NATIONAL RETIREMENT SECURITY WEEK

Retirement Rankings Say ‘Head South.’ But What About LGBTQ People?

A recent study by Bankrate, a personal financial services review site, looked at the best and worst states to retire and based their rankings on five factors: affordability, well-being, quality and cost of health care, weather, and crime. Their general recommendation emphasized in the New York Times article featuring their analysis? “Head South.”

This suggestion may be fitting for those over 65 whose decision on where to live is mainly powered by cost of living and warm temps, but for the 2.7 million LGBTQ people ages 50 and over, other factors — like what rights a state affords or denies LGBTQ people — likely matter just as much, if not more. Including even a minimal consideration of a state’s treatment of LGBTQ people would result in a different ranking of states all together.

MAP’s research team decided to compare Bankrate’s analysis to our publicly available data on state policy to illustrate how state rankings can change dramatically when you incorporate laws and policies that shape the lives and experiences of LGBTQ people. Our findings show strikingly different results and highlight a very different set of considerations for LGBTQ adults deciding where to spend their golden years.

As a trusted source for rigorous research and insight, MAP’s LGBTQ Equality Maps provide a detailed, real-time snapshot of the state of LGBTQ laws and policies in the United States. Our maps track over 50 policies which, when tallied together, produce an overall LGBTQ policy score for each state. When comparing Bankrate’s state ranking to our tallies, two datapoints are immediately clear:

• 70% of Bankrate’s ten highest ranked states receive a negative or low overall LGBTQ policy tally (MAP’s two lowest categories).
• 70% of Bankrate’s ten lowest ranked states receive a high overall LGBTQ policy tally (MAP’s highest category).

MAP’s team then took it a step further, attempting to replicate Bankrate’s study by using the information included in their article. This attempt produced different results than Bankrate published, even before including LGBTQ policies. When MAP contacted Bankrate for clarification, Bankrate refused to share their complete data and methodology, so making a direct comparison or replication was impossible.

However, based on the limited data and methods Bankrate described in their original article, MAP followed a similar approach using the same factors and adding in our own state-level LGBTQ policy data — data which is freely available for others to use. Making minimal adjustments to Bankrate’s approach, our findings illustrate how dramatically the rankings can change with even a basic level of consideration of LGBTQ policies.

As shown in the weight comparison chart below, MAP adjusted Bankrate’s weighting of affordability and weather to allow for the consideration of LGBTQ policies. These policies, which themselves can dramatically affect LGBTQ people’s overall quality of life, include one’s ability to afford or access housing and public places like parks, libraries, and senior centers (e.g. nondiscrimination law), access to affirming health care (e.g. insurance nondiscrimination), and protections against crime (e.g. hate crimes law), among many others.

╔═══════════════════════════════════╦══════════╦══════╦══════════╗
║ Retirement Factor                 ║ Bankrate ║ MAP  ║ % Change ║
╠═══════════════════════════════════╬══════════╬══════╬══════════╣
║ "Affordability"                   ║ 40%      ║ 20%  ║ ↓ 20% ↓  ║
║ "Overall well-being"              ║ 25%      ║ 25%  ║ —        ║
║ "Quality and cost of health care" ║ 20%      ║ 20%  ║ —        ║
║ "Weather"                         ║ 10%      ║ 5%   ║ ↓ 5% ↓   ║
║ "Crime"                           ║ 5%       ║ 5%   ║ —        ║
║ "LGBTQ policy"                    ║ 0%       ║ 25%  ║ ↑ 25% ↑  ║
╚═══════════════════════════════════╩══════════╩══════╩══════════╝

By acknowledging the policy factors that directly impact quality of life and more for LGBTQ older adults and weighing these policies equitably with other key issues, we obtain a drastically different list of best and worst states for retirement. For example, only one of Bankrate’s original top 10 states maintained a spot on MAP’s top 10 list (Delaware), and two of Bankrate’s original worst 10 states are among MAP’s best list (California and Colorado).

Click here to see additional views, including a focus on states by LGBTQ-inclusive rankings.

Research about the unique needs and experiences of LGBTQ older adults might suggest that these policies ought to be even more heavily weighted, which would change the rankings even further.

At the end of the day, deciding where to relocate after retirement is a uniquely personal decision with dozens of variables to consider. But for many, the risk of discrimination, lack of fully inclusive protections, and slew of harmful and exclusionary laws make some states an impossible choice, no matter how perfect the weather.