HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-25-2020 DEI CorrespondenceLGBTQ+City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum
DEI-TF Agenda Correspondence
Date: September 25, 2020
TO: Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Task Force Members
FROM: Beya Makekau, DE&I Task Force Facilitator, Dale Magee, DE&I Task Force
Coordinator
SUBJECT: Item 2 – LGBTQ+ Learning Session Additional Resources
Hi TF Members,
I am forwarding additional resources and comments made by our panelists from last night’s
learning session. Please see below:
o You can review the California Scorecard here. Since we have quite a good scorecard
statewide, it may be good to showcase those protections and make a recommendation that
our city ensure compliance with state law (ie. Gender Recognition Act (SB 179), etc)
o Recommend completing the Human Rights Campaign's Municipal Equality Index for
2020, which is a nationwide benchmarking assessment of municipal law.
o Attached are the 2020 MEI Standards for Credit and the score card. Here is last
years report which shows how the completed report looks. This would provide us with a
clear understanding of some major gaps and provide the city with a clearer direction of
how to better serve our community with an allocation of the funding.
o There are additional MEI Issue Briefs to assist the city in advancing their scorecard.
o Attached is the LGBTQ+ needs assessment "Fact Sheet" that goes along with the full
needs assessment report. Given that it's almost 90 pages, this is a condensed version.
o
o One of the biggest takeaways from the needs assessment (beyond the need for more
affirming mental health services) was the need for more queer and trans affirming places
across the community to foster a sense of acceptance, visibility, and connectedness.
Below is a summary of other key takeaways:
1. Organizations and agencies should attempt to identify areas for growth and change to
help support LGBTQ+ mental health and wellness
DEI-TF Agenda Correspondence Page 2
Routine self-assessment of policies and practices to ensure LGBTQ+ equity and compliance
with state and federal law.
2. Trainings are necessary to promote LGBTQ+ affirming practices for mental health
providers, agencies, and community organizations
Providers need increased awareness, knowledge, and skills to provide effective and affirming
therapy for LGBTQ+ folks.
3. Transgender and nonbinary community members, in particular, are in need of more
affirming mental health support
TGNB participants report higher distress, minority stress, internalized stigma, and rate providers
as less knowledgeable and affirming.
4. Suicide prevention efforts need to purposefully include LGBTQ+ community
members
LGBTQ+ specific crisis services are needed and should be tailored and targeted to unique
concerns of LGBTQ+ people.
5. Increased support services for LGBTQ+ youth are necessary
52% of LGBTQ+ youth report seriously considered attempting suicide within the past 12 months
LGBTQ+ youth services, including support groups and safe spaces are needed.
6. LGBTQ+ affirming community spaces are needed to increase feelings of safety and
community connectedness
Only 29% of participants agreed that most LGBTQ+ people feel safe in their community.
7. A database of LGBTQ+ affirming services and providers is needed to reduce barriers
to seeking care
68% reported not knowing how to find an LGBTQ+ competent provider.
60% felt that there are no LGBTQ+ knowledgeable mental health services in their
neighborhood.
hrc.org/mei
PTS FOR SEXUAL ORIENTATION PTS FOR GENDER IDENTITY
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 mei@hrc.org.
BONUS PTS for criteria not accessible to all cities at this time. +
CITY, STATE 1/2
2020 MUNICIPAL EQUALITY INDEX SCORECARD
CITY, STATE 2/2
2020 MUNICIPAL EQUALITY INDEX SCORECARD
V. Leadership on LGBTQ Equality
I. Non-Discrimination Laws
II. Municipality as Employer
This category evaluates whether
discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation and gender identity is
prohibited by the city, county, or state in
areas of employment, housing, and
public accommodations.
By offering equivalent benefits and
protections to LGBTQ employees, awarding
contracts to fair-minded businesses,
and taking steps to ensure an inclusive
workplace, municipalities commit themselves
to treating LGBTQ employees equally.
STATE COUNTY MUNICIPAL AVAILABLE
Employment 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5
Housing 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5
Public Accommodations 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5
SCORE 0 out of 30
BONUS Single-Occupancy All-Gender
Facilities +0 +0 +0 +2
BONUS Protects Youth from Conversion
Therapy +0 +0 +0 +2
MUNICIPAL AVAILABLE
Non-Discrimination in City Employment 0 0 7 7
Transgender-Inclusive Healthcare Benefits 0 6
City Contractor Non-Discrimination Ordinance 0 0 3 3
Inclusive Workplace 0 2
SCORE 0 out of 28
BONUS City Employee Domestic Partner
Benefits +0 +1
III. Municipal Services
This section assesses the efforts of the city
to ensure LGBTQ constituents are included
in city services and programs.
