Claire Morton, Ashley Werner, Madeline Harris, Ivanka Saunders, Rachel Morello-Frosch, Joan A. Casey, Guenther Walther, David J.X. Gonzalez 

Background: Government agencies at the state and federal levels have developed screening tools to classify disadvantaged communities, which are cumulatively burdened by social marginalization and environmental hazards. Status as a recognized disadvantaged community can determine access to public funding and protections associated with environmental justice policies. In California, multiple screening tools have been promulgated by state and federal agencies.

Objectives: To determine the extent to which screening tools differentially designated census block groups as disadvantaged. Also, to determine whether there were differences in the proportions of socially or racially marginalized individuals classified as living in disadvantaged communities between screening tools.

Methods: We quantitatively compared three screening tools used in California (CalEnviroScreen, Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool [CEJST], and Environmental Justice Index [EJI]) and two proposed tools (a modified version of CalEnviroScreen and a trivariate metric). We developed a statistical method to determine the extent to which each screening tool differentially prioritizes socioeconomically or racially marginalized groups for designation as living in disadvantaged communities.

Results: While many census block groups were consistently classified as disadvantaged communities by all screening tools, there was substantial variation among the tools. For example, CEJST classified twice as many California residents as living in disadvantaged communities compared to EJI, a difference of approximately 7.5 million people. We observed small but statistically significant differences in disadvantaged community designations for racial/ethnic composition, proportion of households in poverty, and population density.

Conclusion: The screening tools we assessed, which are used for regulatory decision- making, advocacy, and research, yielded significant discordant classifications of disadvantaged communities, with potential implications for which sociodemographic groups have access to resources and other interventions through state and federal policy.