Economic Hardship Across U.S. Counties
Economic Hardship (EH) Rankings — Arizona Counties
All Arizona Counties vs. U.S. Extremes
Economic Hardship Index: All Arizona Census Tracts (2023)
Decomposing the Economic Hardship Index
Economic Hardship Clusters (LISA)
Within-County Variation in Economic Hardship (EH) — All 15 Arizona Counties

High Economic Hardship Clusters (HH) — Hot Spot Tracts Statewide:

267

Low Economic Hardship Clusters (LL) — Cold Spot Tracts Statewide:

269

Economic Hardship Mobility: Maricopa Tracts (2013 → 2023)
Neighborhood Hardship Trajectories (2013–2019)

Tracts Improved (2013→2023)

53.7%

Tracts Worsened (2013→2023)

31.1%

Persistently High Hardship (2013–2023)

17.8%

Emerging Hot Spots (2013–2023)

2.7%

🔴 Areas of Persistent Concern
158 Persistent Hot Spot Tracts (17.8% of Maricopa tracts)

These census tracts had statistically significant high-hardship clustering in both 2013 and 2019. The pattern is not random: a Global Moran’s I of 0.684 confirms that hardship is spatially concentrated, not scattered. Tracts in this category share infrastructure deficits, limited employment access, and concentrated poverty that reinforce one another across neighborhood boundaries.

Implication: Individual-level interventions alone are unlikely to move the needle. Place-based, multi-sector investment is required.

[TODO: Identify the specific geographic corridor in your county where these tracts are concentrated.]
🟡 Early Warning Signals
24 Emerging Hot Spot Tracts (2.7% of Maricopa tracts)

These tracts were not significant hardship clusters in 2013 but became statistically significant by 2019, representing the spatial expansion of hardship beyond historically distressed cores. This is an early warning signal that hardship is spreading, not contained.

Displacement paradox: Some “improving” tracts nearby may be gentrifying, pushing lower-income households outward into these emerging clusters. Declining hardship scores do not necessarily mean existing residents are better off.

[TODO: Identify where emerging hot spots are forming in your county and what may be driving displacement.]
🟢 Signs of Progress Read With Caution
53.7% of Maricopa tracts showed EHI improvement (2013→2023)

The majority of tracts improved over the decade-long window. However, aggregate improvement masks significant variation: 31.1% of tracts worsened over the same period. The data cannot distinguish genuine economic uplift from population turnover: a tract with a declining hardship index may simply have replaced lower-income residents with higher-income newcomers.

Data limitation: Before drawing conclusions from improving scores, ground-truth verification through community engagement and displacement tracking is essential.

[TODO: Customize with your county’s specific context.]
Recommendation 1

Target: 158 Persistent Hot Spot tracts (17.8% of all Maricopa tracts): spatially concentrated, entrenched hardship confirmed by a Global Moran’s I of 0.684.

The Central-South area, particularly the region extending from downtown Phoenix to South mountain, should be prioritized for intervention,as it contains the highest concentration of high-high persistent tracts with 158 or 17.8% of Maricopa County that are identified in the expanded hardship index. These tracts form a dense, continuous cluster that is supported by a high Global Moran’s I of 0.684, indicating a deep rooted and spatially reinforced disadvantage. The City of Phoenix, in conjunction with Maricopa County, should implement a system of place based programs that combine renter stabilization programs, GED and workforce readiness training, feasible SNAP access, and improved public transit connectivity. By allocating resources to these actively reoccurring high-hardship zones, it ensures that multiple structural barriers are addressed simultaneously, rather through fragmented, less effective interventions.
Recommendation 2

Target: 24 Emerging Hot Spot tracts (2.7% of all Maricopa tracts), new high-hardship clusters not present in 2013, signaling spatial expansion.

The 23 emerging high-high tracts or 2.7% of Maricopa County are primarily forming at the eastern as well as the southeastern edges of the central Phoenix cluster, specifically these areas are transitioning into parts of Mesa and Tempe. These newly emerged significant clusters suggest that hardship is spreading outward rather than remaining concentrated, in which it serves an early warning signal for shifting neighborhood disadvantage. This pattern aligns with the displacement paradox, where nearby progressing areas in terms of hardship are potentially experiencing issues that pertain to rising cost that push lower-income households into adjacent neighborhoods, meaning that declining hardship scores in core areas do not necessarily reflect improved outcomes for original residents. In order to address this issue, the City of Phoenix and Maricopa County should implement an early intervention strategy that is focused on housing stabilization, rent motioning, and anti-displacement protects in these emerging areas. This could mean expanding rental assistance, tracking rapid rent increases, and proactively investing in affordable housing before hardship becomes entrenched. By jumping the curve on these transition zones, it will be more cost effective to prevent these neighborhoods from developing into future persistent hot spots.
Recommendation 3

Evidence base: 53.7% of tracts improved (2013→2023) but 31.1% worsened; Moran’s I = 0.684 confirms strong spatial clustering persists.