This category measures the city leadership’s
commitment to fully include the LGBTQ
community and to advocate for full equality.
COUNTY CITY AVAILABLE
Human Rights Commission 0 0 5
NDO Enforcement by Human Rights
Commission 0 0 2
LGBTQ Liaison in City Executive’s Office 0 5
SCORE 0 out of 12
BONUS Youth Bullying Prevention Policy for
City Services
BONUS City Provides Services to LGBTQ
Youth +0 +2
BONUS City Provides Services to LGBTQ
Homeless People +0 +2
BONUS City Provides Services to LGBTQ
Elders +0 +2
BONUS City Provides Services HIV/AIDS
Population +0 +2
BONUS City Provides Services to the
Transgender Community +0 +2
MUNICIPAL AVAILABLE
Leadership’s Public Position on LGBTQ Equality 0 5
Leadership’s Pro-Equality Legislative or Policy
Efforts 0 3
SCORE 0 out of 8
BONUS Openly LGBTQ Elected or Appointed
Municipal Leaders +0 +2
BONUS City Tests Limits of Restrictive State
Law +0 +3
IV. Law Enforcement
Fair enforcement of the law includes
responsible reporting of hate crimes and
engaging with the LGBTQ community in a
thoughtful and respectful way.
MUNICIPAL AVAILABLE
LGBTQ Police Liaison or Task Force 0 10
Reported 2018 Hate Crimes Statistics
to the FBI 0 12
SCORE 0 out of 22
TOTAL SCORE 0 + TOTAL BONUS 0 =Final Score 0
CANNOT EXCEED 100
+1 +1+0 +0
San Luis Obispo County
LGBTQ+ Mental Health Needs Assessment 2019
The full report is available at https://bit.ly/2Jz9gIZ
A Brief Overview
The QCARES program developed and conducted a mixed-methods needs assessment of the mental health and wellness of LGBTQ+youth and adults
in San Luis Obispo County.The study was conducted from 2018-2019 with generous funding and support from the County of San Luis Obispo
through the Mental Health Services Act and in collaboration with the County Behavioral Health Department,and the Growing Together Field of
Interest Fund (GTI), a Fund of the Community Foundation of San Luis Obispo. The needs assessment includes:
●Online survey (n = 438): Demographics, experiences, access and barriers to care, service needs, psychological distress, substance use,
suicidality, community connectedness, minority stress and discrimination, and internalized stigma
●Six focus groups (n = 34): Lesbian women; Gay men; Bisexual, pansexual, queer, asexual adults; Transgender and nonbinary adults;
LGBTQ+ Adults; and LGBTQ+ Youth
Conclusions and Recommendations
1.Organizations and agencies should attempt to identify areas for growth and change to help support LGBTQ+ mental health and
wellness
●Routine self-assessment of policies and practices to ensure LGBTQ+ equity and compliance with state and federal law.
2.Trainings are necessary to promote LGBTQ+ affirming practices for mental health providers, agencies, and community
organizations
●Providers need increased awareness, knowledge, and skills to provide effective and affirming therapy for LGBTQ+ folks.
3.Transgender and nonbinary community members, in particular, are in need of more affirming mental health support
●TGNB participants report higher distress, minority stress, internalized stigma, and rate providers as less knowledgeable and affirming.
4.Suicide prevention efforts need to purposefully include LGBTQ+ community members
●LGBTQ+ specific crisis services are needed and should be tailored and targeted to unique concerns of LGBTQ+ people.
5.Increased support services for LGBTQ+ youth are necessary
●52% of LGBTQ+ youth report seriously considered attempting suicide within the past 12 months
●LGBTQ+ youth services, including support groups and safe spaces are needed.
6.LGBTQ+ affirming community spaces are needed to increase feelings of safety and community connectedness
●Only 29% of participants agreed that most LGBTQ+ people feel safe in their community.
