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.

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.

Median and IQR values of census tract level indicators in Louisiana.

The table adi_by_zipcode is part of the dataset Area Deprivation Index (ADI), available at https://redivis.com/datasets/axrk-7jx8wdwc2. It contains 98967 rows across 5 variables.

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

The Canadian Index of Multiple Deprivation (CIMD) is an area-based index which used 2021 Census of Population microdata to measure four key dimensions of deprivation at the dissemination area (DA)-level: residential instability, economic dependency, situational vulnerability and ethno-cultural composition.

Using factor analysis, DA-level factor scores were calculated for each dimension. Within a dimension, ordered scores were assigned a quintile value, 1 through 5, where 1 represents the least deprived and 5 represents the most deprived.

The CIMD allows for an understanding of inequalities in various measures of health and social well-being. While it is a geographically-based index of deprivation and marginalization, it can also be used as a proxy for an individual. The CIMD has the potential to be widely used by researchers on a variety of topics related to socio-economic research. Other uses for the index may include: policy planning and evaluation, or resource allocation.

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

Social deprivation indices calculated using the 2020 5-year American Community Survey at the census tract level.

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.

Topicality: 2018 - 2019Projection: New Zealand Transverse Mercator (NZTM)This dataset contains occupied and unoccupied private dwelling counts from and usually resident population counts from the 2006, 2013, and 2018 Censuses, with percentage changes between the 2013 Census and 2018 Censuses, by statistical area 2.The data is sourced from the Census 2018 data published by Statistics New Zealand (StatsNZ) and Index of Multiple Deprivation by the Ministry of Health/ University of Otago.StatsNZ data: Ministery of Health/University of Otago dataThis layer is offered by Eagle Technology (Official Esri Distributor). Eagle Technology offers services that can be used in the ArcGIS platform. The Content team at Eagle Technology updates the layers on a regular basis and regularly adds new content to the Living Atlas. By using this content and combining it with other data you can create new information products quickly and easily.If you have any questions or comments about the content, please let us now at livingatlas@eagle.co.nz.

*Adjusted for age (age at diagnosis for cancer survival), area, population density (quartile), occupation (professionals and office worker, sales clerks or others, farmers, manual labors and others), smoking, alcohol drinking, body mass index, and leisure-time sport activity.Deprivation index and cancer risk in women (n = 45,229).

This table presents data on people in Wales broken down by protected characteristic and WIMD deprivation group. The data shows the risk and number of people from various protected characteristic groups living in LSOAs in each WIMD deprivation group. It also shows the share of people living in each deprivation group by protected characteristic. WIMD is the Welsh Government’s official measure of relative deprivation for small areas in Wales. It is designed to identify those small areas (LSOAs) where there are the highest concentrations of several different types of deprivation. WIMD ranks all small areas in Wales from 1 (most deprived) to 1,909 (least deprived). WIMD rankings for this analysis have been grouped into ‘Deprivation Groups’. These have smaller groups of LSOAs at the more deprived end of the distribution (most deprived 10% of all Welsh LSOAs), where the difference between areas is greater than at the less deprived end (least deprived 50% of all Welsh LSOAs). For more information on the measures used in WIMD please see the WIMD links in the weblinks tab.

The Townsend Deprivation Index is a measure of material deprivation first introduced by Peter Townsend in 1987. A Townsend score can be calculated using a combination of four census variables for any geographical area (provided census data is available for that area). The measure has been widely used in research for health, education and crime to establish whether relationships exist with deprivation. The Townsend scores below were calculated for the UK based on data from the 2011 Census and include a discussion with geographical visualisations of the findings.

The deprivation index was designed in the late 1990s in order to measure the deprivation of Quebecers on a small geographic scale. It is used for the purposes of researching and monitoring trends on social inequalities in health, developing policies and programs, allocating resources, and evaluating services. It is composed of a material dimension and a social dimension that can be analyzed separately or in combination. The index includes six indicators, all from the 2021 census and calculated on the basis of dissemination areas (DAs). The geographic file includes the national (province of Quebec), regional (health regions (RSS)), and local (territorial service networks (RTS), local service networks (RLS) and local community service centers (CLSC)) versions of the deprivation index. In cases where a broadcast area (AD) straddles two territories (in the RTS, RLS and CLSC versions of the file), it is the AD with the largest proportion of the population that determines which RTS, RLS or CLSC is selected in order to have a single deprivation index value per AD for mapping. All results by AD are available in the equivalence table on the Web site of the National Institute of Public Health of Quebec (INSPQ). For more information on the deprivation index, you can consult The Material and Social Deprivation Index: in brief.**This third party metadata element was translated using an automated translation tool (Amazon Translate).**

This dataset contains the main ranking for the Index of Multiple Deprivation, 2007. This dataset puts the 32,482 LSOAs into a rank order based on their 2007 IMD score. A rank of 1 is the most deprived.

