Share White, not Hispanic and Black-white residential segregation
Where Share White, not Hispanic is higher, Black-white residential segregation tends to be higher. The link is weak: +0.31 across 2,062 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 31 states, the middle value of the link is +0.15.
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
Share White, not Hispanic
The percentage of residents who are White alone and not Hispanic or Latino. It comes from a table that sorts people by both race and Hispanic origin, so nobody is counted twice. The eight race and ethnicity shares here add up to exactly 100% in every county.
Census ACS 5-year · ACS table B03002_003, divided by total population
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 White, not Hispanic
| Share White, not Hispanic | Black-white residential segregation | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Wyoming County, WV | 96.8% | 69.9 |
| Russell County, VA | 96.8% | 59 |
| Letcher County, KY | 96.8% | 56.6 |
| Grant County, WV | 96.1% | 31.3 |
| Jefferson County, PA | 96.1% | 72.8 |
| Lowest | ||
| Starr County, TX | 2.15% | 92.4 |
| Webb County, TX | 3.57% | 71.7 |
| Hidalgo County, TX | 6.08% | 79.9 |
| McKinley County, NM | 8.01% | 62.2 |
| Clayton County, GA | 8.23% | 34.3 |
By black-white residential segregation
| Share White, not Hispanic | Black-white residential segregation | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Starr County, TX | 2.15% | 92.4 |
| Manistee County, MI | 87.7% | 90.2 |
| Umatilla County, OR | 62% | 89.6 |
| Pike County, KY | 94.7% | 89.3 |
| Cass County, IN | 74.7% | 88.9 |
| Lowest | ||
| St. Helena Parish, LA | 44.4% | 1.44 |
| Surry County, VA | 54.4% | 1.93 |
| Clinch County, GA | 64.1% | 2 |
| Jenkins County, GA | 56.7% | 2.27 |
| Fulton County, KY | 69.3% | 2.4 |
States
By share White, not Hispanic
| Share White, not Hispanic | Black-white residential segregation | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Maine | 90.6% | 74.9 |
| Vermont | 90.6% | 62 |
| West Virginia | 90.2% | 61.3 |
| New Hampshire | 87.5% | 69.9 |
| Montana | 84.1% | 80.4 |
| Lowest | ||
| Hawaii | 21.1% | 61.6 |
| California | 34.6% | 59.2 |
| New Mexico | 36.5% | 55.4 |
| District of Columbia | 36.6% | 66.6 |
| Texas | 39.9% | 55.2 |
By black-white residential segregation
| Share White, not Hispanic | Black-white residential segregation | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Montana | 84.1% | 80.4 |
| Idaho | 79.3% | 77 |
| Wisconsin | 79.2% | 76.7 |
| New York | 53.4% | 75.1 |
| Maine | 90.6% | 74.9 |
| Lowest | ||
| Delaware | 59% | 44.8 |
| South Carolina | 62.2% | 48.2 |
| Nevada | 46% | 50.7 |
| Mississippi | 55.4% | 51.1 |
| Virginia | 59% | 51.2 |
Metro areas — Black-white residential segregation is not published for metro areas
By share White, not Hispanic
| Share White, not Hispanic | Black-white residential segregation | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Pikeville, KY | 95.3% | — |
| Greenville, OH | 95.1% | — |
| Effingham, IL | 94.9% | — |
| Warren, PA | 94.9% | — |
| Wapakoneta, OH | 94.8% | — |
| Lowest | ||
| Guayama, PR | 0% | — |
| Ponce, PR | 0.421% | — |
| Arecibo, PR | 0.427% | — |
| San Juan-Bayamón-Caguas, PR | 1.14% | — |
| Utuado, PR | 1.27% | — |
Cities and towns — Black-white residential segregation is not published for cities and towns
By share White, not Hispanic
| Share White, not Hispanic | Black-white residential segregation | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Treasure Lake CDP, PA | 99.2% | — |
| Litchfield city, IL | 98.8% | — |
| Cicero town, IN | 98.2% | — |
| East Harwich CDP, MA | 98.1% | — |
| Wellston city, OH | 98.1% | — |
| Lowest | ||
| Mecca CDP, CA | 0% | — |
| Earlimart CDP, CA | 0% | — |
| Yabucoa zona urbana, PR | 0% | — |
| San Lorenzo zona urbana, PR | 0% | — |
| San Isidro comunidad, PR | 0% | — |
ZIP codes — Black-white residential segregation is not published for ZIP codes
By share White, not Hispanic
| Share White, not Hispanic | Black-white residential segregation | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| ZIP 62056 (Montgomery County, IL) | 99% | — |
| ZIP 47558 (Daviess County, IN) | 98.9% | — |
| ZIP 47452 (Orange County, IN) | 98.7% | — |
| ZIP 44627 (Holmes County, OH) | 98.6% | — |
| ZIP 24609 (Tazewell County, VA) | 98.5% | — |
| Lowest | ||
| ZIP 00952 (Sabana Seca comunidad, PR) | 0% | — |
| ZIP 00782 (Comerío Municipio, PR) | 0% | — |
| ZIP 00780 (Ponce Municipio, PR) | 0% | — |
| ZIP 00731 (Ponce Municipio, PR) | 0% | — |
| ZIP 00723 (Patillas Municipio, PR) | 0% | — |
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 White, not Hispanic would suggest, and the five with far less.
| Share White, not Hispanic | Black-white residential segregation | |
|---|---|---|
| Above the line | ||
| Starr County, TX | 2.15% | 92.4 |
| Cameron County, TX | 8.82% | 85 |
| Hidalgo County, TX | 6.08% | 79.9 |
| Cibola County, NM | 19.7% | 83 |
| Deaf Smith County, TX | 21.8% | 82.2 |
| Below the line | ||
| Pawnee County, KS | 81.7% | 4.44 |
| West Carroll Parish, LA | 79.7% | 4.85 |
| Fulton County, KY | 69.3% | 2.4 |
| Clinch County, GA | 64.1% | 2 |
| Rappahannock County, VA | 85.7% | 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 | +0.302 | 2,062 counties reporting both |
| After adjusting for density, income and education | +0.306 | 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 | +0.209 | 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 | +0.145 | 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 | +0.155 | the link worked out inside each of 31 states with at least 20 counties reporting |
| Using ranks, after adjusting | +0.364 | 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 = 6.3e-46. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 3.0e-5. 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 3.3e-45.
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 +0.34 (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 white, not hispanic 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 | +0.05 | +0.05 | 0.282 |
| 2019–2023 a repeat check: its two five-year survey figures both include 2019, and it covers the COVID years | 1,941 | +0.01 | +0.00 | 0.908 |
Over the main period, any link between the changes could easily be chance. How change is measured.
Related pairs
- Share White, not Hispanic and Returns claiming the earned income credit — -0.73
- Share White, not Hispanic and Material security score — +0.68
- Share White, not Hispanic and Average test score — +0.66
- Share White, not Hispanic and Children in single-parent households — -0.65
- Share White, not Hispanic and Economic connectedness — +0.62
- Share White, not Hispanic and Republican share of the two-party vote, 2016 — +0.61
- Share never married and Share White, not Hispanic — -0.59
- Share White, not Hispanic and Republican share of the two-party vote, 2020 — +0.59
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 White, not Hispanic and Black-white residential segregation