Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Frequently Asked Questions
WHERE CAN I GET MORE
INFORMATION ABOUT THE
CITIES RATED?
This booklet contains only a summary
of the scorecards for each of the
506 cities rated on the 2016 MEI.
The full scorecards are available
online at www.hrc.org/mei.
HOW WERE THESE CITIES
CHOSEN?
This year, the cities rated are: the 50
state capitals, the 200 largest cities
in the United States, the five largest
cities or municipalities in each state,
the cities home to the states two
largest public universities (including
undergraduate and graduate
enrollment), 75 cities & municipalities
that have high proportions of samesex couples (see page 17 for more
information) and 98 cities selected by
HRC and Equality Federation state
groups members and supporters.
Future editions of the MEI will
continue to increase the number of
cities rated.
WHY ISNT WASHINGTON, D.C.
RATED?
For an explanation as to why
Washington, DC is not included in
the MEI, please see page 17.
An Introduction
CAN ONLY CITIES IN STATES
WITH GOOD LAWS GET GOOD
SCORES?
Definitely not. The MEI was
specifically designed to measure the
laws and policies of the municipality,
not the state. While state law might
add to a citys score, positive state
law is not necessary for a city to
score 100 points. In fact, 22 cities
in states without statewide nondiscrimination laws for LGBTQ
people scored 100 points in 2016.
IS THIS A RANKING OF THE
BEST CITIES FOR LGBTQ
PEOPLE TO LIVE IN?
No. This is not a ranking of a citys
atmosphere or quality of life. It is
an evaluation of the citys law and
policies, and an examination of
how inclusive city services are of
LGBTQ people. Some high-scoring
cities may not feel truly welcoming
for all LGBTQ people, and some
low-scoring cities may feel more
welcoming than their policies might
reflect.
IFC2
AN INTRODUCTION
Letter from Chad Griffin, President of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation
Letter from Rebecca Isaacs, Executive Director of the Equality Federation Institute
Letter from Richard Florida, Enduring Growth for Cities is Driven by Diversity
Why Cities Should Invest in Equality
How It Works
12
17
18
21
22
28
32
Executive Summary
City Selection
2016 MEI Scorecard
Scoring Criteria Parts I-V
Issue Brief: Power Struggles and Preemption
Issue Brief: Inclusive and Innovative Approaches to Citywide Bullying Prevention
Acknowledging Context:
Not All Cities Are Created Equal
Fair Assessment Respects Legal Differences
Accounting for City Size
Balancing State and Local Laws
Understanding Restrictive State Law
Effect of Enforcement and Lived Experience
What We Found
42 Summary of Results
48 Table of 2016 Scores
65 Self-Submit
66 Whats Ahead: Scorecard Changes Coming in 2018
68 Acknowledgements
Success Stories
Research Process
The information reflected in this
publication was gathered by the
MEI team and compiled into draft
scorecards using publicly available
information. Cities were then
offered an opportunity to review the
scorecards, ask any questions, and
submit any additional information
4
5
6
7
hrc.org/mei
15
16
20
44
63
64
2016 by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation. The Human Rights Campaign Foundation owns all right, title,
and interest in and to this publication and all derivative works thereof. Permission for reproduction and redistribution
is granted if the publication is (1) reproduced in its 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
ISBN-10: 1-934765-38-4
SBN-13: 978-1-934765-38-8
AN INTRODUCTION
Dear Friends
Dear Readers
The Municipal Equality Index (MEI)
has placed emphasis on policies that
are crucial to our fight to extend full
equality to all Americansincluding
non-discrimination ordinances,
city services, employment policies
and benefits, and law enforcement
practicescontinue to be at the core of
this report.
AN INTRODUCTION
REBECCA ISAACS
Executive Director
Equality Federation Institute
CHAD GRIFFIN
President
Human Rights Campaign Foundation
hrc.org/mei
hrc.org/mei
AN INTRODUCTION
AN INTRODUCTION
RICHARD FLORIDA
hrc.org/mei
hrc.org/mei
AN
ANINTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION 7
HOW IT WORKS
2016
98 NEW CITIES
94,237,171 TOTAL
POPULATION RATED
IN 2016
2012
2015
10 HOW
HOWITITWORKS
WORKS
hrc.org/mei
hrc.org/mei
HOW
HOWITITWORKS
WORKS 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Cities Leading the Way to Equality
60 SCORED
25% SCORED
OVER
HALF SCORED
OVER
THE AVERAGE
SCORE
25% SCORED
FEWER THAN
8 SCORED
100
75
56
55
33
0
NON-DISCRIMINATION
ORDINANCES
Non-discrimination ordinances continue
to be among the most important work
that municipalities are doing to ensure
that their LGBTQ residents and visitors
are able to bring their whole selves
to the places where they live, work,
and play.
In a year where anti-transgender
bathroom bills stole headlines across
the country, cities continued to listen
to the voices of the transgender youth
and adults in their communities and
they responded appropriately and
respectfully to their needs. In fact,
Cleveland, Ohiowhich has had a
non-discrimination ordinance on the
books for some timeremoved a
transgender exclusion from the public
accommodations section of their
ordinance. Chicago, Illinois did the
same. Jackson, Mississippi and Juneau,
Alaska joined the ranks of cities
offering non-discrimination protections
on the basis of sexual orientation
and gender identity to their residents
and visitors.
