Poverty rate and Share of births to unmarried women
Across 1,572 counties, Poverty rate and Share of births to unmarried women have a link of +0.52, on a scale from −1 (opposite) to +1 (in step). But compare places with the same population density, income and education, and a weak link of +0.24 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
Poverty rate
The percentage of people whose family income is below the federal poverty line. The line depends on how many people are in the family and their ages.
Census ACS 5-year · ACS table B17001_002, divided by population for whom poverty status is determined
Share of births to unmarried women
Of women who gave birth in the past year, the percentage who were not married: never married, widowed or divorced. A separated woman counts as married. The middle county is 31.8%. It is a share of women who gave birth, not of all women, so it says nothing about how many births there were.
Census ACS 5-year · ACS table B13002_007, divided by women who gave birth in the past 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 poverty rate
| Poverty rate | Share of births to unmarried women | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Guánica Municipio, PR | 64.7% | 92.2% |
| Adjuntas Municipio, PR | 61.9% | 65.5% |
| Jayuya Municipio, PR | 54.9% | 100% |
| Lares Municipio, PR | 54.9% | 91.1% |
| Mayagüez Municipio, PR | 53% | 61% |
| Lowest | ||
| Douglas County, CO | 3.23% | 12.7% |
| Falls Church city, VA | 3.64% | 0% |
| Goochland County, VA | 3.86% | 0% |
| Loudoun County, VA | 3.96% | 11.7% |
| Scott County, MN | 4.12% | 8.58% |
By share of births to unmarried women
| Poverty rate | Share of births to unmarried women | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Calhoun County, GA | 22.7% | 100% |
| Clay County, GA | 23% | 100% |
| Glascock County, GA | 12.2% | 100% |
| Miller County, GA | 24.1% | 100% |
| Hardin County, IL | 10.5% | 100% |
| Lowest | ||
| Washington County, CO | 7.6% | 0% |
| Rio Blanco County, CO | 8.98% | 0% |
| Pitkin County, CO | 7.15% | 0% |
| Park County, CO | 7.2% | 0% |
| Ouray County, CO | 5.04% | 0% |
States
By poverty rate
| Poverty rate | Share of births to unmarried women | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Puerto Rico | 41.6% | 61.1% |
| Mississippi | 19.1% | 45.5% |
| Louisiana | 18.9% | 46.3% |
| New Mexico | 18.1% | 43.2% |
| West Virginia | 16.6% | 37.8% |
| Lowest | ||
| New Hampshire | 7.16% | 24.6% |
| Utah | 8.56% | 14.1% |
| Minnesota | 9.2% | 23.9% |
| Maryland | 9.35% | 31.5% |
| Colorado | 9.38% | 21.8% |
By share of births to unmarried women
| Poverty rate | Share of births to unmarried women | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Puerto Rico | 41.6% | 61.1% |
| Louisiana | 18.9% | 46.3% |
| Mississippi | 19.1% | 45.5% |
| New Mexico | 18.1% | 43.2% |
| District of Columbia | 14.5% | 41.4% |
| Lowest | ||
| Utah | 8.56% | 14.1% |
| Idaho | 10.6% | 20% |
| Colorado | 9.38% | 21.8% |
| North Dakota | 10.6% | 23.1% |
| Washington | 9.91% | 23.4% |
Metro areas
By poverty rate
| Poverty rate | Share of births to unmarried women | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Ponce, PR | 48% | 71.3% |
| Mayagüez, PR | 47.7% | 61% |
| Aguadilla, PR | 47.4% | 70.5% |
| Arecibo, PR | 41.1% | 67.9% |
| San Juan-Bayamón-Caguas, PR | 37.9% | 60.2% |
| Lowest | ||
| Lexington Park, MD | 5.89% | 34.3% |
| Appleton, WI | 6.25% | 19.6% |
| Manchester-Nashua, NH | 6.51% | 26.3% |
| Ogden, UT | 6.61% | 16.3% |
| San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA | 6.9% | 17.4% |
By share of births to unmarried women
| Poverty rate | Share of births to unmarried women | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Española, NM | 20.1% | 86.1% |
| Kinston, NC | 22.5% | 76.3% |
| Gallup, NM | 35.7% | 76.2% |
| Brunswick-St. Simons, GA | 17% | 75.4% |
| Raymondville, TX | 24.6% | 71.8% |
| Lowest | ||
| Provo-Orem-Lehi, UT | 8.73% | 9.79% |
| Logan, UT-ID | 12.6% | 10.1% |
| Jacksonville, NC | 11.7% | 12.5% |
| Lebanon, PA | 10.6% | 12.6% |
| Madison, WI | 9.97% | 12.8% |
Cities and towns
By poverty rate
| Poverty rate | Share of births to unmarried women | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| University of California-Davis CDP, CA | 67.7% | 0% |
| Caño Martin Peña comunidad, PR | 63% | 100% |
| Guánica zona urbana, PR | 62.1% | 0% |
| Kaser village, NY | 61.3% | 0% |
| Coco comunidad, PR | 60% | 100% |
| Lowest | ||
| Huntington Woods city, MI | 1.65% | 0% |
| Franklin Farm CDP, VA | 1.8% | 0% |
| Ocean Acres CDP, NJ | 1.8% | 0% |
