This dataset recreates three releases (2015, 2020, and 2022) of The Neighborhood Atlas team’s Area Deprivation Index (ADI) using standardized components. The ADI is a measure that aims to quantify the socioeconomic conditions of census block groups (sometimes used to approximate neighborhoods), originally based on 1990 census tract data and factor loadings. The Neighborhood Atlas team at the University of Wisconsin adapted the ADI to block groups and more recent data, imputing missing data using tract- and county-level data.However, unlike the original index construction method, The Neighborhood Atlas team did not adjust (standardize) individual components before combining them into an overall score. This approach resulted in individual index components measured in dollars, such as income and home value, being overly influential in the final score. This dataset corrects for that by standardizing these components before aggregating, offering a more multi-dimensional view of socioeconomic conditions. The standardized ADI dataset provides continuous rankings for block groups nationwide and decile rankings for block groups within each state.

Abstract

ADI: An index of socioeconomic status for communities. Dataset ingested directly from BigQuery.

Documentation

The Area Deprivation Index (ADI) can show where areas of deprivation and affluence exist within a community. The ADI is calculated with 17 indicators from the American Community Survey (ACS) having been well-studied in the peer-reviewed literature since 2003, and used for 20 years by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). High levels of deprivation have been linked to health outcomes such as 30-day hospital readmission rates, cardiovascular disease deaths, cervical cancer incidence, cancer deaths, and all-cause mortality. The 17 indicators from the ADI encompass income, education, employment, and housing conditions at the Census Block Group level.

The ADI is available on BigQuery for release years 2018-2020 and is reported as a percentile that is 0-100% with 50% indicating a "middle of the nation" percentile. Data is provided at the county, ZIP, and Census Block Group levels. Neighborhood and racial disparities occur when some neighborhoods have high ADI scores and others have low scores. A low ADI score indicates affluence or prosperity. A high ADI score is indicative of high levels of deprivation. Raw ADI scores and additional statistics and dataviz can be seen in this ADI story with a BroadStreet free account.

Dataset source: https://help.broadstreet.io/article/adi/

The Area Deprivation Index (ADI) can show where areas of deprivation and affluence exist within a community. The ADI is calculated with 17 indicators from the American Community Survey (ACS) having been well-studied in the peer-reviewed literature since 2003, and used for 20 years by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). High levels of deprivation have been linked to health outcomes such as 30-day hospital readmission rates, cardiovascular disease deaths, cervical cancer incidence, cancer deaths, and all-cause mortality. The 17 indicators from the ADI encompass income, education, employment, and housing conditions at the Census Block Group level.The ADI is available on BigQuery for release years 2018-2020 and is reported as a percentile that is 0-100% with 50% indicating a "middle of the nation" percentile. Data is provided at the county, ZIP, and Census Block Group levels. Neighborhood and racial disparities occur when some neighborhoods have high ADI scores and others have low scores. A low ADI score indicates affluence or prosperity. A high ADI score is indicative of high levels of deprivation. Raw ADI scores and additional statistics and dataviz can be seen in this ADI story with a BroadStreet free account.Much of the ADI research and popularity would not be possible without the excellent work of Dr. Amy Kind and colleagues at HIPxChange and at The University of Wisconsin Madison.This public dataset is hosted in Google BigQuery and is included in BigQuery's 1TB/mo of free tier processing. This means that each user receives 1TB of free BigQuery processing every month, which can be used to run queries on this public dataset. Watch this short video to learn how to get started quickly using BigQuery to access public datasets. What is BigQuery. 자세히 알아보기

Area Deprivation Index state score in 2020. The Area Deprivation Index (ADI) ranks neighborhoods on the basis of socioeconomic disadvantage in the areas of income, education, employment, and housing quality. Areas with greater disadvantage are ranked higher. National scores are normalized to the whole country, and state scores are normalized to a particular state. Higher Area Deprivation Index scores have been shown to correlate with worse health outcomes in measures such as life expectancy. This index was created by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison based on a methodology originally developed by the Health Resources and Services Administration. Areas on this map are ranked against other areas within the state. State scores represent deciles. In other words, they are divided into 10 groups of the same size, where 1 is the lowest rate of disadvantage and 10 is the highest.

