Economic connectedness in high school and Material security score
Across 2,725 counties, Economic connectedness in high school and Material security score have a link of +0.65, on a scale from −1 (opposite) to +1 (in step). But compare places with the same population density, income and education, and a very weak link of +0.18 remains. Most of the first figure came from both measures following how urban, rich and educated a place is, not from a link with each other.
Mostly gone 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
Economic connectedness in high school
How many of a low-income teenager's high school friends are high-income, compared with an even mix. It is counted in the county of the school, not where the person lives as an adult, so it describes where people grew up.
Social Capital Atlas · Opportunity Insights child_ec_county
Material security score
Poverty, child poverty, income inequality, and four basic-needs measures from CDC PLACES: food, housing, utilities and transport. It is flipped so higher means less hardship, which is why it is named for security, not for what it counts.
· derived from 9 measures (ACS, BRFSS, CDC, SAIPE)
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 economic connectedness in high school
| Economic connectedness in high school | Material security score | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Calvert County, MD | 1.61 | 1.42 |
| Hunterdon County, NJ | 1.58 | 1.36 |
| Howard County, MD | 1.56 | 1.33 |
| Loudoun County, VA | 1.55 | 1.64 |
| Stafford County, VA | 1.53 | 1.36 |
| Lowest | ||
| Magoffin County, KY | 0.222 | -1.74 |
| Leslie County, KY | 0.229 | -1 |
| Breathitt County, KY | 0.249 | -1.45 |
| Knox County, KY | 0.257 | -2.64 |
| McCreary County, KY | 0.265 | -2.2 |
By material security score
| Economic connectedness in high school | Material security score | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Morgan County, UT | 1.44 | 1.83 |
| Los Alamos County, NM | 1.41 | 1.82 |
| Douglas County, CO | 1.43 | 1.69 |
| Loudoun County, VA | 1.55 | 1.64 |
| Forsyth County, GA | 1.35 | 1.56 |
| Lowest | ||
| Holmes County, MS | 0.273 | -3.64 |
| Martin County, KY | 0.297 | -3.33 |
| McKinley County, NM | 0.572 | -3.02 |
| Bolivar County, MS | 0.461 | -2.86 |
| Coahoma County, MS | 0.362 | -2.83 |
States — Economic connectedness in high school is not published for states
By material security score
| Economic connectedness in high school | Material security score | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| New Hampshire | — | 1.36 |
| Hawaii | — | 1.14 |
| Vermont | — | 1.07 |
| Minnesota | — | 0.969 |
| Utah | — | 0.93 |
| Lowest | ||
| Mississippi | — | -1.25 |
| Texas | — | -1.03 |
| Louisiana | — | -1.02 |
| Arkansas | — | -0.851 |
| Alabama | — | -0.811 |
Metro areas
By economic connectedness in high school
| Economic connectedness in high school | Material security score | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Lexington Park, MD | 1.54 | 1.33 |
| Los Alamos, NM | 1.41 | 2.07 |
| Williston, ND | 1.39 | 1.12 |
| Fairbanks-College, AK | 1.38 | 1.3 |
| Provo-Orem-Lehi, UT | 1.38 | 1.23 |
| Lowest | ||
| Deming, NM | 0.35 | -2.7 |
| Clarksdale, MS | 0.362 | -3.97 |
| Forrest City, AR | 0.409 | -3.25 |
| Beckley, WV | 0.414 | -0.821 |
| Elkins, WV | 0.441 | -0.404 |
By material security score
| Economic connectedness in high school | Material security score | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Los Alamos, NM | 1.41 | 2.07 |
| Heber, UT | 1.26 | 1.79 |
| Nantucket, MA | 1.04 | 1.7 |
| Appleton, WI | 1.05 | 1.55 |
| Manchester-Nashua, NH | 1.21 | 1.44 |
| Lowest | ||
| Gallup, NM | 0.572 | -4.3 |
| Clarksdale, MS | 0.362 | -3.97 |
| Cleveland, MS | 0.461 | -3.8 |
| Greenville, MS | 0.477 | -3.64 |
| Selma, AL | 0.564 | -3.37 |
Counties furthest from the pattern
Compared with the straight line that best fits all 2,726 counties: the five with far more material security score than their economic connectedness in high school would suggest, and the five with far less.
| Economic connectedness in high school | Material security score | |
|---|---|---|
| Above the line | ||
| Bullitt County, KY | 0.623 | 1.14 |
| Beaver County, UT | 0.832 | 1.47 |
| Spencer County, KY | 0.779 | 1.35 |
| Morgan County, WV | 0.484 | 0.645 |
| Mercer County, OH | 0.767 | 1.23 |
| Below the line | ||
| McKinley County, NM | 0.572 | -3.02 |
| Holmes County, MS | 0.273 | -3.64 |
| Bethel Census Area, AK | 1.03 | -1.97 |
| Martin County, KY | 0.297 | -3.33 |
| Bolivar County, MS | 0.461 | -2.86 |
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 | +0.648 | 2,725 counties reporting both |
| After adjusting for density, income and education | +0.180 | the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is |
| Also adjusting for population size | +0.201 | size taken out as well as density |
| Also comparing only within each state | +0.212 | 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 | +0.444 | the adjusted link for the average resident rather than the average county. With this weighting, the data counts for about 284 equally weighted counties |
| Middle value inside single states | +0.626 | the link worked out inside each of 39 states with at least 20 counties reporting |
| Using ranks, after adjusting | +0.071 | 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 = 3.5e-21. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 0.002. 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 1.1e-20.
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 +0.57 (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
- Self-care disability and Material security score — -0.88
- Stroke and Material security score — -0.86
- Vision disability and Material security score — -0.83
- Received food stamps and Material security score — -0.82
- Fair or poor self-rated health and Material security score — -0.80
- Independent-living disability and Material security score — -0.80
- Mobility disability and Material security score — -0.80
- Diagnosed diabetes and Material security score — -0.79
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 Economic connectedness in high school and Material security score