Share Black, not Hispanic and Economic connectedness
Where Share Black, not Hispanic is higher, Economic connectedness tends to be lower. The link is moderate: -0.48 across 2,285 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 35 states, the middle value of the link is -0.30.
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 Black, not Hispanic
The percentage of residents who are Black or African American alone and not Hispanic. The middle county is under 2%, and this group is one of the most concentrated in the data. A handful of counties in the Mississippi Delta and the Black Belt are above 80%.
Census ACS 5-year · ACS table B03002_004, divided by total population
Economic connectedness
How many of a low-income person's friends are high-income, compared with an even mix. One means their friends match the local mix of rich and poor. Below one means their friendships are more divided by income than that.
Social Capital Atlas · Opportunity Insights ec_county
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 Black, not Hispanic
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Economic connectedness | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Claiborne County, MS | 86.1% | 0.432 |
| Holmes County, MS | 82.4% | 0.46 |
| Greene County, AL | 81.5% | 0.458 |
| Tunica County, MS | 79.3% | 0.436 |
| Humphreys County, MS | 78.8% | 0.43 |
| Lowest | ||
| Phillips County, CO | 0% | 0.841 |
| Huerfano County, CO | 0% | 0.788 |
| Dolores County, CO | 0% | 0.942 |
| Custer County, CO | 0% | 1.03 |
| Hot Springs County, WY | 0% | 1.01 |
By economic connectedness
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Economic connectedness | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Rockingham County, NH | 0.767% | 1.36 |
| Douglas County, CO | 1.3% | 1.35 |
| San Francisco County, CA | 4.81% | 1.31 |
| Madison County, ID | 0.918% | 1.28 |
| Arlington County, VA | 9.21% | 1.27 |
| Lowest | ||
| Terrell County, GA | 59.6% | 0.347 |
| Bullock County, AL | 71.2% | 0.355 |
| Allendale County, SC | 64% | 0.361 |
| Robeson County, NC | 23.2% | 0.363 |
| Early County, GA | 51.6% | 0.38 |
States — Economic connectedness is not published for states
By share Black, not Hispanic
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Economic connectedness | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| District of Columbia | 42.5% | — |
| Mississippi | 36.9% | — |
| Georgia | 31% | — |
| Louisiana | 30.8% | — |
| Maryland | 29.2% | — |
| Lowest | ||
| Puerto Rico | 0.12% | — |
| Montana | 0.474% | — |
| Idaho | 0.686% | — |
| Wyoming | 0.815% | — |
| Utah | 1.04% | — |
Metro areas
By share Black, not Hispanic
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Economic connectedness | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Clarksdale, MS | 75.9% | 0.434 |
| Greenville, MS | 72% | 0.463 |
| Selma, AL | 70.3% | 0.455 |
| Greenwood, MS | 63.9% | 0.513 |
| Cleveland, MS | 63.2% | 0.555 |
| Lowest | ||
| Pierre, SD | 0% | 0.953 |
| Mitchell, SD | 0% | 1.01 |
| Jackson, WY-ID | 0% | 1.05 |
| Hailey, ID | 0% | 0.836 |
| Gardnerville Ranchos, NV-CA | 0% | 0.961 |
By economic connectedness
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Economic connectedness | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Provo-Orem-Lehi, UT | 0.599% | 1.22 |
| Alexandria, MN | 0.47% | 1.18 |
| Laramie, WY | 1.04% | 1.17 |
| Hutchinson, MN | 0.47% | 1.16 |
| Ames, IA | 2.35% | 1.15 |
| Lowest | ||
| Lumberton, NC | 23.2% | 0.363 |
| Cordele, GA | 45% | 0.388 |
| Laurinburg, NC | 37.7% | 0.396 |
| Eufaula, AL-GA | 47.1% | 0.414 |
| Gallup, NM | 0.44% | 0.416 |
Cities and towns — Economic connectedness is not published for cities and towns
By share Black, not Hispanic
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Economic connectedness | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Merrydale CDP, LA | 97.3% | — |
| East St. Louis city, IL | 94% | — |
| Warrensville Heights city, OH | 92.4% | — |
| Panthersville CDP, GA | 92.1% | — |
| Silver Hill CDP, MD | 91.6% | — |
| Lowest | ||
| Salida city, CO | 0% | — |
| Roxborough Park CDP, CO | 0% | — |
| Redlands CDP, CO | 0% | — |
| Milliken town, CO | 0% | — |
| Mead town, CO | 0% | — |
ZIP codes — Economic connectedness is not published for ZIP codes
By share Black, not Hispanic
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Economic connectedness | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| ZIP 36610 (Prichard city, AL) | 97.2% | — |
| ZIP 62207 (Centreville city, IL) | 97% | — |
| ZIP 70812 (Merrydale CDP, LA) | 97% | — |
| ZIP 36617 (Mobile city, AL) | 96.6% | — |
| ZIP 62205 (East St. Louis city, IL) | 96.5% | — |
| Lowest | ||
| ZIP 08867 (Hunterdon County, NJ) | 0% | — |
| ZIP 08551 (Hunterdon County, NJ) | 0% | — |
| ZIP 08251 (Villas CDP, NJ) | 0% | — |
| ZIP 07739 (Little Silver borough, NJ) | 0% | — |
| ZIP 07072 (Carlstadt borough, NJ) | 0% | — |
Counties furthest from the pattern
Compared with the straight line that best fits all 2,287 counties: the five with far more economic connectedness than their share Black, not Hispanic would suggest, and the five with far less.
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Economic connectedness | |
|---|---|---|
| Above the line | ||
| Rockingham County, NH | 0.767% | 1.36 |
| Douglas County, CO | 1.3% | 1.35 |
| Charles County, MD | 48.5% | 1.03 |
| San Francisco County, CA | 4.81% | 1.31 |
| Arlington County, VA | 9.21% | 1.27 |
| Below the line | ||
| McKinley County, NM | 0.44% | 0.416 |
| Rio Arriba County, NM | 0.657% | 0.447 |
| Willacy County, TX | 1.45% | 0.448 |
| Luna County, NM | 1.51% | 0.465 |
| Big Horn County, MT | 0% | 0.484 |
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 | -0.569 | 2,285 counties reporting both |
| After adjusting for density, income and education | -0.481 | the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is |
| Also adjusting for population size | -0.507 | size taken out as well as density |
| Also comparing only within each state | -0.333 | 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 | -0.318 | the adjusted link for the average resident rather than the average county. With this weighting, the data counts for about 271 equally weighted counties |
| Middle value inside single states | -0.299 | the link worked out inside each of 35 states with at least 20 counties reporting |
| Using ranks, after adjusting | -0.435 | 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 = 1.2e-132. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 6.9e-10. 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-131.
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 +0.49 (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
- Share Black, not Hispanic and Homicide rate — +0.74
- Share Black, not Hispanic and Children in single-parent households — +0.73
- Share Black, not Hispanic and Homicide rate, annual — +0.69
- Share Black, not Hispanic and Black Protestant adherents — +0.68
- Share Black, not Hispanic and Returns claiming the earned income credit — +0.68
- Housing insecurity and Economic connectedness — -0.65
- Food insecurity and Economic connectedness — -0.64
- Returns claiming the earned income credit and Economic connectedness — -0.64
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 Black, not Hispanic and Economic connectedness