Municipal Equality Index 2020

Every region of the country saw a mean city score increase this year, with the exception of the New England region which maintained its 2019 average. The Plains region—which includes Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota—saw the highest average city score growth, increasing by six points since the last report. Cities in the MidAtlantic region outperformed cities in all other regions, averaging 80 points this year. Municipalities in the Great Lakes ranked just below this with a mean city score of 79.

New Records

MEI-rated cities topped last year’s records on nearly every front: the most 100-point scores, the most cities offering transgender-inclusive health care benefits, the highest number of “All-Star” Cities, and the most LGBTQ liaisons ever appointed, to name a few. These new milestones are even more notable given the unprecedented aforementioned challenges localities faced this year.

MEI-rated cities topped last year’s records on nearly every front: the most 100-point scores, the most cities offering transgender-inclusive health care benefits, the highest number of “All-Star” Cities, and the most LGBTQ liaisons ever appointed, to name a few. These new milestones are even more notable given the unprecedented aforementioned challenges localities faced this year.

This year’s MEI revealed:

• 94 100-point cities, up from 88 last year.
• 179 cities offer transgender inclusive health care benefits to city employees, an increase of 15 since 2019.
• 61 “All-Star” Cities—cities that scored above 85 points despite being in states with no state-level explicit statutory non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people— compared to 59 last year.
• 195 LGBTQ liaisons in city executive offices—up by 13 since 2019.

It should not be legal to deny someone the opportunity to work, rent a home, or be served in a place of public accommodation because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

This category evaluates whether discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is prohibited within the city in areas of employment, housing, and public accommodations. In each category, cities receive five points for prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and five points for prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity. There will be a three point deduction for non-discrimination protections in public accommodations that contain carve-outs prohibiting individuals from using facilities consistent with their gender identity. Additionally, up to six points will be deducted for religious exemptions that single out sexual orientation and/or gender identity. All non-discrimination laws ought to be fully inclusive of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people. Sexual orientation-only protections are not sufficient to protect the LGBTQ community from discrimination.

Part I points can come from state law, county law, or city law.

If the state or county has a comprehensive and inclusive non-discrimination law that applies within the city limits,

a city may conclude it is an inefficient use of resources to pass a local non-discrimination ordinance. For that reason, so long as the protections of a state or county law apply throughout city limits, the city effectively has such protections, and the state or county law will earn the city points in Part I. 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, where laws exist at both the city and the state (or county) level, the city will not receive double (or triple) points— the maximum points in this section are capped at 30.

All-Gender Single-Occupancy Facilities

Transgender individuals face disproportionately high levels of prejudice and discrimination in everyday life. These members of our community deserve the same dignity and respect as everyone else, in every area of life. This includes being afforded the dignity of equal access to public facilities in accordance with the gender they live every day.

Making single-user facilities open to everyone regardless of gender makes sense on every level. Not only does it provide a safe space for transgender residents, it benefits everyone by reducing line wait times. Cities that require all single-user sex-segregated facilities within the city like bathrooms and changing rooms to be all-gender will receive two flex points.

Cities that designate all single-occupancy facilities within its own buildings as all-gender will receive half credit (one flex point).

Protecting Youth From Conversion Therapy

So-called “conversion therapy,” sometimes called “sexual orientation change efforts” or “reparative therapy,” encompasses a range of dangerous and discredited practices that falsely claim to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. These practices are based on the false premise that being LGBTQ is a mental illness that needs to be cured—a theory that has been rejected by every major medical and mental health organization.

There is no credible evidence that conversion therapy can change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. To the contrary, research has clearly shown that these practices pose devastating health risks for LGBTQ young people such as depression, decreased self-esteem, substance abuse, homelessness, and even suicidal behavior. The harmful practice is condemned by every major medical and mental health organization, including the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, and American Medical Association.

Cities that enact laws to protect youth from conversion therapy will garner two flex points.

Almost every municipality has immediate control over its employment policies. Respect for LGBTQ employees is clearly demonstrated by the inclusiveness of these employment policies.

