Share Hispanic or Latino, any race and Population (WONDER)
Where Share Hispanic or Latino, any race is higher, Population (WONDER) tends to be higher. The link is weak: +0.32 across 399 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.
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
Share Hispanic or Latino, any race
The percentage of residents who are Hispanic or Latino, of any race. The Census asks about Hispanic origin separately from race. So this figure includes all races, and the race shares next to it count only people who are 'not Hispanic'.
Census ACS 5-year · ACS table B03002_012, divided by total population
Population (WONDER)
How many people live here, as CDC WONDER counts them. Its yearly homicide rate is per this number of residents.
CDC WONDER mortality · CDC WONDER population, by county and year
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 share Hispanic or Latino, any race
| Share Hispanic or Latino, any race | Population (WONDER), per 1,000 residents | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Webb County, TX | 95.1% | 1005.30 |
| Hidalgo County, TX | 91.9% | 1019.92 |
| Cameron County, TX | 89.3% | 1008.31 |
| El Paso County, TX | 82.7% | 1004.16 |
| Miami-Dade County, FL | 68.8% | 1000.60 |
| Lowest | ||
| Dallas County, AL | 0.906% | 963.48 |
| Scioto County, OH | 1.49% | 984.29 |
| Kanawha County, WV | 1.5% | 980.93 |
| Washington County, MS | 1.5% | 960.43 |
| Raleigh County, WV | 1.7% | 982.22 |
By population (WONDER)
| Share Hispanic or Latino, any race | Population (WONDER), per 1,000 residents | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Liberty County, TX | 36.9% | 1104.87 |
| Ellis County, TX | 27.6% | 1092.69 |
| Montgomery County, TX | 27.1% | 1086.49 |
| Williamson County, TX | 24.5% | 1082.78 |
| Hunt County, TX | 20.6% | 1080.38 |
| Lowest | ||
| Bronx County, NY | 54.9% | 955.79 |
| St. John the Baptist Parish, LA | 8.34% | 957.67 |
| Bolivar County, MS | 2.54% | 960.38 |
| Washington County, MS | 1.5% | 960.43 |
| St. Louis city, MO | 5.12% | 961.25 |
States
By share Hispanic or Latino, any race
| Share Hispanic or Latino, any race | Population (WONDER), per 1,000 residents | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| New Mexico | 48.2% | 999.83 |
| California | 39.8% | 992.92 |
| Texas | 39.5% | 1029.11 |
| Arizona | 31% | 1022.44 |
| Nevada | 29.2% | 1016.94 |
| Lowest | ||
| West Virginia | 2.02% | 991.95 |
| Maine | 2.08% | 1013.29 |
| Vermont | 2.49% | 1003.42 |
| Mississippi | 3.6% | 996.02 |
| Montana | 4.39% | 1025.09 |
By population (WONDER)
| Share Hispanic or Latino, any race | Population (WONDER), per 1,000 residents | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Idaho | 13.3% | 1037.71 |
| Florida | 26.7% | 1031.11 |
| South Carolina | 7.08% | 1030.85 |
| Texas | 39.5% | 1029.11 |
| Utah | 15.4% | 1025.97 |
| Lowest | ||
| New York | 19.6% | 984.84 |
| Illinois | 18.5% | 988.76 |
| Louisiana | 6.95% | 989.76 |
| West Virginia | 2.02% | 991.95 |
| Hawaii | 9.84% | 992.71 |
Metro areas
By share Hispanic or Latino, any race
| Share Hispanic or Latino, any race | Population (WONDER), per 1,000 residents | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Laredo, TX | 95.1% | 1000.01 |
| McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX | 91.9% | 1000.00 |
| Brownsville-Harlingen, TX | 89.3% | 1000.00 |
| El Paso, TX | 82.6% | 996.05 |
| Las Cruces, NM | 67.6% | 1000.00 |
| Lowest | ||
| Selma, AL | 0.906% | 1000.00 |
| Portsmouth, OH | 1.49% | 1000.00 |
| Charleston, WV | 1.5% | 860.39 |
| Greenville, MS | 1.5% | 1000.00 |
| Beckley, WV | 1.57% | 649.35 |
By population (WONDER)
| Share Hispanic or Latino, any race | Population (WONDER), per 1,000 residents | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Show Low, AZ | 10.6% | 1000.05 |
| Farmington, NM | 19.7% | 1000.04 |
| Tucson, AZ | 36.1% | 1000.04 |
| Goldsboro, NC | 13.2% | 1000.03 |
| Battle Creek, MI | 5.74% | 1000.03 |
| Lowest | ||
| Roanoke, VA | 5.19% | 309.15 |
| Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY | 6.07% | 350.02 |
| Ogden, UT | 14.3% | 413.18 |
| Amarillo, TX | 29.8% | 420.90 |
| Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ | 19.1% | 432.43 |
