Racial integration
Racial integration is the policy-initiated and societal process of merging previously segregated populations of different racial groups into shared environments, such as schools, housing, workplaces, and public facilities, with the objective of fostering equal access and interaction while countering historical legal and customary barriers to coexistence.[1] In the United States, it emerged as a central response to Jim Crow-era segregation, propelled by landmark Supreme Court rulings like Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, which invalidated state-mandated school segregation as violating the Equal Protection Clause, and subsequent federal laws including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Fair Housing Act of 1968 that extended desegregation to employment, voting, and residential areas. These measures spurred initial declines in black-white school segregation from the 1960s through the 1980s, particularly in border states and the Midwest, alongside broader reductions in overt discrimination.[2] Empirical analyses of desegregation's long-term effects indicate gains for black Americans, including higher educational attainment, improved college quality, elevated adult earnings, and lower rates of teenage fertility, attributable to exposure to better-resourced schools and peer networks.[3] However, these advancements have proven limited in bridging persistent racial disparities in academic performance, income, and criminal justice outcomes, with de facto segregation resurging since the 1990s due to factors like residential sorting, school choice policies, and the expansion of charter schools, resulting in heightened black-white isolation in large urban districts.[4] Controversies surrounding integration policies, including court-ordered busing and affirmative action, have highlighted trade-offs such as white demographic flight from urban areas, strained community relations, and debates over whether structural reforms alone can address underlying causal drivers of inequality, like family stability and cultural norms, amid critiques of institutional biases in evaluating policy efficacy.[5][6] Overall, while integration dismantled legal apartheid, its societal impacts remain uneven, with ongoing scholarly contention over optimal paths to durable interracial equity versus voluntary association.[7]Definitions and Conceptual Framework
Distinction from Desegregation
Desegregation refers to the legal or administrative process of eliminating enforced racial separation, such as through court orders removing barriers like segregated facilities or admission policies.[8] This approach focuses on ending state-mandated segregation without necessarily compelling social interaction or demographic balance, allowing individuals the option to associate or remain apart once barriers are lifted.[9] In contrast, racial integration entails a broader social dynamic where members of different racial groups actively interact, share equal status, and participate in common institutions, often requiring affirmative policies like busing or quotas to achieve proportional mixing. The distinction emerged prominently in civil rights discourse, as articulated by figures like James Farmer of the Congress of Racial Equality, who in 1963 advocated desegregation as providing freedom of choice—removing legal prohibitions while permitting voluntary separation—over integration's implication of mandated interracial association, which could infringe on personal liberties.[9] For instance, the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education mandated desegregation of public schools by declaring separate-but-equal facilities unconstitutional, yet initial compliance often resulted in token attendance rather than substantive mixing, highlighting how legal access alone does not ensure social integration.[10] Empirical observations post-Brown showed persistent self-segregation in housing and schooling due to socioeconomic factors and preferences, underscoring that desegregation addresses formal equality but integration demands overcoming voluntary clustering driven by cultural or familial affinities.[11] This conceptual gap has causal implications: desegregation relies on dismantling coercive structures, aligning with first-principles of equal legal treatment, whereas integration often invokes engineered outcomes, as seen in 1970s court-ordered busing plans that aimed for specific racial ratios but faced resistance for prioritizing racial balance over neighborhood proximity or academic merit.[8] Scholarly analyses, such as those examining school outcomes, note that while desegregation reduced overt discrimination, full integration's benefits—like reduced prejudice through contact—remain contingent on equal-status conditions and mutual voluntary engagement, conditions not guaranteed by policy alone. Academic sources advocating seamless equivalence between the terms, prevalent in post-1960s literature, may reflect institutional preferences for expansive remedial measures, yet historical data indicate de facto resegregation via residential patterns, suggesting integration's challenges stem from non-coercible human behaviors rather than incomplete desegregation efforts.[12][13]Underlying Assumptions and Causal Mechanisms