City Prohibits Discrimination in City Employment

Cities can adopt internal hiring policies that prohibit employment discrimination (including hiring, promotions, termination, and compensation) on the basis of sexual orientation (7 points) and gender identity or expression (7 points). It is a fundamental principle of fairness that an employee should be judged on their ability to perform the responsibilities of a position, and not by who they are or whom they love.

A state-level non-discrimination law or a local non-discrimination ordinance alone is not sufficient to earn these points—personnel policies must enumerate sexual orientation and gender identity in order for the city to receive credit.

Transgender-Inclusive Healthcare Benefits

Cities, like other employers, provide health benefits to their employees, but some employees routinely have critical and medically necessary treatment excluded from the health care options they are offered.

Transgender employees are routinely denied health care coverage for gender-affirming care such as hormone therapy, gender-affirming surgery, and other medically necessary care.

Starting in 2021, cities will be rated according to the following standards. Municipalities must offer at least one municipal employee health insurance plan that expressly covers transgender healthcare needs, including gender-affirming surgical procedures, hormone therapy, mental health care, and all related medical visits and laboratory services. The lack of express exclusions for these services is not sufficient for credit because this care is routinely not covered. The plan should also ensure coverage of routine, chronic, or urgent non-transition services and eliminate other barriers to coverage including, but not limited to, separate dollar maximums and exclusions for covered dependents. Moreover, all out-of-network gender-affirming care for which in-network care is unavailable should be covered on the same terms as out-of-network coverage for other types of necessary care.

City Requires Its Contractors To Have Inclusive Non-discrimination Policies

Cities who 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 (3 points) and gender identity or expression (3 points).

Partial credit is awarded to cities that do not have an official policy or ordinance to this effect, but maintains a practice of including a qualifying city contractor non-discrimination clause in all city contracts.

Municipality is an Inclusive Workplace

This section measures whether the city is a welcoming workplace for LGBTQ employees as measured by the following: the city actively recruits LGBTQ employees, or conducts LGBTQ-inclusive diversity training, or it has an LGBTQ employee affinity group (a total of 2 points are awarded if any of these exist).

Cities will receive credit for offering equal benefits to both same- and different-sex domestic partners of city employees and their legal dependents. Even after nationwide marriage equality, it is important to respect the diverse family forms that exist by expanding domestic partner benefits to include all families.

Census data shows that LGBTQ people live in virtually every city in the country, but not every city recognizes that their LGBTQ constituents can have different needs. This section assesses the efforts of the city to include LGBTQ constituents in city services and programs.

Human Rights Commissions do important work to identify and eliminate discrimination; even in jurisdictions where LGBTQ equality isn’t explicitly a part of the commission’s charter, these commissions investigate complaints, educate the city, and sometimes enforce non-discrimination laws. Human Rights Commissions serve as important bridges between constituents and their city.

A Human Rights Commission will be worth five standard points if its purpose is largely or entirely educational. These commissions may hold community discussions, screen movies, present panels, take public comment, advise the city on matters of diversity and inclusion,

develop policies and strategies for making the city more inclusive, and undertake other similar types of endeavors.

Where, in addition to the functions listed above, a Human Rights Commission has the authority to conciliate, issue a right to sue letter, or otherwise enforce non-discrimination protections, that commission will earn two flex points in addition to the five standard points awarded above.

Similarly, an LGBTQ liaison to the Mayor or City Manager’s office (5 points) is responsible for looking at city policies and services through an LGBTQ lens and speaking up when a policy or service might exclude LGBTQ people. This position is also known to be a friendly ear to constituents who want to bring LGBTQ-related issues to the city government but are fearful they might be dismissed or misunderstood.

Cities that expressly prohibit bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity in all youth-facing city programs, activities, services,

facilities, and funding will earn up to two flex points (1 flex point for sexual orientation/1 flex point for gender identity).

These policies should cover, for example, the city’s parks and recreation department, library programs, and any other department or service that incorporate young people.

