Adult income rank of children raised poor here and Area in drought
Where Adult income rank of children raised poor here is higher, Area in drought tends to be higher. The link is weak: +0.32 across 3,119 counties, on a scale from −1 (opposite) to +1 (in step). That figure compares places with the same population density, income and education, so those differences can't explain it. It holds inside states too. Measured separately within each of 40 states, the middle value of the link is +0.04.
Holds after adjusting
Every place, plotted
One dot for each place reporting both measures. Hover over or tap a dot to see its name and values. The thin line is the straight line that best fits the dots. The bold line, shown for counties, is the link after adjusting for density, income and education. A dot far from the lines is a place that does not follow the pattern.
Loading every place…
What each measure is
Adult income rank of children raised poor here
Where children who grew up here with poor parents ended up as adults, ranked against everyone in the country by income, on a scale from 0 to 1. A value of 0.5 would mean that on average they reached the middle of the national income ladder.
Opportunity Atlas · Opportunity Insights kfr_pooled_pooled_p25
Area in drought
The share of the area in moderate drought or worse, averaged over the year's weekly Drought Monitor maps. A county half in drought all year and a county fully in drought for half the year both score 50%. Experts draw the maps each week from rain, soil, stream and crop data, so they are a judgment, not a direct measurement.
US Drought Monitor · USDM data services GetDroughtSeverityStatisticsByAreaPercent, statisticsType=1, D1
Highest and lowest
Where each measure is highest and lowest among the places reporting both (2023), with the other measure beside it. This is shown for every size of place where both are published. Metro-area values are added up from their counties. A measure that cannot be added up across counties, such as a middle value (median), has no metro figure. Counts are shown per 1,000 residents, since raw totals would only list the largest places. Cities and towns and ZIP codes are shown where the Census survey or the CDC publishes them; most other sources stop at the county. They are shown for places of 5,000 residents or more, and only where the survey’s margin of error is small enough for the figure to be usable. The CDC publishes its health estimates for cities in a version adjusted for age, so places with older or younger people can be compared fairly, but not for ZIP codes.
Counties
By adult income rank of children raised poor here
| Adult income rank of children raised poor here | Area in drought | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Harding County, SD | 0.688 | 9.27 |
| Bowman County, ND | 0.675 | 38.1 |
| Grant County, ND | 0.667 | 8.69 |
| Billings County, ND | 0.666 | 39.9 |
| Golden Valley County, ND | 0.662 | 40.4 |
| Lowest | ||
| Kusilvak Census Area, AK | 0.216 | 0 |
| Hoonah-Angoon Census Area, AK | 0.237 | 0 |
| Northwest Arctic Borough, AK | 0.242 | 0 |
| Bethel Census Area, AK | 0.245 | 0 |
| Oglala Lakota County, SD | 0.248 | 35.8 |
By area in drought
| Adult income rank of children raised poor here | Area in drought | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Crawford County, IA | 0.516 | 100 |
| Monona County, IA | 0.466 | 100 |
| Barton County, KS | 0.464 | 100 |
| Ellis County, KS | 0.528 | 100 |
| Graham County, KS | 0.503 | 100 |
| Lowest | ||
| Northwest Hills Planning Region, CT | 0.438 | 0 |
| Summit County, CO | 0.518 | 0 |
| Pitkin County, CO | 0.458 | 0 |
| Lake County, CO | 0.406 | 0 |
| Grand County, CO | 0.507 | 0 |
States — Adult income rank of children raised poor here is not published for states
By area in drought
| Adult income rank of children raised poor here | Area in drought | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Kansas | — | 74.2 |
| Nebraska | — | 68.8 |
| Iowa | — | 65.2 |
| New Mexico | — | 57.5 |
| Texas | — | 55.7 |
| Lowest | ||
| New Hampshire | — | 0 |
| Alaska | — | 0.0508 |
| Massachusetts | — | 0.0746 |
| Maine | — | 0.302 |
| Rhode Island | — | 0.884 |
Metro areas
By adult income rank of children raised poor here
| Adult income rank of children raised poor here | Area in drought | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Dickinson, ND | 0.625 | 30.6 |
| Carroll, IA | 0.59 | 96.5 |
| Williston, ND | 0.586 | 31.4 |
| Le Mars, IA | 0.551 | 79.5 |
| Heber, UT | 0.543 | 25.1 |
| Lowest | ||
| Laurinburg, NC | 0.311 | 15.9 |
| Greenville, MS | 0.319 | 26.7 |
| Lumberton, NC | 0.321 | 14.8 |
| Henderson, NC | 0.324 | 9.94 |
| Clarksdale, MS | 0.325 | 32.4 |
By area in drought
| Adult income rank of children raised poor here | Area in drought | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Columbus, NE | 0.508 | 100 |
| Fredericksburg, TX | 0.464 | 100 |
| Fremont, NE | 0.482 | 100 |
| Great Bend, KS | 0.464 | 100 |
| Hays, KS | 0.528 | 100 |
| Lowest | ||
| Worcester, MA | 0.441 | 0 |
| Watertown-Fort Drum, NY | 0.415 | 0 |
| Utica-Rome, NY | 0.429 | 0 |
| Trenton-Princeton, NJ | 0.386 | 0 |
| Torrington, CT | 0.438 | 0 |
Counties furthest from the pattern
Compared with the straight line that best fits all 3,138 counties: the five with far more area in drought than their adult income rank of children raised poor here would suggest, and the five with far less.