Racial integration policies presuppose that racial separation perpetuates prejudice, stereotypes, and unequal outcomes, while deliberate mixing in institutions such as schools and neighborhoods promotes mutual understanding, equal access to resources, and long-term social cohesion. A foundational assumption, articulated in the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision, holds that segregated facilities are inherently unequal, implying that integration would equalize educational opportunities by exposing minority students to advanced curricula, qualified teachers, and higher-achieving peers typically found in majority-white settings. This extends to broader societal assumptions that intergroup proximity reduces perceived threats and fosters empathy, countering theories of inherent group conflict or competition over scarce resources.[14] The primary causal mechanism invoked is the intergroup contact hypothesis, formulated by psychologist Gordon Allport in 1954, which argues that prejudice stems largely from lack of familiarity and can be mitigated through sustained, positive interactions meeting specific conditions: equal group status within the setting, shared superordinate goals, cooperative interdependence, and endorsement by authorities or institutions. Empirical support derives from a meta-analysis of 515 studies involving over 250,000 participants, which found that such contact reduces prejudice by an average of 0.21 standard deviations, with effects stronger under Allport's optimal conditions but occurring even in suboptimal scenarios, and generalizing beyond direct contacts to broader outgroup perceptions. Underlying processes include decategorization (viewing individuals rather than group labels), anxiety reduction through familiarity, perspective-taking that builds empathy, and behavioral changes that reinforce positive attitudes.[15][16] In educational integration, causal pathways are assumed to operate via peer effects, where minority students benefit from modeling majority-group study habits and norms, alongside resource equalization; however, evidence indicates partial efficacy, as black-white achievement gaps narrowed from approximately 1.25 standard deviations in 1971 to 0.95 by 1994 amid widespread desegregation, particularly in Southern districts, but stalled or widened thereafter as resegregation advanced, with gaps expanding fastest in highly segregating areas. This suggests integration influences gaps through exposure to diverse environments but is insufficient alone, as persistent disparities—averaging 0.8-1.0 standard deviations in recent national assessments—reflect confounding factors like family socioeconomic status and school poverty levels, challenging assumptions of contact as a panacea for structural or behavioral variances.[17][18][19]Historical Development
Origins in Segregation and Early Challenges
Racial segregation in the United States originated in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War and emancipation under the 13th Amendment in December 1865, as Southern states enacted Black Codes to curtail the freedoms of approximately 4 million newly freed African Americans. These codes, passed in states like Mississippi and South Carolina in late 1865, restricted labor contracts, vagrancy, and firearm ownership for blacks while mandating sharecropping systems that perpetuated economic dependency.[20] Federal intervention during Reconstruction (1865-1877) countered this through the 14th Amendment (ratified 1868) granting citizenship and equal protection, the 15th Amendment (1870) securing black male suffrage, and the Enforcement Acts of 1870-1871 targeting Ku Klux Klan violence, which resulted in over 1,000 federal prosecutions by 1872.[21] Brief periods of integrated public schools and black political participation emerged in Southern states, with over 600 black officeholders elected by 1877.[22] The collapse of Reconstruction via the Compromise of 1877, which resolved the disputed presidential election by withdrawing federal troops from the South, enabled Democratic "Redeemers" to dismantle integration efforts and impose de jure segregation.[23] This shift facilitated the rise of Jim Crow laws, beginning with school segregation in Virginia (1870) and expanding to railroads, streetcars, and public facilities by the 1880s across former Confederate states.[24] The Supreme Court's 1883 rulings invalidated the Civil Rights Act of 1875, deeming federal enforcement of social equality unconstitutional, while Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 endorsed "separate but equal" accommodations, justifying segregated rail cars and entrenching legal barriers.[25] Disenfranchisement mechanisms, including poll taxes (e.g., Mississippi 1890 constitution) and literacy tests, reduced black voter registration from over 130,000 in Louisiana (1896) to 1,342 by 1904.[20] Early challenges to segregation before the 1940s were sporadic and largely unsuccessful amid pervasive violence and institutional resistance. The Niagara Movement, founded by W.E.B. Du Bois in 1905, advocated integrated education and civil rights, evolving into the NAACP in 1909, which pursued lawsuits like Guinn v. United States (1915) against grandfather clauses and Buchanan v. Warley (1917) striking residential segregation ordinances.[26] Anti-lynching campaigns documented over 3,400 black victims between 1882 and 1968, though federal bills failed repeatedly due to Southern congressional opposition.[27] The Great Migration (1916-1930) displaced 1.6 million African Americans northward, exposing de facto segregation in Northern cities through restrictive covenants and redlining, as upheld by the Supreme Court until Shelley v. Kraemer (1948).[26] These efforts highlighted causal barriers including white supremacist terrorism—such as the 1919 Red Summer riots affecting 26 cities—and economic competition in labor markets, undermining sustained integration without federal enforcement.[28]Civil Rights Era Breakthroughs (1940s-1960s)