PART 2
PART 3
PART 4
PART 5
25 56 57 60 47
DO
POINTS
HIGHER
12
HOW IT WORKS
AS WELL
ARE
MORE
LIKELY
to offer trans-inclusive
healthcare benefits
hrc.org/mei
had more
comprehensive
non-discrimination
laws for trans people
than the state
hrc.org/mei
had contractor
non-discrimination
policies including
gender identity
have
mayoral liasons
HOW IT WORKS
13
SUCCESS STORY:
MASSACHUSETTS TRANSGENDER
POLITICAL COALITION
87% of the cities in this cohort have
non-discrimination protections that
include LGBTQ people, and every one
reported their hate crimes statistics to
the FBI in 2014. But one thing these
cities dont have in common is very
important: geography.
They hail from the Southeast,
Southwest, West, Plains, Mountains,
Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakesand
these results demonstrate that
municipal equality is not a coastal
phenomenon or a blue state activity.
Cities are accustomed to being
pragmatic problem-solvers who dont
let partisan quibbling get in the way
of letting the trains run on time, and
cities are neither waiting for their
states to act nor cowed by their state
legislatures disapproval.
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
5 OF 137
16 OF 291
42 OF 353
66 OF 408
86 OF 506
14
HOW IT WORKS
hrc.org/mei
hrc.org/mei
SUCCESS STORY
15
CITY SELECTION
SUCCESS STORY:
EQUALITY VIRGINIA
It has been wonderful to watch
the success of the MEI over the
past five years. Its reassuring
to see communities across the
nation focus on improving LGBTQ
rights at the local level despite
state and federal resistance.
JAMES PARRISH
Executive Director
16
SUCCESS STORY
hrc.org/mei
hrc.org/mei
HOW IT WORKS
17
2016 MUNICIPAL
EQUALITY INDEX SCORECARD
2016 MUNICIPAL EQUALITY INDEX SCORECARD
2016 MUNICIPAL EQUALITY INDEX SCORECARD
2016 MUNICIPAL EQUALITY
INDEX SCORECARD
I. Non-Discrimination Laws
I. Non-Discrimination Laws
STATE
COUNTY
Employment
XX
Housing
XX
XX
XX
Public Accommodations
XX
SCORE
XX
5 5
XX
Xresponsible
XX
5 5 crimes and
X
reporting
of hate
5 5
XX
XX
5 5
XX
XX
SCORE
BONUS Enforcement mechanism in Human
Rights Commission
CITY
AVAILABLE
10
10
12
Fair enforcement
of or
theTask
law Force
includes
LGBTQ
Police Liaison
responsible reporting of hate crimes and
engaging with the LGBTQ community in a
Reported 2014 Hate Crimes Statistics
thoughtful and respectful way.
to the FBI
SCORE
SCORE
x out of 22
6 6
6
XX
3 3
x out of 24
XX
3 3
+2
CITY
AVAILABLE
XX
3 3
XX
+X
AVAILABLE
x out of 24
Place to Work
CITY
3 3
x out of 22
STATE
XX
COUNTY
XX
x out of 16
+X
+2
+X
+2
+X
+2
+X
+2
+X
+2
Rights Commission
youth
homeless
elderly
hrc.org/mei
hrc.org/mei
CITY
AVAILABLE
This category
measures
the
leaderships
Leaderships
Public
Position
oncity
LGBTQ
Equality
commitment to fully include the LGBTQ
community and to advocate for full equality.
Leaderships Pro-Equality Legislative
or Policy Efforts
SCORE
SCORE
+X
+2
+X
+4
x out of 8
x out of 8
TOTAL SCORE XXX + TOTAL BONUS XX = TOTAL SCORE XXX + TOTAL BONUS XX =
x out of 16
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
SCORE
CITY
AVAILABLE
XX
5 5
AVAILABLE
x out of 30
XX
XX
CITY
CITY
CITY
SCORE
AVAILABLE
x out of 30
COUNTY
CITY
XX
SCORE
This section
assesses the efforts of the city
Human
Rights Commission
to ensure LGBTQ constituents are included
in city services and programs.
LGBTQ Liaison in the Mayors Office
COUNTY
XX
STATE
18 HOW IT WORKS
XX
STATE
By offering equivalent
benefits
and
Non-Discrimination
in City
Employment
protections to LGBTQ employees, and by
awarding contracts to fair-minded businesses,
Transgender-Inclusive Healthcare Benefits
municipalities commit themselves to treating
LGBTQ employees equally.
City Contractor Non-Discrimination Ordinance
Place to Work
AVAILABLE
SCORE
CITY
forFOR
criteria
not accessible
at this
BONUS
time. PTS for criteria not accessible to all cities at this time.
PTS FOR GENDER
PTS FOR
IDENTITY
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
GENDER
IDENTITYto all cities +
+ BONUS PTSPTS
hrc.org/mei
hrc.org/mei
hrc.org/mei
hrc.org/mei
HOW IT WORKS 19
SCORING CRITERIA
SUCCESS STORY:
CLEVELAND OHIO
In 2009, Cleveland added
gender identity or expression
to protected classes in its
nondiscrimination ordinance.
Unfortunately, an exception was
also included that allowed for
business owners and employers
to discriminate against
transgender people with regard
to restroom usage.
In 2014, community organizations
and individuals in Cleveland formed
the Cleveland is Ready Coalition
and began efforts to change that.
I. Non-Discrimination Laws
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 threepoint deduction for non-discrimination
protections in public accommodations
that contain carve-outs prohibiting
individuals from using facilities
consistent with their 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.
