Diagnosed diabetes and Black-white residential segregation
Where Diagnosed diabetes is higher, Black-white residential segregation tends to be lower. The link is moderate: -0.41 across 1,924 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 29 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
Diagnosed diabetes
The estimated percentage of adults who have been told they have diabetes, excluding during pregnancy. 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 DIABETES, age-adjusted
Black-white residential segregation
How unevenly Black and white residents are spread across the county's neighborhoods, from 0 (evenly mixed) to 100 (completely separate). It is the share of either group who would have to move for the two groups to be spread the same way. It is only calculated where both groups live in large enough numbers.
County Health Rankings · County Health Rankings v141
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 diagnosed diabetes
| Diagnosed diabetes | Black-white residential segregation | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| East Carroll Parish, LA | 21.3% | 59.5 |
| Bullock County, AL | 21.3% | 34.3 |
| Greene County, AL | 21.1% | 27.1 |
| Holmes County, MS | 21% | 22.1 |
| Humphreys County, MS | 20.6% | 24.2 |
| Lowest | ||
| Douglas County, CO | 6% | 52.2 |
| Chittenden County, VT | 6.2% | 46.6 |
| Broomfield County, CO | 6.5% | 54.2 |
| Addison County, VT | 6.5% | 39.7 |
| Ouray County, CO | 6.6% | 26.2 |
By black-white residential segregation
| Diagnosed diabetes | Black-white residential segregation | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Starr County, TX | 20.5% | 92.4 |
| Manistee County, MI | 9.9% | 90.2 |
| Umatilla County, OR | 11.4% | 89.6 |
| Cass County, IN | 12.7% | 88.9 |
| Livingston County, MO | 10.5% | 88.5 |
| Lowest | ||
| St. Helena Parish, LA | 16.2% | 1.44 |
| Surry County, VA | 12.4% | 1.93 |
| Clinch County, GA | 14.8% | 2 |
| Jenkins County, GA | 16.3% | 2.27 |
| Stewart County, GA | 18.4% | 3.4 |
States — Diagnosed diabetes is not published for states
By black-white residential segregation
| Diagnosed diabetes | Black-white residential segregation | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Montana | — | 80.4 |
| Idaho | — | 77 |
| Wisconsin | — | 76.7 |
| New York | — | 75.1 |
| Maine | — | 74.9 |
| Lowest | ||
| Delaware | — | 44.8 |
| South Carolina | — | 48.2 |
| Nevada | — | 50.7 |
| Mississippi | — | 51.1 |
| Virginia | — | 51.2 |
Metro areas — Black-white residential segregation is not published for metro areas
By diagnosed diabetes
| Diagnosed diabetes | Black-white residential segregation | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Rio Grande City-Roma, TX | 20.5% | — |
| Zapata, TX | 20.1% | — |
| Clarksdale, MS | 19.5% | — |
| Raymondville, TX | 19% | — |
| Eagle Pass, TX | 18.1% | — |
| Lowest | ||
| Burlington-South Burlington, VT | 6.59% | — |
| Los Alamos, NM | 6.7% | — |
| Boulder, CO | 6.7% | — |
| Fort Collins-Loveland, CO | 6.9% | — |
| Barre, VT | 7.1% | — |
Cities and towns — Black-white residential segregation is not published for cities and towns
By diagnosed diabetes
| Diagnosed diabetes | Black-white residential segregation | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Cameron Park CDP, TX | 23.8% | — |
| Doffing CDP, TX | 23.6% | — |
| Mila Doce CDP, TX | 22.9% | — |
| Prichard city, AL | 22.7% | — |
| Benton Harbor city, MI | 22.6% | — |
| Lowest | ||
| Shelburne CDP, VT | 5.2% | — |
| Old Greenwich CDP, CT | 5.4% | — |
| Cherry Hills Village city, CO | 5.4% | — |
| Shorewood city, MN | 5.4% | — |
| Staples CDP, CT | 5.5% | — |
Counties furthest from the pattern
Compared with the straight line that best fits all 1,926 counties: the five with far more black-white residential segregation than their diagnosed diabetes would suggest, and the five with far less.
| Diagnosed diabetes | Black-white residential segregation | |
|---|---|---|
| Above the line | ||
| Starr County, TX | 20.5% | 92.4 |
| Cameron County, TX | 17.5% | 85 |
| Hidalgo County, TX | 17.7% | 79.9 |
| Deaf Smith County, TX | 16% | 82.2 |
| Cass County, IN | 12.7% | 88.9 |
| Below the line | ||
| Pawnee County, KS | 10% | 4.44 |
| Camden County, NC | 8.8% | 8.9 |
| Clarke County, VA | 9.1% | 8.58 |
| Surry County, VA | 12.4% | 1.93 |
| Rappahannock County, VA | 10.1% | 8.37 |
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 | -0.383 | 1,924 counties reporting both |
| After adjusting for density, income and education | -0.406 | the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is |
| Also adjusting for population size | -0.386 | size taken out as well as density |
| Also comparing only within each state | -0.202 | 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 | -0.252 | the adjusted link for the average resident rather than the average county. With this weighting, the data counts for about 242 equally weighted counties |
| Middle value inside single states | -0.040 | the link worked out inside each of 29 states with at least 20 counties reporting |
| Using ranks, after adjusting | -0.387 | 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 = 3.9e-77. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 1.7e-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 2.7e-76.
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 +0.28 (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?
The figures above compare counties at one moment. This asks a different question: where diagnosed diabetes rose most, did black-white residential segregationmove too? Each county’s change is compared with the average change in its own state. That takes out ups and downs that hit a whole region at once. Each change is the gap between two estimates that both contain some error. That error pulls these links towards zero, so a weak one is weak partly for that reason. The q column shows whether a link could be a fluke, allowing for the many pairs tested: 0.05 or less means it is unlikely to be chance.
| Period | Counties | Change together | Within states | q |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014–2019 the main test: each Census survey figure averages five years, and these two do not overlap; before the pandemic | — | — | — | — |
| 2019–2023 a repeat check: its two five-year survey figures both include 2019, and it covers the COVID years | 1,791 | -0.07 | -0.02 | 0.653 |
Not measurable over the main period, so only the second period is shown. How change is measured.
Related pairs
- Diagnosed diabetes and Material security score — -0.79
- Diagnosed diabetes and Returns claiming the earned income credit — +0.78
- Diagnosed diabetes and Children in single-parent households — +0.65
- Diagnosed diabetes and Homicide rate, annual — +0.62
- Diagnosed diabetes and Homicide rate — +0.62
- Diagnosed diabetes and Average test score — -0.57
- Diagnosed diabetes and Social connection score — -0.55
- Diagnosed diabetes and Economic connectedness — -0.54
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 Diagnosed diabetes and Black-white residential segregation