Returns claiming charitable contributions and Median household income (model-based)
Across 3,121 counties, Returns claiming charitable contributions and Median household income (model-based) have a link of +0.70, 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 +0.14 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
Returns claiming charitable contributions
The percentage of tax returns claiming a deduction for gifts to charity. Only people who itemize their deductions can claim it, and the 2017 tax law cut their number roughly in half. So this tracks who finds itemizing worth it as much as who gives.
IRS Statistics of Income · IRS SOI N19700 / N1
Median household income (model-based)
The income of the middle household. It is an estimate from a statistical model that combines survey answers with tax and government-program records.
Census SAIPE · Census SAIPE SAEMHI_PT
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 returns claiming charitable contributions
| Returns claiming charitable contributions | Median household income (model-based) | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Charles County, MD | 23.8% | $105,140 |
| Marin County, CA | 22.5% | $139,200 |
| Prince George's County, MD | 21.7% | $97,171 |
| Falls Church city, VA | 21% | $145,760 |
| Morgan County, UT | 20.9% | $122,670 |
| Lowest | ||
| San Juan County, CO | 0% | $102,690 |
| Mineral County, CO | 0% | $37,108 |
| Kiowa County, CO | 0% | $55,523 |
| Jackson County, CO | 0% | $96,811 |
| Hinsdale County, CO | 0% | $71,541 |
By median household income (model-based)
| Returns claiming charitable contributions | Median household income (model-based) | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Loudoun County, VA | 17.8% | $173,660 |
| Santa Clara County, CA | 14.6% | $154,570 |
| San Mateo County, CA | 17% | $151,000 |
| Los Alamos County, NM | 9.51% | $146,210 |
| Falls Church city, VA | 21% | $145,760 |
| Lowest | ||
| Claiborne County, MS | 4.15% | $28,579 |
| Holmes County, MS | 3.78% | $30,542 |
| Humphreys County, MS | 3.91% | $31,538 |
| Buffalo County, SD | 0% | $32,803 |
| Leflore County, MS | 8.19% | $33,945 |
States
By returns claiming charitable contributions
| Returns claiming charitable contributions | Median household income (model-based) | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| District of Columbia | 15.7% | $104,640 |
| Maryland | 15.6% | $98,568 |
| California | 11.8% | $95,473 |
| Utah | 11.2% | $93,030 |
| Virginia | 10.4% | $89,864 |
| Lowest | ||
| West Virginia | 2.33% | $55,875 |
| North Dakota | 3.29% | $77,346 |
| South Dakota | 3.47% | $72,794 |
| Alaska | 3.76% | $88,696 |
| Vermont | 3.86% | $80,626 |
By median household income (model-based)
| Returns claiming charitable contributions | Median household income (model-based) | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| District of Columbia | 15.7% | $104,640 |
| Massachusetts | 8.77% | $99,750 |
| New Jersey | 10.2% | $99,716 |
| Maryland | 15.6% | $98,568 |
| New Hampshire | 5.39% | $97,031 |
| Lowest | ||
| Mississippi | 5.44% | $54,386 |
| West Virginia | 2.33% | $55,875 |
| Louisiana | 4.77% | $58,273 |
| Arkansas | 4.67% | $58,748 |
| Kentucky | 4.12% | $61,099 |
Metro areas — Median household income (model-based) is not published for metro areas
By returns claiming charitable contributions
| Returns claiming charitable contributions | Median household income (model-based) | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Heber, UT | 17.8% | — |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV | 16.9% | — |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA | 15.4% | — |
| Lexington Park, MD | 15.2% | — |
| Provo-Orem-Lehi, UT | 14.9% | — |
| Lowest | ||
| Zapata, TX | 0.551% | — |
| Deming, NM | 0.978% | — |
| St. Marys, PA | 1.1% | — |
| Newport, TN | 1.15% | — |
| Warren, PA | 1.17% | — |
Counties furthest from the pattern
Compared with the straight line that best fits all 3,143 counties: the five with far more median household income (model-based) than their returns claiming charitable contributions would suggest, and the five with far less.
| Returns claiming charitable contributions | Median household income (model-based) | |
|---|---|---|
| Above the line | ||
| Los Alamos County, NM | 9.51% | $146,210 |
| Loudoun County, VA | 17.8% | $173,660 |
| San Juan County, CO | 0% | $102,690 |
| Bristol Bay Borough, AK | 0% | $99,790 |
| Aleutians West Census Area, AK | 1.55% | $104,160 |
| Below the line | ||
| Leflore County, MS | 8.19% | $33,945 |
| Wilkinson County, MS | 6.73% | $36,240 |
| Hancock County, GA | 7.42% | $40,099 |
| Charles County, MD | 23.8% | $105,140 |
| Talbot County, GA | 7.69% | $41,656 |
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 | +0.697 | 3,121 counties reporting both |
| After adjusting for density, income and education | +0.135 | the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is |
| Also adjusting for population size | +0.129 | size taken out as well as density |
| Also comparing only within each state | +0.222 | 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 | +0.149 | the adjusted link for the average resident rather than the average county. With this weighting, the data counts for about 287 equally weighted counties |
| Middle value inside single states | +0.803 | the link worked out inside each of 40 states with at least 20 counties reporting |
| Using ranks, after adjusting | +0.107 | 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 = 3.1e-14. 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 8.3e-14.
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 +0.10 (p = 0.001). Once the adjustment is made, little map pattern is left.
Did they change together?
The figures above compare counties at one moment. This asks a different question: where returns claiming charitable contributions rose most, did median household income (model-based)move too? Each county’s change is compared with the average change in its own state. That takes out ups and downs that hit a whole region at once. Each change is the gap between two estimates that both contain some error. That error pulls these links towards zero, so a weak one is weak partly for that reason. The q column shows whether a link could be a fluke, allowing for the many pairs tested: 0.05 or less means it is unlikely to be chance.
| Period | Counties | Change together | Within states | q |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014–2019 the main test: each Census survey figure averages five years, and these two do not overlap; before the pandemic | 3,132 | -0.13 | -0.07 | 0.014 |
| 2019–2023 a repeat check: its two five-year survey figures both include 2019, and it covers the COVID years | 3,132 | +0.10 | +0.10 | 0.004 |
In counties where one changed more, the other tended to move the opposite way, compared with other counties in the same state (r = -0.07). It does not hold clearly in the second period, which spans the pandemic. How change is measured.
Related pairs
- Share Black, not Hispanic and Returns claiming charitable contributions — +0.57
- Housing insecurity and Returns claiming charitable contributions — +0.52
- Food insecurity and Returns claiming charitable contributions — +0.50
- Binge drinking and Returns claiming charitable contributions — -0.50
- Lack of reliable transportation and Returns claiming charitable contributions — +0.48
- Stroke and Returns claiming charitable contributions — +0.46
- Loneliness and Returns claiming charitable contributions — +0.46
- Self-care disability and Returns claiming charitable contributions — +0.45
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 Returns claiming charitable contributions and Median household income (model-based)