Social equity creates an impartial playing field on structural and individual levels. Don’t forget that most impoverished people most likely did not come to be that way from their actions: systematic issues like redlining, racism, classism, and misogyny heavily influenced their circumstances.

Examining these pervasive problems can reveal the additional resources these groups need to succeed. Providing access to the right opportunities at the right time can begin to offset the inherent inequities in a community and foster social equity.

Though people often confuse social equity with social equality, these two terms are not quite the same concept. In fact, social equity can lead to greater social equality, but not vice versa.

Social equity focuses on social justice and fairness. It accepts that each person is exposed to different conditions due to race, gender, income, sexual orientation, religion, or ability. Social equity requires a set of unique, specific resources to reach an equal outcome.

Social equality, on the other hand, doesn’t take into account these discrepancies and is rarely concerned with the impact of structural oppression. Institutions that practice social equality distribute the exact same resources and opportunities to everyone—irrespective of their circumstances.

In their eyes, this creates “balance,” when in reality, it leads to greater inequity. However, providing advantaged groups with the same resources as minoritized groups only creates greater inequity. For example, education is meant to foster equality, and all schools receive roughly the same amount of federal funding. Yet, low-income students are far less likely to be taught by effective teachers, and situated in schools with high management turnover rates, leading to a less successful education. This is why reallocating resources and providing access to tools and opportunities can move communities toward a more socially equal environment.

While societal systems try to measure social equity based on individual outcomes, those results don’t necessarily reflect what’s happening on a structural level.

On the whole, the social equity process is more concerned with resources, access, and opportunities than outcomes. An individual can have a positive outcome, regardless of whether or not they have improved access to resources. When people emphasize the stellar outcomes of a few, they’re missing the broader picture. You can’t claim social equity for an entire group because a couple individuals blazed their own trail.

This practice also places focus on the wrong things, like an individual’s characteristics, choices, and luck, rather than systemic issues under the surface. When barriers aren’t eliminated, people are forced to continue overcoming near-impossible hurdles.

At the same time, we can’t discount outcomes. Governments use outliers to claim universal access to resources. Then, they’ll imply that people who don’t experience those outcomes aren’t taking advantage of the “equal” opportunities presented to them. Instead of eliding responsibility, institutions that aim for social equity must reexamine and reevaluate systems that only foster success for a select set of people.

Giving everyone equal footing requires a more holistic analysis of systemic issues in tandem with political action.

Social equity is not a new concept, but the US has only just started to implement it at the national policy level. The Build Back Better program is a recent example of the US government approaching healthcare, energy, and climate through an equity lens. The US is making significant strides to advance equity through this law: accessible and free preschool and child-care improves learning outcomes and helps cut down on exorbitant childcare costs, while improved Medicaid access will cover home care for seniors and the disabled.

Of course, those aren’t the only ways that the US plans to advance equity. President Biden will further address inequities within the US’s energy system with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. For example, minority individuals are more likely to feel the effects of climate change, like an intense flash flood. This is because these individuals are more likely to live in places that are less equipped to deal with disasters, as well as the fact that the majority of minorities were pushed into less ideal locations due to unjust laws like redlining. As such, to battle this inequity, Biden’s recently enacted law will provide federal funding to weatherize and upgrade homes, businesses, and communities.

While these are welcome changes, it does mean that new infrastructure must be rolled out with all aspects of equity in mind. Even minor local changes to water infrastructure must be assessed with a socially equitable perspective, as we know that climate change does not affect people equally. Prioritizing municipal water bonds in communities with the greatest demand for assistance ensures that historical patterns of low investment in marginalized communities do not continue.

Government-funded activities like funding new roads, rezoning school districts, or even building a new park can have major implications on outcomes for people trying to get to work, children trying to excel in school, and people with disabilities.

For example, investing in a low-income neighborhood school can impact an entire generation’s learning—and many generations afterward. An environment that’s conducive to learning encourages kids’ curiosity, fosters life-learning habits that carry them through high school and college, and promotes an education-first mindset they can instill in their children.

Making incremental changes to improve transportation and enhance access to public services work in the same way, giving everyone, including people with disabilities or those suffering from homelessness, ways to stay healthy and build wealth.

The challenge in social equity is identifying the best, most objective possible ways to reallocate resources. And that can only be accomplished through thoughtful data analysis.

For many years, the US has been preoccupied with social equality, hoping to make our country a less racist, classist, misogynist place. But social equality shouldn’t have been the end goal.

Social equity actually gets to the root of the problems our nation faces: different individuals and communities have different experiences, and there’s no way to make opportunities truly equal without addressing missing resources. Socially equitable institutions and companies adjust for systemic oppression by allocating specific resources to groups and individuals who aren’t living and operating under the same circumstances as their peers.

To achieve social equity, today’s government organizations, energy companies, urban planners, and business owners need a platform to help them understand the dynamics of their communities. UrbanFootprint makes that data available, enabling users to evaluate existing climate conditions, analyze community resilience at the state, city, and neighborhood levels, and uncover previously undetected inequities. Centralizing this data allows decision makers to track the progress of the strategies they implement, helping them improve social equity over time.

Join our community to stay up-to-date with how to build more equitable and resilient communities.