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
California Value:
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
California Rank:
Explore Population Data:
Appears In:
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
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
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
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey
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
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey
US Value: 26.1%
Top State(s): Vermont: 2.9%
Bottom State(s): New Mexico: 47.6%
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, 2016-2020
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 a life course indicator used to measure community well-being. It provides a multivariate look at geographically-concentrated poverty, economic segregation and other vulnerable population characteristics. Concentrated disadvantage takes into account poverty, unemployment, use of public assistance programs and density of female-headed households and households with children. Living in an area of high concentrated disadvantage can result in harm to physical and mental health and is associated with:
Black families at all income levels are much more likely to live in areas of high concentrated disadvantage compared with white and Hispanic families. Black children living in neighborhoods with high disadvantage are at greater risk of delayed verbal development equal to one year of missed school compared with Black children living in less-disadvantaged neighborhoods.
Education, employment and access to technology, good nutrition, community safety and health care are just some of the factors that contribute to poverty. To make impactful changes at the community level, multi-pronged approaches must be taken to foster economic opportunity, improve educational attainment, improve workplace conditions and increase access to quality nutrition, health care and housing.
Concentrated disadvantage has complex socioeconomic roots, but it is grounded in the relationship between areas of extreme poverty and both racial segregation and economic segregation — meaning, effective analyses of extremely disadvantaged neighborhoods must consider and address both racial and economic factors. Because of this, solutions to address concentrated disadvantage and its repercussions fall into two categories:
Healthy People 2030 has several objectives related to the components of concentrated disadvantage, including reducing the proportion of people living below the poverty threshold and increasing employment among the working-age population.
Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence F. Katz. “The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment.” American Economic Review 106, no. 4 (April 2016): 855–902. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20150572.
Jeon, Lieny, Cynthia K. Buettner, and Eunhye Hur. “Family and Neighborhood Disadvantage, Home Environment, and Children’s School Readiness.” Journal of Family Psychology 28, no. 5 (2014): 718–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000022.
Leventhal, Tama, and Véronique Dupéré. “Moving to Opportunity: Does Long-Term Exposure to ‘Low-Poverty’ Neighborhoods Make a Difference for Adolescents?” Social Science & Medicine 73, no. 5 (July 2011): 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. “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, no. 2 (January 15, 2008): 155–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwm277.
Penman-Aguilar, Ana, Marion Carter, M. Christine Snead, and Athena P. Kourtis. “Socioeconomic Disadvantage as a Social Determinant of Teen Childbearing in the U.S.” Public Health Reports 128, no. 2_suppl1 (March 2013): 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549131282S102.
Quillian, Lincoln. “Segregation and Poverty Concentration: The Role of Three Segregations.” American Sociological Review 77, no. 3 (June 2012): 354–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412447793.
Sampson, Robert J., Patrick Sharkey, and Stephen W. Raudenbush. “Durable Effects of Concentrated Disadvantage on Verbal Ability among African-American Children.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, no. 3 (January 22, 2008): 845–52. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0710189104.
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.