When discussing measures of representation and participation, parity is often utilized as a metric to evaluate equality between different demographic groups. Parity can be useful for understanding current or historical participation rates and fulfilling reporting requirements. However, it falls short when applied to broader goals such as improving access, fostering belonging, and ensuring meaningful impact. Understanding both the value and limitations of parity is essential to avoid oversimplifying complex social and health challenges.
Parity: A measure of equality
Parity typically measures equal representation across groups (such as racial, ethnic, or gender groups) by comparing participation rates to demographic proportions in the general population. This approach can align with compliance efforts aimed at ensuring equality.
The term “parity” originates from the Latin paritas, meaning “equal” (Merriam-Webster, 2025). Historically, parity metrics emerged after World War II in social and political efforts to address inequality by ensuring equal representation and opportunities. Policies, like Affirmative Action, utilize measures parity to assess whether programs reflected the demographics of the communities their service areas. Today, parity metrics continue to play an important role in evaluating workforce and clientele representation in various fields.
Understanding the limitations of parity
While parity is a valuable tool to assess equal access and opportunity, it is inadequate as a measure of success for initiatives seeking to improve access, belonging, and outcomes. Here’s why:
- Captures presence, not engagement or outcomes: Using parity as a benchmark can help assess who is showing up to or utilizing programs and services. However, the measure does not allow us to assess whether the unique needs of different population groups to fully engage are being met, nor if participants are obtaining desired outcomes. For instance, a participant who uses a wheelchair may attend an in-person, hands-on program. However, if the facility or activity design is not fully accessible, their experience or outcomes could be compromised. In this example, parity might emphasize the participant’s presence at the program but fail to account for the quality of their participation or learning outcomes — this is a reality that parity metrics cannot capture.
- Use of secondary community-based data can affect results: The quality and reliability of parity metrics depends heavily on the data used. Secondary data for baseline community demographics identified by external sources, rather than those implementing programs, can lead to inaccuracies and distortions. Outdated, geographically mismatched, or incomplete data can produce misleading parity calculations. For example, in the parity reports for federally-funded nutrition education programs, community demographic data may come from a sources disconnected from the program’s actual implementation area. In this case, the community demographic data may not reflect the actual community where the programming is happening (i.e. county data vs census-track data). This can create a significant gap between the parity findings and the community’s actual experiences of accessing the programs.
- Metrics can hide inequalities: Parity reports often focus on race, ethnicity, and gender while overlooking other critical identity and community characteristics such as socioeconomic status, disability, or language. For example, a financial literacy program may report achieving parity by including a proportional number of Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) participants, reflecting the broader demographic composition of their community, and that the program materials and delivery are available in English and Chinese. In this example, participants who speak and read only in Vietnamese cannot not actively participate or achieve meaningful outcomes from the program. Unless language is also included in the parity metrics, this would create a hidden inequality, as the program’s administrators would likely not be aware that they were not serving this subgroup of the AAPI community.
(Mis)Using parity data
Parity analysis, when carefully conducted, can be useful for tracking representation in participation, as well as compliance with parity requirements through Affirmative Action Reporting and Equal Employment Opportunity measures. It is also important to recognize that this metric has significant shortcomings that can hinder meaningful progress. A major concern is its potential to misguide program development. Parity should not be used as a substitute for measuring successful engagement or achieving desired outcomes. A true measure of success lies in a program’s ability to create sustainable improvements, address systemic barriers, and meet the unique needs of population groups and communities.
Beyond parity in practice
Achieving desired program impacts, creating a sense of belonging, and improving accessibility, often requires intentionally deviating from parity to address specific community needs. For instance, a program focused on supporting first generation college students’ academic success may disproportionately allocate resources to this group, resulting in “out-of-parity” numbers. While this might not align with parity metrics, it could be a necessary step to support students in navigating institutional requirements and sustain equal graduation rates with second-generation and continuing-generation college students. By shifting the focus from parity to engagement, outcomes, and impacts, we can foster meaningful changes that benefit all in our communities.
Katherine Soule 