary joined the MEI team The participation of so many state 13 San Antonio, Texas by Mayor Julian Castro this year and jumped in right away— leaders has made this project a much 18 Missoula, Montana by City Councilmember Caitlin Copple The information reflected in this Ourwe team are sentthankful out fora letter her enthusiasm, by Themore feedback robust window and useful lasted educational several tool, 22 Equality Maryland by Executive Director Carrie Evans publication was gathered by the emaildedication, and certified and many mail hardin April hours to of months.and a Finally,very special cities thanks were sentgoes out to 29 Atlanta, Georgia by Mayor Kasim Reed MEI team and compiled into draft mayorswork. and Her city contribution managers was notifying critical to theirevery final Equality scorecards Federation and information member who 40 Fairness Kentucky by Executive Director Chris Hartman scorecards using publicly available themthe that project’s their citiessuccess were and being we were glad aboutprovided the 2014 feedback— MEI inplease the same see the 44 South Carolina Equality by Executive Director Ryan Wilson information. Cities were then rated.to haveThe hadletter her was on followedboard. by way.facing Equality page Federation for the logos Institute of groups 49 Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce by Director of Public Policy Joe Grace offered an opportunity to review a draft scorecard sent to the mayors statethat groups were alsoparticularly were able engaged to in 53 Equality Ohio by Deputy Executive Director Kim Welter the scorecards, ask any questions, and city managers in July also via reviewmaking the scorecardsthe MEI a success and provide this year. andFor submit questionsany additional information or additional email and certified information, mail. feedbackWe look to forward the MEI to team. working with you they wished for the MEI team again next year for MEI 2014! to consider.please contact [email protected]. © 2013 by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation. The Human Rights Campaign Foundation owns all right, title, and interest in and to this ISBN 978-1-934765-28-9 publication and all derivative works thereof. Permission for reproduction and redistribution is granted if the publication is (1) reproduced in its ISBN 1-934765-28-7 entirety and (2) distributed free of charge. The Human Rights Campaign and the Equality logo are trademarks of the Human Rights Campaign. The Human Rights Campaign Foundation and design incorporating the Equality logo are trademarks of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation.
IFC258 AN w iNtRHAt oductiowe fouNdN hrc.org/meihrc.org/mei hrc.org/meihrc.org/mei wHAt we fouNd 1 59
f-HRC-MEI.inddf-HRC-MEI.indd 2-1 58-59 11/13/1311/13/13 7:59 PM8:00 PM 11/13/13 8:25 PM 2013 2013 11/13/13 8:25 PM 2013 l lAw l lAw A A icip icip l w lA A of MuN icip of MuN tioN tioN of MuN luA luA tioN evA evA luA evA wide wide wide tioN tioN tioN Municipal Equality Index Equality Municipal A NA Municipal Equality Index Equality Municipal A NA Municipal Equality Index Equality Municipal A NA
2013 Municipal2013 Equality Municipal Index Equality A NAtioNwide Index evAlu AAtio NNA tioof MuNwideNicipA evAl lAwluAtioN of MuNicipAl lAw (202) 628-4160 (800) 777-4723 esk: d ree: t (202) 347-5323 : (202) 216-1572 roN f oll- t fAx: 1640 Rhode Island Ave. N.W. 1640 Rhode Island 20036-3278 DC Washington, f ttY HRC-cover.indd 1 (202) 628-4160 (202) 628-4160 (800) 777-4723 (800) 777-4723 esk: esk: d d ree: ree: t t (202) 347-5323 (202) 347-5323 : (202) 216-1572 : (202) 216-1572 roN f oll- roN f oll- fAx: 1640 Rhode Island Ave. N.W. 1640 Rhode DC 20036-3278 Washington, f ttY t fAx: 1640 Rhode Island Ave. N.W. 1640 Rhode DC 20036-3278 Washington, f ttY t HRC-cover.indd 1