Concentrated Disadvantage in California

California

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, density of female-headed households and households with children. Studies have found that living in areas of higher community socioeconomic disadvantage is associated with:

• Preterm birth.
• Decreased cognitive abilities.
• Teen pregnancy.
• Lack of access to healthy foods and recreational areas.
• Higher crime rates.
• Environmental hazards, including lead exposure, poor air quality and substandard housing.
• Chronic conditions such as obesity, asthma, depression, anxiety and sexually transmitted infections.

Historical housing policies and other factors related to residential segregation have led to more children of color living in areas of concentrated disadvantage. Across all income levels, Black families live in poorer neighborhoods than their white counterparts. Studies have found that women living in disadvantaged neighborhoods face higher risks of mental and physical health problems, and are more likely to experience violence and mortality compared with their male counterparts.

To make impactful changes at the community level in areas of high concentrated disadvantage, multifactorial approaches can 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. Investing 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. Investing in affordable housing and public education systems are other long-term strategies to reduce concentrated disadvantage. 
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 to neighborhoods with less 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 and increasing employment among the working-age population.

Allegretto, Sylvia, Emma García, and Elaine Weiss. “Public Education Funding in the U.S. Needs an Overhaul.” Report. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute, July 12, 2022. https://epi.org/233143.

Burgos Ochoa, Lizbeth, Maarten J. Bijlsma, Eric A. P. Steegers, Jasper V. Been, and Loes C. M. Bertens. “Does Neighborhood Crime Mediate the Relationship Between Neighborhood Socioeconomic Status and Birth Outcomes? An Application of the Mediational G-Formula.” American Journal of Epidemiology 192, no. 6 (June 2, 2023): 939–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwad037.

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.

Christie-Mizell, C. André. “Neighborhood Disadvantage and Poor Health: The Consequences of Race, Gender, and Age among Young Adults.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 13 (July 1, 2022): 8107. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19138107.

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. Supplement 1 (April 2013): 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549131282S102.

Pies, Cheri, Monica Barr, Carly Strouse, and Milton Kotelchuck. “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, no. 5 (May 2016): 968–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-016-1969-1.

Sacks, Vanessa. “5 Ways Neighborhoods of Concentrated Disadvantage Harm Children - Child Trends.” Research Brief. Child Trends, February 14, 2018. https://www.childtrends.org/publications/5-ways-neighborhoods-of-concentrated-disadvantage-harm-children.