7.A database of LGBTQ+ affirming services and providers is needed to reduce barriers to seeking care
●68% reported no knowing how to find an LGBTQ+ competent provider
●60% felt that there are no LGBTQ+ knowledgeable mental health services in their neighborhood.
Bettergarcia, J. N., Wedell, E., & Feld, E. (2019). San Luis Obispo County LGBTQ+ mental health needs assessment: Fact Sheet. San Luis Obispo, CA: County of
San Luis Obispo Behavioral Health Department.
SLO LGBTQ+ Needs Assessment 2019: A Snapshot of Findings
Experiences with Mental Health Services
Approximately 55% (n = 238) of participants had some experience with mental health services in San Luis Obispo County.
Barriers to Seeking Mental Health Support Services in San Luis Obispo County Approximate %
Participants indicating that the following is always or sometimes a barrier (Note: n = 198-202)
Did not know how to find a LGBTQ+ competent provider 68%
Cannot afford the services I want or need 77%
Cannot find provider I am comfortable with who is also LGBTQ+ knowledgeable 62%
Wait time is too long 67%
Concerned my provider would not be supportive of my LGBTQ+ identity or behavior 57%
Ashamed to seek services 55%
Had harmful or traumatic experiences in past with mental health services 46%
No LGBTQ knowledgeable mental health services in my neighborhood 60%
Experiences with Current or Past Mental Health Providers Approximate %
Participants responding agree or strongly agree to the following statements Transgender/
Nonbinary
LGBQ+
The provider is aware and educated about LGBTQ+ people. 42% (n = 29) 51% (n = 102)
I have a choice of having an LGBTQ+ provider. 20% (n = 14) 22% (n = 43
My mental health care provider asked me about my gender identity. 39% (n = 27) 23% (n = 47)
My mental health care provider asked me about my sexual orientation. 40% (n = 28) 40% (n = 28)
I was afraid my mental health care provider would think I was mentally ill due to my gender identity. 35% (n = 25) 13% (n = 26)
I felt safe discussing gender identity with my provider. 49% (n = 33) 52% (n = 104)
My provider said they would be willing to discuss gender identity. 54% (n = 37) 38% (n = 77)
The mental health professionals I see or have seen are knowledgeable in discussions about sexual
orientation.
47% (n = 33) 53% (n = 108)
Bettergarcia, J. N., Wedell, E., & Feld, E. (2019). San Luis Obispo County LGBTQ+ mental health needs assessment: Fact Sheet. San Luis Obispo, CA: County of
San Luis Obispo Behavioral Health Department.
SLO LGBTQ+ Needs Assessment 2019: A Snapshot of Findings
Mental Health Distress
Psychological Distress Approximate %
Severity of Psychological Distress (i.e., nervous, hopeless, restless, depressed, worthless) Transgender/
Nonbinary LGBQ+
None 0% 4% (n = 12)
Low 13% (n = 12) 24% (n = 82)
Moderate 21% (n = 19) 26% (n = 89)
High 65% (n = 58) 46% (n = 156)
Distress Caused by LGBTQ+ Identity
During the past 30 days how often has your gender identity or sexual orientation been the cause of these
feelings?
Transgender/
Nonbinary LGBQ+
Not at all 26% (n = 23) 44% (n = 146)
Several days 53% (n = 48) 46% (n = 151)
More than half the days 11% (n = 10) 7% (n = 23)
Nearly every day 10% (n = 9) 4% (n = 12)
Suicidality and Self Harm
Participants responding yes to the following statements Transgender/
Nonbinary LGBQ+
During the past 12 months, did you ever seriously consider attempting suicide? 38% (n = 33) 28% (n = 94)
Have you ever thought about killing yourself? 85% (n = 74) 74% (n = 249)
Have you ever made specific plans to commit suicide without carrying them out? 51% (n = 44) 37% (n = 123)
Have you ever made threats to others that you will kill yourself? 24% (n = 21) 19% (n = 62)
Have you ever tried to kill yourself? 36% (n = 31) 23% (n = 75)
Have you deliberately tried to hurt yourself? 66% (n = 57) 47% (n = 157)
Bettergarcia, J. N., Wedell, E., & Feld, E. (2019). San Luis Obispo County LGBTQ+ mental health needs assessment: Fact Sheet. San Luis Obispo, CA: County of
San Luis Obispo Behavioral Health Department.