The Area Deprivation Index - 3 (ADI-3) is an extension of G.K. Singh's 2003 version of ADI (G.K. Singh. Area deprivation and widening inequalities in US Mortality, 1969-1998. Am. J. Public Health, 93, 1137-1143 (2003). Https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.7.1137). ADI is unidimensional index based on 17 publicly available socioeconomic indicators available in the American Community Survey (2010 to the present). The higher the ADI value for a geographic unit, the higher the deprivation level is for that geographic unit. Berg et al. extended the ADI to a multidimensional construct encompassing neighborhood financial strength, economic hardship and inequality, and educational attainment. This data file includes both the unidimensional ADI value and values for the three factors identified by Berg et al.

About the Area Deprivation Index (ADI)The Area Deprivation Index (ADI) is based on a measure created by the Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA) over three decades ago, and has since been refined, adapted, and validated to the Census Block Groupneighborhood level by Amy Kind, MD, PhD and her research team at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. It allows for rankings of neighborhoods by socioeconomic disadvantage in a region of interest (e.g. at the state or national level). It includes factors for the theoretical domains of income, education, employment, and housing quality. It can be used to inform health delivery and policy, especially for the most disadvantaged neighborhood groups. "Neighborhood" is defined as a Census Block Group.For more information, please visit: https://www.neighborhoodatlas.medicine.wisc.edu/

ObjectivesTo compare 2 frequently used area-level socioeconomic deprivation indices: the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) and the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI).MethodsIndex agreement was assessed via pairwise correlations, decile score distribution and mean comparisons, and mapping. The 2019 ADI and 2018 SVI indices at the U.S. census tract-level were analyzed.ResultsIndex correlation was modest (R = 0.51). Less than half (44.4%) of all tracts had good index agreement (0–1 decile difference). Among the 6.3% of tracts with poor index agreement (≥6 decile difference), nearly 1 in 5 were classified by high SVI and low ADI scores. Index items driving poor agreement, such as high rents, mortgages, and home values in urban areas with characteristics indicative of socioeconomic deprivation, were also identified.ConclusionsDifferences in index dimensions and agreement indicated that ADI and SVI are not interchangeable measures of socioeconomic deprivation at the tract level. Careful consideration is necessary when selecting an area-level socioeconomic deprivation measure that appropriately defines deprivation relative to the context in which it will be used. How deprivation is operationalized affects interpretation by researchers as well as public health practitioners and policymakers making decisions about resource allocation and working to address health equity.

I grouped the 2013 United States Area Deprivation Index (https://www.neighborhoodatlas.medicine.wisc.edu) by deciles and plotted the distribution by decile by state. Each state can be seen to have its own socioeconomic profile, ranging from balanced (Illinois) to skewed toward high deprivation (Mississippi), low deprivation (Massachusetts), or moderate levels (Idaho). These graphs are more informative than a single summary measure. They also served as an exercise in R programming - the code used to generate these graphs is included here.

The table adi_by_county is part of the dataset Area Deprivation Index (ADI), available at https://columbia.redivis.com/datasets/axrk-7jx8wdwc2. It contains 9426 rows across 8 variables.

Here are the raw data and R code used in the paper "A comparison of two neighborhood-level socioeconomic indices in the United States" by Boscoe and Li currently under review. The raw data and data dictionary are exactly as they were obtained from the National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). The data comprise the 7 American Community Survey variables used to construct the Yost Index at the block group level for the period 2011-2015.

Area Deprivation Index (ADI) Quintiles (Q) in Louisiana census tracts (N = 1127).

Relationship between quintiles of neighborhood deprivation as measured by the ADI and COVID-19 rates in Louisiana census tracts (N = 1127).

This analysis uses Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation (WIMD) 2019 and Census 2021 data to estimate the proportions of population groups living in areas within each WIMD 2019 deprivation grouping. It identifies where people from various groups are most likely to live in terms of small area (Lower Super Output Area or LSOA) relative deprivation and whether this varies across groups. This analysis presents an overview of how different populations were distributed across Wales at the time of the 2021 Census. It does not take into account the interaction of different characteristics with each other or with deprivation. For example, older age groups have a smaller likelihood of living in the most deprived areas, which may affect populations with different age profiles such as certain ethnic groups, veterans or those in poor health. Results should be interpreted in simple terms of how likely the population was to live in the various deprivation areas of Wales at the time of the 2021 Census, rather than attempting to establish a relationship between specific characteristics and deprivation.

