Sign up for our new, free courses on Targeted Universalism at OBI University.   Start Now

The Othering & Belonging Institute is pleased to present the thoroughly revised Racial Disparities Dashboard, and our expanding snapshot. A racial disparity is defined as a persistent difference in outcomes or performance between racial groups.[1] An easily understood example is the racial wealth gap or the racial disparity in maternal mortality, noted below. 

This project is designed to be an open resource repository on racial disparities in American society that are important, vital, and measurable. We have nearly 80 different indicators with measured disparities between Black and white Americans in our table below. We have included almost every disparity that we could find which is nationally reported, for which there is recent and apparently reliable data. Over time, we will add more data and disparity figures to this dashboard as we uncover and catalog it for your reference.  

In addition to our expanding snapshot of current or recently measured disparities, this project also highlights areas of progress and regress in closing disparities in critical life outcomes. Our “Progress Report Cards” (visible on the right-hand menu) allow users to track changes within the United States between different racial groups and between different periods in time. The first “Progress Report Card” is the Black-White Progress Report Card, 1970-2020, featuring 15 different important variables, and to show areas of progress and regress. Future report cards will examine other time periods and different social and racial groupings.  Eventually, we may also add intersectional identities to this dashboard that allow for comparisons not just between racial groups, but combinations of race and gender and other demographic characteristics. Additionally, the figures presented here are national data. In the future, we may disaggregate the data to examine variations between regions, states, or even cities. Check this page for future updates.

We hope this project and its various features are useful to researchers, journalists, students and concerned citizens.

A Few Words of Caution

We caution that our dashboard does not provide an explanation for why some disparities exist, arose, have shrunk, grown larger, or persist. Research shows that, when presented with disparities, people tend to either explain it in terms of discrimination or cultural or intellectual differences between groups. We caution against drawing immediate conclusions or inferences about why these disparities exist. We believe that structural forces play a large role behind many of these disparities, but we deliberately avoid offering an explanation for why they exist or have changed. Our goals are to provide easily accessible data on and display current disparities in a single location, and further to illustrate how they have changed, to deepen our understanding about the dynamics of racial disparities, and suggest a more nuanced and complex story about race in America.[2] Explanations for why these disparities exist or may have changed is beyond our immediate purpose with this project.

One more cautionary note: Disparities are measures of progress towards a more racially just society, a yardstick by which we can and should gauge progress. However, closing out the disparity should not necessarily be the primary policy goal (we do, however, link each grade card to our Structural Racism Remedies Repository, which offers policies that may be able to do this).[3] Consistent with our Targeted Universalism framework, we recommend instead setting a universal goal for each issue area (where appropriate), and striving, through policy, to get all groups to that threshold. A byproduct should be to reduce disparities, but that is not the policy goal. This, again, is why our Progress Report Card grades are based on more factors than simply whether the disparity widened or not.