The Civil Rights Era saw initial federal interventions against racial segregation during World War II, prompted by labor leader A. Philip Randolph's threat to organize a mass march on Washington in 1941. President Franklin D. Roosevelt responded with Executive Order 8802 on June 25, 1941, which prohibited discrimination in defense industries and government employment on the basis of race, color, creed, or national origin, establishing the Fair Employment Practices Committee to enforce compliance.[29] This order marked the first federal mandate for non-discriminatory hiring in war-related jobs, integrating thousands of African Americans into previously segregated workplaces amid wartime labor demands.[29] Postwar momentum built with President Harry S. Truman's Executive Order 9981 on July 26, 1948, which declared a policy of equality of treatment and opportunity in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin, effectively desegregating the U.S. military.[30] Implementation accelerated during the Korean War, with full integration achieved by 1954, as units became racially mixed based on merit rather than segregation policies, improving combat effectiveness and setting a precedent for federal enforcement of integration.[31] A pivotal judicial breakthrough occurred on May 17, 1954, when the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education unanimously ruled that racial segregation in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, overturning the "separate but equal" doctrine from Plessy v. Ferguson (1896).[32] The decision, based on evidence that segregated facilities generated feelings of inferiority among black children, ordered states to desegregate schools "with all deliberate speed," though compliance varied widely due to local resistance.[33] Grassroots activism advanced public integration, exemplified by the Montgomery Bus Boycott from December 5, 1955, to December 20, 1956, triggered by Rosa Parks' arrest for refusing to yield her seat to a white passenger.[34] Led by Martin Luther King Jr., the 381-day protest involved over 40,000 African Americans carpooling or walking, crippling the bus system's revenue and culminating in a Supreme Court ruling on November 13, 1956, that Alabama's bus segregation laws were unconstitutional, leading to integrated public transit in Montgomery.[34] Legislative milestones in the mid-1960s solidified these gains. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed July 2, prohibited segregation in public accommodations (Title II), discrimination in employment (Title VII), and unequal application of voter registration (Title I), while barring federal funding for segregated programs (Title VI).[35] This comprehensive law dismantled legal barriers to integration in hotels, restaurants, theaters, and workplaces, enforced through the newly created Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, enacted August 6 following Selma marches, suspended literacy tests and authorized federal oversight in discriminatory jurisdictions, boosting black voter registration from 23% in the South in 1964 to 61% by 1969, enhancing political participation integral to sustained integration.[36] The era closed with the Fair Housing Act of 1968, signed April 11 amid urban riots after King's assassination, which banned discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of most housing based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Covering 80% of the housing market, it aimed to reduce residential segregation by prohibiting redlining and restrictive covenants, though enforcement relied on private lawsuits until later HUD expansions. These acts collectively shifted U.S. policy from tolerance of de jure segregation to mandates for racial mixing in key societal domains.Post-Legislative Implementation and Resistance (1970s-1990s)
