Blog

Owner Owner

LGBTQI Opportunities at Commerce and Raimondo’s record

Note: This post has been slightly edited.

With the announcement that Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo will be nominated for Secretary of Commerce, I wanted to share a few thoughts about what this sometimes overlooked agency could do to advance LGBTQI equity and justice. I also wanted to offer a bit of background on what Governor Raimondo's administration in Rhode Island has done, especially on trans justice. I am focusing on Raimondo and Commerce here mainly because this department tends to get less attention than DOJ, ED, HHS, or even HUD or Labor in terms of gender and LGBTQI equity - and also because as a governor Raimondo has a more extensive public record on these issues than most of the cabinet nominees.

Note here I’m just summarizing and not offering here a thumbs up or down on this nomination. Raimondo has backed a lot of pro-LGBTQ policies as Rhode Island governor, which is my focus here — but her consideration, first for HHS and for Commerce, has been sharply criticized by progressives on a range of issues that should be of concern to LGBTQI and feminist advocates.

Key Department of Commerce policy opportunities for LGBTQI equity

The following are some ideas for what the Commerce Department could do to address the serious economic and other disparities facing LGBTQI and especially trans communities. Note that some of these programs or issues cross departments and either require or would greatly benefit from interagency coordination.

  • Department-wide:

    • Adopting explicitly LGBTQ+ inclusive nondiscrimination rules and/or guidance (including working with other agencies to update the Title IX Common Rule).

  • Minority Business Development Agency

    • Working with Congress to restore and expand funding for MBDA, which has been chronically underfunded in recent years.

    • Creating an interagency LGBTQI equity task force with SBA and Department of Labor- including cross-training and equity audits for workforce and small business programs.

    • Making a determination that trans/LGBTQI individuals are a socially and economically disadvantaged group eligible for MBDA assistance (per 15 CFR Part 1400; may require an organization to request determinations).

    • Creating grant incentives for Minority Business Centers for trans/LGBTQI inclusion efforts, with emphasis on trans/LGBTQI people of color.

  • Under Secretary of Economic Affairs & Bureau of Economic Analysis:

    • Develop focused research and reports onon economic well-being of trans/LGBTQI people, including trans/LGBTQI people in STEM and trans/LGBTQI business owners.

    • Incorporate research and analysis onLGBTQI populations in broader economic analysis efforts, including efforts on community resilience and re-entry.

  • Census Bureau:

    • Work with Congress to increase funding for the Census Bureau, including for testing and refining new measures.

    • Test and implement SOGI and intersex status data collection in key surveys (based on recommendations from the National Academies of Science) especially:

      • COVID-19 Household Pulse Survey

      • American Community Survey

      • Current Population Survey

      • American Housing Survey

  • International Trade Administration:

Rhode Island state agency policies on trans equality during Gov. Raimondo's tenure

As noted above, she has drawn progressive opposition on fronts such as her pro-business stance and more conservative health care policies as RI governor. Yet regarding LGBTQI-specific policies, she has a pretty good record. The following are policies adopted by Rhode Island state agencies during Governor Raimondo's tenure (since 2015). I do not comment here on how strong or comprehensive (or not) they may be in substance, but generally several of them are quite good, while some (in particular the DOC and juvenile detention policies) leave a lot to be desired in terms of specifics.

How much any state agency policy reflects on the policy views or leadership approach of the governor can be hard to say (some important policies may be adopted without any review by the governor's office), but one can say that Rhode Island has had a pretty strong progressive record on trans issues on most of these issues during Raimondo's tenure. And she has spoken out explicitly on some moves, such as adding an X gender option on state IDs, The Movement Advancement Project gives Rhode Island a score of 17/20 on trans inclusive policies, and 32.75/39.5 on the LGBTQ-related policies they track overall.

In terms of legislation, Gov. Raimondo has signed some LGBTQI inclusive legislation, such as bills to ban minor conversion therapy ban, equalize the state's parentage laws, ensure equal benefits for veterans discharged for being LGBTQ, ban anti-LGBTQ "panic defenses" in criminal cases, ensure respect for trans people on their death certificates, and ensure youth in state custody of receive basic notice of their nondiscrimination rights.

Workforce development

Gender markers

Students' rights

Child welfare/juvenile justice

Health care

Prisoner rights

Anything missing? Let me know.