Indicator Category Data for Blacks Data for whites Absolute Disparity Relative Disparity Level of disparity
8th graders taken Algebra [2021-22] Education 15.87% 26.90% 11.03% 69.50% High
Alzheimer’s and Other Dementias (71yrs and older) [2020] Health 21.30% 11.20% -10.10% 47.42% Moderate
Associate's Degree [2019-23 5-yr estimates] Education 56.97% 67.93% 10.96% 19.24% Moderate
Average ACT Scores (max 36) [2023]* Education 16 20.9 4.9 30.63% Moderate
Bachelor's degree [2019-23 5-yr estimates] Education 27.80% 37.50% 9.70% 34.89% Moderate
Broadband Access [2019-23 5-yr estimates] Utilities 88.65% 92.49% 3.84% 4.33% Low
Child Drowning Deaths (Age-adjusted rate per 100,000) [2023] Health 2.45 1.16 -1.29 52.65% High
Child Gun Deaths (per 100,000) [2023] Criminal Justice 11.7 2.1 -9.6 82.05% High
Childhood poverty [2019-23 5-yr estimates] Economic 27.7% 9.9% -17.8% 64.26% High
Children in single parent HHs [2019-23 5-yr estimates] Familial 42.15% 15.26% -26.89% 63.80% High
Children in Single-Parent (< High school) HHs (% of all such HHs) [2022] Familial 76.19% 49.71% -26.48% 34.76% Moderate
Children in Single-Parent (Bachelors degree or higher) HHs (% of all such HHs) [2022] Familial 38.64% 12.82% -25.82% 66.82% High
Children in Single-Parent (High school) HHs (% of all such HHs) [2022] Familial 73.85% 45.21% -28.64% 38.78% Moderate
College Enrollment Rates [2022] Education 60.89% 64.01% 3.12% 5.12% Low
Drowning Deaths (Age-adjusted per 100,000) [2023] Health 2.02 1.43 -0.59 29.21% Moderate
Felony arrests: Drug abuse (per 1,000) [2023] Criminal Justice 6.13 2.89 -3.24 52.85% High
Felony arrests: Sex offenses (per 10,000) [2023] Criminal Justice 2.48 1.26 -1.22 49.19% Moderate
Health Insurance coverage [2016-20 5-yr estimates] Health 90.06% 92.38% 2.32% 2.57% Low
High School degree [2020] Education 89.4% 91.3% 1.9% 2.13% Low
Homelessness (per 100,000) [2019] Housing 55.2 11.5 -43.7 79.17% High
Homeownership rate [2020] Housing 44% 75% 31% 70.45% High
Homicidal rates (per 100,000) [2023] Criminal Justice 22.1 3.2 -18.9 85.52% High
Incarceration rates (per 100,000) [2020] Criminal Justice 938 183 -755 80.49% High
Infant Mortality (per 1,000 live births) [2019] Health 1.06 0.45 -0.61 57.55% High
Lead Exposure: Children 1-5 years of age (µg/dL) [2015-Mar 20] Health 0.8 0.6 -0.2 25.00% Moderate
Life Expectancy (years) [2020] Health 72.0 78.0 6.0 8.33% Low
Life Expectancy at age 25 (years) [2022] Health 74.8 78.4 3.6 4.81% Low
Low birth weight babies [2021-23] Health 14.20% 7.30% -6.90% 48.59% Moderate
Married [2019-23 5-yr estimates] Familial 29.96% 52.52% 22.56% 75.30% High
Maternal Mortality (per 100,000) [2020] Health 55.3 19.1 -36.2 65.46% High
Math Proficiency: Gr 12 [2024] Education 8% 32% 24% 300.00% High
Math Proficiency: Gr 4 [2024] Education 19% 51% 32% 168.42% High
Math Proficiency: Gr 8 [2024] Education 10% 38% 28% 280.00% High
Mean total loan amount borrowed by students who completed Bachelors degree [2019-20] Economic $33,960 $30,720 -$3,240 9.54% Low
Mean student loan debt [2022] Economic $53,430 $46,140 -$7,290 13.64% Moderate
Median Family Wealth [2019] Economic $24,100 $188,200 $164,100 680.91% High
Median Home Value [2021] Housing $230,000 $295,000 $65,000 28.26% Moderate