SLO LGBTQ+ Needs Assessment 2019: A Snapshot of Findings
Community Connectedness and Minority Stress
Community Connectedness Approximate %
Participants responding somewhat agree or strongly agree to the following statements
In my community...
Transgender/
Nonbinary LGBQ+
There are people I can ask for help when I need it. 59% (n = 51) 74% (n = 243)
Most LGBTQ people feel safe. 29% (n = 25) 29% (n = 94)
When someone moves here, people make them feel welcome regardless of their identities. 26% (n = 23) 35% (n = 114)
Transgender/Nonbinary Community Connectedness Approximate %
Participants responding agree or strongly agree to the following statements Transgender/Nonbinary
I feel part of a community of people who share my gender identity. 43% (n = 37)
When interacting with members of the community that shares my gender identity, I feel like I belong. 59% (n = 51)
I feel isolated and separate from other people who share my gender identity. 25% (n =22 )
Sexual Minority Community Connectedness
Participants responding agree or strongly agree to the following statements LGBQ+
I feel part of a community of people who share my sexual orientation. 48% (n = 159)
I’m not like other people who share my sexual orientation. 24% (n = 79)
Minority Stress Approximate %
Participants responding somewhat applicable to me or applies to me a lot to the following statements Transgender/
Nonbinary LGBQ+
Being misunderstood by people because of your gender expression. 78% (n = 68) 36% (n = 116)
Watching what you say and do around heterosexual people. 79% (n = 67) 62% (n = 201)
Hearing someone make jokes about LGBT people. 94% (n = 82) 82% (n = 260)
Being sexually harassed because you are LGBT. 34% (n = 29) 22% (n = 68)
Having very few people you can talk to about being LGBT. 55% (n = 47) 46% (n = 145)
Bettergarcia, J. N., Wedell, E., & Feld, E. (2019). San Luis Obispo County LGBTQ+ mental health needs assessment: Fact Sheet. San Luis Obispo, CA: County of
San Luis Obispo Behavioral Health Department.
The following outlines our standard for credit in each section of the 2020 Municipal Equality Index (MEI)
scorecard.
SECTION I. NON-DISCRIMINATION LAWS
●Non-Discrimination in Private Employment,Housing,and Public Accommodations (Up to 30
points).This category evaluates whether a city has an enforceable non-discrimination ordinance that
expressly covers sexual orientation and gender identity and applies to private employment,housing,and
public accommodations citywide.In each category (private employment,housing,and public
accommodations),cities receive 5 points for explicitly prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation and 5 points for expressly prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity.A 3-point
deduction is applied for protections that contain carve-outs prohibiting individuals from using facilities
consistent with their gender identity.Up to six points will be deducted for religious exemptions that single
out sexual orientation and/or gender identity.
●Required Documentation: Copy of relevant municipal code provision(s).
●BONUS:All-Gender Single-Occupancy Facilities (2 bonus points).Cities that require all single-user
sex-segregated facilities within the city like bathrooms and changing rooms to be all-gender will receive
two bonus points.Cities that have a policy designating all single-occupancy facilities within its own
buildings to be all-gender will receive half credit.For more information on the importance of equal access
to single-occupancy facilities,see our issue brief entitled Equal Access to Sex-Segregated Facilities here
or at www.hrc.org/mei.
●Required Documentation: Copy of relevant municipal code provision(s).
●BONUS:Protects Youth from Conversion Therapy (2 bonus points).Cities that enact laws to protect
youth from the harmful and discredited practice of so-called “conversion therapy”—any effort to change an
individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity—will garner two bonus points.To learn more about this
dangerous practice,see our issue brief entitled Protecting Youth from Harmful “Conversion Therapy”
here or at www.hrc.org/mei.
●Required Documentation: Copy of relevant municipal code provision(s).
SECTION II. MUNICIPALITY AS AN EMPLOYER
●Non-Discrimination in City Employment (7 points for sexual orientation/7 points for gender identity).
Whereas Section I assesses private employment citywide,this section evaluates non-discrimination
protections for city employees (public employment).To qualify for credit,the city must have an enforceable
non-discrimination ordinance or policy that expressly applies to all municipal employees and explicitly
includes sexual orientation and gender identity.
●Required Documentation:Copy of relevant municipal code provision(s)or city equal employment
1
opportunity policy.