Read More
Owner Owner

Testimony on DC Council Police Reform Bills

Today I joined nearly 100 others in giving video testimony to the DC Council urging them to go beyond pending police reform bills to ban abusive practices, ensure real accountability, and defund MPD. My testimony is informed by the local leadership and recommendations of Black Lives Matter DC, ACLU-DC, DC Justice Lab, HIPS, and many others, and to a lesser extent my own federal and local policy work on over the years.

--

Thank you Chairman and Councilmembers for listening and for taking on this work. My name is Harper Jean Tobin and I live in Ward 4. Like Breonna Taylor I hail from Louisville, Kentucky. Like Alonzo Smith, I studied social work. For the last twelve years, I’ve called DC home and used my law and social work training to advocate for transgender people across the country, and was pleased to be honored by the Mayor for it last year.

In that work I’ve met so many folks who’ve been stopped for “walking while trans,” extorted for sex, who’ve faced transphobic violence from strangers but fear police the most. In a national survey, 57% of all trans people said they’d be uncomfortable seeking police assistance. In DC, it was 63%. For Black trans folks, 67%.

I’ve also had the chance to work with federal and local law enforcement in our city, region, and around the country. One of the most common things I’ve heard from them is that they’re asked to solve problems that would be better addressed by social workers, nurses, schools, and housing programs. I couldn’t agree more, but if we take that seriously it means we need more of those things and less of MPD.

When we invest billions of dollars over so many years in MPD and we see the violence in our city—the violence MPD are supposed to prevent, and that they cause—we have to ask some pointed questions:

  • Is MPD giving us a good return on investment in public safety?

  • Are we getting better results than we could get from investing those funds in health, housing, and education?

  • Is maintaining an officer-per-capita ratio 2, 3, 4x that of other major cities making us safer?

  • At minimum, can we be confident that MPD’s activities, especially its paramilitary units, are actually preventing more assaults and killings than they’re causing?

Looking at the evidence, we have to answer no, no, no, and no.

Those are sobering answers that must guide us.

To start, and as others have so eloquently explained, these bills ought to end:

  • Jump-outs

  • No-knock warrants

  • So-called “consent” searches

  • Armed and unaccountable special police

  • Police in schools and interrogating children

  • Mass surveillance

What’s more, we need to replace:

  • Armed police with clinically trained civilians for most emergency response

  • Armed police with ordinary civil servants for most traffic enforcement

  • Paramilitary units with violence interrupters and trauma-informed prevention

  • Immunity and impunity with real accountability

  • Laws that criminalize sex work, poverty, and addiction with more investments in opportunity and treatment

In sum, the three bills before this Committee (B23-0723, the “Rioting Modernization Amendment Act of 2020,” B23-0771, the “Internationally Banned Chemical Weapon Prohibition Amendment Act of 2020,” and B23-0882, the “Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2020”) can be seen as a modest but urgent down payment on transformative change—but to be even that, they can and must be strengthened.

I support the recommendations made by Black Lives Matter DC, ACLU, DC Justice Lab, HIPS, and others, and urge the Council to adopt them.

Thank you.

Read More
Owner Owner

Advocacy Lessons for November and Beyond

I was asked recently for my advice for LGBTQ+ advocates—as well as potential new government appointees—approaching the changes we could see next year in the White House, Congress, and state legislatures. Here, in a nutshell, is that advice, which of course is indebted to many conversations with many, many colleagues over the years. I’ve geared it to LGBTQ+ advocates because that’s where most of my work has focused, but I think much of it applies more broadly.

I’ve written out thirteen specific points below, but most of them come back to one big takeaway:

Be proactive, not reactive. A proactive approach will produce bigger dividends and it's what our communities are demanding. Don’t focus on a list of Trump Administration rollbacks (or other bad outcomes like court rulings) to reverse, or Obama-era policies to “restore.” Don’t focus only on how government will respond when someone has been a victim of discrimination or violence. Press instead for what LGBTQ+ people need today, what can be done to advance the ball now and build for the future.

Being proactive means, first, a couple of big things with regard to November:

  1. Be prepared for Trump to win. We know it can happen, and a second term will be worse in many ways. What will your organization do? Shift resources away from federal policy and lobbying and toward impact litigation, transparency work, direct legal aid or other kinds of aid, grassroots resistance, state and local policy, leadership development and movement building, or electoral work? Invest in greater capacity to mobilize supporters into the streets and to flood Congress and federal agencies with letters and calls? Work across movements to zero in on a handful of broad, cross-movement defensive priorities for federal lobbying or policy?

