America's Health Rankings, United Health Foundation Logo

Concentrated Disadvantage
Concentrated Disadvantage in Arizona
Arizona

Explore national- and state-level data for hundreds of health, environmental and socioeconomic measures, including background information about each measure. Use features on this page to find measures; view subpopulations, trends and rankings; and download and share content.

How to use this page

Arizona Value:

33.8%

Percentage of households (with children) that are located in census tracts for which the averaged z-score of the following factors is above the 75th percentile: family households below the poverty line, individuals receiving public assistance, female-headed households, unemployment ages 16 and older and population younger than 18

Arizona Rank:

45

Concentrated Disadvantage in depth:

Explore Population Data:

General Population

Concentrated Disadvantage by State

Percentage of households (with children) that are located in census tracts for which the averaged z-score of the following factors is above the 75th percentile: family households below the poverty line, individuals receiving public assistance, female-headed households, unemployment ages 16 and older and population younger than 18




Concentrated Disadvantage Trends

Percentage of households (with children) that are located in census tracts for which the averaged z-score of the following factors is above the 75th percentile: family households below the poverty line, individuals receiving public assistance, female-headed households, unemployment ages 16 and older and population younger than 18

Trend: Concentrated Disadvantage in Arizona, United States, 2023 Health Of Women And Children Report

Percentage of households (with children) that are located in census tracts for which the averaged z-score of the following factors is above the 75th percentile: family households below the poverty line, individuals receiving public assistance, female-headed households, unemployment ages 16 and older and population younger than 18

Arizona
United States
Source:

 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey

View All Populations
Compare States

About Concentrated Disadvantage

US Value: 25.9%

Top State(s): New Hampshire: 3.1%

Bottom State(s): New Mexico: 48.1%

Definition: Percentage of households (with children) that are located in census tracts for which the averaged z-score of the following factors is above the 75th percentile: family households below the poverty line, individuals receiving public assistance, female-headed households, unemployment ages 16 and older and population younger than 18

Data Source and Years: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2017-2021

Suggested Citation: America's Health Rankings analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, United Health Foundation, AmericasHealthRankings.org, accessed 2023.

Concentrated disadvantage is an indicator used to measure community well-being. It involves examining multiple aspects of geographically concentrated poverty, economic segregation and other population characteristics. Concentrated disadvantage considers poverty, unemployment, use of public assistance programs and density of female-headed households and households with children. Studies have found that living in areas of higher community socioeconomic disadvantage is associated with:

One study found that areas of concentrated disadvantage experienced higher levels of COVID-19 fatalities.

Historical housing policies and other factors related to residential segregation have led to more children of color living in areas of concentrated disadvantaged. Across all income levels, Black families live in poorer neighborhoods, one factor considered in concentrated disadvantage, than their white counterparts.

To make impactful changes at the community level in areas of high concentrated disadvantage, multifactor approaches must be taken to foster economic opportunity, increase educational attainment, improve workplace conditions and expand access to quality nutrition, health care and housing. Solutions to address concentrated disadvantage and its repercussions fall into two categories

  1. Investment in communities: Programs that aim to enrich and empower areas facing concentrated disadvantage by improving living and economic conditions may have more significant long-term impacts, especially if they address the complexities of poverty. One such program, the Best Babies Zone Initiative, helps reduce poor birth outcomes in disadvantaged areas by uniting neighborhood leaders, improving education and the built environment and promoting economic and community development.
  2. Promoting social and physical mobility to break down barriers of segregation: Programs that allow families to move away from an area of concentrated disadvantage have shown a positive impact on the long-term economic, educational and health outcomes of individuals. The positive impact, however, is seen primarily in young children; moving at age 13 or older can negatively affect long-term outcomes. The Moving to Opportunity study found that moving from neighborhoods with high poverty to those with low poverty improved mental health outcomes and reduced risk-taking behaviors for adolescent girls, but the effect on boys was less consistent.

Healthy People 2030 has several objectives related to the components of concentrated disadvantage, including:

  • Reducing the proportion of people living below the poverty threshold. 
  • Increasing employment among the working-age population.

Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence F. Katz. 2016. “The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment.” American Economic Review 106 (4): 855–902. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20150572.

Jeon, Lieny, Cynthia K. Buettner, and Eunhye Hur. 2014. “Family and Neighborhood Disadvantage, Home Environment, and Children’s School Readiness.” Journal of Family Psychology 28 (5): 718–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000022.

Jing, Fengrui, Zhenlong Li, Shan Qiao, Jiajia Zhang, Bankole Olatosi, and Xiaoming Li. 2022. “Investigating the Relationships between Concentrated Disadvantage, Place Connectivity, and COVID-19 Fatality in the United States over Time.” BMC Public Health 22 (1): 2346. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14779-1.

Leventhal, Tama, and Véronique Dupéré. 2011. “Moving to Opportunity: Does Long-Term Exposure to ‘Low-Poverty’ Neighborhoods Make a Difference for Adolescents?” Social Science & Medicine 73 (5): 737–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.06.042.

O’Campo, Patricia, Jessica G. Burke, Jennifer Culhane, Irma T. Elo, Janet Eyster, Claudia Holzman, Lynne C. Messer, Jay S. Kaufman, and Barbara A. Laraia. 2008. “Neighborhood Deprivation and Preterm Birth among Non-Hispanic Black and White Women in Eight Geographic Areas in the United States.” American Journal of Epidemiology 167 (2): 155–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwm277.

Penman-Aguilar, Ana, Marion Carter, M. Christine Snead, and Athena P. Kourtis. 2013. “Socioeconomic Disadvantage as a Social Determinant of Teen Childbearing in the U.S.” Public Health Reports 128 (Supplement 1): 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549131282S102.

Pies, Cheri, Monica Barr, Carly Strouse, and Milton Kotelchuck. 2016. “Growing a Best Babies Zone: Lessons Learned from the Pilot Phase of a Multi-Sector, Place-Based Initiative to Reduce Infant Mortality.” Maternal and Child Health Journal 20 (5): 968–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-016-1969-1.

Current Reports

America’s Health Rankings builds on the work of the United Health Foundation to draw attention to public health and better understand the health of various populations. Our platform provides relevant information that policymakers, public health officials, advocates and leaders can use to effect change in their communities.

We have developed detailed analyses on the health of key populations in the country, including women and children, seniors and those who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces, in addition to a deep dive into health disparities across the country.