Following the Supreme Court's endorsement of busing as a desegregation remedy in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971), federal courts ordered widespread implementation of student transportation plans in the 1970s to achieve racial balance in urban school districts.[37] In Boston, U.S. District Judge W. Arthur Garrity's June 21, 1974, ruling mandated busing between predominantly white and black neighborhoods, sparking immediate protests and violence, including at least 40 riots—many interracial—between September 1974 and September 1976, with crowds in South Boston harassing black students and escalating to physical attacks.[38][39] Similar resistance emerged in other cities, such as Detroit, where court-ordered busing faced opposition amid accelerating white enrollment declines, as parents sought to avoid compulsory mixing perceived as disruptive to neighborhood schools.[40] The Supreme Court's decision in Milliken v. Bradley (1974) curtailed interdistrict busing remedies, ruling 5-4 that suburban districts could not be compelled to participate in desegregation plans absent proof of their own involvement in segregatory practices, thereby preserving local control and enabling de facto segregation through fragmented district boundaries.[41] This limited the scope of forced integration, as evidenced by Detroit's loss of at least 51,000 white students by the mid-1970s, exacerbating one-race districts and undermining broader metropolitan remedies.[42] Empirical data from the era show white flight contributing significantly to suburbanization, with cities experiencing large black in-migrations losing white populations to outer rings; for instance, postwar patterns indicated that racial aversion accounted for about 20% of white suburban growth, a trend intensifying in the 1970s as central-city white shares plummeted—from 65.6% in Detroit in 1970 to 49.6% by 1980.[43][44] Resistance extended beyond schools to affirmative action policies, with the 1978 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke decision invalidating racial quotas in admissions while permitting race as a factor, fueling debates over "reverse discrimination" and prompting lawsuits that challenged quotas in employment and contracting through the 1980s.[45] By the 1980s, black-white residential segregation indices remained high—averaging around 70 on the dissimilarity scale in major metros—despite legal efforts, as voluntary housing patterns and economic disparities sustained de facto separation, with only modest declines (about 12 points nationally from 1970-1990 peaks) insufficient to achieve widespread integration.[46][47] These outcomes reflected causal mechanisms like parental choice and mobility, where coercive measures often accelerated avoidance rather than fostering sustained mixing, as white households relocated to evade busing, leaving urban districts more homogeneous and fiscally strained.[48][49]Legal and Policy Foundations
Key Court Decisions and Their Rationales
In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld state-mandated racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine, ruling that Louisiana's law requiring separate railroad accommodations for white and Black passengers did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, provided facilities were equal in quality.[50] The majority opinion, written by Justice Henry Billings Brown, reasoned that the Fourteenth Amendment enforced civil and political equality but not social equality, asserting that any perceived stigma from segregation stemmed from racial prejudice rather than law itself.[51] This decision entrenched de jure segregation across public facilities, including schools, until its overturning, as it permitted states to maintain racially separate systems without demonstrating substantive equality.[52] The landmark Brown v. Board of Education (1954) reversed Plessy in the context of public education, unanimously holding that racial segregation in schools violated the Equal Protection Clause by generating feelings of inferiority among Black children that undermined their educational and personal development.[14] Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion emphasized that, in the field of public education, separate facilities were "inherently unequal," drawing on social science evidence—such as Kenneth Clark's doll tests—indicating segregation's psychological harm, though the Court noted this supplemented rather than supplanted constitutional analysis.[32] The ruling applied to de jure segregation in states like Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware, mandating desegregation "with all deliberate speed" in a follow-up decision (Brown II, 1955), but implementation faced widespread resistance, delaying integration for years.[53] Subsequent cases addressed remedies for segregation. In Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971), the Court unanimously authorized federal district courts to order busing and other measures to achieve racial balance in school districts with histories of de jure segregation, reasoning that such equitable remedies were necessary to dismantle dual school systems rooted in state-enforced separation.[54] The opinion, by Chief Justice Warren Burger, held that racial quotas or mathematical ratios could guide desegregation plans temporarily, provided they addressed proven constitutional violations, but cautioned against rigid, perpetual use; this expanded integration efforts in urban areas like Charlotte, North Carolina, where the district served over 84,000 students across racially imbalanced schools.[55] Milliken v. Bradley (1974) curtailed interdistrict remedies, ruling 5-4 that federal courts could not impose multidistrict busing plans—such as merging Detroit's predominantly Black schools with suburban white ones—absent evidence of interdistrict constitutional violations or state-wide segregation policies.