While 53.7% of tracts in Maricopa County show improvement between 2013 and 2023, the finding show that 31.1% tracts declined along with a high Moran’s I of 0.684 to further indicate that spatial inequality remains deeply rooted. The trajectory map and Sankey diagram reveal that uneven across hardship quintiles, with many tracts remaining in the same category, others have shifted incrementally rather than experiencing large improvements. This pattern suggests that structural disadvantage is persistent, and apparent improvements may reflect gradual shifts or population turnover rather than meaningful gains for long-term residents. In response to the patterns, the City of Phoenix and Maricopa County should establish a continuous monitoring system that utilizes Census data with local indicators such as increase in rent, eviction filings, and demographic change. This system would help support cross sector coordination between housing, workforce, and transportation agencies to evaluate whether tract level improvements reflect the true economic mobility or displacement. By tracking these trends over a period of time, policymakers can ensure that progress is both sustainable and equitable, rather than fluffing the redistribution of hardship across neighborhoods.
🔬 Index Sensitivity Reflection

The baseline EHI consists of 3 measures: Poverty + Unemployment + Income (inv.)

Current index: 7-component EHI: Poverty + Unemployment + Income (inv.) + Renter Burden + Low Ed. Attainment + Food Insecurity (SNAP) + Transp. Disadvantage

After adding your extra component(s), answer the following (minimum 2 sentences each):

Q1: What changed spatially?
Compare Hot Spot tract counts and cluster map patterns between your expanded index and the 3-component baseline. Did adding Renter Burden + Low Ed. Attainment + Food Insecurity (SNAP) + Transp. Disadvantage shift which tracts or corridors are flagged?

After expanding the index to include renter burden, low educational attainment, and SNAP participation, and transportation disadvantage, the spatial pattern of hardship becomes slightly more concentrated and expands beyond the initial core cluster. The expanded index identifies 158 or 17.8% of high-high hardship tracts and 24 or 2.7% emerging hot spots. When compared to the baseline index, it shows slightly fewer persistent high hardship tracts at 17% and a similar share of emerging hot spots at 2.9%. While the overall clustering pattern remains largely similar, the expanded index captures the additional tracts along the edges of the central Phoenix cluster, particularly those towards the east and southeast of Maricopa County. This data suggests that adding a more complex multidimensional index, it will bring more tracts into the high hardship category, in which it reveals a more interconneced geography of hardship beyond the core.

Q2: What stayed the same?
Which Persistent Hot Spot areas appear robustly across index specifications? What does consistency across different index compositions tell us about the reliability of hardship diagnoses in those tracts?

Across both the baseline and the expanded index, the core cluster of persistent high-high hardship tracts in the Central Phoenix area down towards South Mountain remains consistently identified as a major area of concentrated hardship. This area appears resistant to changes in the index composition, indicating that it is not sensitive to the inclusion or exclusion of the added indicators. This consistency of this cluster suggests that hardship in these neighborhoods is deeply entrenched and multidimensional, rather than driven by a single factor. This stability across different index specifications strengthens the reliability of hardship assessments in these tracts. In addition, it indicates that regardless of how hardship is measured, these areas consistently experience high levels of disadvantage and should remain a priority for policy intervention.

Q3: Policy implications of index choice
If a policymaker targeted place-based investments using the baseline index versus your expanded index, would resource allocation differ? Name specific tracts or geographic corridors and argue which composition better captures the full burden of economic hardship for policy purposes.

If a policymaker solely relied on the baseline index, resource allocation would likely remain focused on the most visible areas of economic hardship, particularly the core cluster in Central Phoenix. However, the expanded index identifies additional tracts along the edges of this cluster that experience significant hardship related to housing instability,low educational attainment, food insecurity, and transportation barriers. These areas may be overlooked under the baseline index despite facing meaningful constraints that affect the quality of life. The expanded index is more appropriate for policy because of its ability to capture the complex multidimensional nature of hardship as well as identifying the broader set of at-risk neighborhoods. By utilizing the expanded index, it would lead to more equitable and proactive resource allocation by targeting both deeply entrenched hardship areas as well emerging disadvantage in surrounding areas.