The English Indices of Deprivation provide a relative measure of deprivation at small area level across England. Areas are ranked from least deprived to most deprived on seven different dimensions of deprivation and an overall composite measure of multiple deprivation. Most of the data underlying the 2007 indices are for the year 2005.

The indices have been constructed by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre at the University of Oxford for the Department for Communities and Local Government. All figures can only be reproduced if the source (Department for Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2007) is fully acknowledged.

The domains used in the Indices of Deprivation 2007 are: income deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation and disability; education deprivation; crime deprivation; barriers to housing and services deprivation; and living environment deprivation. Each of these domains has its own scores and ranks, allowing users to focus on specific aspects of deprivation.

Because the indices give a relative measure, they can tell you if one area is more deprived than another but not by how much. For example, if an area has a rank of 40 it is not half as deprived as a place with a rank of 20.

The Index of Multiple Deprivation was constructed by combining scores from the seven domains. When comparing areas, a higher deprivation score indicates a higher proportion of people living there who are classed as deprived. But as for ranks, deprivation scores can only tell you if one area is more deprived than another, but not by how much.

This dataset was created from a spreadsheet provided by the Department of Communities and Local Government, which can be downloaded here.

The method for calculating the IMD score and underlying indicators is detailed in the Guidance document.

The data is represented here as Linked Data, using the Data Cube ontology.

This dataset contains a range of measures which form the Indices of Deprivation 2015 at LSOA level. The boundaries used have been generalised by 50 metres (point remove) for web display. This dataset has been curated mainly for education/teaching purposes. The Index of Multiple Deprivation ranks every small area in England from 1 (most deprived area) to 32,844 (least deprived area). It is common to describe how relatively deprived a small area is by saying whether it falls among the most deprived 10 per cent, 20 per cent or 30 per cent of small areas in England (although there is no definitive cut-off at which an area is described as ‘deprived’). To help with this, deprivation ‘deciles’ are published alongside ranks. This dataset has been published to show the show the IMD Ranks and Deciles for each LSOA for Education purposes. 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 domains of deprivation. The domains were combined using the following weights to produce the overall Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD):Income Deprivation (22.5%) Employment Deprivation (22.5%) Education, Skills and Training Deprivation (13.5%) Health Deprivation and Disability (13.5%) Crime (9.3%) Barriers to Housing and Services (9.3%) Living Environment Deprivation (9.3%). Please refer to this web page from Department for Communities and Local Government for more information on the dataset.

Pobal HP Deprivation Index at Electoral Districts (ED) level. This index data is calculated as the ED level aggregates from the 2006 and 2011 Census Small Area (SA) level data, which is available from http://maps.pobal.ie/ . The index is based on the combination of three dimensions of relative affluence and deprivation: Demographic Profile, Social Class Composition and Labour Market Situation. For more information see http://trutzhaase.eu/

Provisional age-standardised mortality rates for deaths due to COVID-19 by sex, local authority and deprivation indices, and numbers of deaths by middle-layer super output area.

Ranking of LSOAs according to their score in the Income Deprivation domain.

The English Indices of Deprivation provide a relative measure of deprivation at small area level across England. Areas are ranked from least deprived to most deprived on seven different dimensions of deprivation and an overall composite measure of multiple deprivation. Most of the data underlying the 2010 indices are for the year 2008.

The indices have been constructed by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre at the University of Oxford for the Department for Communities and Local Government. All figures can only be reproduced if the source (Department for Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2010) is fully acknowledged.

The domains used in the Indices of Deprivation 2010 are: income deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation and disability; education deprivation; crime deprivation; barriers to housing and services deprivation; and living environment deprivation. Each of these domains has its own scores and ranks, allowing users to focus on specific aspects of deprivation.

Because the indices give a relative measure, they can tell you if one area is more deprived than another but not by how much. For example, if an area has a rank of 40 it is not half as deprived as a place with a rank of 20.

The Index of Multiple Deprivation was constructed by combining scores from the seven domains. When comparing areas, a higher deprivation score indicates a higher proportion of people living there who are classed as deprived. But as for ranks, deprivation scores can only tell you if one area is more deprived than another, but not by how much.

This dataset was created from a spreadsheet provided by the Department of Communities and Local Government, which can be downloaded here.

The method for calculating the IMD score and underlying indicators is detailed in the report 'The English Indices of Deprivation 2010: Technical Report'.

The data is represented here as Linked Data, using the Data Cube ontology.

Slope index of inequality (SII) and range for healthy life expectancy (HLE), life expectancy (LE) and proportion of life spent in "Good" health at birth and age 65 by national deciles of area deprivation.