Median Household Income [2016-20 5-yr estimates] Economic $43,674 $68,943 $25,269 57.86% High
Median student loan debt [2022] Economic $26,000 $25,000 -$1,000 3.85% Low
NAEP scores: Math Gr 12 (max 300) [2019]** Education 128 159 31 24.22% Moderate
NAEP scores: Math Gr 4 (max 500) [2024]** Education 220 247 27 12.27% Moderate
NAEP scores: Math Gr 8 (max 500) [2024]** Education 252 286 34 13.49% Moderate
NAEP scores: Reading Gr 12 (max 300) [2019]** Education 263 295 32 12.17% Moderate
NAEP scores: Reading Gr 4 (max 500) [2024]** Education 199 225 26 13.07% Moderate
NAEP scores: Reading Gr 8 (max 500) [2024]** Education 243 267 24 9.88% Low
Non-marital births [2020] Familial 69.40% 28.20% -41.20% 59.37% High
Pedestrian Deaths (Age-adjusted per 100,000) [2023] Transportation 4.52 2.02 -2.5 55.31% High
PISA: Finance score (max 1,000) [2022]*** Education 446 535 89 19.96% Moderate
PISA: Math score (max 1,000) [2022]*** Education 412 498 86 20.87% Moderate
PISA: Reading score (max 1,000) [2022]*** Education 459 537 78 16.99% Moderate
PISA: Science score (max 1,000) [2022]*** Education 445 537 92 20.67% Moderate
Police Killings (per million) [2024] Criminal Justice 6.11 1.84 -4.27 69.89% High
Poverty rate [2016-20 5-yr estimates] Economic 22.1% 10.60% -11.47% 51.99% High
Practicing Physicians (per 100,000) [2024] Health 109 235 126 115.60% High
Prenatal care, live births [2021-23] Health 67.90% 82.70% 14.80% 21.80% Moderate
Preterm live births [2021-23] Familial 14.70% 9.50% -5.20% 35.37% Moderate
Prevalence of Heart Disease [2019-21] Health 4.50% 5.40% 0.90% 20.00% Moderate
Prevelance of Alzheimer's Disease [2022] Health 13.60% 9.20% -4.40% 32.35% Moderate
Prevelance of Asthma [2019-21] Health 4.20% 3.50% -0.70% 16.67% Moderate
Prevelance of Cancer [2019-21] Health 5.40% 12.70% 7.30% 135.19% High
Prevelance of depression (Adults) [2019-21] Health 5.30% 4.80% -0.50% 9.43% Low
Prevelance of Diabetes [2019-21] Health 12.50% 8.50% -4.00% 32.00% Moderate
Prevelance of High Blood Pressure (Adults) [2019-21] Health 34.50% 28% -7% 18.84% Moderate
Prevelance of Respiratory Illnesses [2019-21] Health 4.40% 5.80% 1.40% 31.82% Moderate
Prevelance of Stroke [2019-21] Health 28% 34.50% 6.50% 23.21% Moderate
SAT Scores (max 1,600) [2024]**** Education 907 1083 176 19.40% Moderate
Single Parent HHs [2019-23 5-yr estimates] Familial 30.95% 12.29% -18.66% 60.29% High
Student loan debt (Pct holding) [2022] Economic 35.90% 19.80% -16.10% 44.85% Moderate
Suicide Rates (per 100,000) [2022] Health 8.6 15.83 7.23 84.07% High
Undergraduate with student loans [2019-20] Economic 82.91% 60.93% -21.98% 26.51% Moderate
Unemployment [2016-20 5-yr estimates] Economic 9.36% 4.55% -4.80% 51.32% High
Upward Mobility - 100th percentile [2014] Economic 0.5493 0.6712 0.1219 22.19% Moderate
Upward Mobility - 25th percentile [2014] Economic 0.3296 0.4606 0.131 39.75% Moderate
Upward Mobility - 50th percentile [2014] Economic 0.3977 0.5313 0.1336 33.59% Moderate
Upward Mobility - 75th percentile [2014] Economic 0.4529 0.602 0.1491 32.92% Moderate
Voters waited for more than 30 min [2024] Civic 10% 12% 2% 20.00% Moderate
Voting rates [2020] Civic 58.7% 63.7% 5.0% 8.52% Low

