Targeted Universalism: Bridging the Gap Between Equality and Equity
In a world where equity has become both a moral imperative and a practical necessity, targeted universalism (TU) is a framework that bridges the gap between one-size-fits-all policies and those that focus on specific groups. Developed by john a. powell and the Othering & Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley, TU begins with a universal goal, such as ensuring all students meet grade-level reading standards, and then designs strategies that recognize each group’s unique barriers. The idea is simple yet profound: everyone should have the same destination, but not everyone needs to take the same road to get there.
Why Universal Strategies Alone Fall Short
At its heart, TU acknowledges that people are situated differently within systems. A single policy applied uniformly across all groups often ignores structural inequities, while overly targeted interventions can isolate certain populations and breed resentment within groups who are not served. Resentment towards others being favored, resentment towards a system that can’t or refuses to see them.
TU resolves this tension by combining the moral clarity of universality with the precision of targeting. For example, a school might aim for all students to read proficiently by third grade, but it will deploy different supports for English Learners (EL), students with disabilities, and those facing housing instability. The universal goal promotes belonging, while the targeted approach ensures fairness through differentiated support. This makes TU an effective approach because it recognizes that equity isn’t achieved by treating everyone the same, but by meeting people where they are removing the unique barriers that prevent each group from reaching shared success.
Targeted Universalism in Practice: Lessons from Chicago Public Schools
A powerful example of this approach can be found in Chicago Public Schools (CPS), where TU has become a cornerstone of the district’s equity framework. CPS explicitly uses the model to guide both districtwide policies and classroom-level practices. The framework begins by setting a collective goal, for instance, improving literacy for all students. Then the district disaggregated data by race/ethnicity and gender, disability, and EL status to reveal how different student groups are performing relative to that goal. From there, educators and administrators identify the structural barriers that hinder certain groups and craft targeted interventions to ensure every student can move nearer to the universal goal—no matter what position they’re starting from.In one Chicago elementary school, this meant analyzing why EL students were underperforming in reading compared to their peers. The school discovered that many students lacked consistent access to bilingual support and often arrived mid-year due to housing instability. Using TU, the school partnered with community organizations to create bilingual after-school programs, expanded small-group instruction for students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), and developed transportation supports for students experiencing homelessness or navigating temporary housing arrangements. The universal goal, academic proficiency for all, remained constant. But the pathways to achieve it were varied and intentional. Teachers reported improvements in academic outcomes, and in student engagement and belonging.
Limits and Criticisms of Targeted Universalism
Despite its promise, TU is not without criticism. Some practitioners argue that it’s a repackaging of old ideas under a new label, or that it risks diluting racial and economic justice efforts by softening the focus on marginalized groups. Others point out the challenge of implementation, or that organizations often lack the data infrastructure, time, or resources to design and evaluate differentiated strategies effectively. There’s also a persistent perception issue: when targeted supports are introduced, some families or staff may view them as “special treatment,” rather than necessary equity measures. This is what TU seeks to overcome by co-creating universal goals with the community. When everyone has a voice in defining what success looks like, and when supports are framed as tools to help each group reach that shared goal, the focus shifts from “special treatment” to collective progress. If the universal goal isn’t clearly communicated, or if the targeted support isn’t well-explained, mistrust can grow.
Critics also worry that without strong leadership and accountability, TU can become superficial or turn into a buzzword for inclusion without structural change. If the universal goals are set too low to ensure success across groups, or if the targeted actions are underfunded, the framework loses its transformative power. Meaningful implementation requires deep structural analysis, not just incremental adjustments, minor program tweaks, isolated training sessions, or short-term solutions that treat symptoms but fail to address the root causes of inequity. True TU demands redesigning systems, redistributing resources, and reimagining how institutions define and measure success so that equity becomes embedded in operations.
What Effective Targeted Universalism Requires
When done well, TU represents a practical and human-centered path forward. It’s a framework that allows institutions to pursue shared prosperity without denying the reality of unequal starting points. For elementary schools, this means seeing every child as part of a collective “all,” and refusing to ignore the unique needs that prevent each child from reaching their potential.
In Chicago, TU has begun to reshape not just how schools measure success, but how they understand community. Rather than viewing community as a collection of individuals served by the same system, schools are beginning to see it as a living network of shared responsibility. It reminds educators that fairness isn’t sameness, it’s responsiveness. And in that responsiveness lies the possibility of true belonging: a classroom, a school, and a city where everyone has what they need to thrive.
Targeted Universalism as a Path to Energy Equity in Las Vegas
TU doesn’t just belong in classrooms; it belongs in every sector where inequity shapes life and death. In Las Vegas, Nevada, where rising temperatures and record-breaking heat waves have led to dozens of preventable heat-related deaths each year, the framework could fundamentally reshape the region’s approach to energy equity. The universal goal could be that every resident should have access to safe, affordable cooling during extreme heat. But achieving that goal requires recognizing that not all neighborhoods start from the same place.
Low-income and historically marginalized communities in Las Vegas, particularly in East Las Vegas and North Las Vegas, often face higher energy burdens, live in older, inefficient housing, and have limited access to rooftop solar or energy assistance programs. Under a TU model, energy agencies, utilities, and city leaders would identify these disparities and design tailored solutions, such as subsidized efficiency upgrades, targeted outreach for rental properties, and neighborhood cooling hubs powered by renewable energy, while keeping the universal vision of citywide safety intact.
By focusing on resources where the risk is greatest while maintaining a shared universal goal, TU could help ensure that no resident dies from something as preventable as heat exposure. It reframes energy equity not as charity or privilege, but as a collective commitment to shared survival. In a city defined by its extremes, this framework could help transform Las Vegas from a place of heat divides to one of human resilience, where everyone, regardless of zip code or income, has the power to stay cool, safe, and alive.
Learn to Implement Targeted Universalism
Want to continue this conversation? Join me at Shared Space’s March 26 training in Chicago on Applying Human-Centered Design to Community Engagement. I’ll be leading an activity to translate the lessons learned from CPS to your specific contexts.