[41] Justice Potter Stewart's plurality opinion stressed equitable limits on judicial power, noting that without suburban districts' involvement in Detroit's de jure segregation, involuntary consolidation would impose undue burdens on innocent parties and disrupt local control; this decision effectively halted metropolitan-wide integration in many Northern cities, preserving de facto segregation patterns.[56] More recently, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007) invalidated voluntary race-based student assignment plans in Seattle and Louisville, holding 5-4 that using race as a tiebreaker to achieve demographic diversity in non-segregated districts violated the Equal Protection Clause absent a specific history of de jure discrimination.[57] Chief Justice John Roberts' plurality opinion argued that such plans were not narrowly tailored to a compelling interest, as they relied on racial classifications without individualized consideration or proof of past intentional segregation, likening them to the quotas rejected in prior affirmative action cases; Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurrence allowed limited race-conscious measures like targeted outreach but rejected assignment based solely on skin color.[58] This ruling shifted focus from racial balancing to race-neutral alternatives, influencing subsequent declines in court-mandated integration.[59]Legislation and Enforcement Mechanisms
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited racial discrimination in public accommodations under Title II, mandating integration of facilities such as hotels, restaurants, theaters, and parks serving interstate commerce, with enforcement empowered through Attorney General lawsuits against patterns or practices of segregation and private civil actions for injunctive relief and damages.[60][35] Title VI of the same act barred discrimination based on race in federally funded programs, including public schools, enabling enforcement via agency termination of funding for non-compliant recipients or Department of Justice (DOJ) suits, which supported court-ordered desegregation plans following Brown v. Board of Education.[60][61] The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), established under Title VII, handled employment discrimination complaints through investigation, conciliation, and litigation referrals, indirectly aiding workplace integration by addressing hiring and promotion barriers.[62] The Fair Housing Act of 1968, enacted as Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act, outlawed discrimination in housing sales, rentals, and financing based on race, color, or national origin, targeting residential segregation through prohibitions on refusals to sell or rent, discriminatory terms, and blockbusting tactics.[63] Primary enforcement resides with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which investigates complaints, conducts compliance reviews, and attempts voluntary conciliation; unresolved cases may lead to administrative hearings or referrals to DOJ for civil pattern-or-practice suits in federal court, where remedies include injunctions, compensatory damages, and civil penalties up to $100,000 for willful violations.[63][64] Private litigants can also pursue damages and equitable relief, with the act's mechanisms strengthened by 1988 amendments expanding coverage to punitive damages and attorney fees.[65] Additional enforcement for integration-related voting access came via the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which suspended discriminatory literacy tests and required federal preclearance for voting changes in jurisdictions with histories of discrimination, enforced by DOJ through examinations, litigation against dilutions of minority votes under Section 2, and oversight by the Voting Section to ensure minority electoral participation as a foundation for community integration.[66][67] Federal agencies like the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Education conduct periodic compliance audits and respond to desegregation complaints in schools, while broader mechanisms include executive orders mandating affirmative compliance in federal contracting to prevent de facto segregation.[68] These tools collectively relied on judicial interpretation and administrative action, though empirical assessments of enforcement efficacy reveal persistent gaps in achieving uniform integration due to local resistance and resource constraints.[69]Shifts in Affirmative Action and Oversight (2000s-Present)
