WalletHub’s Racial Progress Methodology: Time Windows, Weights, and What State Rankings Mean
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2026/03/02
In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Chip Lupo of WalletHub about how its Racial Integration and Racial Progress rankings are built. Lupo explains that WalletHub compares the oldest data for each metric with the most recent to capture long-term change, while integration reflects Black–white equality today. Indicators are standardized to a 100-point scale, awarding full points when Black outcomes match or exceed white outcomes, then weighted across Employment & Wealth (40) and Education, Social & Civic Engagement, and Health (20 each). He cites federal datasets, flags small-population distortions, and advises journalists not to treat small gaps as equality.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What time windows are used for progress?
Chip Lupo: WalletHub measures racial progress over decades, comparing the oldest available data for each metric with the most recent. For example, Georgia’s income gap reduction is tracked from 1979 to today, and Mississippi’s poverty gap reflects 1970 onward. This allows us to quantify the progress states have made over time, rather than just from one year to the next, providing a clear picture of long-term improvements in employment, education, civic engagement, and health outcomes.
Jacobsen: How were the indicators standardized and weighted for this report?
Lupo: WalletHub standardized the metrics used in this report by scoring each on a 100-point scale, with 100 representing the highest level of racial integration or progress. Racial progress was measured by comparing the oldest available data with the most recent, and states received full points for a given metric when Black residents scored equal to or better than white residents.
The report compared the states across four key dimensions: Employment & Wealth (40 points), Education (20 points), Social & Civic Engagement (20 points), and Health (20 points). Within each dimension, individual metrics carry equal weight. For example, each of the seven Employment & Wealth metrics contribute roughly 5.71 points, while each of the Health metrics add about 2.86 points.
The total score for each state was calculated as a weighted average across all metrics, providing a consistent and balanced measure to rank current racial integration levels and long-term racial progress.
Jacobsen: Are you measuring improvement over time or current equality levels?
Lupo: WalletHub measures both where states stand today and how far they’ve come. The Racial Integration ranking captures current equality between Black and white residents, while the Racial Progress ranking tracks improvement over decades. Together, they show not just the gaps that remain, but the strides states have made in advancing racial equity.
Jacobsen: How do you handle states with relatively small Black populations where gaps can look small due to sample size, migration patterns, or measurement error?
Lupo: In states with smaller Black populations, gaps can look deceptively small due to sample size or migration patterns. That’s why WalletHub looks at multiple metrics over time, so we can see true trends in racial integration and progress, not just statistical quirks.
Jacobsen: For metrics like test scores, voter turnout, employment, and wealth proxies, are the data sources consistent across states and across decades?
Lupo: Our analysis relies on data from established federal sources, including the U.S. Census Bureau, National Center for Education Statistics, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Metrics such as standardized-test scores, voter turnout, employment, and wealth proxies are drawn from these sources to allow consistent comparison across states.
However, the report notes that racial progress is measured by comparing the oldest available data with the most recent, meaning that while the sources are reliable, the exact data collection methods or coverage may have changed over decades. As a result, trends over time provide a strong overall view of progress, but minor differences in methodology or reporting between decades could influence precise measurements.
Jacobsen: What evidence supports the idea that state policy drove the observed gap-closing rather than macroeconomic shifts?
Lupo: Our data shows that states with the most racial progress – like Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas – achieved substantial reductions in income, poverty, education, health, and civic engagement disparities over decades. For instance, Georgia has reduced the Black–white income gap by over 32 percentage points since 1979, while Mississippi has reduced the poverty gap by 27 points since 1970.
These improvements are concentrated in specific states rather than following uniform nationwide trends, indicating that targeted state initiatives such as policies supporting education, business ownership, voter access, and health coverage played a decisive role.
If macroeconomic forces alone were responsible, we would expect more homogeneous progress across all states, which the data clearly does not show.
Jacobsen: How do you address that narrowing income gaps does not necessarily narrow wealth gaps?
Lupo: WalletHub tracks income and related economic outcomes to measure progress. The rankings reflect improvements in economic opportunity and outcomes, not total parity in accumulated assets or generational wealth.
Jacobsen: How do you recommend journalists communicate the results responsibly?
Lupo: Journalists should highlight that WalletHub’s rankings show progress over time and current gaps. Furthermore, a small gap does not indicate complete equality.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Chip.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 