  2. Be prepared for Trump to reject the election results. Moreover, be prepared for a crisis that may not blow over in a matter of days but might escalate in ways that most of us find difficult to imagine. What will your organization do in this scenario? “Nothing, it’s not our role” is not a responsible answer. Are you prepared to call your supporters into the streets? Are you prepared for your organization to give funds you might otherwise use for policy or lobbying work to groups organizing protests, legal work, and the other urgent needs of fending off an imminent and existential threat to democracy?

    Those are big questions, so sit with them for awhile. I’ll wait.

    Take your time.


    It can be hard to hold all these possible scenarios in our minds, and really prepare ourselves for them.

    Okay, now that we’ve faced the extraordinary dangers just ahead of us, let’s think about some key principles that will serve us well in the years to come no matter what happens in November—as well as a few that could be particularly important in a Biden Administration.

  3. "LGBTQ+ issues" should be defined the way other marginalized community's concerns are: by their impact, not whether they’re “LGBTQ+ specific.” Think of how different—and how impoverished—the agendas of women’s rights and racial justice groups would be today if they only worked on laws, policies, and programs that specifically mentioned race or gender. Policies with disproportionate benefits or harms for LGBTQ+ communities should be considered every bit as central as LGBTQ+ specific policies. The approach of a group like True Colors United may be a good example: based on the actual impacts on LGBTQ+ homeless youth, TCU devotes equal effort to both securing funding and implementation of programs that will disproportionately benefit this population, and for programs specifically targeted to this population.

  4. Investments and policies to affirmatively further health, jobs, and housing for LGBTQ+ people should receive equal or greater priority than civil rights enforcement. We already know from both the experience of both LGBTQ+ populations and other marginalized populations that civil rights enforcement, while foundational for social justice, tend to have only limited impacts on deeply established economic and health disparities. While expanding and preserving civil rights protections remains very important post-Bostock, it should not take precedence over more proactive interventions.

  5. Violence prevention—including addressing root causes—and victim services for LGBTQ+ people should take precedence over police response and prosecutions. In June 2020 over 350 LGBTQ+ organizations made a joint statement calling for “divestment of police resources and reinvestment in communities, and for long-term transformational change.” Taking this commitment seriously will mean major changes in how many LGBTQ+ groups have historically approached issues such as violence against trans women of color, hate crimes, policing, and domestic and intimate partner violence.

  6. Take every opportunity to work toward eliminating a problem rather than simply ameliorating it. For example, improving gender marker change procedures is good; eliminating gender markers on documents where they're not necessary is much better. To choose another, very different example: strengthening oversight and accountability for prisons and immigration detention are good; keeping and getting people out of prisons and detention centers is much, much better.

  7. Consistently include an LGBTQ+ lens in all equity efforts, and a broader equity lens in all LGBTQ+ efforts. From jobs and small business support to public safety reform to school re-opening plans, whenever racial equity is on the table, gender and LGBTQ+ equity should be too—and vice versa. And the more LGBTQ+ advocates take a proactive approach, the more it will be pretty much impossible to do the work without an intersection lens. This requires both integrating that lens into LGBTQ+ organizational and movement cultures and expanding and deepening strategy conversations across movements.

  8. Find creative ways to use agencies’ existing authorities and discretionary funding to make change. Early on, advocates were often told that their recommendations would require action by Congress—amending civil rights statutes, or earmarking funds for LGBTQ+ equity efforts. Over time, agencies realized that while new reforms and investments from Congress were sorely needed, there were many ways they should use their existing discretionary funds, enforcement powers, and authorities over federal programs to establish important new programs and protections.

  9. Direction and coordination from the White House matter. Done wrong or not done at all they can hinder progress; done right they can supercharge it. Absent coordination on issues that crop up across government in similar ways, agencies will often be reluctant to take action, let alone bold action. Compare, e.g., the impact of early direction and coordination on federal benefits for same-sex couples in the Obama Administration with the slow, piecemeal, uncoordinated progress on gender markers.

  10. Lock in progress through legislation or regulations where possible. While there are always trade-offs involved and sometimes pushing for agency guidance (which can happen quicker and be more detailed) makes sense, we’ve seen many examples in recent years of how quickly it can be reversed. Legislation and regulations take a lot of time, effort, and political capital. Importantly, this includes watching for opportunities to fold key protections or investments for LGBTQ+ equity into larger initiatives.

