Share Black, not Hispanic and Returns claiming the earned income credit
Where Share Black, not Hispanic is higher, Returns claiming the earned income credit tends to be higher. The link is strong: +0.68 across 2,351 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 36 states, the middle value of the link is +0.39.
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 Black, not Hispanic
The percentage of residents who are Black or African American alone and not Hispanic. The middle county is under 2%, and this group is one of the most concentrated in the data. A handful of counties in the Mississippi Delta and the Black Belt are above 80%.
Census ACS 5-year · ACS table B03002_004, divided by total population
Returns claiming the earned income credit
The percentage of tax returns claiming the earned income tax credit, which goes to working households with low incomes. It is a count from tax records of the working poor, not a survey estimate.
IRS Statistics of Income · IRS SOI N59660 / N1
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 Black, not Hispanic
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Returns claiming the earned income credit | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Claiborne County, MS | 86.1% | 44.8% |
| Holmes County, MS | 82.4% | 46% |
| Greene County, AL | 81.5% | 42.7% |
| Jefferson County, MS | 81% | 42.3% |
| Tunica County, MS | 79.3% | 46.3% |
| Lowest | ||
| San Juan County, CO | 0% | 6.38% |
| Phillips County, CO | 0% | 13.3% |
| Mineral County, CO | 0% | 0% |
| Kiowa County, CO | 0% | 15.9% |
| Huerfano County, CO | 0% | 17.4% |
By returns claiming the earned income credit
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Returns claiming the earned income credit | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Humphreys County, MS | 78.8% | 47.6% |
| Tunica County, MS | 79.3% | 46.3% |
| Holmes County, MS | 82.4% | 46% |
| Quitman County, MS | 71.9% | 44.9% |
| Claiborne County, MS | 86.1% | 44.8% |
| Lowest | ||
| Mineral County, CO | 0% | 0% |
| Daggett County, UT | 0% | 0% |
| McMullen County, TX | 0% | 0% |
| Loving County, TX | 0% | 0% |
| King County, TX | 0% | 0% |
States
By share Black, not Hispanic
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Returns claiming the earned income credit | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| District of Columbia | 42.5% | 12.6% |
| Mississippi | 36.9% | 26.7% |
| Georgia | 31% | 20.6% |
| Louisiana | 30.8% | 24% |
| Maryland | 29.2% | 12.3% |
| Lowest | ||
| Montana | 0.474% | 11.7% |
| Idaho | 0.686% | 12.6% |
| Wyoming | 0.815% | 11.3% |
| Utah | 1.04% | 10.9% |
| Vermont | 1.16% | 10.1% |
By returns claiming the earned income credit
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Returns claiming the earned income credit | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Mississippi | 36.9% | 26.7% |
| Louisiana | 30.8% | 24% |
| Georgia | 31% | 20.6% |
| Arkansas | 14.8% | 20.5% |
| Alabama | 25.9% | 20.3% |
| Lowest | ||
| New Hampshire | 1.38% | 7.91% |
| Massachusetts | 6.51% | 9.56% |
| Washington | 3.82% | 9.82% |
| Minnesota | 6.73% | 9.98% |
| Vermont | 1.16% | 10.1% |
Metro areas
By share Black, not Hispanic
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Returns claiming the earned income credit | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Clarksdale, MS | 75.9% | 42% |
| Greenville, MS | 72% | 41.2% |
| Selma, AL | 70.3% | 38.6% |
| Greenwood, MS | 63.9% | 38.7% |
| Cleveland, MS | 63.2% | 35.3% |
| Lowest | ||
| Pierre, SD | 0% | 10.6% |
| Mitchell, SD | 0% | 11.6% |
| Jackson, WY-ID | 0% | 6.19% |
| Hailey, ID | 0% | 7.57% |
| Gardnerville Ranchos, NV-CA | 0% | 7.32% |
By returns claiming the earned income credit
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Returns claiming the earned income credit | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Clarksdale, MS | 75.9% | 42% |
| Greenville, MS | 72% | 41.2% |
| Greenwood, MS | 63.9% | 38.7% |
| Selma, AL | 70.3% | 38.6% |
| Raymondville, TX | 1.45% | 37.4% |
| Lowest | ||
| Los Alamos, NM | 1.2% | 3.7% |
| Jackson, WY-ID | 0% | 6.19% |
| Edwards, CO | 0.946% | 6.39% |
| Nantucket, MA | 9.14% | 6.55% |
| Bozeman, MT | 0.485% | 6.6% |
Cities and towns — Returns claiming the earned income credit is not published for cities and towns
