Population below the poverty line and Share foreign-born
Where Population below the poverty line is higher, Share foreign-born tends to be higher. The link is weak: +0.39 across 2,423 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 38 states, the middle value of the link is +0.50.
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
Population below the poverty line
The number of people living below the federal poverty line.
Census ACS 5-year · ACS table B17001_002
Share foreign-born
The percentage of residents born outside the United States, whether or not they are citizens. The middle county is 2.7%, and the numbers are very uneven: Miami-Dade is 54% and Queens 48%, while half of all counties are under 3%. The count alone mostly ranks counties by size, which is why this percentage is shown next to it.
Census ACS 5-year · ACS table B05002_013, divided by total population
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 population below the poverty line
| Population below the poverty line, per 1,000 residents | Share foreign-born | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| ComerÃo Municipio, PR | 529.59 | 0% |
| Mayagüez Municipio, PR | 521.68 | 2.06% |
| San Germán Municipio, PR | 513.84 | 0.974% |
| Ponce Municipio, PR | 497.13 | 1.17% |
| Todd County, SD | 481.87 | 3.39% |
| Lowest | ||
| Nantucket County, MA | 29.93 | 15.1% |
| Powhatan County, VA | 30.99 | 2.75% |
| Douglas County, CO | 32.15 | 8.19% |
| Falls Church city, VA | 36.25 | 17.1% |
| Goochland County, VA | 37.09 | 4.18% |
By share foreign-born
| Population below the poverty line, per 1,000 residents | Share foreign-born | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Miami-Dade County, FL | 147.07 | 54.3% |
| Queens County, NY | 121.11 | 47.6% |
| Aleutians West Census Area, AK | 88.64 | 44.1% |
| Hudson County, NJ | 146.18 | 42.6% |
| Santa Clara County, CA | 67.50 | 41% |
| Lowest | ||
| ComerÃo Municipio, PR | 529.59 | 0% |
| Niobrara County, WY | 159.83 | 0% |
| Cottle County, TX | 227.34 | 0% |
| Mellette County, SD | 439.55 | 0% |
| Buffalo County, SD | 323.28 | 0% |
States
By population below the poverty line
| Population below the poverty line, per 1,000 residents | Share foreign-born | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Puerto Rico | 411.87 | 2.72% |
| Mississippi | 184.22 | 2.39% |
| Louisiana | 183.68 | 4.73% |
| New Mexico | 177.50 | 9.24% |
| West Virginia | 161.20 | 1.71% |
| Lowest | ||
| New Hampshire | 69.50 | 6.2% |
| Utah | 84.21 | 8.56% |
| Minnesota | 90.01 | 8.56% |
| Maryland | 91.56 | 16.3% |
| Colorado | 91.93 | 9.58% |
By share foreign-born
| Population below the poverty line, per 1,000 residents | Share foreign-born | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| California | 117.49 | 26.7% |
| New Jersey | 95.96 | 23.5% |
| New York | 133.69 | 22.6% |
| Florida | 123.48 | 21.4% |
| Nevada | 124.29 | 19% |
| Lowest | ||
| West Virginia | 161.20 | 1.71% |
| Montana | 117.64 | 2.29% |
| Mississippi | 184.22 | 2.39% |
| Puerto Rico | 411.87 | 2.72% |
| Wyoming | 104.71 | 3.51% |
Metro areas
By population below the poverty line
| Population below the poverty line, per 1,000 residents | Share foreign-born | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Zapata, TX | 370.70 | 22.9% |
| Gallup, NM | 365.09 | 2.2% |
| Rio Grande City-Roma, TX | 331.57 | 27.5% |
| Cleveland, MS | 324.63 | 2.45% |
| Selma, AL | 297.19 | 1.54% |
| Lowest | ||
| Nantucket, MA | 29.63 | 15.1% |
| Heber, UT | 47.08 | 8.54% |
| Vineyard Haven, MA | 52.93 | 13.7% |
| Hood River, OR | 55.00 | 15.3% |
| Lexington Park, MD | 57.63 | 4.16% |
By share foreign-born
| Population below the poverty line, per 1,000 residents | Share foreign-born | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL | 128.57 | 41.9% |
| San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA | 68.66 | 40.3% |
| Nogales, AZ | 197.47 | 34.1% |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA | 126.49 | 32.5% |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA | 87.54 | 31.6% |
| Lowest | ||
| Wapakoneta, OH | 74.01 | 0.517% |
| Coshocton, OH | 183.79 | 0.548% |
| Pikeville, KY | 257.29 | 0.62% |
| Lewistown, PA | 157.99 | 0.697% |
| Escanaba, MI | 137.70 | 0.711% |
Cities and towns
By population below the poverty line
| Population below the poverty line, per 1,000 residents | Share foreign-born | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Caño Martin Peña comunidad, PR | 629.30 | 27.6% |
| Isla Vista CDP, CA | 605.96 | 11.7% |
| Mayagüez zona urbana, PR | 533.56 | 2.18% |
| Ponce zona urbana, PR | 500.92 | 1.35% |
| Monsey CDP, NY | 461.44 | 6.59% |
| Lowest | ||
| Stony Brook University CDP, NY | 0.00 | 24% |
| Linton Hall CDP, VA | 15.35 | 19.3% |
| Sioux Center city, IA | 15.84 | 11.7% |
| Trussville city, AL | 16.31 | 2.59% |
| Huntington Woods city, MI | 16.45 | 2.99% |
By share foreign-born