| Sioux Center city, IA | 1.81% | 0% |
| Hinsdale village, IL | 1.83% | 0% |
By share of births to unmarried women
| Poverty rate | Share of births to unmarried women | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Beverly Hills CDP, FL | 21% | 100% |
| Daytona Beach Shores city, FL | 7.27% | 100% |
| Florida Ridge CDP, FL | 10.5% | 100% |
| Hernando CDP, FL | 19% | 100% |
| Laurel CDP, FL | 5.46% | 100% |
| Lowest | ||
| Winsted CDP, CT | 18.4% | 0% |
| Storrs CDP, CT | 42% | 0% |
| Southwood Acres CDP, CT | 5.58% | 0% |
| Simsbury Center CDP, CT | 5.5% | 0% |
| Putnam CDP, CT | 11.9% | 0% |
ZIP codes
By poverty rate
| Poverty rate | Share of births to unmarried women | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| ZIP 33620 (Tampa city, FL) | 100% | 100% |
| ZIP 48825 (East Lansing city, MI) | 100% | 100% |
| ZIP 00913 (San Juan zona urbana, PR) | 73.3% | 75.8% |
| ZIP 00653 (Guánica Municipio, PR) | 66.2% | 100% |
| ZIP 00915 (San Juan zona urbana, PR) | 66% | 78.1% |
| Lowest | ||
| ZIP 12222 (Albany city, NY) | 0% | 100% |
| ZIP 76226 (Denton County, TX) | 1.53% | 0% |
| ZIP 55424 (Edina city, MN) | 1.56% | 0% |
| ZIP 48070 (Huntington Woods city, MI) | 1.65% | 0% |
| ZIP 40059 (Oldham County, KY) | 1.72% | 0% |
By share of births to unmarried women
| Poverty rate | Share of births to unmarried women | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| ZIP 10038 (New York city, NY) | 18% | 100% |
| ZIP 12222 (Albany city, NY) | 0% | 100% |
| ZIP 13214 (De Witt CDP, NY) | 7.62% | 100% |
| ZIP 13662 (St. Lawrence County, NY) | 19.8% | 100% |
| ZIP 13904 (Broome County, NY) | 20.3% | 100% |
| Lowest | ||
| ZIP 08872 (Sayreville borough, NJ) | 6.16% | 0% |
| ZIP 08863 (Fords CDP, NJ) | 5.09% | 0% |
| ZIP 08848 (Hunterdon County, NJ) | 4.61% | 0% |
| ZIP 08844 (Somerset County, NJ) | 2.84% | 0% |
| ZIP 08837 (Middlesex County, NJ) | 4.75% | 0% |
Counties furthest from the pattern
Compared with the straight line that best fits all 1,578 counties: the five with far more share of births to unmarried women than their poverty rate would suggest, and the five with far less.
| Poverty rate | Share of births to unmarried women | |
|---|---|---|
| Above the line | ||
| Union County, IN | 6.4% | 100% |
| Gosper County, NE | 7.02% | 100% |
| Mathews County, VA | 7.88% | 100% |
| White Pine County, NV | 8.39% | 100% |
| Rappahannock County, VA | 9.46% | 100% |
| Below the line | ||
| Sabana Grande Municipio, PR | 44.5% | 0% |
| Cumberland County, KY | 33.9% | 0% |
| Coamo Municipio, PR | 52% | 26.8% |
| Perry County, AL | 31.2% | 0% |
| Brooks County, TX | 30.7% | 0% |
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 | +0.518 | 1,572 counties reporting both |
| After adjusting for density, income and education | +0.245 | the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is |
| Also adjusting for population size | +0.242 | size taken out as well as density |
| Also comparing only within each state | +0.195 | 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 | +0.363 | the adjusted link for the average resident rather than the average county. With this weighting, the data counts for about 230 equally weighted counties |
| Middle value inside single states | +0.497 | the link worked out inside each of 31 states with at least 20 counties reporting |
| Using ranks, after adjusting | +0.207 | 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 = 7.0e-23. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 7.2e-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 2.4e-22.
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 +0.11 (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 poverty rate rose most, did share of births to unmarried womenmove 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 | 1,435 | -0.01 | +0.00 | — |
| 2019–2023 a repeat check: its two five-year survey figures both include 2019, and it covers the COVID years | 1,245 | -0.05 | -0.02 | — |
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 household income and Poverty rate — -0.76
- Poverty rate and Returns claiming the earned income credit — +0.62
- Poverty rate and Homicide rate, annual — +0.55
- Poverty rate and Share White, not Hispanic — -0.54
- Poverty rate and Share Hispanic or Latino, any race — +0.51
- Poverty rate and Premature mortality — +0.50
- Poverty rate and Social connection score — -0.50
- Poverty rate and Children in single-parent households — +0.50
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 Poverty rate and Share of births to unmarried women