placestats

Lacking social and emotional support and Black Protestant adherents

A county is not a congregation. Counties where more people are counted as adherents (members of a religious group) also tend to differ on the other measure, and that is all. It does not follow that the adherents are the people with the different score. Making that leap is called the ecological fallacy: reading a pattern across places as a fact about individual people. It is as easy to fall into here as with the voting pairs. Two things about the counting matter too. Adherents are counted where their congregation meets, not where they live, so thirty very small counties exceed 100%. And a denomination that did not report is missing, not zero. That undercounts membership most where churches are least formally organised.

Where Lacking social and emotional support is higher, Black Protestant adherents tends to be higher. The link is moderate: +0.47 across 2,287 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 30 states, the middle value of the link is +0.34.

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

Lacking social and emotional support

The estimated percentage of adults who rarely or never get the social and emotional support they need. It is adjusted so places with older or younger populations can be compared fairly. It is an estimate from a statistical model, not a direct count from a local survey.

CDC PLACES · PLACES EMOTIONSPT, age-adjusted

Black Protestant adherents

Members of the historically Black Protestant churches, as a share of the population. Their central records are thinner than most, so this is the least complete of the six groups. Which of these churches reported also differs between the 2010 and 2020 studies, so part of any change between them is who reported, not real membership.

· Religion Census BPRTRATE (2010, 2020)

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 lacking social and emotional support

Lacking social and emotional supportBlack Protestant adherents
Highest
East Carroll Parish, LA37.8%1.02
Holmes County, MS37.8%16.2
Issaquena County, MS37.2%5.68
Jefferson County, MS36.4%12.5
Apache County, AZ36.3%0.24
Lowest
Wasatch County, UT16.7%0
Waukesha County, WI17.1%0
Falls Church city, VA17.1%0
Johnson County, KS17.1%0.11
Summit County, UT17.2%0

By black Protestant adherents

Lacking social and emotional supportBlack Protestant adherents
Highest
Nevada County, AR31.2%34.6
Adams County, MS33%34
Northampton County, NC28.4%29.6
Macon County, AL32%29.2
Lowndes County, MS29.7%28.8
Lowest
Tuolumne County, CA25.1%0
Trinity County, CA26%0
Tehama County, CA26.5%0
Sierra County, CA25.6%0
San Benito County, CA27.4%0
States — Lacking social and emotional support is not published for states

By black Protestant adherents

Lacking social and emotional supportBlack Protestant adherents
Highest
District of Columbia—10.4
Mississippi—8.7
Alabama—7.65
Arkansas—6.31
Tennessee—5.74
Lowest
Vermont—0
New Hampshire—0.02
North Dakota—0.05
Montana—0.06
Idaho—0.07
Metro areas

By lacking social and emotional support

Lacking social and emotional supportBlack Protestant adherents
Highest
Clarksdale, MS34.4%18.2
Forrest City, AR34.2%12.9
Greenville, MS34.1%22.1
Pine Bluff, AR33.9%21.2
Greenwood, MS33.2%16.4
Lowest
Heber, UT17%0
Jackson, WY-ID18.5%0.858
Provo-Orem-Lehi, UT18.5%0
Columbia, MO18.6%1.78
Logan, UT-ID18.6%0

By black Protestant adherents

Lacking social and emotional supportBlack Protestant adherents
Highest
Columbus, MS30.5%26
Magnolia, AR29.5%25.7
Camden, AR31.1%25.5
El Dorado, AR29.1%22.5
Greenville, MS34.1%22.1
Lowest
Worthington, MN25.6%0
Wooster, OH21.7%0
Woodward, OK25.4%0
Wisconsin Rapids-Marshfield, WI21.4%0
Winona, MN20.9%0
Cities and towns — Black Protestant adherents is not published for cities and towns

By lacking social and emotional support

Lacking social and emotional supportBlack Protestant adherents
Highest
Rosemead city, CA39.9%—
Bastrop city, LA38.2%—
East St. Louis city, IL37.8%—
Westmont CDP, CA37.6%—
Yazoo City city, MS37.5%—
Lowest
Prairie Village city, KS14.7%—
Glendale city, MO15%—
Elm Grove village, WI15.1%—
Leawood city, KS15.1%—
Midway city, UT15.3%—

Counties furthest from the pattern

Compared with the straight line that best fits all 2,299 counties: the five with far more black Protestant adherents than their lacking social and emotional support would suggest, and the five with far less.

Lacking social and emotional supportBlack Protestant adherents
Above the line
Nevada County, AR31.2%34.6
Adams County, MS33%34
Northampton County, NC28.4%29.6
Lowndes County, MS29.7%28.8
Macon County, AL32%29.2
Below the line
East Carroll Parish, LA37.8%1.02
Apache County, AZ36.3%0.24
Kusilvak Census Area, AK35.3%0
Bethel Census Area, AK36.1%0.8
Claiborne County, MS35.8%0.83

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+0.5362,287 counties reporting both
After adjusting for density, income and education+0.465the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is
Also adjusting for population size+0.484size taken out as well as density
Also comparing only within each state+0.439each county is compared only with others in its own state, so this is no longer a comparison between states
Giving bigger counties more weight+0.215the adjusted link for the average resident rather than the average county. With this weighting, the data counts for about 192 equally weighted counties
Middle value inside single states+0.338the link worked out inside each of 30 states with at least 20 counties reporting
Using ranks, after adjusting+0.408uses 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 = 8.5e-123. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 9.4e-7. The site tested 20,910 pairs, and testing so many turns up some flukes. The q-value allows for that too. For this pair it is 7.7e-122.

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 +0.36 (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

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 Lacking social and emotional support and Black Protestant adherents