●Transgender-Inclusive Healthcare Benefits (6 points).To obtain credit in this category,the city must
offer at least one municipal employee health insurance plan that expressly covers transgender healthcare
needs,including gender-affirming procedures,hormone therapy,mental health care and other
gender-affirming care.The lack of express exclusions for these services is not sufficient for credit because
this care is routinely not covered.For more information on extending transgender-inclusive healthcare
benefits to city employees, read our issue brief here or at www.hrc.org/mei.
●Required Documentation: Copy of city employee health insurance plan benefits booklet.
●City Contractor Non-Discrimination Ordinance or Policy (3 points for sexual orientation/3 points for
gender identity).This refers to a city law or policy that requires all businesses the city contracts with for
goods or services to have an employee non-discrimination policy that expressly covers sexual orientation
and gender identity.Partial credit may be awarded in instances where the city has no qualifying ordinance
or policy but consistently includes a contractor non-discrimination provision in all contracts with
businesses,or when a city gives a bidding preference to businesses with a qualifying employee
non-discrimination policy.
●Required Documentation: Copy of relevant municipal code provision(s) or city policy.
●Inclusive Workplace (2 points).This section assesses whether a municipality has LGBTQ-specific
programming to attract LGBTQ applicants and promote diversity in the workplace.Cities will receive credit
if they have any one of the following:an LGBTQ employee pride alliance or resource group,
LGBTQ-inclusive diversity training for all city staff,or a recruitment program that actively advertises
available positions to the LGBTQ community.For more information on this topic,see our 2018 MEI issue
brief entitled Working Toward a Fully-Inclusive Municipal Workplace here or at www.hrc.org/mei.
●Required Documentation:Confirmation from city human resources department of an LGBTQ
employee pride alliance or resource group;copy of LGBTQ-inclusive all-staff diversity training;or
documentation of recruitment efforts directed to the LGBTQ community.
●BONUS:City Employee Domestic Partner Benefits (1 bonus point).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.For more information on this topic,
see our issue brief entitled The Case for Retaining Domestic Partnership Laws and Policies here or at
www.hrc.org/mei.
2
●Required Documentation: Copy of relevant municipal code provision(s) or city policy.
SECTION III. MUNICIPAL SERVICES
●Human Rights Commission (5 points).Credit is awarded in this section if the city has a
community-facing body tasked with eliminating discrimination and educating the public on issues of
diversity and inclusion.To these ends,the commission can hold community discussions,screen movies,
present panels,take public comment,advise city leaders and develop policies and strategies to make the
city more inclusive. The commission must be active and meet regularly.
●Required Documentation:Copy of relevant municipal code provision(s)or link to city human rights
commission website.
●Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Ordinance by Human Rights Commission (2 points).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 citywide non-discrimination protections,that commission will earn
two additional points.
●Required Documentation:Copy of relevant municipal code provision(s)or link to city human rights
commission website.
●LGBTQ Liaison to City Executive (5 points).To earn credit in this category,the city must have an
officially designated liaison to the LGBTQ community who reports to the city executive and whose
designation as LGBTQ liaison and contact information is posted on the city website.An LGBTQ liaison
serves as an accessible and friendly ear to the city’s LGBTQ community and elevates LGBTQ-related
concerns to the city executive and other city officials.LGBTQ persons who work in the city executive’s
office do not qualify for credit in this category unless they serve as the official LGBTQ liaison and meet the
above criteria.This role may be assigned to existing city staff.Additionally,the LGBTQ liaison to the city
executive cannot double for credit as an LGBTQ police liaison (which is rated in Part IV),given the unique
function of each of these divisions of city government.
●Required Documentation:A link to the city website displaying the LGBTQ liaison’s title and contact
information.
●BONUS:Youth Bullying Prevention Policy for City Services (1 bonus point for sexual orientation/1
bonus point for gender identity).This category awards cities up to two bonus points for implementing
policies that prohibit bullying on the express basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in all
youth-facing city facilities and services.These policies should cover,for example,the city’s parks and
recreation department,library programs,and any other department or service that incorporate young
3
people.For more on this topic,see our issue brief entitled Inclusive and Innovative Approaches to Citywide
Bullying Prevention here or at www.hrc.org/mei.
●Required Documentation: Copy of relevant municipal code provision(s) or city policy.
