AP PHOTO/JEFF ROBERSON PHOTO/JEFF AP Advancing LGBTQ Equality Through Local Executive Action By Laura E. Durso, Caitlin Rooney, Sharita Gruberg, Sejal Singh, Shabab Ahmed Mirza, Frank J. Bewkes, Aaron Ridings, and Daniel Clark August 2017 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG Advancing LGBTQ Equality Through Local Executive Action By Laura E. Durso, Caitlin Rooney, Sharita Gruberg, Sejal Singh, Shabab Ahmed Mirza, Frank J. Bewkes, Aaron Ridings, and Daniel Clark August 2017 Contents 1 Introduction and summary 3 How to read this report 5 Governance 5 Employment and inclusion in local government 7 Enact an LGBTQ-inclusive nondiscrimination policy 9 Take steps to recruit and retain LGBTQ employees 11 Prohibit city and county employees from discriminating in services, activities, and programs 13 Ensure restrooms in city and county buildings are accessible regardless of gender identity or expression 15 Ensure that human resources policies and benefits for city and county employees are inclusive of LGBTQ people and their families 19 Establish an office of equity 21 Fund LGBTQ employee resource groups 21 Executive budget 23 Contracting and licensing 23 Include LGBTQ-inclusive nondiscrimination requirements in contracts and grants, including a requirement to not engage in conversion therapy 25 Revoke licenses of businesses that violate nondiscrimination laws 27 Include LGBTQ-owned businesses alongside other minority-owned businesses in contracting opportunities 29 Trainings and technical assistance 30 Make government employee diversity trainings LGBTQ-inclusive 33 Mandate LGBTQ-inclusive trainings for local police 37 Provide cultural competency training to service providers working with LGBTQ older adults 39 Expand the collection of data on sexual orientation and gender identity 42 Community engagement 42 Appoint an LGBTQ liaison in the executive office and in relevant agencies 44 Establish an LGBTQ commission or advisory board to guide the executive, council members, and other administrative officials 46 Issue proclamations and support visible indicators of LGBTQ acceptance and inclusion 48 Develop and publicize LGBTQ-specific programming for seniors 50 Provide access to culturally competent language services 51 Commemorate LGBTQ history 52 Issue 100-day challenges to end LGBTQ homelessness Contents 56 Equality across policy domains 56 Education 58 Adopt LGBTQ-inclusive nondiscrimination policies in schools and school districts 59 Issue an anti-harassment and bullying policy protecting LGBTQ students 61 Ensure that schools promptly and effectively respond to anti-LGBTQ harassment 64 Ensure that school personnel are trained to address anti-LGBTQ bullying and support LGBTQ students 65 Remove gender-based requirements from dress codes 66 Allow equal access for transgender students in gender-segregated facilities 67 Ensure that LGBTQ families can access early education programs 68 End Zero-tolerance discipline and reduce suspensions and expulsions of LGBTQ students 70 Provide LGBTQ-inclusive sexual health education 73 Health and health care 74 Develop a community action plan on LGBTQ health 75 Direct consumer fraud protection agencies to distribute information about the discredited practices known as conversion therapy, including harms to consumers 76 Make healthcare plans accessible to undocumented LGBTQ immigrants 77 Employment and housing 78 Support a living wage 79 Expand ID card access for LGBTQ people 81 Create economic empowerment programs for LGBTQ people and expand access to apprenticeships 83 Implement fair chance hiring practices 87 Immigration and criminal justice 87 Issue LGBTQ-Inclusive guidance on profiling 89 Implement alternatives to fines and fees 90 Cease renting jail beds to the Department of Homeland Security 91 Designate your city a “sanctuary city” 94 Conclusion 95 About the authors 98 Acknowledgements 99 Endnotes Introduction and summary On June 26, 2015, the LGBTQ rights movement reached a major milestone in the pursuit of full equality when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized marriage for same- sex couples nationwide. Despite this progress, more than 200 laws designed to allow discrimination toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people were introduced at the federal, state, and local levels in 2016. The massacre at the Pulse Night Club in Orlando, Florida, last June claimed the lives of nearly 50 peo- ple, the majority of whom identified as LGBTQ and people of color, and the num- ber of transgender people murdered in 2016 simply for being themselves, almost all of whom were transgender women of color, was the highest yet recorded. Violence and discrimination born of intolerance and marginalization continue to take lives and create barriers to equity and opportunity for