The MEI also evaluates city services that address segments of the LGBTQ population who are particularly vulnerable and may have specific and acute needs. While all people age, battle illness, struggle to fit in, and work hard to improve their lot in life, these struggles can be different and particularly difficult for LGBTQ people. Cities can address these challenges by offering services—or supporting a third party provider of these services—to LGBTQ youth, LGBTQ elders, LGBTQ homeless people, people who are HIV-positive or living with AIDS and the transgender community (2 flex points for each service the city provides).

The relationship between law enforcement and the LGBTQ community, particularly LGBTQ people of color, is often rightly fraught with suspicion, misunderstanding, and fear.

LGBTQ people are vulnerable to violence arising from bigotry and ignorance. Law enforcement can help ensure safety for all by treating LGBTQ people with understanding and respect, remaining mindful of the LGBTQ community’s unique law enforcement concerns and engaging the community in a positive way.

An LGBTQ police liaison (10 points) can serve as an important bridge between the community and law enforcement. The liaison is an advocate for fair and respectful enforcement of the law as well as an officer that the community can rely upon to appropriately respond to sensitive issues.

In instances of violence against LGBTQ people, LGBTQ police liaisons can help ensure that bias-motivated crimes are properly investigated and reported, victims are not misgendered, and the community is kept abreast of the investigation’s progress.

Respectful and fair enforcement includes responsible reporting of hate crimes, including for hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity, to the FBI (12 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.

Leadership is an aspect of policy that is not fully captured by executive orders or the passage of legislation into law. When a city leader marches in a Pride parade, a city joins a pro-equality amicus brief, a city council dedicates a park to an LGBTQ civil rights leader, or a city paints its crosswalks in rainbow colors, it sends a message to LGBTQ people that they are a valued part of the community.

At first glance, these actions may seem to be more symbol than substance; however, as HRC reported in its groundbreaking youth report in 2012, four in ten LGBTQ youth surveyed said the community in which they live is not accepting of LGBTQ people, and 60% of the youth surveyed said they heard negative messages about being LGBTQ from elected leaders.

Further, LGBTQ youth are twice as likely as their peers to say they will need to move from their hometown in order to feel accepted. When elected leaders speak out on matters of equality, their constituents do hear—and it informs their constituents’ perception of safety, inclusion, and belonging.

This category, therefore, measures the commitment of the city to include the LGBTQ community and to advocate for full equality.

The first category rates city leadership (on a scale of zero to five points) on its public statements on matters of equality, particularly where the city leadership pushes for equality in the face of substantial adversity.

For example, a city would be awarded points if the city council passed a resolution in support of a state level non-discrimination bill—while this is not something the city can legislate, it is a powerful statement of the city’s principles nonetheless.

The level of support for pro-equality legislation is also reflected in this section. The second category rates the persistence of the city leadership in pursuing legislation or policies that further equality (on a scale of zero to three points).

Note that even small or unsuccessful efforts are recognized in this category, and that these efforts may be heavily weighted if the city’s political environment is not conducive to passing pro-equality legislation.

Finally, this section also includes two opportunities to earn flex points: first, for openly LGBTQ people holding elected or appointed office in the municipality (two flex points); and second, for cities who do all they can in the face of state law that restricts their ability to pass LGBTQ-inclusive laws or policies (three flex points).

Systemic racism, also known as structural racism, refers to an overarching system of racial bias across institutions, culture, and society.¹ Systemic racism does not necessarily mean that institutions are overtly racist or have patently racist policies. It also refers to systems, institutions, and policies that create or allow disparate negative impacts for individuals who are Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC). The origins of modern systemic racism in this country is embedded in its very founding, and the rampant racial disparities—used herein to refer to the stark overrepresentation of BIPOC communities in negative outcomes based on their proportional representation in the general population—that persist today are grim manifestations of the enduring, destructive effects of systemic racism.

