placestats

Returns claiming charitable contributions and Child poverty rate, ages 0-17

Where Returns claiming charitable contributions is higher, Child poverty rate, ages 0-17 tends to be higher. The link is weak: +0.37 across 3,121 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 -0.63.

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

Returns claiming charitable contributions

The percentage of tax returns claiming a deduction for gifts to charity. Only people who itemize their deductions can claim it, and the 2017 tax law cut their number roughly in half. So this tracks who finds itemizing worth it as much as who gives.

IRS Statistics of Income · IRS SOI N19700 / N1

Child poverty rate, ages 0-17

The percentage of children under 18 in poverty. It is an estimate from a statistical model, combining survey answers with tax and food-assistance records.

Census SAIPE · Census SAIPE SAEPOVRT0_17_PT

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 returns claiming charitable contributions

Returns claiming charitable contributionsChild poverty rate, ages 0-17
Highest
Charles County, MD23.8%9%
Marin County, CA22.5%8.1%
Prince George's County, MD21.7%13.9%
Falls Church city, VA21%4%
Morgan County, UT20.9%4.4%
Lowest
San Juan County, CO0%20%
Mineral County, CO0%17.1%
Kiowa County, CO0%18.2%
Jackson County, CO0%15.7%
Hinsdale County, CO0%17.3%

By child poverty rate, ages 0-17

Returns claiming charitable contributionsChild poverty rate, ages 0-17
Highest
Issaquena County, MS0%63.2%
Ziebach County, SD0%55.7%
Clay County, KY0.976%53.6%
Martin County, KY0.68%53.2%
East Carroll Parish, LA4.04%52.8%
Lowest
Douglas County, CO15.2%3.1%
Los Alamos County, NM9.51%3.4%
Ozaukee County, WI9.21%3.7%
Lincoln County, SD6.67%3.8%
Carver County, MN10.9%3.8%
States

By returns claiming charitable contributions

Returns claiming charitable contributionsChild poverty rate, ages 0-17
Highest
District of Columbia15.7%20.7%
Maryland15.6%11.3%
California11.8%15%
Utah11.2%9.2%
Virginia10.4%12.7%
Lowest
West Virginia2.33%19.6%
North Dakota3.29%10.1%
South Dakota3.47%13.5%
Alaska3.76%12.5%
Vermont3.86%10.2%

By child poverty rate, ages 0-17

Returns claiming charitable contributionsChild poverty rate, ages 0-17
Highest
Louisiana4.77%25.2%
Mississippi5.44%24.3%
New Mexico4.21%22.6%
Alabama6.43%21.3%
District of Columbia15.7%20.7%
Lowest
New Hampshire5.39%8.2%
Utah11.2%9.2%
North Dakota3.29%10.1%
Vermont3.86%10.2%
Minnesota6.44%10.2%
Metro areas

By returns claiming charitable contributions

Returns claiming charitable contributionsChild poverty rate, ages 0-17
Highest
Heber, UT17.8%5.27%
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV16.9%9.99%
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA15.4%9.25%
Lexington Park, MD15.2%8.63%
Provo-Orem-Lehi, UT14.9%7.55%
Lowest
Zapata, TX0.551%43.9%
Deming, NM0.978%37.6%
St. Marys, PA1.1%13.8%
Newport, TN1.15%28.7%
Warren, PA1.17%17.1%

By child poverty rate, ages 0-17

Returns claiming charitable contributionsChild poverty rate, ages 0-17
Highest
Greenville, MS5.54%46.9%
Selma, AL4.13%46.5%
Forrest City, AR3.54%45.6%
Cleveland, MS5.11%45.4%
Zapata, TX0.551%43.9%
Lowest
Los Alamos, NM9.51%3.4%
Heber, UT17.8%5.27%
Bozeman, MT8.36%5.8%
Appleton, WI3.48%6.14%
Nantucket, MA11.4%6.6%

Counties furthest from the pattern

Compared with the straight line that best fits all 3,142 counties: the five with far more child poverty rate, ages 0-17 than their returns claiming charitable contributions would suggest, and the five with far less.

Returns claiming charitable contributionsChild poverty rate, ages 0-17
Above the line
Issaquena County, MS0%63.2%
East Carroll Parish, LA4.04%52.8%
Sharkey County, MS4.7%51.5%
Ziebach County, SD0%55.7%
Clay County, KY0.976%53.6%
Below the line
Aleutians West Census Area, AK1.55%4.8%
Sully County, SD0%7.4%
Putnam County, OH1.9%6%
Daggett County, UT0%8.1%
Renville County, ND0%8.2%

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-0.3413,121 counties reporting both
After adjusting for density, income and education+0.369the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is
Also adjusting for population size+0.371size taken out as well as density
Also comparing only within each state+0.178each county is compared only with others in its own state, so this is no longer a comparison between states
Giving bigger counties more weight+0.268the 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-0.627the link worked out inside each of 40 states with at least 20 counties reporting
Using ranks, after adjusting+0.187uses 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 = 4.0e-101. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 4.2e-11. 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-100.

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 +0.38 (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 returns claiming charitable contributions rose most, did child poverty rate, ages 0-17move 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.

PeriodCountiesChange togetherWithin statesq
2014–2019 the main test: each Census survey figure averages five years, and these two do not overlap; before the pandemic3,143+0.04-0.040.259
2019–2023 a repeat check: its two five-year survey figures both include 2019, and it covers the COVID years3,142-0.11-0.101.1e-5

Over the main period, any link between the changes could easily be chance. How change is measured.

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 Returns claiming charitable contributions and Child poverty rate, ages 0-17