  11. Work with Congress to find both small and large ways to advance the ball. Flagship bills like the Equality Act, LGBT Data Inclusion Act, and GLOBE Act are critical, but over time folks found ways to achieve modest but important advances through modest provisions in major vehicles—and doubtless overlooked many other opportunities. The 2013 Violence Against Woman Act reauthorization is the most obvious and hard-fought example. The 2015 Runaway and Homeless Youth Act reauthorization could have been another had it not failed in the Senate. Funding increases for civil rights offices made a difference where they were won—and where they weren’t. The Older Americans Act reauthorization in 2019 was also a useful example, as it used low-key language to include LGBTQ+ equity in several key provisions. Many opportunities to include LGBTQ+ equity in legislative and funding provisions related to racial and gender equity were passed over due to a lack of focus from both the White House, Congress, and advocates.

  12. Prepare for opportunities in 2021 in COVID-19 and economic recovery legislation. Done right, COVID-19 relief and economic recovery (including infrastructure and clean energy) legislation in early 2021 should present key opportunities to make truly historic investments in ending homelessness, advancing health, education, and workplace equity, and reducing criminalization and incarceration. LGBTQ+ advocates should be thinking hard and strategizing across movements to press for key priorities that could shape federal and state programs, funding levels, and authorities for many years to come. While regulations can take a year or more to promulgate, these opportunities could come and go within the first weeks of the 117th Congress, so 2021 planning has got to put Congress on the front burner along with the Executive branch.

  13. Prepare for new opportunities and better collaborations in the states. November will also bring major changes in some state legislatures. This means potentially many new opportunities to develop and advance proactive approaches, cross-movement collaborations, and make hugely important progress in red and purple states. Yes, on broad nondiscrimination bills and conversion therapy bans, but also on ID documents, name changes, prisoner rights, sex worker rights, ending cash bail, and investments in health, housing, and jobs programs, among other issues. Many states have tenacious and accomplished trans and queer activists without adequate resources to press their goals at the statehouse alone. National LGBTQ+ orgs sometimes struggle to support and advance state and local work in ways that don’t step on toes or duplicate efforts and that actually help build state and local capacity and political support for the long term. Now is the time to finally figure it out.

What do you think are the most critical lessons or guiding principles for LGBTQ+ and other social justice advocates—especially those of us who do public policy work—for what lies beyond November 3rd?

For this post I’m indebted to many conversations in recent weeks and recent years with more colleagues than I can name, including colleagues in the LGBTQ & HIV Criminal Justice Working Group and the National LGBTQ Institute on IPV and its predecessor National LGBTQ DV Capacity Building Learning Center. It was also informed by cross-movement agenda-setting efforts such as the Vision for Black Lives, the BREATHE Act, and the Survivors’ Agenda.

Read More
Owner Owner

Democratic Platform: Key Excerpts for LGBTQ+ and Gender Justice Advocates

Once again, I’ve created something for my own reference that I hope might be useful to others.

In this Google Doc are selected excerpts from the 2020 Democratic Party Platform [1] (prior, of course, to its final adoption later this week), with a focus on portions I think are particularly relevant for LGBTQ+ and other gender justice advocates. The importance of party platforms to public policy is very easy to overstate, but for those of us in the weeds of developing and advocating priorities for the next Administration and Congress, it’s one significant marker among many.

I’ve tried to highlight:

  • Policy proposals that are specifically LGBTQ+ inclusive or LGBTQ+ focused. There are a lot of critical issues mentioned and a lot of hugely important, specific commitments here.

  • Policy proposals that should have an LGBTQ+ specific focus or element, but for which that is not mentioned in the Platform. My point is not so much that the Platform is lacking here, but that policymakers and advocates need to ensure inclusion in adopting and implementing these policies.

  • Policy proposals that appear to differ from, or fall short of, bold approaches urged by many progressives and civil rights advocates.

My selections, sticking largely to policy specifics and totaling less than 20% of the full Platform’s word count, are highly debatable but hopefully helpful.[3] What do you see—or not see—that stands out? Unsurprisingly, the Platform largely tracks the presidential nominee’s various policy plans, but you see any significant differences? [2]

  1. I’m just looking at the Democrats’ platform here for so many reasons, including that there is no new Republican platform this year.

  2. Please note: for simplicity I’ve left out discussion of one huge front-and-center issue—universal health coverage—that takes up significant space and has perhaps been the most-discussed element of the Platform.

  3. I’ve tried to keep the focus on policy here—highlighting and commenting what this particular document does and doesn’t say about specific issues—rather than making a case for or against the party’s Platform or candidates overall. The reader will be the judge on that.

Read More