As early as 1526, enslaved Africans were brought to Spanish Florida.² After 1619, when a Dutch ship brought approximately twenty enslaved Africans to the first British colony of Jamestown, Virginia, slavery spread rapidly through the American colonies.³

During this first part of the 1600s, enslaved Africans were just one source of labor alongside European indentured servants and enslaved Indigenous People.⁴ Moreover, enslavement was not always a permanent lifelong status nor did this status automatically pass down to the children of enslaved peoples.⁵

As the demand for forced labor increased in the late 1600s, white settlers turned to enslaved Africans as their primary labor source over less profitable indentured servants.⁶ In 1662, Virginia enacted a law that automatically applied the legal status of “slave” to the children of enslaved persons.⁷ In 1667, another Virginia law removed the religious conditions that sometimes limited a person’s servitude by making it legal to keep enslaved people even if they converted to Christianity.⁸ This marked a turning point in which the justification of the enslavement of African peoples shifted from a religious one to justifications based on race.⁹ By the mid-1700s, new laws and societal norms linked Africans to perpetual labor and the colonies began making formal distinctions among people based on race. The colonies also began legally restricting the interactions between whites and Blacks, creating a legal racial hierarchy positioning Black people at the bottom and white people at the top.¹⁰

The end of chattel slavery in America did not bring about the end of systemic racism.¹¹ Instead, racial bias across institutions, culture, and society merely adapted and evolved with every major advancement toward racial equality. After the Civil War, the 13th Amendment was passed formally abolishing slavery, but it enshrined in our Constitution a glaring loophole that still contributes to the overrepresentation and exploitation of BIPOC communities in the criminal justice system. It allowed slavery and involuntary servitude “as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.”¹² This led to a new type of slavery, known as convict leasing, in which Black people were arrested and convicted under racist Black Codes¹³ then forced to work for local planters and industrialists.¹⁴ Countless other efforts to preserve the social order of white supremacy emerged over the ensuing decades, including Jim Crow segregation laws, efforts to prevent Black people from voting including poll taxes and literacy tests,¹⁵ and the so-called “war on drugs” that targets BIPOC communities.¹⁶

While policing presents a highly visible illustration of the presence and effects of systematic racism, systemic racism affects the municipal institutions with which residents interact in virtually every area of life.

Racial disparities run deep in employment. The U.S. economy was built on the exploitation and occupational segregation of BIPOC.²⁹ By some estimates, slaveholders extracted more than $14 trillion in labor costs (in today’s dollars) from enslaved people.³⁰ The legacies of slavery, Black Codes, Jim Crow, racist aspects of the New Deal, and limited funding and reach of government anti-discrimination bodies helped keep BIPOC individuals concentrated in undervalued occupations and promoted employment discrimination as well as wage and benefits disparities based on race.³¹ A recent study by the Harvard Business Review found that since 1990, white applicants received 36% more callbacks on average than Black applicants and 24% more callbacks than Latinx applicants with identical resumes.³² As of August 2020, the Black unemployment rate is twice as high as the white unemployment rate. ³³ Moreover, as we’ve seen in many areas, the COVID-19 pandemic amplifies existing disparities. A recent Human Rights Campaign report found that BIPOC LGBTQ people are 70% more likely than the general population to have lost their jobs since states initiated reopening policies due to COVID-19.³⁴

Federal New Deal housing policies played a central role in the creation and persistence of segregated Black neighborhoods during a significant part of the 1900s.³⁵ The federal Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, created to refinance home mortgages in default to prevent foreclosure, institutionalized “redlining,” or the practice of denying mortgages based on the racial and ethnic makeup of neighborhoods.³⁶

Communities with large BIPOC populations were assigned the lowest investment rating and deemed too risky for government-backed mortgages.³⁷ The Public Works Administration, which built the first civilian public housing in the U.S., primarily benefited white middle- and lower-middle class families and built explicitly segregated housing for Black families.³⁸ What’s more, the Federal Housing Administration subsidized the building of entire suburbs with explicit requirements of restrictive covenants—provisions in deeds prohibiting resale to Black Americans—while subsiding white families to move out of urban areas into all-white suburbs.³⁹ Housing discrimination and inequality persists today. A 2012 study by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Urban Institute found that real estate agents and rental housing providers recommend and show fewer available homes and apartments to racial minorities than equally qualified whites.⁴⁰ Additionally, the Census Bureau reported that Black households had the lowest homeownership rate at 44%, nearly 30 percentage points behind white households.⁴¹