20
SUCCESS STORY
hrc.org/mei
hrc.org/mei
HOW IT WORKS 21
hrc.org/mei
hrc.org/mei
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 (6 points)
and gender identity or expression (6
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
pointspersonnel 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 replacement
therapy, gender confirmation surgery,
and other medically necessary care.
Municipalities must provide at least
one health insurance plan (6 points)
that provides coverage for transgender
healthcare needs (gender confirmation
surgeries, hormone replacement
therapy, and other gender-affirming
care). The policy must affirmatively
include gender-affirming care; a lack of
exclusion is not sufficient for an award
of points because this care is routinely
presumed to be not covered.
24
HOW IT WORKS
MUNICIPALITY IS AN
INCLUSIVE WORKPLACE
(BONUS POINTS)
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 bonus points are awarded
if any of these exist).
hrc.org/mei
hrc.org/mei
HOW IT WORKS
25
26
HOW IT WORKS
hrc.org/mei
hrc.org/mei
HOW IT WORKS
27
WHAT IS BULLYING?
DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT
ON LGBTQ YOUTH
LGBTQ youth and those perceived to
be LGBTQ face a disproportionately
high risk of being bullied. According
to the 2013 National School Climate
Survey, 74.1% of nearly eight thousand
LGBTQ students surveyed nationwide
reported being verbally harassed during
the previous school year because of
their sexual orientation and 55.2%
because of their gender expression.
Furthermore, 27.9% reported being
physically assaulted because of their
sexual orientation or gender expression.
Additionally, the 2015 YRBS revealed
that over 59.1 percent of lesbian,
gay, and bisexual (LGB) students and
students who reported being unsure of
their sexual orientation were targets of
bullying on school property, compared
to just 18.8 percent of heterosexual
studentsa prevalence rate of almost
3.4 times more than their heterosexual
counterparts. The same observation
held true for cyberbullying. The
prevalence of cyberbullying was more
than 3.5 times higher for LGB and
unsure students nationally than their
heterosexual counterparts.
hrc.org/mei
hrc.org/mei
AN EMERGING MODEL:
CITYWIDE YOUTH BULLYING
PREVENTION TASK FORCE
The primary charge of a municipal
Youth Bullying Prevention Task Force
is to develop and implement inclusive
citywide policies and programs to
protect youth from bullying. The Task
Force should be given a wide remit, to
include but not be limited to:
18%
OF HETEROSEXUAL
STUDENTS
30 HOW
HOWITITWORKS:
WORKSISSUE
BRIEF CITYWIDE BULLYING PREVENTION
CONCLUSION
hrc.org/mei
hrc.org/mei
59%
ACKNOWLEDGING CONTEXT
Not All Cities Are Created Equal
Some cities have the autonomy
and wherewithal to pass inclusive
laws and offer cutting-edge city
services; other cities are hampered
by severe state-imposed limitations
on their ability to pass inclusive
laws, or they have found that
the small scope of their local
government limits their capabilities.
BONUS POINTS
First, in addition to the 100 standard
points for city laws and services, the
MEI includes 20 bonus points.
Bonus points are awarded for essential
programs, protections, or benefits that
are not attainable or very difficult to
attain for some cities; therefore, cities
with the item are rewarded, but cities
without it are not penalized.
Bonus points can also provide some
leeway for cities that face challenges
in accomplishing the specific
achievements the MEI measures, and
ensure that every city has the ability to
improve its score for next year.
LEGISLATIVE LEADERSHIP
Third, it also rates the city leaderships
public position on LGBTQ 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.
QUESTION 2
ANSWER
QUESTION 1
QUESTION 3
ANSWER
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 peopleeven those living in
100-point citiesface every day.
32 HOW
HOWITITWORKS
WORKS
hrc.org/mei
hrc.org/mei
HOW IT WORKS 33
34 HOW
HOWITITWORKS
WORKS
hrc.org/mei
hrc.org/mei
HOW IT WORKS 35
MEI ALL-STARS
Balancing State and Local Laws
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
citiesparticularly smaller citiesare
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.
36
HOW IT WORKS
hrc.org/mei
hrc.org/mei
HOW IT WORKS 37
38 HOW IT WORKS
hrc.org/mei
HOW IT WORKS 39
WHAT WE FOUND
hrc.org/mei
AN INTRODUCTION
41
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Five Years of Indexing Municipal Equality
hrc.org/mei
hrc.org/mei
WHAT WE FOUND
43
SUCCESS STORY:
EQUALITY OHIO
Working with local municipalities
to improve LGBTQ equality is
deeply rewarding work. Its not
merely because it creates earned
media, which elevates stories
about LGBTQ people and fuels
our momentum. Its not just
because it increases the number
of cities across Ohio that provide
legal remedies and protections
for LGBTQ people. Municipal
work is deeply rewarding
because it is an investment
in community.
Coordinating with local partners and
boots-on-the-ground activists is a
practice in developing leadership
and giving people the tools they
can use to effect change. In each
community Equality Ohio has worked
in, we now have a strong network of
leaders that are ready to mobilize for
LGBTQ equality.
LGBTQ-inclusive nondiscrimination
protections arent the only issue
that cities can address. Recently,
Cincinnati became the first city
(outside of Washington D.C.) to
ban conversion therapy. This was
only possible because of a strong
network of leaders with the expertise
and passion to get the job done.
