Says the report, “In more than half of the world’s countries, LGBT people lack legal protection against workplace discrimination.” That, together with still-existing legal bars to and criminalization of homosexuality and other discriminatory factors, “can impact LGBT people’s ability to access public health systems and protections…, both of which are necessary for achieving social equality and financial independence, particularly in retirement.”

The study finds that workers in the U.S. are able to do better in preparing for retirement than in the eight other countries surveyed: Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and the U.K.

While 70 percent of LGBT respondents globally say they feel personally responsible for having enough income in retirement, 84 percent of U.S. LGBT respondents feel that way. In addition, 79 percent of U.S. LGBT respondents feel very aware of the need to plan financially for their retirement, compared with 66 percent of LGBT respondents globally; 72 percent feel able to understand financial matters when it comes to planning for their retirement, while just 57 percent overall do, and when thinking about their personal retirement planning process, 65 percent feel their plans are well developed, compared with only 45 percent overall.

Although LGBT workers in the U.S. may be outpacing their peers around the world, they still have quite a way to go to catch up with where they need to be. Still, they’re doing better on retirement preparation than their heterosexual peers in the U.S., and their attitudes reflect a greater sense of having to rely on themselves for retirement.

In the U.S., 61% of LGBT workers are habitual savers compared to 57% of heterosexual workers; 49% of LGBT workers have a written plan for retirement compared to 32% of heterosexual workers; interestingly, in the U.S., 69% of LGBT people are married compared to 66% of heterosexuals; and 46% of LGBT workers expect to provide financial support to their aging parents compared to 23% of heterosexual workers.

When it comes to those among the LGBT community who identify as female, the picture is not bright.

Not only are LGBT women likely to earn less than men in general, they also earn less than heterosexual women. More than other social groups, the study finds, LGBT women have fewer resources and fewer formal opportunities to save for their retirement.

According to Catherine Collinson, CEO and president of Transamerica Institute and TCRS, and executive director of ACLR, while the retirement picture has certainly improved for the LGBT population since society has become more accepting, there’s a lot still to be done.

In the report, Collinson says, “Historically, the LGBT community has been a segment of the population most likely to retire in poverty….”

Collinson adds, “The extent to which LGBT workers in the U.S. are saving and planning for retirement is impressive. However, continued social progress in LGBT communities in the U.S. and throughout the world is needed to further bridge inequalities and foster an inclusive environment that supports personal and professional growth and long-term financial security. We cannot forget the lessons of history and the current reality that many older LGBT people, in the absence of legal protections and same-sex marriage rights throughout their working years, are now financially struggling in retirement.”

Under the current administration, that may remain a challenge for years to come. A new Accelerating Acceptance 2018 study from GLAAD, released at the World Economic Forum, finds that in the U.S., “acceptance of LGBTQ people is slipping, and discrimination is increasing, in the face of attacks, bias, and erasure by the Trump administration.”

This is the first time, it adds, that the Accelerating Acceptance study has shown a drop in acceptance—which it calls “swift and alarming”—for LGBTQ people.

GLAAD president and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis writes in the report that she believes the contrast between the figures in this year’s report and those of previous years comes at the hands of the Trump administration’s anti-LGBTQ platform and a lack of support for the queer community at the national level.

Specifically citing anti-LGBTQ policies such as the proposed ban on transgender people in the military, the appointment of a Supreme Court justice opposed to marriage equality and the passage of a Mississippi state law allowing businesses to legally deny services to LGBTQ families, Ellis writes, “This change can be seen as a dangerous repercussion in the tenor of discourse and experience over the past year.”