Systemic racism also begins disadvantaging Black students from the moment they enter the educational system. For example, a 2014 Department of Education study found that although Black students make up only 18% of all preschoolers, they represent 50% of all preschool suspensions.⁴² White children, on the other hand, make up 40% of all preschool enrollment but represent 26% of those receiving suspensions.⁴³

Black students in K-12 are suspended at three times the rate of white students who commit similar infractions.⁴⁴ 2015-16 data from the Department of Education found that while Black students make up 15% of the total student population in public schools, 31% of students who were arrested or referred to law enforcement were Black.⁴⁵ Furthermore, research shows that majority-Black schools are chronically underfunded.⁴⁶

The economic disparities engendered by enduring systemic racism in all of these areas of life are striking. The income gap between Black and white people in the U.S. has persistently grown over time. The difference in median household incomes between white and Black Americans has grown from about $23,800 in 1970 to roughly $33,000 in 2018.⁴⁷ Poverty is particularly high for those who live at the intersection of racial minority and LGBTQ status. BIPOC LGBTQ people have statistically significant higher poverty rates than their same-race non-LGBTQ counterparts.⁴⁸ For example, 30.8% of Black LGBTQ people live in poverty, whereas 25.3% of Black non-LGBTQ people live in poverty.⁴⁹

The scourge of systemic racism extends to many other areas of life, including health care and public services. This reality combined with transphobia and sexism contributes to the tragic, escalating epidemic of fatal violence against Black and Brown transgender women.

While the pervasiveness of systemic racism and the severity of the racial disparities it creates may seem daunting, municipal officials have many tools at their disposal to begin addressing these issues in their communities.

Understanding and operationalizing the core concepts of intersectionality and equity are central to developing and implementing effective local laws, policies, and services to begin addressing the disparities engendered by systemic racism.

Intersectionality

Intersectionality refers to the complex, cumulative way in which the effects of multiple forms of discrimination (such as racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and classism) combine, overlap, or intersect, especially in the experiences of marginalized individuals or groups.⁵⁰ A person who identifies as Black, transgender, and female, and who is living with a disability, lives at the intersection of all of these marginalized identities.

Their life and daily experiences are unfortunately shaped by a complex, compounded mix of prejudices and discrimination on account of their actual or perceived identities as Black, transgender, female, and a person living with a disability. This term was born out of Black feminism, coined by lawyer, scholar, and professor Kimberlé Crenshaw in a 1989 paper published in the University of Chicago Legal Forum entitled “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex.”⁵¹

Equity

Equity is an important concept that is distinct from the concept of equality. Equity means providing tools and resources according to need such that historically disadvantaged communities truly have the same access to opportunities intended to be equally available to everyone.

This takes into account the unequal footing traditionally marginalized groups, including LGBTQ people and Black and Brown communities, start off on because of the effects of historical and extant systemic marginalization and discrimination. Equality, on the other hand, refers to treating everyone the same and offering everyone the same opportunities. In essence, equality is the foundation that makes the ultimate goal of equity possible. Equity is important because even if opportunities are equally available to everyone, those who are oppressed by systemic barriers (like systemic racism) face unique difficulties in accessing those equal opportunities, often resulting in continued inequality.

Build a Strong Foundation of Non-discrimination

As noted above, true equity cannot be achieved without the baseline of robust enforceable non-discrimination laws and policies. Municipal officials must ensure that every city department has an enumerated non-discrimination policy that expressly prohibits discrimination against BIPOC individuals, including BIPOC LGBTQ people. These policies should cover municipal employment (Part II of the MEI Scorecard) as well as city services, programs, and facilities. Local legislators should enact robust citywide non-discrimination protections that explicitly includes race and ethnicity as well as sexual orientation and gender identity (among other protected characteristics) in all areas of life including employment, housing, and public spaces (Part I
of the MEI Scorecard).