Our biggest accomplishment this
year happened in Cleveland. With
the support of HRC and local
partners, we took the restroom
issue on directlyand won. When
Cleveland first passed LGBTQ
nondiscrimination protections
including gender identity/expression
in 2009, they put in a bad exception
allowing for transgender people to
be told by employers and business
owners what restroom they could or
could not use.
SUCCESS STORY
44
hrc.org/mei
hrc.org/mei
WHAT WE FOUND
45
NEW ENGLAND
number of
SMALL CITIES
MOUNTAIN
number of
MEDIUM CITIES
number of
LARGE CITIES
This state already has
at least some statewide
non-discrimination laws
and therefore was not
counted in this cohort.
GREAT
LAKES
WEST
2
PLAINS
2
MID-ATLANTIC
SOUTHWEST
SOUTHEAST
11
46 WHAT
WHATWE
WEFOUND
FOUND
hrc.org/mei
hrc.org/mei
10
WHAT
WHATWE
WEFOUND
FOUND 47
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
s
m
fo
rc
an
En
es
aw
vic
er
V.
em
R
en
LG ela
t
BT tion
Q sh
C ip
om w
R
m ith
EG
un
U
ity
LA
R
PO
B
O
IN
N
U
TS
S
PO
F
IN
SC IN
TS
A
O L
R
E
og
Pr
d
as
ity
al
un
ic
ip
isc
-D
on
IV
.L
III
II.
.S
76
Anaheim
CALIFORNIA
I.
En
aw
IV
.L
ra
pl
0
Em
n
io
at
in
rim
rc
an
es
vic
er
.S
III
V.
em
R
en
LG ela
t
BT tion
Q sh
C ip
om w
R
m ith
EG
un
U
ity
LA
R
PO
B
O
IN
N
U
TS
S
PO
F
IN
SC IN
TS
A
O L
R
E
ra
og
Pr
d
as
ity
al
ip
ic
un
M
II.
fo
CITY
80
Birmingham
10
12
Bakersfield
60
60
12
12
Berkeley
85
10
95
Hoover
12
12
Brisbane
42
42
Huntsville
Cathedral City
95
10
100
Mobile
Chula Vista
55
55
Montgomery
Concord
53
61
Tuscaloosa
Corona
60
60
Elk Grove
77
77
Anchorage
75
79
Escondido
60
60
Fairbanks
35
35
Fontana
54
54
Hoover
Fremont
81
85
Juneau
58
60
Fresno
57
57
Ketchikan
Fullerton
74
76
Sitka
Garden Grove
59
61
Wasilla
Glendale
62
62
92
10
100
Chandler
15
15
Hayward
57
59
Conway
55
61
Huntington Beach
59
61
Flagstaff
63
65
Irvine
77
83
Gilbert
17
19
Lancaster
76
78
Glendale
51
55
Long Beach
100
100
Mesa
56
58
Los Angeles
94
14
100
Peoria
36
38
Modesto
59
59
Phoenix
97
14
100
Moreno Valley
60
60
Scottsdale
53
12
65
Oakland
73
77
Tempe
91
12
100
Oceanside
87
12
99
Tucson
94
12
100
Ontario
54
54
Orange
71
71
Conway
34
34
Oxnard
53
53
Eureka Springs
62
64
Palm Desert
66
68
Fayetteville
61
63
Palm Springs
95
14
100
Fort Smith
18
18
Palmdale
71
71
Jonesboro
18
18
Pasadena
67
69
Little Rock
37
45
Pomona
72
72
20
20
Rancho Cucamonga
54
54
Rancho Mirage
91
12
100
NO CREDIT
WHAT WE FOUND
STATE
Florence
Springdale
48
oy
s
m
oy
pl
Em
n
io
at
in
rim
isc
-D
Auburn
on
ALABAMA
CITY
I.
STATE
er
SCORES
er
SCORES
HALF CREDIT
FULL CREDIT
hrc.org/mei
NO CREDIT
hrc.org/mei
HALF CREDIT
FULL CREDIT
WHAT WE FOUND
49
WHAT WE FOUND
s
m
og
Pr
d
as
er
aw
vic
En
es
fo
rc
an
ity
al
ip
ic
un
V.
em
R
en
LG ela
t
BT tion
Q sh
C ip
om w
R
m ith
EG
un
U
ity
LA
R
PO
B
O
IN
N
U
TS
S
PO
F
IN
SC IN
TS
A
O L
R
E
ra
pl
Em
n
io
at
in
isc
-D
on
69
DELAWARE
Bethany Beach
50
50
III
II.
IV
.L
.S
65
Waterbury
IV
.L
CONNECTICUT
I.
