placestats

Infant mortality and Friending clustering

Where Infant mortality is higher, Friending clustering tends to be higher. The link is weak: +0.33 across 1,168 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 24 states, the middle value of the link is +0.47.

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

Infant mortality

Deaths of babies before their first birthday per 1,000 babies born alive.

County Health Rankings · County Health Rankings v129

Friending clustering

How often a person's friends are also friends with each other. It shows how tight-knit the local network is, which is separate from how far it reaches across income groups.

Social Capital Atlas · Opportunity Insights clustering_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 infant mortality

Infant mortalityFriending clustering
Highest
Kusilvak Census Area, AK20.20.261
Oglala Lakota County, SD16.90.126
Todd County, SD15.40.122
Big Horn County, MT15.30.166
Cheboygan County, MI14.60.126
Lowest
Marin County, CA1.570.0862
San Francisco County, CA2.650.0795
Placer County, CA2.710.0872
Rockingham County, NH2.740.0984
Sherburne County, MN2.760.102

By friending clustering

Infant mortalityFriending clustering
Highest
Kusilvak Census Area, AK20.20.261
Bethel Census Area, AK8.620.221
Yazoo County, MS11.40.183
Phillips County, AR11.40.177
Adams County, MS100.175
Lowest
Bronx County, NY4.890.0716
Osceola County, FL4.570.0734
Utah County, UT5.110.0758
Kings County, NY3.480.0759
Bernalillo County, NM5.710.0761
States — Friending clustering is not published for states

By infant mortality

Infant mortalityFriending clustering
Highest
Mississippi8.7—
Arkansas7.78—
Louisiana7.53—
Alabama7.49—
West Virginia7.09—
Lowest
Massachusetts3.72—
New Hampshire3.82—
New Jersey3.98—
Vermont4.08—
California4.12—
Metro areas

By infant mortality

Infant mortalityFriending clustering
Highest
Forrest City, AR13.30.152
Greenville, MS13.10.157
Minden, LA12.90.137
Natchitoches, LA12.20.14
Kinston, NC120.122
Lowest
Santa Fe, NM2.80.085
Rexburg, ID2.960.0965
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA3.010.0898
Bend, OR3.110.0944
Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA3.140.093

By friending clustering

Infant mortalityFriending clustering
Highest
Natchez, MS-LA100.176
Greenwood, MS10.70.166
Cleveland, MS10.40.165
Clarksdale, MS10.20.163
Greenville, MS13.10.157
Lowest
Las Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas, NV5.350.0763
Provo-Orem-Lehi, UT5.110.077
El Paso, TX4.630.0772
Colorado Springs, CO5.680.0784
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL5.70.0786

Counties furthest from the pattern

Compared with the straight line that best fits all 1,169 counties: the five with far more friending clustering than their infant mortality would suggest, and the five with far less.

Infant mortalityFriending clustering
Above the line
Bethel Census Area, AK8.620.221
Kusilvak Census Area, AK20.20.261
Yazoo County, MS11.40.183
Adams County, MS100.175
Neshoba County, MS9.230.168
Below the line
Baltimore city, MD8.920.0771
McKenzie County, ND130.0975
Banks County, GA14.50.104
Wayne County, MI9.650.0835
St. Louis city, MO8.950.0811

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+0.5471,168 counties reporting both
After adjusting for density, income and education+0.326the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is
Also adjusting for population size+0.248size taken out as well as density
Also comparing only within each state+0.256each county is compared only with others in its own state, so this is no longer a comparison between states
Giving bigger counties more weight+0.229the adjusted link for the average resident rather than the average county. With this weighting, the data counts for about 227 equally weighted counties
Middle value inside single states+0.470the link worked out inside each of 24 states with at least 20 counties reporting
Using ranks, after adjusting+0.158uses 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 = 2.6e-30. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 2.9e-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 1.0e-29.

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 +0.42 (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

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 Infant mortality and Friending clustering