Create and Empower Local Human Rights Commissions

As local bodies specifically designed to take on the issues of prejudice and discrimination, human rights commissions (Part III of the MEI Scorecard) are well-situated to begin addressing system racism in local communities with a focus on intersectionality and equity. They can be created by executive action or ordinances and should be adequately funded and empowered to enforce citywide non-discrimination laws. These entities should also be given the authority to review municipal laws and policies for unintended racial disparities and propose revisions or other potential solutions.

Local commissions should be composed of diverse community members—including BIPOC residents, LGBTQ residents, and those with intersecting marginalized identities—who possess thorough understandings of systemic racism, intersectionality, and equity. Human rights commissioners should regularly consult with local advocates representing BIPOC communities and those with multiple marginalized identities. Moreover, local human rights commissions should make it part of their mission to end the epidemic of violence against transgender and gender non-conforming individuals, which disproportionately affects Black and Brown transgender women.

Restructure Budget Priorities

Municipalities should make addressing systemic racism a budgetary priority by (as discussed earlier) divesting from police budgets and investing directly in BIPOC and other marginalized communities. Local officials must increase funding for social services, direct assistance programs, health care (including mental health care), housing and food security programs, education, and employment programs while making sure that services are equitably accessible to the multiply marginalized. City budgets should also adequately fund anti-discrimination bodies like local human rights commissions.

Innovate

Addressing issues as pervasive and complex as systemic racism, the racial disparities it creates, and the compounding effects of multiple intersecting identities requires thorough study and innovative thinking. One innovative approach cities can take is creating an Equity Task Force that brings together members of the local human rights commission, city council, the mayor’s office, the city manager’s office, and municipal agencies to study and identify racial disparities, review municipal policies and services for effectiveness in reducing disparities, identify unmet community needs, and formulate services and policies that further equity and wellbeing for BIPOC residents, including BIPOC LGBTQ residents.

Advocate for Reform Beyond City Limits

The voices of local officials, the closest representatives of the people, carry significant clout. Mayors, city council members, police chiefs, human rights commissioners, and other local officials should voice their support for policy reforms to address systemic racism not only within their own spheres of authority, but also in local school boards, state government, and the federal government. Local officials can make their voices heard in many ways including through official statements, social media channels, proclamations, and resolutions.

Systemic racism is a grave and pervasive problem deeply rooted in our nation’s history. The legacies of slavery, Black Codes, Jim Crow, the New Deal, and many other racially biased governmental laws and policies still affect the institutions and systems that shape every aspect of American life. Together, these create the conditions where racialized police violence endures with impunity and where Black Americans continue to suffer the worst racial disparities in virtually every area of life.

These racial disparities are often drastically compounded for BIPOC individuals who live at the intersection of multiple marginalized identities, like BIPOC transgender and gender non-conforming people. Though the issue of systemic racism may seem dauntingly colossal, local officials have many tools at their disposal to begin addressing this issue head on, including reshaping city budgets and creating local task forces to promote genuine equity for BIPOC communities.

As leaders entrusted with the most important task of ensuring the health, safety, and well-being of all residents, municipal officials must immediately begin to address the blight of systemic racism in their communities and beyond.

The Municipal Equality Index is carefully designed to rate cities in detail while respecting that a number of factors may boost or inhibit a city’s ability or incentives to adopt the laws and policies this project rates.

Given the range of authority and incentives that cities have, and acknowledging that our effort to rate small cities as well as large cities exacerbates these challenges, the MEI had to wrestle with three major questions in its initial design.

Question 1

How could the MEI fairly take state law into account, particularly as the disparity between states with pro-equality laws and states without pro-equality laws continues to grow?

Answer

The answer is balance; the rating system would not be fair if cities were not able to score a 100 on the MEI without living in a state that had favorable state law. Allocating the points carefully to respect the dynamic relationship between state and local government was a must, and we concentrated on what the state law meant for the city being rated.

Question 2

How could the MEI assess a list of cities as diverse as those selected while acknowledging that the smaller places rated may understandably have less capacity to engage on LGBTQ issues?

Answer

We addressed concerns about a small city’s capacity to affect change by building flexibility into the scorecard through the use of flex points and by providing multiple avenues toward earning points.

Question 3

What do MEI scores say about the atmosphere for LGBTQ people living and working in a particular place?

