Net LGBTQ+ Climate Score

The Net LGBTQ+ Climate Score reflects the overall state environment of positive variables minus negative variables. The higher the climate score the more supportive anad affirming the state. Note that the more hostile states scored a negative number.

While the underlying data draws mainly from The Trevor Project's 2024 U.S. National Survey on the Mental Health of LGBTQ+ Young People by State, the Positive and Negative Indices and the overall ranking methodology were independently developed to measure how policy, environment, and support systems shape LGBTQ+ youth's well-being state by state. These indices are focused on mental-health outcomes, experiences of discrimination, family support, community acceptance, and protective factors, allowing for clear comparative visualizations across states.

The "Health & Safety" LGBTQ+ Youth state rankings are derived from two uniquely developed indices:

• The states ranked from most supportive → least supportive (Positive Index)
• The states ranked from least hostile → most hostile (Negative Index)

Methodology Note: Negative (Risk/Hostility) Index

The aim is to show a composite lived-risk index with a combined measure of how hostile a state is and how much that hostility translates to harm. This reflects the total burden of hostility with outcomes and effects of both a hostile/unsupportive environment and the structural/social causes. As such the Negative Index also includes outcomes such as mental health and discrimination variables that reflects the total human impact of hostility.

Variables Anti-LGBTQ Youth Policies Passed since 2020 (#) Threatened w/ conversion therapy (%) Subjected to conversion therapy (%) Experienced discrimination (%) Physically threatened or harmed (%) Wanted but did not receive MH care (%) Family considered leaving state (%) Considered suicide (%) Attempted suicide (%) Reported depression (%) Reported anxiety (%) Politics affected "a lot" (%)

Source HRC 2024 State Equality Index The Trevor Project 2024 Mental Health Survey

Methodology Note: Positive (Affirming & Safe) Index

The Positive Index measures the overall level of support and affirmation for LGBTQ+ youth in each state to which they experience supportive, affirming conditions in their daily lives. Rather than measuring policy or risk, this score reflects the presence of protective resources such as affirming school climates, welcoming communities, and reliable interpersonal supports that research shows can significantly improve mental-health outcomes and overall well-being. A higher Positive Index signals environments where LGBTQ+ youth are more likely to feel seen, valued, and connected, offering insight into the places where supportive systems are strongest and where they may serve as models for other states and regions.

Variables High support from family (%) High support from friends (%) Community accepting of LGBTQ+ people (%) School Affirming space (%) Transgender & Nonbinary School Affirming Space (%)

Source The Trevor Project 2024 Mental Health Survey

State Rankings

Rank	State	Positive Index	Negative Index	Net LGBTQ+ Climate Score
1	Connecticut	82.36	10.13	+72.22
2	Vermont	93.58	31.26	+62.32
3	Massachusetts	85.72	27.65	+58.08
4	Maryland	71.44	18.47	+52.97
5	Rhode Island	78.72	29.05	+49.67
6	California	73.41	26.39	+47.02
7	New York	73.83	28.15	+45.68
8	New Jersey	67.94	22.77	+45.17
9	Delaware	68.73	24.77	+43.96
10	Illinois	71.94	32.54	+39.40
11	New Hampshire	71.83	34.00	+37.83
12	Minnesota	66.53	29.29	+37.24
13	Washington	69.15	34.05	+35.10
14	Hawaii	60.69	27.87	+32.81
15	Maine	65.86	35.06	+30.80
16	Virginia	65.59	34.88	+30.71
17	Oregon	63.80	36.07	+27.73
18	Wisconsin	58.85	34.79	+24.05
19	Michigan	56.09	35.20	+20.90
20	Pennsylvania	52.33	34.72	+17.61
21	Iowa	57.30	41.73	+15.57
22	Kansas	57.29	45.15	+12.14
23	Colorado	51.43	40.34	+11.10
24	Arizona	54.66	44.19	+10.47
25	Ohio	58.84	49.82	+9.02
26	North Carolina	56.83	50.21	+6.62
26	Georgia	49.49	43.17	+6.32
28	Utah	57.26	51.24	+6.02
29	Missouri	54.69	52.47	+2.22
30	Nevada	43.29	42.54	+0.75
31	Nebraska	53.14	53.55	−0.41
32	New Mexico	49.90	53.29	−3.39
33	Louisiana	39.22	43.20	−3.98
34	North Dakota	33.48	38.52	−5.05
35	Indiana	44.23	51.12	−6.89
36	Alaska	45.10	52.41	−7.31
37	Texas	42.51	50.79	−8.27
38	West Virginia	41.03	50.84	−9.81
39	Alabama	37.64	50.01	−12.36
40	South Dakota	34.67	48.11	−13.44
41	Montana	43.49	60.46	−16.97
42	Kentucky	42.31	59.64	−17.33
43	Florida	37.87	57.79	−19.92
44	South Carolina	36.29	56.25	−19.96
45	Tennessee	34.34	60.20	−25.86
46	Arkansas	31.49	61.35	−29.86
47	Idaho	32.48	65.54	−33.06
48	Mississippi	21.41	57.14	−35.72
49	Oklahoma	25.98	61.83	−35.85
50	Wyoming	32.91	70.59	−37.68