| Adult income rank of children raised poor here | Area in drought | |
|---|---|---|
| Above the line | ||
| Douglas County, NE | 0.399 | 100 |
| Bexar County, TX | 0.398 | 99.4 |
| Jefferson County, OR | 0.391 | 98.3 |
| Burnet County, TX | 0.409 | 100 |
| Bandera County, TX | 0.411 | 100 |
| Below the line | ||
| Oliver County, ND | 0.637 | 0 |
| Harding County, SD | 0.688 | 9.27 |
| Grant County, ND | 0.667 | 8.69 |
| Edmunds County, SD | 0.631 | 5.81 |
| Crook County, WY | 0.605 | 2.39 |
Two series, one county
Both measures over time for a county you pick. The two charts are stacked, so they share only the years along the bottom. You can pick from the thirty largest counties reporting both. This panel covers 2010–2024, and a measure published only once shows as a single dot.
Loading…
Every version of the link
Each row measures the same link, from −1 to +1, in a different way. If the rows mostly agree, the link does not depend on one choice of method.
| Before adjusting for anything | +0.405 | 3,119 counties reporting both |
| After adjusting for density, income and education | +0.320 | the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is |
| Also adjusting for population size | +0.321 | size taken out as well as density |
| Also comparing only within each state | +0.060 | each county is compared only with others in its own state, so this is no longer a comparison between states |
| Giving bigger counties more weight | +0.089 | the adjusted link for the average resident rather than the average county. With this weighting, the data counts for about 287 equally weighted counties |
| Middle value inside single states | +0.036 | the link worked out inside each of 40 states with at least 20 counties reporting |
| Using ranks, after adjusting | +0.267 | uses each county’s rank, not its value, so a few extreme counties cannot create the link |
How much to believe it
Could it be chance?
The p-value is the chance of seeing a link this strong if there were really none. A value of 0.05 or less means the link is unlikely to be chance. Very small values are written in short form: 3.1e-16 means 0.00000000000000031, and the bigger the number after “e-”, the smaller the value. Treating every county as a separate case gives p = 2.9e-75. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 0.000. The site tested 24,090 pairs, and testing so many turns up some flukes. The q-value allows for that too. For this pair it is 2.1e-74.
Do nearby places look alike?
Moran’s I measures how much nearby places look alike: 0 means no map pattern, and higher means neighbours are more similar. For the part of each county that the adjustment leaves unexplained, it is +0.80 (p = 0.001). That unexplained part still clusters on the map. So some regional factor shared by both measures is not accounted for.
Did they change together?
Not measurable: at least one of these is published for too few of the years a change needs (2014–2019 or 2019–2023), or for too few counties in both.
Related pairs
- Adult income rank of children raised poor here and Economic connectedness — +0.63
- Returns reporting capital gains and Adult income rank of children raised poor here — +0.55
- Lack of reliable transportation and Adult income rank of children raised poor here — -0.53
- Housing insecurity and Adult income rank of children raised poor here — -0.52
- Loneliness and Adult income rank of children raised poor here — -0.51
- Binge drinking and Adult income rank of children raised poor here — +0.51
- Returns claiming the earned income credit and Adult income rank of children raised poor here — -0.51
- Adult income rank of children raised poor here and Social connection score — +0.51
Association only. Nothing here shows that either measure changes the other. This describes counties, not the people in them. Two measures going together across places does not mean the same people have both. How the US county data works · Explore Adult income rank of children raised poor here and Area in drought