Notes on the table:

  • To see a specific category of your choice, select the category from the dropdown menu above the table. The relative disparities shaded in red indicate a severe or high disparity (value 50% or above), the yellow indicates moderate (value 10% or above but less than 50%), and the green indicates low (value less than 10%). All sources are in the note below.[4]
  • *American College Testing **National Assessment of Educational Progress ***Program for International Student Assessment ****Scholastic Assessment Test
  • Formulas: Absolute Disparity = Data for whites - Data for Blacks; Relative Disparity = Absolute Disparity/Data for Blacks

A Few Observations

  • Among our 9 categories where there are more than one indicator, the criminal justice disparities seem consistently the most severe, while the civic indicators seem the least disparate. 
  • Although most of the educational indicators fall in the “moderate” range, it is notable that Math-related indicators are the largest of the disparities.
  • The Health disparities are well-documented and wide-ranging, but the largest disparity is the prevalence of practicing physicians and cancer.
  • The smallest disparity overall is high school degree completion.
  • By far the worst disparity, in percentage terms, is the stunning racial wealth gap, and it may be one of the most important. 

We thank you for your interest in this project and hope you find it useful. This expanding snapshot of current disparities will be continually updated as new indicators or variables are included and as data becomes available. As always, get updates by subscribing to our newsletter here. If you have a request or suggestion for items that should be included or considered for inclusion or questions about this project, please email Stephen Menendian and Samir Gambhir. Your feedback will be important to us as we consider further iterations of and updates to this project.


Acknowledgments

This project was a joint effort with contributions from the Equity Metrics team, Communications, and leadership under Stephen Menendian. This project was conceived and led by Stephen Menendian, and the methodology was designed and refined by Stephen and Samir Gambhir. The data was collected and organized by Samir Gambhir and Eve Liao, who provided invaluable suggestions from a data science perspective. The dashboard with visualizations was designed by Jake Tompkins with input from the rest of the project team.


[1] For purposes of this project, we use racial group definitions as supplied by the US Census. We recognize that racial categories are social constructions and under continuous evolution rather than immutable categorical distinctions. For purposes of this project, however, we follow conventions used by the Census.
 

[2] One of the complexities which we lack space to illuminate more broadly is the reality that disparities can shrink or grow wider even if the conditions or outcomes of either group decline or get worse. At the outset of this project, we theorized four possible outcomes in this regard: 1) The disparity improved (that is, it shrank), and this was driven, at least in part, by the improvement in the performance of the marginalized group. 2) A disparity improved (again, it shrank), but this was driven, at least in part, by worsening outcomes for the non-marginalized group, even as the performance of the marginalized group declined. 3) The disparity worsened (that is, it grew larger), even as the performance of the marginalized group nonetheless improved in an absolute sense. 4) The disparity worsened (again, grew larger), but the performance of the marginalized group worsened in an absolute sense. We originally planned to code each disparity according to this typology, but abandoned this typology after we realized that determining whether a disparity improved or worsened was not straightforward, because it could get worse in an absolute sense, but shrink in a relative sense (see Median Home Values). Thus, this typology broke down when looking at the details.
 

[3] It may seem paradoxical to feature an analysis on disparities, but then suggest that reducing disparities should not be the primary policy goal, but there are many problems with a disparities focus. First, disparities can normalize the performance, outcomes or ownership of the non-marginalized group. In many cases, that means setting white outcomes as the bar. There are reasons we shouldn't do that, not just normative reasons. Secondly, and relatedly, the performance of the non-marginalized group can be declining, as we see with declines in life expectancy and maternal mortality among white Americans. If we are simply and narrowly focused on reducing a disparity, then that can theoretically happen even if the performance of the marginalized group does not improve. But we don't want a society where the goal is bringing or leveling down the performance of another group, through retrogression. Rather, we want to raise all groups up. Thirdly, and related to the second point, disparities can grow larger even if absolute progress has been enormous (see Bachelor's Degree attainment). We can and should celebrate progress, even if disparities persist. Fourthly, and related to this last point, as this project shows, determining whether a disparity is growing or shrinking is not easy or straightforward. It can grow in an absolute sense even as it shrinks in a relative sense, and is on track to eventually close. This is paradoxical, but true. Fifthly, the reduction in disparities does not necessarily entail a just society. Even if we eliminated disparities between groups, there could be enormous disparities within groups that are masked by a disparity focus. Sixthly, a disparity lens is inherently a deficit model. We want to bring groups up, not focus on what groups lack. Relatedly, a deficit frame can often make it hard to build coalitions to solve problems because it creates a zero-sum mentality, even where the issue is not zero-sum.