In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court issued companion decisions clarifying the boundaries of race-conscious admissions in higher education. In Gratz v. Bollinger, a 6-3 ruling struck down the University of Michigan's undergraduate policy of awarding automatic 20-point bonuses to underrepresented racial minorities out of 150 total points, as it failed to provide individualized consideration and thus violated the Equal Protection Clause. Conversely, in Grutter v. Bollinger, a 5-4 decision upheld the university's law school admissions process, which treated race as one holistic "plus" factor among many to attain critical mass for diversity benefits, deeming it narrowly tailored under strict scrutiny provided periodic review and no fixed endpoints. These rulings preserved affirmative action's viability while demanding rigorous justification and alternatives to racial classifications. Subsequent litigation intensified scrutiny. The Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin cases (2013 and 2016) mandated that universities bear the burden of proving race-neutral alternatives inadequate and racial use limited, rejecting judicial deference; the 4-3 2016 affirmation of UT's policy—employing race for the remaining 25% of seats after a top-10% automatic admission plan filled most—reaffirmed Grutter but signaled eroding support amid evidence of mismatch effects and Asian American disadvantages.[70] Paralleling federal cases, states increasingly restricted affirmative action: Michigan's Proposal 2 (2006) banned racial preferences in public education and employment; Nebraska (2008) and Arizona (2010) followed via initiatives prohibiting race-based decisions in university admissions.[71] Under the first Trump administration (2017-2021), the Department of Justice redirected Civil Rights Division resources to probe intentional discrimination against non-preferred groups, including Asian applicants, filing statements of interest challenging race-based systems.[72] The 2023 Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard and companion University of North Carolina case marked the policy's effective termination in higher education. In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice Roberts held that both institutions' programs—lacking achievable goals, relying on racial stereotypes, and penalizing groups like Asians—violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI, overruling Grutter by deeming student body diversity insufficiently compelling to justify ongoing racial classifications without durational limits.[73] Post-ruling adaptations emphasized race-neutral proxies like socioeconomic preferences and expanded top-percent plans, though initial Class of 2028 data revealed enrollment drops: Black admits at Harvard fell 25% (from 10.5% to 7.8%), with similar declines at Yale and Princeton.[74] Federal oversight evolved with administrative shifts. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs revised regulations in 2000 to streamline affirmative action for contractors while retaining outreach requirements.[75] In 2025, the second Trump administration's Executive Order 14173 rescinded affirmative action mandates under Executive Order 11246 for federal contractors, directing agencies to eliminate discriminatory preferences and prioritize merit, alongside investigations into state DEI hiring policies deemed reverse discriminatory.[76] These changes reflect broader retreat from race-based interventions, prioritizing colorblind enforcement against group preferences in integration efforts.Empirical Outcomes
Educational Impacts and Achievement Gaps
Despite widespread school desegregation following the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision and subsequent busing programs in the 1970s, empirical analyses have shown limited closure of racial achievement gaps in core academic subjects. The 1966 Coleman Report, a landmark U.S. Office of Education study analyzing data from over 570,000 students across 4,000 schools, concluded that variations in school facilities and curricula explained little of the black-white test score differences, which averaged about one standard deviation; instead, family socioeconomic background and peer influences within schools were primary drivers, with integrated settings offering modest benefits to disadvantaged black students via exposure to higher-achieving peers but failing to overcome broader environmental factors.[77][78] National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) long-term trend data for ages 9 and 13 reveal that black students made significant reading and math score gains relative to whites from the early 1970s to the late 1980s, narrowing the white-black gap by approximately 20-30 points (or 0.2-0.3 standard deviations) during peak desegregation efforts; however, progress stalled in the 1990s and beyond, with gaps remaining at 25-30 points in reading and 20-25 points in math as of 2012, and recent assessments showing slight widening due to larger post-pandemic declines among black students.[79][80][81] Peer-reviewed studies on desegregation's causal impacts yield mixed results on test scores specifically, with some evidence of short-term black achievement boosts in districts like Charlotte-Mecklenburg (0.1-0.2 standard deviation gains in math and reading) attributable to integrated peer effects and resource equalization, but long-term analyses indicate these effects fade without sustained family or behavioral interventions, as gaps reemerge by adolescence.[82][83] In contrast, busing's logistical burdens, such as extended commutes, have been linked to null or negative effects on attendance and scores in urban settings like Boston and New York, without offsetting academic benefits.[84]| Year Range | White-Black NAEP Reading Gap (Age 9, Points) | White-Black NAEP Math Gap (Age 9, Points) |
|---|---|---|
| 1971-1980 | ~40 | ~35 |
| 1980-1990 | ~30 (narrowed) | ~25 (narrowed) |
| 2000-2012 | ~25-28 | ~20-25 |
| 2020-2023 | ~27 (slight widen) | ~22 (slight widen) |