En
aw
vic
er
.S
III
rim
rc
an
es
fo
83
CITY
65
65
Sacramento
93
100
Salinas
55
55
Dover
59
59
59
61
Middletown
36
36
San Diego
100
10
100
Milford
48
48
San Francisco
100
16
100
Newark
60
60
San Jose
100
100
Rehoboth Beach
60
62
Santa Ana
63
63
Smyrna
48
48
Santa Clarita
65
65
Wilmington
59
59
Santa Monica
64
64
FLORIDA
Santa Rosa
81
87
Cape Coral
25
25
Signal Hill
82
14
96
Coral Gables
59
61
Stockton
70
70
Daytona Beach
48
48
Sunnyvale
72
80
Gainesville
92
98
67
60
65
Fort Lauderdale
Torrance
67
60
65
Hialeah
47
49
Vallejo
52
52
Hollywood
41
43
Visalia
62
62
Jacksonville
47
49
West Hollywood
100
14
100
Miami
47
49
Miami Shores
89
91
Aspen
60
62
Oakland Park
78
86
Aurora
59
59
Orlando
94
10
100
Boulder
72
74
Pembroke Pines
76
78
Colorado Springs
53
53
28
30
Denver
76
82
St. Petersburg
86
14
100
Fort Collins
74
74
Tallahassee
88
92
Lakewood
60
60
Tampa
76
10
86
Littleton
48
48
Wilton Manors
89
12
100
Bridgeport
50
50
Athens
21
21
Fairfield
57
57
Atlanta
100
100
Hartford
70
74
Augusta-Richmond
12
14
New Britain
56
62
Avondale Estates
39
41
GEORGIA
New Haven
90
94
Columbus
36
38
Norwalk
56
12
68
Decatur
21
21
Stamford
98
100
12
12
Storrs (Mansfield)
54
54
Roswell
11
11
FULL CREDIT
NO CREDIT
NO CREDIT
50
STATE
Riverside
Thousand Oaks
CONNECTICUT
V.
em
R
en
LG ela
t
BT tion
Q sh
C ip
om w
R
m ith
EG
un
U
ity
LA
R
PO
B
O
IN
N
U
TS
S
PO
F
IN
SC IN
TS
A
O L
R
E
ra
og
Pr
d
as
ity
al
ip
ic
un
M
II.
79
San Bernardino
COLORADO
oy
s
m
oy
pl
Em
n
io
at
in
rim
isc
-D
Richmond
on
CALIFORNIA
CITY
I.
STATE
er
SCORES
er
SCORES
HALF CREDIT
hrc.org/mei
hrc.org/mei
HALF CREDIT
FULL CREDIT
WHAT WE FOUND
51
s
m
og
Pr
d
as
er
aw
vic
En
es
fo
rc
an
ity
al
ip
ic
V.
em
R
en
LG ela
t
BT tion
Q sh
C ip
om w
R
m ith
EG
un
U
ity
LA
R
PO
B
O
IN
N
U
TS
S
PO
F
IN
SC IN
TS
A
O L
R
E
ra
pl
Em
n
io
at
in
rim
-D
.S
51
IV
.L
III
II.
I.
Davenport
68
99
100
89
12
100
Des Moines
93
97
Honolulu County
44
44
Dubuque
76
82
Kalawao County
36
36
Iowa City
90
12
100
Kauai County
44
44
Sioux City
75
81
Maui County
54
54
Waterloo
65
67
42
42
Emporia
23
23
Boise
61
61
Coeur dAlene
62
62
KANSAS
Idaho Falls
53
53
Hutchinson
20
20
Meridian
24
24
Kansas City
35
35
Moscow
50
50
Lawrence
59
61
Nampa
18
18
Manhattan
61
63
Pocatello
59
59
Olathe
Overland Park
17
19
Aurora
75
79
Topeka
22
22
Carbondale
47
47
Wichita
21
21
Berea
32
32
73
77
100
100
Joliet
76
78
Bowling Green
17
17
Naperville
42
42
Covington
61
63
Peoria
65
67
Frankfort
48
52
Champaign
KENTUCKY
Rockford
61
61
Lexington
65
71
Springfield
63
65
Louisville
88
12
100
Morehead
59
59
100
100
Owensboro
18
18
Evansville
50
54
Fort Wayne
40
42
Alexandria
29
37
Hammond
67
69
Baton Rouge
30
32
12
12
16
18
Bloomington
LOUISIANA
Indianapolis
81
87
Lafayette
Muncie
55
55
Lake Charles
South Bend
74
78
Metairie
Terre Haute
35
35
Monroe
West Lafayette
66
68
New Orleans
75
14
89
Shreveport
61
63
NO CREDIT
WHAT WE FOUND
Cedar Rapids
51
Hawaii County
Chicago
52
66
III
44
un
INDIANA
Ames
42
ILLINOIS
IOWA
II.
Savannah
on
22
IDAHO
CITY
HAWAII
STATE
I.
En
aw
22
IV
.L
Sandy Springs
.S
GEORGIA
CITY
STATE
isc
fo
rc
an
es
vic
er
V.
em
R
en
LG ela
t
BT tion
Q sh
C ip
om w
R
m ith
EG
un
U
ity
LA
R
PO
B
O
IN
N
U
TS
S
PO
F
IN
SC IN
TS
A
O L
R
E
ra
og
Pr
d
as
ity
al
ip
ic
un
oy
s
m
oy
pl
Em
n
io
at
in
rim
isc
-D
on
er
SCORES
er
SCORES
HALF CREDIT
FULL CREDIT
hrc.org/mei
NO CREDIT
hrc.org/mei
HALF CREDIT
FULL CREDIT
WHAT WE FOUND
53
s
m
rc
fo
En
vic
ic
ip
es
al
an
ity
as
Pr
og
Em
n
io
at
in
rim
V.
em
R
en
LG ela
t
BT tion
Q sh
C ip
om w
R
m ith
EG
un
U
ity
LA
R
PO
B
O
IN
N
U
TS
S
PO
F
IN
SC IN
TS
A
O L
R
E
Lewiston
Orono
aw
42
-D
63
65
Pleasant Ridge
43
45
59
Sterling Heights
28
28
42
Traverse City
73
75
54
54
Warren
16
16
48
48
IV
.L
Brunswick
ra
pl
0
er
59
III
Lansing
.S
Bangor
II.
MICHIGAN
III
57
un
57
II.
Augusta
on
54
I.
