Median gross rent and Friending clustering
Across 3,050 counties, Median gross rent and Friending clustering have a link of -0.61, 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
Median gross rent
The rent paid by the middle renting household, plus any utilities the renter pays. That is why it is called 'gross' rent, not just the rent in the lease.
Census ACS 5-year · ACS table B25064_001
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 median gross rent
| Median gross rent | Friending clustering | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| San Mateo County, CA | $2,893 | 0.0887 |
| Santa Clara County, CA | $2,814 | 0.0896 |
| Marin County, CA | $2,584 | 0.0862 |
| San Francisco County, CA | $2,419 | 0.0795 |
| Orange County, CA | $2,352 | 0.0866 |
| Lowest | ||
| Cottle County, TX | $323 | 0.122 |
| Hardin County, IL | $342 | 0.166 |
| Worth County, MO | $353 | 0.153 |
| Sheridan County, ND | $373 | 0.109 |
| Schuyler County, MO | $382 | 0.146 |
By friending clustering
| Median gross rent | Friending clustering | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Kusilvak Census Area, AK | $832 | 0.261 |
| Nome Census Area, AK | $1,328 | 0.235 |
| Northwest Arctic Borough, AK | $1,336 | 0.228 |
| East Carroll Parish, LA | $767 | 0.222 |
| Bethel Census Area, AK | $1,454 | 0.221 |
| Lowest | ||
| Bronx County, NY | $1,436 | 0.0716 |
| Osceola County, FL | $1,651 | 0.0734 |
| Utah County, UT | $1,441 | 0.0758 |
| Kings County, NY | $1,784 | 0.0759 |
| Bernalillo County, NM | $1,087 | 0.0761 |
States — Friending clustering is not published for states
By median gross rent
| Median gross rent | Friending clustering | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| California | $1,956 | — |
| Hawaii | $1,938 | — |
| District of Columbia | $1,900 | — |
| Colorado | $1,693 | — |
| Massachusetts | $1,687 | — |
| Lowest | ||
| Puerto Rico | $562 | — |
| West Virginia | $850 | — |
| South Dakota | $912 | — |
| Arkansas | $914 | — |
| Mississippi | $923 | — |
Metro areas — Median gross rent is not published for metro areas
By friending clustering
| Median gross rent | Friending clustering | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Zapata, TX | — | 0.182 |
| Natchez, MS-LA | — | 0.176 |
| Greenwood, MS | — | 0.166 |
| Cleveland, MS | — | 0.165 |
| Clarksdale, MS | — | 0.163 |
| Lowest | ||
| Las Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas, NV | — | 0.0763 |
| Provo-Orem-Lehi, UT | — | 0.077 |
| El Paso, TX | — | 0.0772 |
| Colorado Springs, CO | — | 0.0784 |
| Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL | — | 0.0786 |
Cities and towns — Friending clustering is not published for cities and towns
By median gross rent
| Median gross rent | Friending clustering | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest — 61 are at $3,500 or more; five shown. | ||
| Key Biscayne village, FL | $3,500 or more | — |
| Nocatee CDP, FL | $3,500 or more | — |
| Hickam Housing CDP, HI | $3,500 or more | — |
| Inverness village, IL | $3,500 or more | — |
| Lincolnwood village, IL | $3,500 or more | — |
| Lowest | ||
| Guánica zona urbana, PR | $300 | — |
| Aguadilla zona urbana, PR | $336 | — |
| San Germán zona urbana, PR | $404 | — |
| Juana Díaz zona urbana, PR | $404 | — |
| Guayama zona urbana, PR | $404 | — |
ZIP codes — Friending clustering is not published for ZIP codes
By median gross rent
| Median gross rent | Friending clustering | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest — 68 are at $3,500 or more; five shown. | ||
| ZIP 10005 (New York city, NY) | $3,500 or more | — |
| ZIP 10007 (New York city, NY) | $3,500 or more | — |
| ZIP 10018 (New York city, NY) | $3,500 or more | — |
| ZIP 10069 (New York city, NY) | $3,500 or more | — |
| ZIP 10280 (New York city, NY) | $3,500 or more | — |
| Lowest | ||
| ZIP 00913 (San Juan zona urbana, PR) | $268 | — |
| ZIP 00653 (Guánica Municipio, PR) | $326 | — |
| ZIP 00670 (Las Marías Municipio, PR) | $355 | — |
| ZIP 00638 (Ciales Municipio, PR) | $404 | — |
| ZIP 00606 (Maricao Municipio, PR) | $405 | — |
Counties furthest from the pattern
Compared with the straight line that best fits all 3,063 counties: the five with far more friending clustering than their median gross rent would suggest, and the five with far less.
| Median gross rent | Friending clustering | |
|---|---|---|
| Above the line | ||
| Kusilvak Census Area, AK | $832 | 0.261 |
| Nome Census Area, AK | $1,328 | 0.235 |
| Northwest Arctic Borough, AK | $1,336 | 0.228 |
| Bethel Census Area, AK | $1,454 | 0.221 |
| Dillingham Census Area, AK | $1,085 | 0.214 |
| Below the line | ||
| Apache County, AZ | $647 | 0.0859 |
| McKinley County, NM | $810 | 0.0823 |
| Hidalgo County, TX | $925 | 0.0807 |
| El Paso County, TX | $1,045 | 0.077 |
| San Juan County, NM | $917 | 0.0826 |
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 | -0.607 | 3,050 counties reporting both |
| After adjusting for density, income and education | -0.184 | the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is |
| Also adjusting for population size | -0.081 | size taken out as well as density |
| Also comparing only within each state | -0.064 | 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 | -0.389 | the adjusted link for the average resident rather than the average county. With this weighting, the data counts for about 286 equally weighted counties |
| Middle value inside single states | -0.682 | the link worked out inside each of 40 states with at least 20 counties reporting |
| Using ranks, after adjusting | -0.409 | 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 = 1.5e-24. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 0.009. 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 5.2e-24.
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 +0.45 (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
- Median gross rent and Median household income — +0.64
- Median gross rent and Median home value — +0.59
- Median gross rent and Share foreign-born — +0.49
- Friending clustering and Homicide rate, annual — +0.48
- Median gross rent and Share White, not Hispanic — -0.46
- Median gross rent and Social connection score — -0.45
- Share Black, not Hispanic and Friending clustering — +0.43
- Routine checkup in the past year and Friending clustering — +0.42
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 Median gross rent and Friending clustering