Answer

This last point is to recognize that even the most thoughtful survey of laws and policies cannot objectively assess the efficacy of enforcement and it certainly cannot encapsulate the lived experience of discrimination that many LGBTQ people—even those living in 100-point cities—face every day.

This question can only be answered by precisely defining what the MEI is designed to do: the MEI is an evaluation of municipal laws and policies.

It is not a rating of the best places for LGBTQ people to live, nor is it an evaluation of the adequacy or effectiveness of enforcement.

It is not an encapsulation of what it feels like to be an LGBTQ person walking down the street. While some LGBTQ people may prefer to live in cities that respect and include them, there are undoubtedly many other factors that make a community a welcoming, inclusive place to live.

To be clear, the MEI specifically rates cities on their laws and policies while respecting the legal and political context the city operates within. It is not a measure of an LGBTQ person’s lived experience in that city.

The MEI rates municipalities as small as Rehoboth Beach, Delaware (2010 population according to the US Census: 1,327) and as large as New York City (2010 population according to the US Census: 8,175,136). Such a range in city size creates concerns about ensuring that the efforts of small cities are not diminished in comparison to the capabilities of large cities.

Fairness dictates that the MEI not measure small cities against a standard only the metropolitan giants of the country can meet.

The MEI is designed to ensure that small cities have the same ability to score well on the MEI as large cities do.

First, while some of the criteria might be more challenging for a small city to accomplish, none of the non-flex criteria are prohibitive for small cities. Further, flexibility was built into the scoring system to acknowledge that a small city may accomplish the criteria in a slightly different manner: for example, an LGBTQ liaison may have many other duties, and a Human Rights Commission might be all-volunteer.

Second, the MEI uses flex points to ensure cities are not being held accountable for services that they simply are unable to provide.

Points pertaining to a city’s administrative structure and capabilities are generally flex points and there often are multiple paths to earning the same set of points.

Having alternative paths to the same points and classifying some points as flex points accommodates the varying needs and capabilities of different sized cities.

An analysis of the MEI’s results over the past several editions shows these efforts to accommodate small cities worked: small cities were able to score comparably with the large cities.

More than half of the cities rated qualify as “small”, and these continue to be represented more or less proportionally across the range of scores, including top scores. In every edition the data has clearly shown that a city’s score is not well predicted by its size.

Cities are creations of the state. Cities are granted the power to govern by their states, and some states have multiple classes of cities that are invested with varying degrees of autonomy. Some cities are granted so much power that they have nearly complete independence, but other cities—particularly smaller cities—are more limited in the scope of their city government.

To be a worthwhile survey of cities across states, the MEI must be respectful of how different cities are from one another.

This is especially true when LGBTQ law is the subject being surveyed. Some cities are hampered from passing pro-equality laws by state law that limits their ability to do so; others come from states with strong pro-equality laws that ensure a high level of legal protections for all.

The MEI balances the influence of LGTBQ-inclusive state law by weighing state and local laws equally, and by not awarding double points to a city fortunate enough to have protections at both the state and local levels. If a state has a comprehensive and inclusive non-discrimination law, a city may not be incentivized to pass an ordinance extending duplicative protections, but it should still have those protections reflected in its score.

Conversely, the city should be able to achieve a top score on the basis of municipal law alone—otherwise the MEI would not be a true evaluation of cities. The success of this balanced approach is demonstrated by a number of cities who were able to achieve top scores despite being in states that do not have pro-equality laws.

Some states restrict their cities from passing inclusive laws either by passing specific legislation that prohibits cities from doing so or through application of the Dillon’s Rule (which prevents cities from providing broader non-discrimination protections than those offered under state law) to LGBTQ-inclusive legislation

An example of restrictive legislation is a Tennessee law that prohibits municipalities from passing non-discrimination ordinances that affect private employees. Because of these types of restrictions, not every city has the power to enact the types of legislation that the MEI measures.

Cities with a dedication to equality that are in Tennessee and North Carolina, for example, will never be able to score as well as cities with comparable dedication to equality that exist in states without the restrictive laws.