CITY
MARYLAND
STATE
I.
En
aw
54
IV
.L
Auburn
.S
MAINE
CITY
STATE
isc
fo
rc
an
es
vic
er
V.
em
R
en
LG ela
t
BT tion
Q sh
C ip
om w
R
m ith
EG
un
U
ity
LA
R
PO
B
O
IN
N
U
TS
S
PO
F
IN
SC IN
TS
A
O L
R
E
ra
og
Pr
d
as
ity
al
ip
ic
un
oy
s
m
oy
pl
Em
n
io
at
in
rim
isc
-D
on
er
SCORES
er
SCORES
Portland
79
81
Bloomington
59
59
Scarborough
60
66
Duluth
64
66
South Portland
60
60
Eden Prairie
62
62
Minneapolis
100
100
Annapolis
61
65
Minnetonka
54
54
Baltimore
94
12
100
Rochester
62
62
Bowie
54
56
Saint Cloud
59
59
College Park
79
87
Saint Paul
99
100
MINNESOTA
Columbia
53
53
Frederick
82
86
34
34
Gaithersburg
57
59
Biloxi
16
18
Hagerstown
36
36
Gulfport
14
16
Rockville
92
98
Hattiesburg
Towson
90
94
Jackson
67
71
Ocean Springs
MASSACHUSETTS Amherst
65
67
Oxford
Arlington
73
81
Southaven
Boston
100
10
100
Starkville
Cambridge
Cape Girardeau
15
15
Columbia
86
92
MICHIGAN
100
14
100
Lowell
54
54
Northampton
80
88
Provincetown
94
100
Independence
17
17
Salem
96
100
Jefferson City
12
12
WHAT WE FOUND
MISSOURI
Springfield
64
64
Kansas City
91
14
100
Worcester
90
12
100
Springfield
21
23
St. Charles
38
38
St. Louis
97
14
100
Ann Arbor
94
100
Detroit
96
100
East Lansing
93
10
100
Billings
18
18
Ferndale
84
10
94
Bozeman
54
58
Grand Rapids
70
76
Butte-Silver Bow
42
42
Kalamazoo
61
63
Great Falls
12
12
NO CREDIT
54
MISSISSIPPI
HALF CREDIT
MONTANA
FULL CREDIT
hrc.org/mei
NO CREDIT
hrc.org/mei
HALF CREDIT
FULL CREDIT
WHAT WE FOUND
55
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
s
m
og
Pr
d
as
er
aw
vic
En
es
fo
rc
an
ity
al
ip
ic
un
V.
em
R
en
LG ela
t
BT tion
Q sh
C ip
om w
R
m ith
EG
un
U
ity
LA
R
PO
B
O
IN
N
U
TS
S
PO
F
IN
SC IN
TS
A
O L
R
E
ra
pl
Em
n
io
at
in
isc
-D
on
51
III
II.
IV
.L
.S
51
Hoboken
IV
.L
NEW JERSEY
I.
En
aw
vic
er
.S
III
rim
rc
an
es
fo
60
CITY
18
18
Jersey City
99
100
Missoula
95
100
Lambertville
94
98
Whitefish
38
38
Montclair
59
61
New Brunswick
65
65
Bellevue
18
18
Newark
67
67
Fremont
12
12
Ocean Grove
61
65
Grand Island
19
19
Paterson
48
48
Kearney
18
18
Princeton
70
74
Trenton
65
69
Albuquerque
68
74
Eldorado at Santa Fe
33
33
68
Farmington
48
50
Lincoln
46
52
North Platte
12
12
Omaha
64
66
NEW MEXICO
Carson City
66
Elko
54
54
Gallup
39
39
Enterprise
94
100
Las Cruces
45
45
Henderson
64
64
Rio Rancho
45
45
Las Vegas
93
14
100
Roswell
48
48
Mesquite
36
36
Santa Fe
69
75
54
56
Paradise
94
100
Albany
99
100
NEW YORK
Reno
79
81
Brookhaven
62
62
Sparks
45
45
Buffalo
85
10
95
Ithaca
74
74
39
39
New York
100
16
100
45
45
Northwest Harbor
53
55
Dover
49
49
Rochester
95
100
Durham
70
70
Syracuse
82
12
94
Keene
35
37
White Plains
82
86
Yonkers
95
100
Manchester
39
39
Nashua
27
27
Plymouth
33
33
47
10
57
Portsmouth
39
39
Cary
18
18
Rochester
39
39
Chapel Hill
50
18
68
Charlotte
59
14
73
Asbury Park
79
83
Durham
55
14
69
Elizabeth
59
61
Fayetteville
23
23
Greensboro
64
16
80
NO CREDIT
WHAT WE FOUND
STATE
Kalispell
Derry
56
V.
em
R
en
LG ela
t
BT tion
Q sh
C ip
om w
R
m ith
EG
un
U
ity
LA
R
PO
B
O
IN
N
U
TS
S
PO
F
IN
SC IN
TS
A
O L
R
E
ra
og
Pr
d
as
ity
al
ip
ic
un
M
II.
60
NEW JERSEY
oy
s
m
oy
pl
Em
n
io
at
in
rim
isc
-D
Helena
on
MONTANA
CITY
I.
