Geographic Variation in Multidimensional Deprivation in the United States, 2022–2023

Understanding multidimensional deprivation requires consideration not only of who experiences overlapping disadvantages but also of how those disadvantages vary geographically. This study provides a comprehensive descriptive assessment of geographic variation in multidimensional deprivation across the United States using pooled 2022–2023 American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample data and a Multidimensional Deprivation Index (MDI) constructed using the Alkire–Foster methodology. The MDI incorporates eight indicators spanning four equally weighted dimensions of well-being: economic security, education, health, and housing. Variation is examined across four nested geographic scales—Census regions, Census divisions, states, and all 2487 Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs)—using the Headcount Ratio (H), Average Deprivation Intensity (A), and the MDI. The results reveal substantial geographic differences in multidimensional deprivation across the United States, with progressively finer geographic scales revealing increasingly localized patterns. Geographic areas with similar overall MDI values often differ substantially in the composition of deprivation, underscoring the importance of examining the composition as well as the overall level of deprivation. Across all geographic scales, differences in multidimensional deprivation primarily reflect variation in deprivation incidence rather than deprivation intensity, while the PUMA-level analysis suggests that important local variation is obscured by broader regional and state averages. The principal contribution of this study is its integrated multiscale framework. Rather than developing a new deprivation measure or evaluating formal spatial dependence, the analysis applies an established Alkire–Foster methodology to recent nationally representative ACS microdata. This framework provides a consistent descriptive assessment of multidimensional deprivation across multiple nested geographic scales. The findings establish a descriptive empirical benchmark for geographically informed policy discussions and for demonstrating that both the level and composition of multidimensional deprivation vary systematically across geographic scales and that important local variation is obscured by broader regional and state averages.