2020-03-02_Time_Magazine_International_Edition

(backadmin) #1

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
Free download pdf