However, the MEI provides avenues for cities who are dedicated to equality—as some cities in North Carolina and Tennessee are—to have that commitment reflected in their score despite restrictive state law.

Flex points are offered for testing the limits of these state restrictions, while standard points reflect city leadership advocating against the state restrictions.

These flex points help to level the playing field for restricted cities; however, the small number of cities suffering such restrictions will find it extremely challenging—and, in some cases, perhaps impossible—to score a 100 on the MEI.

While this may initially appear to be at odds with the MEI’s purpose of evaluating what cities do, the bottom line is that these vital protections don’t exist for the folks who live and work in these cities. That these cities will face an uphill battle in earning points for certain criteria on the MEI is a reflection of the actual difficulties they face as a result of restrictive state law.

Ameliorating the effect of a restrictive state law on the MEI score would be a dishonest representation of the protections that the city truly does offer.

Citywide Protections

Despite another year of some state legislatures and the federal government working to roll back hard-won protections—even in the midst of a devastating pandemic and widespread racial injustices—cities across the nation of all sizes and compositions took decisive steps to protect the most vulnerable members of their communities.

MEI-rated Decatur and Savannah, Georgia enacted LGBTQ-inclusive non-discrimination protections covering citywide employment, housing, and public accommodations. Additionally, MEI-rated Alexandria and Arlington County, Virginia took steps to strengthen local protections on the basis of gender identity.

The number of municipalities that enacted ordinances to protect against so-called “conversion therapy”—harmful, discredited practices that attempt to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity—significantly increased over the past year. As of this report, 35 MEI-rated cities have local anticonversion therapy protections in states with no state-level protections (up from 28 last year).

Furthermore, public accommodations in 103 MEI-rated municipalities are required to make single-user restrooms available to people of all genders pursuant to city, county, and/or state law.

Municipal Employment, Contracting, and Programs

Cities recognize that inclusive workplace policies help attract and retain the best and brightest employees. 429 cities (nearly 85% of all rated cities) now have equal employment opportunity policies that expressly include sexual orientation and/or gender identity, up by 21 over the past year. Additionally, 188 municipalities now require their contractors to have employment non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

A growing number of cities are also enacting enumerated laws or policies that prohibit bullying in all youth-serving city services, programs, and facilities. 35 cities now have these vital LGBTQinclusive bullying prevention policies, up from 25 last year.

Transgender-Inclusive Healthcare Benefits

Because transgender people are often denied coverage for medically necessary care, it is important for cities to explicitly affirm coverage for transition-related health care (including gender-affirming surgical procedures, hormone therapy, mental health care, and all related medical visits and laboratory services) in employee healthcare plans.

The MEI has tracked the existence of transgender-inclusive city employee health care plans since its first edition. Of the 137 cities rated in the inaugural 2012 MEI, only 5 offered these vital benefits. Eight years later, that number has taken an impressive leap to 179 of 506 rated cities.This year’s data confirms the fact that localities all over the country—small and large, red and blue—care deeply about creating inclusive communities through pro-equality laws, policies, and services.

The six most improved cities since the last MEI are:

• Newport News, Virginia, which increased its score by 46 points since last year;
• Bismarck, North Dakota, which jumped 44 points since 2019;
• West Lafayette, Wisconsin, which improved its score by 43 points over the past year;
• Hampton, Virginia, which gained 42 points; and
• Savannah, Georgia, and Ketchikan, Alaska, which both increased by 38 points since last year.

Compared to 2019, 38 state averages increased and eight stayed the same.

• Cities in North Dakota increased by an average of 31 points.
• Cities in Nebraska and Virginia increased by an average of 24 points.
• Cities in Kansas increased by an average of 22 points.

Every region of the country saw a mean city score increase this year, with the exception of the New England region which maintained its 2019 average. Although small cities (populations below 100,000) averaged eight points below the national average, medium-sized cities (populations between 100,000 and 300,000) averaged four points above the national average. Large cities (populations above 300,000) ranked by the MEI had a mean score of 86 points. Notably, the vast majority (81%) of cities that scored above the national average were small and medium sized cities.