The NDI provides a measure of neighborhood deprivation at the census tract level, with higher values corresponding to more severe deprivation. Each state's values are analyzed independently. The NDI empirically summarizes eight census variables representing five domains: income/poverty, education, employment, housing, and occupation. The eight census variables include the percent of: (1) males in management and professional occupations; (2) crowded housing; (3) households in poverty; (4) female-headed households with dependents; (5) households on public assistance; (6) households with earnings less than $30,000 per year; (7) individuals with less than a high school education; and (8) individuals that are unemployed. The NDI is calculated using a principal components analysis (Messer et al. 2006), such that the NDI values produced depend on the study area that is used in the NDI calculation. Specifically, the NDI value calculated for a given census tract will differ if the NDI was calculated using, for example, all tracts in the county vs. all tracts in the state vs. all tracts in the United States. Prior to selecting, calculating, or using the NDI, it is critically important to define the study area and analytical goals so that the most appropriate study domain is used for the NDI calculation.

The Index of Multiple Deprivation, commonly known as the IMD, is the official measure of relative deprivation for small areas in England. It is the most widely used of the Indices of Deprivation. The Index of Multiple Deprivation ranks every small area in England from 1 (most deprived area) to 32,844 (least deprived area) (2015). These small areas are called Lower-layer Super Output Areas.

The Indices of Deprivation 2015 provide a set of relative measures of deprivation for small areas (Lower-layer Super Output Areas) across England, based on seven different domains of deprivation: * Income Deprivation * Employment Deprivation * Education, Skills and Training Deprivation * Health Deprivation and Disability * Crime * Barriers to Housing and Services * Living Environment Deprivation

Each of these domains is based on a basket of indicators. As far as is possible, each indicator is based on data from the most recent time point available; in practice most indicators in the Indices of Deprivation 2015 relate to the tax year 2012/13. Combining information from the seven domains produces an overall relative measure of deprivation, the Index of Multiple Deprivation. In addition, there are seven domain-level indices, and two supplementary indices: the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index and the Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index. A range of summary measures are available for higher-level geographies which includes local authority districts, in 2015 there were 326 local authority districts. These are based on the geographic boundaries for these areas at the time of publication. The Index of Multiple Deprivation, domain indices and the supplementary indices, together with the higher area summaries, are collectively referred to as the Indices of Deprivation. You will find attached to this dataset resources from not only the 2015 Indices but previous years as well.

Further information can be found at

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/467901/English_Indices_of_Deprivation_2015_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions.pdf

BackgroundProspective studies have suggested a negative impact of area deprivation on overall mortality, but its effect on cause-specific mortality and the mechanisms that account for this association remain unclear. We investigate the association of area deprivation, using Index of Multiple deprivation (IMD), with overall and cause-specific mortality, contextualising findings within a systematic review. Methods And FindingsWe used data from 4,286 women from the British Women’s Heart Health Study (BWHHS) recruited at 1999-2001 to examine the association of IMD with overall and cause-specific mortality using Cox regression models. One standard deviation (SD) increase in the IMD score had a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.21 (95% CI: 1.13-1.30) for overall mortality after adjustment for age and lifecourse individual deprivation, which was attenuated to 1.15 (95% CI: 1.04-1.26) after further inclusion of mediators (health behaviours, biological factors and use of statins and blood pressure-lowering medications). A more pronounced association was observed for respiratory disease and vascular deaths. The meta-analysis, based on 20 published studies plus the BWHHS (n=21), yielded a summary relative risk (RR) of 1.15 (95% CI: 1.11-1.19) for area deprivation (top [least deprived; reference] vs. bottom tertile) with overall mortality in an age and sex adjusted model, which reduced to 1.06 (95% CI: 1.04-1.08) in a fully adjusted model. ConclusionsHealth behaviours mediate the association between area deprivation and cause-specific mortality. Efforts to modify health behaviours may be more successful if they are combined with measures that tackle area deprivation.

United States County Level Social Deprivation Scores and associated Census Bureau metrics used to compute the scores as well as the sub scores of each. Data are derived from the R package deprivateR, created by Christopher Prener PhD and Timothy Wiemken PhD at Pfizer Inc. Scores include multiple versions of the Social Vulnerability Index, The University of Wisconsin Area Deprivation Index, and the Gini indices.

This release contains a reference table providing healthy life expectancy (HLE) and life expectancy (LE) at birth for national deciles of area deprivation in England. It also provides 2 measures of inequality, the range and slope index of inequality (SII).

Source data and methodology calculations for the release 'Mapping income deprivation at a local authority level: 2019'. Based on the English Indices of Multiple Deprivation: 2019, to Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) level.

Adjustment factors, census ‘good’ health prevalence and modelled ‘good’ health prevalence used for calculating healthy life expectancy in England.