Share now married and Black-white residential segregation
Counting counties equally, Share now married and Black-white residential segregation have a link of +0.14 across 2,062 counties, on a scale from −1 to +1. Giving bigger places more weight asks about the average resident rather than the average place, and it flips the link to -0.08. Neither figure is likely to be chance. So this is a real disagreement about who is being described.
Flips when bigger places count more
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
Share now married
The percentage of people aged 15 and over who are married now, including those whose spouse lives elsewhere. The middle county is 52.4%. Never married, married, widowed and divorced cover everyone 15 and over and add up to exactly 100%.
Census ACS 5-year · ACS table B12001_004…B12001_013 (2 cells), divided by population aged 15 and over
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 share now married
| Share now married | Black-white residential segregation | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Park County, CO | 68% | 50.7 |
| Ouray County, CO | 68% | 26.2 |
| Oconee County, GA | 66% | 56.9 |
| Elbert County, CO | 65.9% | 75.9 |
| Camden County, NC | 65.2% | 8.9 |
| Lowest | ||
| Radford city, VA | 25.9% | 30.5 |
| Lexington city, VA | 27.4% | 8.1 |
| Petersburg city, VA | 29.2% | 29.4 |
| Williamsburg city, VA | 29.8% | 29.3 |
| Sunflower County, MS | 30% | 36 |
By black-white residential segregation
| Share now married | Black-white residential segregation | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Starr County, TX | 50.1% | 92.4 |
| Manistee County, MI | 51.9% | 90.2 |
| Umatilla County, OR | 48% | 89.6 |
| Pike County, KY | 54.5% | 89.3 |
| Cass County, IN | 50% | 88.9 |
| Lowest | ||
| St. Helena Parish, LA | 39.1% | 1.44 |
| Surry County, VA | 57.7% | 1.93 |
| Clinch County, GA | 57.3% | 2 |
| Jenkins County, GA | 47.2% | 2.27 |
| Fulton County, KY | 41.3% | 2.4 |
States
By share now married
| Share now married | Black-white residential segregation | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Utah | 56.3% | 70.4 |
| Idaho | 55.1% | 77 |
| Wyoming | 54.5% | 70.5 |
| Nebraska | 52.8% | 64.5 |
| Kansas | 52.5% | 58.7 |
| Lowest | ||
| District of Columbia | 32.9% | 66.6 |
| New Mexico | 44.4% | 55.4 |
| Louisiana | 45.7% | 55.9 |
| Rhode Island | 46% | 62.1 |
| New York | 46.8% | 75.1 |
By black-white residential segregation
| Share now married | Black-white residential segregation | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Montana | 52.1% | 80.4 |
| Idaho | 55.1% | 77 |
| Wisconsin | 50.5% | 76.7 |
| New York | 46.8% | 75.1 |
| Maine | 51.5% | 74.9 |
| Lowest | ||
| Delaware | 49.6% | 44.8 |
| South Carolina | 50.6% | 48.2 |
| Nevada | 47.2% | 50.7 |
| Mississippi | 47.1% | 51.1 |
| Virginia | 51.5% | 51.2 |
Metro areas — Black-white residential segregation is not published for metro areas
By share now married
| Share now married | Black-white residential segregation | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Wildwood-The Villages, FL | 63.4% | — |
| Granbury, TX | 62.9% | — |
| Andrews, TX | 62.3% | — |
| Crossville, TN | 62.3% | — |
| Port Lavaca, TX | 62% | — |
| Lowest | ||
| Gallup, NM | 31.9% | — |
| Clarksdale, MS | 32.8% | — |
| Vermillion, SD | 34.3% | — |
| Guayama, PR | 35.2% | — |
| Ponce, PR | 35.5% | — |
Cities and towns — Black-white residential segregation is not published for cities and towns
By share now married
| Share now married | Black-white residential segregation | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| St. James town, NC | 87.7% | — |
| Camp Pendleton South CDP, CA | 87.6% | — |
| The Village of Indian Hill city, OH | 80.4% | — |
| Tellico Village CDP, TN | 79.9% | — |
| Saddlebrooke CDP, AZ | 79.3% | — |
| Lowest | ||
| Stony Brook University CDP, NY | 2.07% | — |
| Rutgers University-Busch Campus CDP, NJ | 3.78% | — |
| Isla Vista CDP, CA | 4.48% | — |
| Cullowhee CDP, NC | 5.67% | — |
| University of California-Davis CDP, CA | 5.71% | — |
ZIP codes — Black-white residential segregation is not published for ZIP codes
By share now married
| Share now married | Black-white residential segregation | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| ZIP 13603 (Fort Drum CDP, NY) | 86.9% | — |
| ZIP 80902 (El Paso County, CO) | 85.3% | — |
| ZIP 78619 (Hays County, TX) | 82.9% | — |
| ZIP 31315 (Fort Stewart CDP, GA) | 82.3% | — |
| ZIP 84310 (Weber County, UT) | 78.2% | — |
| Lowest | ||
| ZIP 38677 (University CDP, MS) | 0% | — |
| ZIP 32612 (Gainesville city, FL) | 0% | — |
| ZIP 19717 (Newark city, DE) | 0% | — |
| ZIP 92055 (San Diego County, CA) | 3.43% | — |
| ZIP 15282 (Pittsburgh city, PA) | 4.21% | — |
Counties furthest from the pattern
Compared with the straight line that best fits all 2,064 counties: the five with far more black-white residential segregation than their share now married would suggest, and the five with far less.
| Share now married | Black-white residential segregation | |
|---|---|---|
| Above the line | ||
| Starr County, TX | 50.1% | 92.4 |
| Umatilla County, OR | 48% | 89.6 |
| Manistee County, MI | 51.9% | 90.2 |
| Livingston County, MO | 47.9% | 88.5 |
| Cass County, IN | 50% | 88.9 |
| Below the line | ||
| Surry County, VA | 57.7% | 1.93 |
| Clinch County, GA | 57.3% | 2 |
| Camden County, NC | 65.2% | 8.9 |
| Jenkins County, GA | 47.2% | 2.27 |
| West Carroll Parish, LA | 53% | 4.85 |
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 | +0.145 | 2,062 counties reporting both |
| After adjusting for density, income and education | +0.143 | the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is |
| Also adjusting for population size | +0.160 | size taken out as well as density |
| Also comparing only within each state | +0.201 | 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 | -0.079 | the adjusted link for the average resident rather than the average county. With this weighting, the data counts for about 263 equally weighted counties |
| Middle value inside single states | +0.093 | the link worked out inside each of 31 states with at least 20 counties reporting |
| Using ranks, after adjusting | +0.046 | 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 = 6.8e-11. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 0.001. 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 1.6e-10.
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 +0.39 (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 share now married 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 | 1,909 | +0.02 | +0.01 | 0.788 |
| 2019–2023 a repeat check: its two five-year survey figures both include 2019, and it covers the COVID years | 1,941 | +0.01 | +0.01 | 0.928 |
Over the main period, any link between the changes could easily be chance. How change is measured.
Related pairs
- Share now married and Republican share of the two-party vote, 2020 — +0.58
- Share now married and Republican share of the two-party vote, 2016 — +0.57
- Share now married and Republican share of the two-party vote, 2024 — +0.56
- Share now married and Children in single-parent households — -0.55
- Median household income and Share now married — +0.54
- Share now married and Homicide rate, annual — -0.53
- Share now married and Material security score — +0.52
- Share now married and Homicide rate — -0.52
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 Share now married and Black-white residential segregation