Concentrated Disadvantage

Concentrated Disadvantage in California

California

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:

• Preterm birth.
• Decreased cognitive abilities.
• Teen pregnancy. 
• Lack of access to healthy foods and recreational areas.

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: 

• Investment in existing 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.
• 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 demonstrated 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 impact long-term outcomes. The Moving to Opportunity study found that while moving from neighborhoods with high poverty to those with low poverty improved mental health outcomes and reduced risk-taking behaviors for adolescent girls, it had the inverse effect on boys.

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.