| Population below the poverty line, per 1,000 residents | Share foreign-born | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Sweetwater city, FL | 162.20 | 75% |
| Hialeah city, FL | 173.99 | 74.7% |
| Fountainebleau CDP, FL | 123.13 | 73.7% |
| Hialeah Gardens city, FL | 149.82 | 71.3% |
| Doral city, FL | 110.60 | 70.7% |
| Lowest | ||
| Monroeville city, AL | 261.62 | 0% |
| Nitro city, WV | 215.96 | 0% |
| Wellston city, OH | 221.34 | 0% |
| Port Clinton city, OH | 160.03 | 0% |
| Kosciusko city, MS | 265.94 | 0% |
ZIP codes
By population below the poverty line
| Population below the poverty line, per 1,000 residents | Share foreign-born | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| ZIP 00915 (San Juan zona urbana, PR) | 660.06 | 23.7% |
| ZIP 00782 (Comerío Municipio, PR) | 533.57 | 0% |
| ZIP 00682 (Mayagüez zona urbana, PR) | 531.08 | 2.6% |
| ZIP 44115 (Cleveland city, OH) | 519.40 | 9.22% |
| ZIP 00680 (Mayagüez Municipio, PR) | 517.39 | 1.63% |
| Lowest | ||
| ZIP 93410 (California Polytechnic State University CDP, CA) | 0.00 | 4.97% |
| ZIP 92136 (San Diego city, CA) | 0.00 | 8.79% |
| ZIP 92055 (San Diego County, CA) | 0.00 | 4.6% |
| ZIP 89070 (Clark County, NV) | 0.00 | 9.77% |
| ZIP 85734 (Tucson city, AZ) | 0.00 | 9.45% |
By share foreign-born
| Population below the poverty line, per 1,000 residents | Share foreign-born | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| ZIP 33010 (Hialeah city, FL) | 198.04 | 78.5% |
| ZIP 33012 (Hialeah city, FL) | 187.37 | 75.8% |
| ZIP 33126 (Miami city, FL) | 161.17 | 75.6% |
| ZIP 33135 (Miami city, FL) | 261.55 | 74.3% |
| ZIP 33013 (Hialeah city, FL) | 190.45 | 74.1% |
| Lowest | ||
| ZIP 00782 (Comerío Municipio, PR) | 533.57 | 0% |
| ZIP 00780 (Ponce Municipio, PR) | 404.94 | 0% |
| ZIP 72416 (Craighead County, AR) | 124.40 | 0% |
| ZIP 71328 (Rapides Parish, LA) | 97.64 | 0% |
| ZIP 71103 (Shreveport city, LA) | 325.95 | 0% |
Counties furthest from the pattern
Compared with the straight line that best fits all 2,426 counties: the five with far more share foreign-born than their population below the poverty line would suggest, and the five with far less.
| Population below the poverty line, per 1,000 residents | Share foreign-born | |
|---|---|---|
| Above the line | ||
| Miami-Dade County, FL | 147.07 | 54.3% |
| Queens County, NY | 121.11 | 47.6% |
| Aleutians West Census Area, AK | 88.64 | 44.1% |
| Hudson County, NJ | 146.18 | 42.6% |
| Santa Clara County, CA | 67.50 | 41% |
| Below the line | ||
| Blaine County, NE | 106.49 | 0% |
| Garfield County, MT | 120.47 | 0% |
| Auglaize County, OH | 73.75 | 0.517% |
| Jefferson County, KS | 62.37 | 0.707% |
| Washington County, IL | 76.74 | 0.643% |
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 | +0.455 | 2,423 counties reporting both |
| After adjusting for density, income and education | +0.387 | the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is |
| Also adjusting for population size | +0.329 | size taken out as well as density |
| Also comparing only within each state | +0.291 | 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 | +0.457 | the adjusted link for the average resident rather than the average county. With this weighting, the data counts for about 278 equally weighted counties |
| Middle value inside single states | +0.496 | the link worked out inside each of 38 states with at least 20 counties reporting |
| Using ranks, after adjusting | +0.280 | 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 = 3.8e-87. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 4.0e-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 2.9e-86.
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?
The figures above compare counties at one moment. This asks a different question: where population below the poverty line rose most, did share foreign-bornmove 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 | 2,348 | +0.04 | +0.03 | — |
| 2019–2023 a repeat check: its two five-year survey figures both include 2019, and it covers the COVID years | 2,295 | +0.09 | +0.08 | — |
Both come from the American Community Survey, which asks a sample of households. Random error in a county's sample pushes both changes at once. So part of any agreement here is that shared error. It is shown, but not counted as a finding. How change is measured.
Related pairs
- Median gross rent and Share foreign-born — +0.49
- Homeownership rate and Share foreign-born — -0.46
- Share foreign-born and Local income tax collected — +0.46
- Share foreign-born and Population (firearm measures) — +0.41
- Share foreign-born and Personal income — +0.40
- Share foreign-born and Population — +0.40
- Share foreign-born and Population (WONDER) — +0.40
- Aggregate travel time to work and Share foreign-born — +0.40
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 Population below the poverty line and Share foreign-born