●BONUS:City Provides Services to/Supports LGBTQ Youth (2 bonus points).Cities should offer
services designed to address the unique needs of LGBTQ youth,who often face higher rates of bullying,
harassment and rejection after coming out.Cities can earn credit here by (1)directly providing services
targeted to LGBTQ youth,(2)funding organizations that provide these services,OR (3)providing other
meaningful types of support (such as in-kind support,subsidized use of city facilities,etc.)to community
organizations that provide services designed for LGBTQ youth.For LGBTQ youth resources,visit
http://www.hrc.org/resources/topic/children-youth.
●Required Documentation:(1)A record of the city’s support for the qualifying service (ex:A copy of
the current city budget showing city funding for a community organization that provides the qualifying
service)AND (2)Documentation of how the service qualifies (ex:A link to the city-supported
community organization describing the service that is targeted to LGBTQ youth).
●BONUS:City Provides Services to/Supports LGBTQ Homeless People (2 bonus points).LGBTQ
people –particularly youth –are disproportionately impacted by homelessness.Cities can earn credit in
this section by (1)directly providing services targeted to LGBTQ homeless individuals,(2)funding
organizations that provide these services,OR (3)providing other meaningful types of support (such as
in-kind support,subsidized use of city facilities,etc.)to community organizations that provide services or
resources targeted to LGBTQ homeless individuals.For more LGBTQ homelessness resources,visit
http://www.hrc.org/resources/lgbt-youth-homelessness.
●Required Documentation:(1)A record of the city’s support for the qualifying service (ex:A copy of
the current city budget showing city funding for a community organization that provides the qualifying
service)AND (2)Documentation of how the service qualifies (ex:A link to the city-supported
community organization describing the service that is targeted to LGBTQ homeless individuals).
●BONUS:City Provides Services to/Supports LGBTQ Elders (2 bonus points).As LGBTQ individuals
age,they encounter unique health,social and cultural challenges.Cities can earn credit in this section by
(1)directly providing services targeted to LGBTQ elders,(2)funding organizations that provide these
services,OR (3)providing other meaningful types of support (such as in-kind support,subsidized use of
city facilities,etc.)to community organizations that provide services or resources targeted to LGBTQ
elders.For more information on this topic,see our 2018 MEI issue brief entitled Addressing the Unique
Needs of LGBTQ Older People here or at www.hrc.org/mei.
4
●Required Documentation:(1)A record of the city’s support for the qualifying service (ex:A copy of
the current city budget showing city funding for a community organization that provides the qualifying
service)AND (2)Documentation of how the service qualifies (ex:A link to the city-supported
community organization describing the service targeted to LGBTQ elders).
●BONUS:City Provides Services to/Supports People Living with HIV or AIDS (2 bonus points).HIV
continues to disproportionately impact segments of the LGBTQ community.Cities can earn credit in this
section by (1)directly providing services for people living with HIV or AIDS,(2)funding organizations that
provide these services,OR (3)providing other meaningful types of support (such as in-kind support,
subsidized use of city facilities,etc.)to community organizations that provide services or resources
targeted to individuals living with HIV or AIDS.For resources on HIV and AIDS,visit
http://www.hrc.org/resources/topic/hiv-aids.Additionally,please review the 2019 MEI issue brief entitled
Expanding PrEP Access to Help End the HIV Epidemic here or at hrc.org/mei.
●Required Documentation:(1)A record of the city’s support for the qualifying service (ex:A copy of
the current city budget showing city funding for a community organization that provides the qualifying
service)AND (2)Documentation of how the service qualifies (ex:A link to the city-supported
community organization describing the service targeted to people living with HIV or AIDS).
●BONUS:City Provides Services to/Supports the Transgender Community (2 bonus points).
Transgender individuals face disproportionate levels of discrimination,stigma and systemic inequality.
Cities can earn credit in this section by (1)directly providing services targeted to transgender residents
such as employment programs,post-incarceration reentry programs,and violence prevention programs;
(2)funding organizations that provide these services;OR (3)providing other meaningful types of support
(such as in-kind support,subsidized use of city facilities,etc.)to community organizations that provide
services or resources targeted to the transgender community.For resources on the transgender
community,please visit http://www.hrc.org/resources/topic/transgender and review the issue brief entitled
Anti-Transgender Violence: What Cities Can Do available here or at www.hrc.org/mei.