By share Black, not Hispanic
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Returns claiming the earned income credit | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Merrydale CDP, LA | 97.3% | — |
| East St. Louis city, IL | 94% | — |
| Warrensville Heights city, OH | 92.4% | — |
| Panthersville CDP, GA | 92.1% | — |
| Silver Hill CDP, MD | 91.6% | — |
| Lowest | ||
| Salida city, CO | 0% | — |
| Roxborough Park CDP, CO | 0% | — |
| Redlands CDP, CO | 0% | — |
| Milliken town, CO | 0% | — |
| Mead town, CO | 0% | — |
ZIP codes — Returns claiming the earned income credit is not published for ZIP codes
By share Black, not Hispanic
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Returns claiming the earned income credit | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| ZIP 36610 (Prichard city, AL) | 97.2% | — |
| ZIP 62207 (Centreville city, IL) | 97% | — |
| ZIP 70812 (Merrydale CDP, LA) | 97% | — |
| ZIP 36617 (Mobile city, AL) | 96.6% | — |
| ZIP 62205 (East St. Louis city, IL) | 96.5% | — |
| Lowest | ||
| ZIP 08867 (Hunterdon County, NJ) | 0% | — |
| ZIP 08551 (Hunterdon County, NJ) | 0% | — |
| ZIP 08251 (Villas CDP, NJ) | 0% | — |
| ZIP 07739 (Little Silver borough, NJ) | 0% | — |
| ZIP 07072 (Carlstadt borough, NJ) | 0% | — |
Counties furthest from the pattern
Compared with the straight line that best fits all 2,360 counties: the five with far more returns claiming the earned income credit than their share Black, not Hispanic would suggest, and the five with far less.
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Returns claiming the earned income credit | |
|---|---|---|
| Above the line | ||
| Buffalo County, SD | 0% | 43.1% |
| Willacy County, TX | 1.45% | 37.4% |
| Webb County, TX | 0.372% | 37% |
| Hidalgo County, TX | 0.546% | 36.9% |
| McKinley County, NM | 0.44% | 35.1% |
| Below the line | ||
| Prince George's County, MD | 59% | 14.4% |
| Charles County, MD | 48.5% | 11.4% |
| District of Columbia, DC | 42.5% | 12.6% |
| Mineral County, CO | 0% | 0% |
| Daggett County, UT | 0% | 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 | +0.681 | 2,351 counties reporting both |
| After adjusting for density, income and education | +0.676 | the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is |
| Also adjusting for population size | +0.686 | size taken out as well as density |
| Also comparing only within each state | +0.566 | 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 | +0.517 | the adjusted link for the average resident rather than the average county. With this weighting, the data counts for about 272 equally weighted counties |
| Middle value inside single states | +0.386 | the link worked out inside each of 36 states with at least 20 counties reporting |
| Using ranks, after adjusting | +0.561 | 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 = 0.000. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 4.3e-15. 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 0.000.
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 +0.48 (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 black, not hispanic rose most, did returns claiming the earned income creditmove 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 | 2,186 | +0.07 | +0.10 | 0.075 |
| 2019–2023 a repeat check: its two five-year survey figures both include 2019, and it covers the COVID years | 2,198 | +0.07 | +0.07 | 0.013 |
Over the main period, any link between the changes could easily be chance. How change is measured.
Related pairs
- Food insecurity and Returns claiming the earned income credit — +0.84
- Lack of reliable transportation and Returns claiming the earned income credit — +0.84
- Housing insecurity and Returns claiming the earned income credit — +0.83
- Self-care disability and Returns claiming the earned income credit — +0.82
- Vision disability and Returns claiming the earned income credit — +0.81
- Threat of utility shut-off and Returns claiming the earned income credit — +0.80
- Stroke and Returns claiming the earned income credit — +0.78
- Diagnosed diabetes and Returns claiming the earned income credit — +0.78
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 Black, not Hispanic and Returns claiming the earned income credit