LGBTQ people and their families, and in 2017 the Trump administration has presented new threats to this community. Members of Trump’s Cabinet and other agency appointees show clear animus against LGBTQ equality and have already taken steps to undermine protections for LGBTQ people, including rescinding the Obama administration’s guidance clarifying the rights of transgender students in schools, hampering efforts to collect data on sexual orientation and gender identity in federal surveys, and promoting a vision of so-called religious liberty that can be misused to discriminate against LGBTQ communities. With the federal government taking a reduced or even hostile role in protecting civil rights, further action can and must happen at the local level. The goal of achieving full legal and lived equality for LGBTQ people and their families can only be met with the support of local leaders who are in a position to make decisions that fully include and protect LGBTQ people. Mayors, county executives, and other leaders who manage local jurisdictions have the power to take action and make a difference in the lives of LGBTQ people and families. Studies on the diffusion of policy ideas indicate that actions that begin at the local level have the potential to influence peer jurisdictions and can translate to changes at the state and federal levels in a phenomenon called the “snowball effect.”1 1 Center for American Progress | Advancing LGBTQ Equality Through Local Executive Action Counties and municipalities that pass policies to better serve LGBTQ commu- nity members serve as case studies that provide policymakers with opportunities to evaluate and refine the effectiveness of emerging ideas that can be adopted in other jurisdictions. In 2001, the City and County of San Francisco, under the leadership of its mayor, became the first major jurisdiction to remove exclusions that banned employee access to medically necessary transgender-specific care under employee health care plans.2 Shortly thereafter, executives from across the country began adopting similar policies once questions about the policy were addressed during the imple- mentation process. In 2016, 86 of the 506 cities that were rated in the Human Rights Campaign’s Municipal Equality Index had removed transgender exclusions from employee health care plans.3 Local executives manage governments that implement thousands of federal and state programs, in addition to creating community-based programs that are designed to serve residents at the local level. The programs administered by local jurisdictions are diverse and encompass health, human services, economic security, education, and criminal justice services. The total annual expenditures of all local governments across the United States amounts to $1.72 trillion.4 There are currently more than 3,000 county governments and nearly 36,000 active city and town governments in the United States.5 These county and local government entities employ millions of workers and provide direct services to every resident. Simply put, local governments affect the daily lives of every American in ways both big and small. Differences in state laws authorizing the establishment of political subdivisions, including cities and counties, have resulted in the creation of numerous governance structures.6 Many localities have governing structures that centralize executive authority in an elected mayor or county executive. Certain localities require multiple elected officials to share and jointly exercise executive authority. Others elect council members who work with a manager who has executive authorities and is appointed to maintain operations beyond any individual elected member’s term. Like the relationship between the federal government and the states, each state must address similar issues when deciding how—or whether—to share power with their localities. There are two general governing types in terms of how states delegate power: home rule and Dillon’s Rule.7 Home rule states grant broad pow- ers to their municipalities to self-govern, although the exact extent varies by state, issue area, and—in some cases—by municipality.8 In states that utilize Dillon’s Rule, municipalities can only exercise those powers explicitly granted to them.9 2 Center for American Progress | Advancing LGBTQ Equality Through Local Executive Action To complicate matters, these approaches are not actually mutually exclusive, and many states use a combination of both.10 No state completely prohibits local government authority, and no local government is completely independent of and immune to state authority.11 New York, for example, follows Dillon’s Rule, but New York City is granted certain home rule powers.12 Even with this complicated landscape, mayors, county executives, and other offi-