Methodology Note: Normalized & Equally Weighted

The Positive and Negative Indices include a different numbers of variables because more data was considered (and is available) for risk than support. Most factors were initially drawn from the Trevor Project's 2024 U.S. National Survey on the Mental Health of LGBTQ+ Young People by State (percentage-based findings), supplemented with one additional indicator from the Human Rights Campaign's 2024 State Equality Index. All factors were then normalized to a 0–100 scale and averaged, ensuring that the unequal count does not bias results. This approach keeps the indices analytically balanced while reflecting the real-world asymmetry between measurable harm and protection. Each variable was also normalized because they (family support, policies passed, depression, etc.) have different numeric ranges.

All measures are equally weighted to ensure that each factor from policy environment to personal support contributes equally to the overall state climate score in order to avoid arbitrary weighting that could appear subjective.

Excel spreadsheet with all factors

Methodology Note: Youth Population Numbers

In addition, LGBTQ+ youth population numbers per state show the human scale of each state’s impact, whether positive or negative. California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois have the largest LGBTQ+ youth populations (13–17). But those states sit at very different ends of the Net Climate Index Ranking. So for example, even though California and Texas both have huge numbers of LGBTQ+ youth, the lived experience in those states diverges dramatically.

• California (+47) → supportive
• New York (+46) → supportive
• Illinois (+39) → positive but moderate
• Texas (−8) and Florida (−20) → highly hostile climates

LGBTQ+ Youth Health & Safety Design 1

This design focuses on the Net Climate Ranking and the Negative and Positive indices. A spiral form was created to demonstrate the variance between the states' positive and negative numbers. The spiral form strengthens the visualization by transforming a long, linear ranking into an engaging, continuous narrative arc. Unlike a standard bar chart, the spiral organizes all 50 states in a fluid, circular spectrum highlighting patterns and extremes for greater "at a glance" clarity. It creates a natural visual polarity between the upward, positive scores and the inward, negative ones, while the open center provides a focal point for the core message. The result is a form that is not only efficient for handling dense data, but also emotionally resonant, memorable, and uniquely suited to expressing the continuum of LGBTQ+ youth climate across the United States.

LGBTQ+ Youth Health & Safety Design 2

This design focuses on regional comparisons and key state-versus-state comparisons. Several types of charts and graphs give viewers a better understanding of the factors and places where LGBTQ+ youth can feel more secure, supported and generally safe.

About the Process: First, data was researched, collected and formatted in Excel spreadsheets. Next, Flourish was used to intially visualize the radar charts and chord diagrams. Further work on the infographics and overall design was completed in Adobe Illustrator.

Use of Chord Diagrams
These chord diagrams visualize not only the key factors shaping LGBTQ+ youth well-being within each region, but also the sharp contrasts across those regions most notable between the northeast and the south. By mapping the strongest positive and negative contributors to each region’s indices, the diagrams make visible how some areas are anchored by protective forces such as family support, affirming schools, and community acceptance, while others are dominated by risks like anti-LGBTQ+ policies, conversion-therapy threats, or families considering leaving the state.

A chord diagram is particularly suited to communicate this because it highlights relationships rather than isolated values, allowing viewers to see at a glance how multiple conditions pull a region toward either a positive or negative overall climate. The circular structure emphasizes balance, tension, and interconnectedness, while the sweeping chords reveal how the weighting of supportive versus harmful factors differs from region to region. This format makes the geographic disparities in LGBTQ+ youth experiences both clear and compelling, giving form to the complexity behind each region’s health and safety landscape.

Use of Radar Chart
The radar, or radial area chart, is particularly effective for visualizing the complex interplay of protective and risk factors influencing LGBTQ+ youth well-being. By arranging multiple variables around a shared axis, the chart allows distinct profiles such as supportive versus hostile states or regions to be compared in a single, intuitive form. Each “shape” conveys the balance or imbalance among key factors like family support, community acceptance, and mental-health access. The circular format mirrors the holistic nature of lived experience, emphasizing that these factors do not operate in isolation but radiate outward and intersect. This makes the radar chart not only visually engaging but also conceptually resonant—transforming quantitative differences into expressive, organic forms that highlight both progress and disparity across regions.