Abstract
Backed by decades of empirical research, there has been increasing acknowledgment in policy, practice and research of the importance of neighborhood opportunity in shaping well-being. This has led to the proliferation of opportunity maps in cities throughout the United States with the purpose of identifying low opportunity neighborhoods in need of investment and intervention and high opportunity neighborhoods that can offer access to resources and amenities to disadvantaged population groups. By explicitly linking investment to the identification of neighborhoods that are high or low in opportunity, opportunity indices have the potential to help transform local and regional landscapes of spatial inequality. Despite this common goal, indices rely on varying theoretical conceptualizations, data, variables, and statistical approaches. How much these opportunity definitions overlap has yet to be fully examined. In this study, we compared five approaches to measuring neighborhood opportunity in California. We found low to moderate overlap across the indices, with disagreement higher for low opportunity designations. As with any quantitative analysis, opportunity mapping is not a purely technical exercise and requires a series of subjective decisions. The only way to validate these decisions is for opportunity measures to be constructed transparently and vetted by the research community. This study is a first step in this process.