●Required Documentation:(1)A record of the city’s support for the qualifying service (ex:A copy of
the current city budget showing city funding for a community organization that provides the qualifying
service)AND (2)Documentation of how the service qualifies (ex:A link to the city-supported
community organization describing the service that is targeted to transgender residents).
SECTION IV. LAW ENFORCEMENT
●LGBTQ Police Liaison or Task Force (10 points).To get credit in this category,the city must have an
officially designated liaison from the police department to the LGBTQ community (or a police task force
charged with addressing LGBTQ issues)whose designation as LGBTQ liaison and contact information is
posted on the police department’s website.An LGBTQ police liaison serves as an accessible and friendly
5
ear to the city’s LGBTQ community and elevates LGBTQ-related concerns to the police chief and other city
officials.LGBTQ police officers,including high-ranking officers,do not qualify for credit in this category
unless their service as liaison is part of their official job and the required information is published online.
Partial credit will be awarded if the entire police force was recently trained on LGBTQ issues.
●Required Documentation:A link to the police department website displaying the LGBTQ police
liaison’s title and contact information.
●Reported 2018 Hate Crimes Statistics to the FBI (12 points).To qualify for points in this section,the city
must report hate crimes statistics to the FBI in all categories,including sexual orientation and gender
identity, and either:
●Report a positive number of hate crimes in any protected category in 2018 (i.e.report more than “0”
for hate crimes reported in any one or more of the protected categories), OR
●Report zero hate crimes in 2018 AND have reported a positive number of hate crimes in any one or
more of the protected categories some year in the past five years of published reports.This second
prong is to recognize that while statistically it is possible that no hate crimes of any kind occurred in
a small city one year,it is highly improbable that no hate crimes of any kind occurred in a city in the
past five years of a published FBI hate crimes reports.For more information on this topic,see our
2017 MEI issue brief entitled The Imperative of Responsible Hate Crime Reporting here or at
www.hrc.org/mei.
●The 2018 FBI Hate Crime Statistics are available online here.
SECTION V. LEADERSHIP ON LGBTQ EQUALITY
●Leadership’s Public Position on LGBTQ Equality (0-5 points). This section grades, on a sliding scale
from zero to five points, how pro-equality the city leadership is in its public statements. City leadership
includes the city executive, city council, and other government officials. These statements may include
joining a pro-equality association such as Mayors Against LGBT Discrimination, coming out publicly in favor
of LGBTQ rights, supporting LGBTQ community organizations publicly, attending a pride parade, speaking
out against anti-LGBTQ legislation, partnering with LGBTQ groups to create solutions to city problems, etc.
It also includes comments made during city council meetings or at other public events.
●Required Documentation: Links to recent news articles, photographs of city leadership at LGBTQ
events, op-eds, Facebook posts, tweets, etc.
●Leadership’s Pro-Equality Legislative or Policy Efforts (0-3 points).This section grades,on a sliding
scale from zero to three points,how actively the city has been pursuing pro-equality legislation and
6
policies.This includes ordinances introduced (whether passed or not),city policies,and pro-equality city
council resolutions and proclamations.
●Required Documentation:Links to news articles,copies of ordinances and policies,or a written
summary from city officials demonstrating recent pro-equality legislative and policy efforts.
●BONUS:Openly LGBTQ Elected or Appointed Municipal Officials (2 bonus points).Appointed or
elected city officials who are openly LGBTQ will qualify the city for two bonus points in this category.While
the city should seek to employ LGBTQ persons at all levels of government,this criterion specifically
addresses city officials who are well-known in the public eye like the mayor,vice mayor,city manager,vice
city manager,and members of the city council.A state or federal elected representative from the city does
not qualify.
●Required Documentation: Links to relevant news articles, for example.
●BONUS:City Tests Limits of Restrictive State Law (3 bonus points).This category only applies to cities
located in states with statewide laws that restricts cities’authority to pass LGBTQ-inclusive ordinances.
Such cities that take distinct actions to push back against state limits to their ability to pass pro-equality
laws will qualify for four bonus points in this section.Cities can advocate against restrictive state law
through council resolutions or declarations and engagement with state legislators.For more information on
preemption laws,please see the 2016 MEI issue brief entitled Power Struggles and Preemption here or at
www.hrc.org/mei.
●Required Documentation:Links to relevant news articles,copies of council resolutions or
declarations, summaries of state-level advocacy by city officials, etc.
7