Cities and towns — Population (WONDER) is not published for cities and towns
By share Hispanic or Latino, any race
| Share Hispanic or Latino, any race | Population (WONDER), per 1,000 residents | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Elsa city, TX | 100% | — |
| Salida del Sol Estates CDP, TX | 100% | — |
| Cayey zona urbana, PR | 100% | — |
| Coco comunidad, PR | 100% | — |
| Juncos zona urbana, PR | 100% | — |
| Lowest | ||
| Monroeville city, AL | 0% | — |
| Holtville CDP, AL | 0% | — |
| Halls CDP, TN | 0% | — |
| Treasure Lake CDP, PA | 0% | — |
| Wellston city, OH | 0% | — |
ZIP codes — Population (WONDER) is not published for ZIP codes
By share Hispanic or Latino, any race
| Share Hispanic or Latino, any race | Population (WONDER), per 1,000 residents | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| ZIP 00723 (Patillas Municipio, PR) | 100% | — |
| ZIP 00731 (Ponce Municipio, PR) | 100% | — |
| ZIP 00782 (Comerío Municipio, PR) | 100% | — |
| ZIP 00952 (Sabana Seca comunidad, PR) | 100% | — |
| ZIP 00719 (Naranjito Municipio, PR) | 100% | — |
| Lowest | ||
| ZIP 04457 (Penobscot County, ME) | 0% | — |
| ZIP 04364 (Kennebec County, ME) | 0% | — |
| ZIP 04002 (York County, ME) | 0% | — |
| ZIP 03235 (Franklin city, NH) | 0% | — |
| ZIP 03070 (Hillsborough County, NH) | 0% | — |
Counties furthest from the pattern
Compared with the straight line that best fits all 399 counties: the five with far more population (WONDER) than their share Hispanic or Latino, any race would suggest, and the five with far less.
| Share Hispanic or Latino, any race | Population (WONDER), per 1,000 residents | |
|---|---|---|
| Above the line | ||
| Liberty County, TX | 36.9% | 1104.87 |
| Ellis County, TX | 27.6% | 1092.69 |
| Montgomery County, TX | 27.1% | 1086.49 |
| Williamson County, TX | 24.5% | 1082.78 |
| Hunt County, TX | 20.6% | 1080.38 |
| Below the line | ||
| Bronx County, NY | 54.9% | 955.79 |
| St. John the Baptist Parish, LA | 8.34% | 957.67 |
| Bolivar County, MS | 2.54% | 960.38 |
| Washington County, MS | 1.5% | 960.43 |
| St. Louis city, MO | 5.12% | 961.25 |
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 | +0.311 | 399 counties reporting both |
| After adjusting for density, income and education | +0.317 | the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is |
| Also adjusting for population size | -0.024 | size taken out as well as density |
| Also comparing only within each state | +0.111 | 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 | +0.447 | the adjusted link for the average resident rather than the average county. With this weighting, the data counts for about 129 equally weighted counties |
| Middle value inside single states | +0.280 | the link worked out inside each of 6 states with at least 20 counties reporting |
| Using ranks, after adjusting | +0.426 | 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 = 1.0e-10. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 0.001. 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 2.4e-10.
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 +0.17 (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 share hispanic or latino, any race rose most, did population (wonder)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 | 260 | +0.23 | +0.09 | 0.578 |
| 2019–2023 a repeat check: its two five-year survey figures both include 2019, and it covers the COVID years | 298 | +0.27 | +0.32 | 0.001 |
Over the main period, any link between the changes could easily be chance. How change is measured.
Related pairs
- Poverty rate and Share Hispanic or Latino, any race — +0.51
- Share Hispanic or Latino, any race and Catholic adherents — +0.47
- Share foreign-born and Population (WONDER) — +0.40
- Share Hispanic or Latino, any race and Economic connectedness — -0.37
- Colorectal cancer screening and Population (WONDER) — -0.36
- Share Hispanic or Latino, any race and Friending bias — +0.36
- Share Hispanic or Latino, any race and Unemployment rate — +0.35
- Share Hispanic or Latino, any race and Returns claiming the earned income credit — +0.34
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 Share Hispanic or Latino, any race and Population (WONDER)