Received food stamps and Economy score
Across 2,287 counties, Received food stamps and Economy score have a link of -0.68, on a scale from −1 (opposite) to +1 (in step). But compare places with the same population density, income and education, and a weak link of -0.30 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
Received food stamps
The estimated percentage of adults who received food stamps in the past year. It is adjusted so places with older or younger populations can be compared fairly. It is an estimate from a statistical model, not a direct count from a local survey.
CDC PLACES · PLACES FOODSTAMP, age-adjusted
Economy score
Four income measures from four agencies: income per person, middle household income (an estimate from a statistical model), personal income per person, and average adjusted gross income on tax returns. Read it as four ways of measuring income, not as a broad economic summary. It moves very closely with middle household income (a link of 0.91 on a scale where 1 is perfect), and the site already adjusts for that. So a link with this score and a link with income are close to the same question.
· derived from 4 measures (ACS, BEA, IRS, 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 received food stamps
| Received food stamps | Economy score | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| East Carroll Parish, LA | 46.6% | -1.03 |
| Madison Parish, LA | 43.1% | -0.769 |
| Greene County, AL | 42.2% | -0.78 |
| Bullock County, AL | 40.4% | -0.817 |
| McKinley County, NM | 39.8% | -0.745 |
| Lowest | ||
| Hamilton County, IN | 3.6% | 3.05 |
| Falls Church city, VA | 3.8% | 4.11 |
| Summit County, UT | 3.8% | 4.73 |
| Johnson County, KS | 3.8% | 2.71 |
| Morgan County, UT | 4% | 2.49 |
By economy score
| Received food stamps | Economy score | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Summit County, UT | 3.8% | 4.73 |
| Marin County, CA | 8.5% | 4.44 |
| San Mateo County, CA | 8.7% | 4.38 |
| New York County, NY | 11.9% | 4.38 |
| Santa Clara County, CA | 8.6% | 4.16 |
| Lowest | ||
| Kusilvak Census Area, AK | 38.9% | -1.28 |
| Issaquena County, MS | 24.6% | -1.08 |
| Wheeler County, GA | 23.9% | -1.07 |
| Claiborne County, MS | 29.9% | -1.07 |
| East Carroll Parish, LA | 46.6% | -1.03 |
Metro areas
By received food stamps
| Received food stamps | Economy score | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Gallup, NM | 39.8% | -2.29 |
| Selma, AL | 33.3% | -1.44 |
| Deming, NM | 32% | -2.08 |
| Lumberton, NC | 30.9% | -1.64 |
| Clarksdale, MS | 30.5% | -1.36 |
| Lowest | ||
| Heber, UT | 4.11% | 4.36 |
| Los Alamos, NM | 4.6% | 2.77 |
| Ogden, UT | 5.56% | 0.61 |
| Provo-Orem-Lehi, UT | 5.62% | 0.401 |
| Bismarck, ND | 5.65% | 1.11 |
By economy score
| Received food stamps | Economy score | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Jackson, WY-ID | 6.7% | 6.15 |
| Heber, UT | 4.11% | 4.36 |
| San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA | 8.81% | 4.15 |
| Bridgeport-Stamford-Danbury, CT | 11.4% | 3.85 |
| Hailey, ID | 7.61% | 3.65 |
| Lowest | ||
| Gallup, NM | 39.8% | -2.29 |
| Deming, NM | 32% | -2.08 |
| Forrest City, AR | 24.9% | -1.91 |
| Summerville, GA | 21% | -1.74 |
| Lumberton, NC | 30.9% | -1.64 |
Cities and towns — Economy score is not published for cities and towns
By received food stamps
| Received food stamps | Economy score | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Benton Harbor city, MI | 60.4% | — |
| Buena Vista CDP, MI | 58.1% | — |
| Muskegon Heights city, MI | 54.6% | — |
| East Bakersfield CDP, CA | 54.5% | — |
| Tallulah city, LA | 53.9% | — |
| Lowest | ||
| Leawood city, KS | 2.3% | — |
| Short Hills CDP, NJ | 2.4% | — |
| Chatham borough, NJ | 2.4% | — |
| Little Silver borough, NJ | 2.5% | — |
| Fair Haven borough, NJ | 2.6% | — |
Counties furthest from the pattern
Compared with the straight line that best fits all 2,298 counties: the five with far more economy score than their received food stamps would suggest, and the five with far less.
| Received food stamps | Economy score | |
|---|---|---|
| Above the line | ||
| New York County, NY | 11.9% | 4.38 |
| Marin County, CA | 8.5% | 4.44 |
| San Mateo County, CA | 8.7% | 4.38 |
| Summit County, UT | 3.8% | 4.73 |
| San Francisco County, CA | 9.6% | 4.1 |
| Below the line | ||
| Woodson County, KS | 8.2% | 0.00802 |
| Greene County, MS | 12.3% | -0.347 |
| Newton County, AR | 10.7% | -0.193 |
| Searcy County, AR | 15.7% | -0.622 |
| Scott County, AR | 12.3% | -0.317 |
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 | -0.678 | 2,287 counties reporting both |
| After adjusting for density, income and education | -0.296 | the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is |
| Also adjusting for population size | -0.298 | size taken out as well as density |
| Also comparing only within each state | -0.317 | 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 | -0.072 | the adjusted link for the average resident rather than the average county. With this weighting, the data counts for about 192 equally weighted counties |
| Middle value inside single states | -0.794 | the link worked out inside each of 30 states with at least 20 counties reporting |
| Using ranks, after adjusting | -0.196 | 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 = 2.5e-47. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 8.7e-6. 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 1.3e-46.
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 +0.26 (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
- Received food stamps and Material security score — -0.82
- Median household income and Economy score — +0.78
- Received food stamps and Average test score — -0.64
- Received food stamps and Returns claiming the earned income credit — +0.63
- Received food stamps and Social connection score — -0.59
- Received food stamps and Children in single-parent households — +0.59
- Received food stamps and Republican share of the two-party vote, 2020 — -0.59
- Received food stamps and Republican share of the two-party vote, 2016 — -0.58
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 Received food stamps and Economy score