STATE
er
SCORES
er
SCORES
HALF CREDIT
FULL CREDIT
hrc.org/mei
NO CREDIT
hrc.org/mei
HALF CREDIT
FULL CREDIT
WHAT WE FOUND
57
59
s
m
21
Carlisle
26
26
38
44
Erie
37
39
Harrisburg
66
68
Bismarck
17
17
New Hope
Fargo
39
43
Philadelphia
76
80
100
16
100
Grand Forks
55
55
Jamestown
Pittsburgh
81
12
93
Reading
64
66
Mandan
18
18
State College
70
72
Wilkes-Barre
58
62
Cranston
36
36
East Providence
60
60
Kingston
48
48
Minot
20
20
West Fargo
12
12
Akron
78
82
100
12
100
Cleveland
73
81
Narragansett
48
48
Columbus
100
100
Newport
48
48
Dayton
95
100
Pawtucket
65
65
Dublin
34
34
Providence
100
100
Lakewood
73
77
Warwick
68
70
Toledo
85
89
42
42
Broken Arrow
12
12
Clemson
Edmond
12
14
Columbia
75
75
Lawton
17
17
Greenville
20
22
Moore
12
12
Mount Pleasant
18
18
Norman
40
42
Myrtle Beach
47
47
Oklahoma City
29
31
North Charleston
43
47
Stillwater
12
12
Rock Hill
17
17
Tulsa
44
46
Aberdeen
18
18
Ashland
42
44
Brookings
46
50
SOUTH DAKOTA
Bend
61
61
Mitchell
12
12
Corvallis
54
54
Pierre
12
12
Eugene
94
98
Rapid City
17
19
Gresham
36
36
Sioux Falls
34
40
Hillsboro
48
48
Spearfish
21
21
Portland
94
100
Vermillion
27
27
Salem
86
88
Watertown
18
18
NO CREDIT
58
WHAT WE FOUND
V.
em
R
en
LG ela
t
BT tion
Q sh
C ip
om w
R
m ith
EG
un
U
ity
LA
R
PO
B
O
IN
N
U
TS
S
PO
F
IN
SC IN
TS
A
O L
R
E
III
II.
21
Winston-Salem
OREGON
rc
95
IV
.L
.S
87
Allentown
Wilmington
Cincinnati
OKLAHOMA
fo
En
aw
vic
er
un
ic
ip
es
al
an
ity
as
Pr
og
Em
n
io
at
in
rim
-D
on
PENNSYLVANIA
CITY
RHODE ISLAND
OHIO
ra
pl
8
STATE
I.
En
aw
IV
.L
51
isc
fo
rc
an
es
vic
er
.S
III
V.
em
R
en
LG ela
t
BT tion
Q sh
C ip
om w
R
m ith
EG
un
U
ity
LA
R
PO
B
O
IN
N
U
TS
S
PO
F
IN
SC IN
TS
A
O L
R
E
ra
og
Pr
d
as
ity
al
ip
ic
un
M
II.
NORTH DAKOTA
oy
s
m
oy
pl
Em
n
io
at
in
rim
isc
-D
on
N
CITY
I.
STATE
er
SCORES
er
SCORES
HALF CREDIT
FULL CREDIT
hrc.org/mei
NO CREDIT
hrc.org/mei
HALF CREDIT
FULL CREDIT
WHAT WE FOUND
59
III
II.
s
m
rc
fo
En
vic
ic
ip
es
al
an
ity
as
Pr
og
Em
n
io
at
in
rim
-D
V.
em
R
en
LG ela
t
BT tion
Q sh
C ip
om w
R
m ith
EG
un
U
ity
LA
R
PO
B
O
IN
N
U
TS
S
PO
F
IN
SC IN
TS
A
O L
R
E
Knoxville
Memphis
aw
18
I.
38
38
Provo
47
47
18
67
69
18
West Jordan
35
35
49
55
35
35
47
53
Barre
36
36
Brattleboro
54
54
Burlington
81
81
Murfreesboro
12
12
Nashville
54
60
VERMONT
IV
.L
Johnson City
ra
pl
0
er
18
Amarillo
23
23
Castleton
48
48
Arlington
40
44
Essex
54
54
100
12
100
Montpelier
57
57
19
19
Rutland
49
49
South Burlington
61
61
Winooski
48
48
Alexandria
76
10
86
Arlington County
73
14
87
Charlottesville
72
72
Austin
Brownsville
College Station
Corpus Christi
38
42
Dallas
89
16
100
Denton
35
35
El Paso
49
57
Fort Worth
93
14
100
VIRGINIA
Garland
20
22
Chesapeake
18
18
Grand Prairie
12
12
Fairfax County
27
33
Houston
59
12
71
Hampton
19
19
Newport News
20
20
18
18
Norfolk
43
49
Irving
Killeen
Richmond
42
46
Lubbock
18
18
Roanoke
24
24
McAllen
24
24
Virginia Beach
45
47
McKinney
18
18
Mesquite
21
21
Bellevue
96
100
60
60
Laredo
WASHINGTON
Pasadena
18
20
Bellingham
Plano
72
74
Kent
Round Rock
24
24
Olympia
San Antonio
79
16
95
Waco
23
25
Logan
35
35
Ogden City
47
47
Orem
23
NO CREDIT
WHAT WE FOUND
Park City
.S
Franklin
60
UTAH
III
17
un
17
II.
Clarksville
on
34
UTAH
CITY
TEXAS
STATE
I.
