2020-03-02_Time_Magazine_International_Edition

neighborhood scores an 87 and a typi-
cal low-opportunity one scores 24. That
might seem like a huge gap. But De-
troit’s high is 95 and its low is 2: a much
less equal city.
The problem was, when we found areas
with small gaps between neighborhoods,
those cities tended to be racially homog-
enous. In other words, children in Provo,
Utah, and Boise, Idaho, have access to com-
paratively equal opportunities, regardless
of which neighborhoods they live in—but
those cities are more than 80% white.
Meanwhile, many of the more diverse
metro areas in the U.S., especially cities
with large black populations, have enor-
mous opportunity gaps; the few diverse
cities with small gaps tend to have low
opportunity scores overall. “It’s hard to
find a place that is equitable and racially
diverse,” says Acevedo-Garcia.
In all 100 metro areas in Acevedo-
Garcia’s study combined, white children
live in neighborhoods with a median
score of 73, compared with neighbor-
hood scores of 72 for Asian children,
33 for Hispanic children and 24 for
black children. Black and Hispanic kids

live with less opportunity than their

white and Asian peers almost without

exception—even in Bakersfield, Calif.,

where white kids have the lowest oppor-

tunity in the U.S.

The disparities are especially wide in

certain parts of the country. Milwaukee

and its surrounding area has the widest

racial disparity in the U.S., despite having

a high overall opportunity score. A white

child there lives in a neighborhood with

a median opportunity score of 85. For a

black child, the median neighborhood

score is 6.

This situation is frustrating to ad-

vocates, especially when high- ranking

neighborhoods don’t share resources like

schools and housing with low-ranking

ones that are right next door. But while

the most equal place in the U.S. does not

exist yet, the pursuit to get there is well

under way.

“We look at the high number to

say you can do well here, and many

children are enjoying that success,”

Acevedo- Garcia says. “Don’t tell me it’s

not possible for all kids to reach that

potential.” □

THE POWER OF

PHILANTHROPY

BY DARREN WALKER

In the year before the March on

Washington, Martin Luther King Jr.

prepared a series of sermons that

would become the book Strength

to Love. This was King at his most

prodigious and enduring, affirming

that we “are caught in an inescap-

able network of mutuality.” And,

among these 1963 reflections, he

challenged the origins and objec-

tives of charity. “Philanthropy is

commendable,” he wrote. “But it

must not cause the philanthropist

to overlook the circumstances of

economic injustice which make

philanthropy necessary.”

King’s words acknowledge a

central contradiction: philanthropy

is a creature of our market

system’s unequal benefits, and

yet charged with addressing its

prejudice and exploitation. They

also guide us toward a new gospel

of giving, defined by new tenets.

Modern philanthropy dates

to the Gilded Age, when Andrew

Carnegie proposed a radical idea:

the wealthy should give from their

gains to aid “the masses.” Many

other families endowed founda-

tions in Carnegie’s mold; the Ford

Foundation, which I am privileged

to lead, has directed billions of dol-

lars to promote democratic values

and human welfare. Today, “the

philanthropist” might more fully

understand—as King did—that

while many of our efforts are good

and even righteous, the supply of

charitable giving cannot possibly

keep pace with the demand for it.

We might recognize that philan-

thropy is not one thing, but rather

a continuum that spans from

charity on one side to justice on

the other—and that we must bend

economic, social and political

systems, the systems that made

us, toward the latter. King’s calls of

1963 still reverberate in every vil-

lage and hamlet. They must echo

in the ways we give, as well.

Walker is the president of the Ford

Foundation and a member of the

2016 TIME 100

GAPS ACROSS AMERICA

Every metro area has high-opportunity and low-opportunity
neighborhoods. The map shows the gap between these
highs and lows. Places with small gaps are often less
diverse or have lower opportunity overall. Opportunity difference
in each area

SMALL GAP BIG GAP

Provo

Boise

Deltona

Stockton

Detroit

Colorado

Springs

Albany

Chicago

Boston

Bakersfield

Milwaukee

NOTE: MAP SHOWS TOP 100 METRO AREAS BY POPULATION. SOURCE: CHILD OPPORTUNITY INDEX, BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY

Seattle

Phoenix

Honolulu

McAllen

Salt

Lake

City

San Diego

Austin

New

Orleans

Minneapolis

St. Louis

Miami

Atlanta Charleston

Buffalo

D.C.

New York