En
aw
32
IV
.L
Chattanooga
.S
TENNESSEE
CITY
STATE
isc
fo
rc
an
es
vic
er
V.
em
R
en
LG ela
t
BT tion
Q sh
C ip
om w
R
m ith
EG
un
U
ity
LA
R
PO
B
O
IN
N
U
TS
S
PO
F
IN
SC IN
TS
A
O L
R
E
ra
og
Pr
d
as
ity
al
ip
ic
un
oy
s
m
oy
pl
Em
n
io
at
in
rim
isc
-D
on
er
SCORES
er
SCORES
HALF CREDIT
62
64
100
100
Pullman
59
59
Seattle
100
100
Spokane
76
76
Tacoma
85
89
Vancouver
60
60
23
Vashon
76
12
88
FULL CREDIT
NO CREDIT
hrc.org/mei
hrc.org/mei
HALF CREDIT
FULL CREDIT
WHAT WE FOUND
61
SCORES
m
oy
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
og
Pr
d
as
IV
.L
III
.S
er
aw
vic
En
es
fo
rc
an
ity
al
ip
ic
un
M
II.
V.
em
R
en
LG ela
t
BT tion
Q sh
C ip
om w
R
m ith
EG
un
U
ity
LA
R
PO
B
O
IN
N
U
TS
S
PO
F
IN
SC IN
TS
A
O L
R
E
ra
pl
Em
n
io
at
in
rim
isc
-D
Charles Town
on
WEST VIRGINIA
CITY
I.
STATE
er
SUCCESS STORY:
50
50
Charleston
65
67
Huntington
83
85
Lewisburg
49
49
Morgantown
42
46
Parkersburg
20
20
Wheeling
26
28
Appleton
68
10
78
Green Bay
40
40
Kenosha
35
37
Madison
93
10
100
Milwaukee
69
71
Oshkosh
21
21
Racine
26
28
Cheyenne
11
11
Gillette
15
15
Jackson
17
17
Laramie
48
48
Rock Springs
Sheridan
Casper
CHRIS SGRO
Executive Director
NO CREDIT
62
WHAT WE FOUND
HALF CREDIT
FULL CREDIT
hrc.org/mei
hrc.org/mei
SUCCESS STORY
63
SELF-SUBMIT
SUCCESS STORY:
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
In the 2016 Mississippi legislative
session, we saw one of the
worst pieces of discriminatory
legislation in the country pass
both houses and swiftly signed
by the governor.
TYRONE HENDRIX
City Council President
64
SUCCESS STORY
hrc.org/mei
hrc.org/mei
WHAT WE FOUND
65
WHATS AHEAD
Scorecard Changes Coming in 2018
The Municipal Equality Index
(MEI) has gone through many
changes and much growth since its
inaugural edition in 2012.
Each year, the MEI has expanded its
reach by adding new cities to bring its
message of equality to all corners of
America. Starting with just 137 cities in
2012, the MEI now rates 506 cities
covering cities big and small, liberal
and conservative, industrial centers and
sleepy college towns, and everything
in between. The scorecard serves as a
roadmap for cities to make their laws,
policies and services more LGBTQinclusive. Over the past five years,
the legal landscape for equality has
evolved and the MEI has evolved with it.
Starting in 2018, the MEI will undergo
further changes to reflect the current
state of equality.
66
WHAT WE FOUND
ANTI-BULLYING POLICIES
Anti-bullying laws and policies have
been a part of the MEI scorecard
since its inception. Any comprehensive
assessment of the LGBTQ-inclusivity
of local laws and policies would be
incomplete without considering the
protection of LGBTQ youth. Currently,
cities are awarded credit if the school
district that serves their city has an
anti-bullying policy that expressly
includes sexual orientation and gender
identity (for the full criteria on AntiBullying School Policies, see pg. 24).
While most cities do not directly control
school district policies, the MEI has
counted on leadership by city officials
to advocate for LGBTQ-inclusive antibullying school district policies.
DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP
BENEFITS
hrc.org/mei
hrc.org/mei
WHAT WE FOUND
67
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The MEI is a comprehensive and robust
assessment of municipal equality, and
would not be a realized without the
professionalism and can-do attitude of
several people who contributed their
talents to this years report. First and
foremost, HRCs Legal Director Sarah
Warbelows problem-solving, wisdom,
and support for this project continue to
be vital to the MEIs success.
Our communications team of Liz
Halloran, Sarah McBride and Allison
Turner were invaluable in arranging
the launch and developing the story
of municipal equality to tell in every
corner of America where it belongs.
Additionally, we want to thank the
HRC field team for helping cities move
equality forward on the ground and
providing logistical support for our
launch cities.
The newest addition to the HRC
legal team, Breanna Diaz, stepped
in to provide additional research
and analysis. Our law fellows and
interns provided extra hands with
their research skills and logistical
assistance. Bob Villaflor guided us
toward yet another beautiful publication
and on-time launch.
EQUALITY FEDERATION
INSTITUTE
As always, we thank our partners at
the Equality Federation Institute. The
newest batch of cities was selected
due to the advocates and supporters of
our state partners across the country.
In addition, the achievements we
celebrate in this publication are often
theirs. We recognize the state groups
that have been particularly helpful
on the following page. We want to
recognize Mason Dunn, Chris Sgro,
Alana Hochum, and James Parrish for
their contributions and persistence
in the face of adversity and, to Troy
Williams for being a gracious host with
the MEI launch, and to Andy Garcia for
his partnership at the national level. We
couldnt do this without you.
WHAT WE FOUND
hrc.org/mei
The Municipal Equality Index would not have been possible without the valuable
contributions made by state and local advocates. A particular thanks therefore
goes out to the following:
70
WHAT WE FOUND
hrc.org/mei