placestats

Share now married and Safety score

Where Share now married is higher, Safety score tends to be higher. The link is weak: +0.31 across 2,382 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 +0.40.

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 now married

The percentage of people aged 15 and over who are married now, including those whose spouse lives elsewhere. The middle county is 52.4%. Never married, married, widowed and divorced cover everyone 15 and over and add up to exactly 100%.

Census ACS 5-year · ACS table B12001_004…B12001_013 (2 cells), divided by population aged 15 and over

Safety score

Deaths from violence and injury (guns, crashes and overdoses), flipped so higher is safer. Homicide, suicide, drunk-driving and total injury deaths are left out, since they would count the same deaths twice. Gun deaths already include most homicides and suicides, and injury deaths include all four. Property crime reported to police (burglary and theft) is in it too. Violent crime is left out, since both crime rates are worked out over the same count of residents.

PlaceStats composite score · derived from 5 measures (BRFSS, CHR, UCR)

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 now married

Share now marriedSafety score
Highest
Archuleta County, CO68.4%0.5
Custer County, SD68.4%-0.461
Park County, CO68%-0.952
Boise County, ID66.6%-0.684
Major County, OK66.1%-0.472
Lowest
Oglala Lakota County, SD18.4%-4.61
Radford city, VA25.9%0.0704
Sioux County, ND26.1%-0.758
Petersburg city, VA29.2%-2.82
Sunflower County, MS30%-2.1

By safety score

Share now marriedSafety score
Highest
Somerset County, NJ56.7%1.21
Queens County, NY48.4%1.21
Carver County, MN59.9%1.19
Le Sueur County, MN58.9%1.17
Centre County, PA42%1.16
Lowest
Phillips County, AR41.7%-4.96
Todd County, SD32%-4.82
Oglala Lakota County, SD18.4%-4.61
Wilcox County, AL37.5%-4.61
McDowell County, WV36.4%-4.3
States

By share now married

Share now marriedSafety score
Highest
Utah56.3%0.858
Idaho55.1%0.404
Wyoming54.5%-0.266
Nebraska52.8%0.00951
Kansas52.5%0.157
Lowest
District of Columbia32.9%-0.489
New Mexico44.4%-0.263
Louisiana45.7%-0.446
Rhode Island46%0.929
New York46.8%0.691

By safety score

Share now marriedSafety score
Highest
Minnesota51.9%0.93
Rhode Island46%0.929
New Jersey51.2%0.859
Utah56.3%0.858
Hawaii50.6%0.854
Lowest
Mississippi47.1%-0.751
Missouri50.5%-0.591
District of Columbia32.9%-0.489
Louisiana45.7%-0.446
West Virginia49.7%-0.43
Metro areas

By share now married

Share now marriedSafety score
Highest
Wildwood-The Villages, FL63.4%0.752
Granbury, TX62.9%0.261
Andrews, TX62.3%-0.906
Crossville, TN62.3%-0.123
Port Lavaca, TX62%0.252
Lowest
Gallup, NM31.9%-0.649
Clarksdale, MS32.8%-2.58
Vermillion, SD34.3%0.0947
Ruston, LA35.7%-0.463
Cleveland, MS35.9%-1.52

By safety score

Share now marriedSafety score
Highest
Jasper, IN56.2%1.41
Petoskey, MI58.2%1.4
State College, PA42%1.38
Lewisburg, PA48.2%1.37
Owatonna, MN58.5%1.36
Lowest
Greenwood, MS36.5%-4.26
Greenville, MS38%-3.93
Lumberton, NC40.7%-3.67
Memphis, TN-MS-AR44.5%-3.17
Española, NM39%-2.61
Cities and towns — Safety score is not published for cities and towns

By share now married

Share now marriedSafety score
Highest
St. James town, NC87.7%—
Camp Pendleton South CDP, CA87.6%—
The Village of Indian Hill city, OH80.4%—
Tellico Village CDP, TN79.9%—
Saddlebrooke CDP, AZ79.3%—
Lowest
Stony Brook University CDP, NY2.07%—
Rutgers University-Busch Campus CDP, NJ3.78%—
Isla Vista CDP, CA4.48%—
Cullowhee CDP, NC5.67%—
University of California-Davis CDP, CA5.71%—
ZIP codes — Safety score is not published for ZIP codes

By share now married

Share now marriedSafety score
Highest
ZIP 13603 (Fort Drum CDP, NY)86.9%—
ZIP 80902 (El Paso County, CO)85.3%—
ZIP 78619 (Hays County, TX)82.9%—
ZIP 31315 (Fort Stewart CDP, GA)82.3%—
ZIP 84310 (Weber County, UT)78.2%—
Lowest
ZIP 38677 (University CDP, MS)0%—
ZIP 32612 (Gainesville city, FL)0%—
ZIP 19717 (Newark city, DE)0%—
ZIP 92055 (San Diego County, CA)3.43%—
ZIP 15282 (Pittsburgh city, PA)4.21%—

Counties furthest from the pattern

Compared with the straight line that best fits all 2,382 counties: the five with far more safety score than their share now married would suggest, and the five with far less.

Share now marriedSafety score
Above the line
New York County, NY36.8%1.06
Centre County, PA42%1.16
Whitman County, WA36.8%0.856
Madison County, ID42.9%1.13
Riley County, KS39.5%0.913
Below the line
Phillips County, AR41.7%-4.96
Wilcox County, AL37.5%-4.61
Todd County, SD32%-4.82
McDowell County, WV36.4%-4.3
Logan County, WV52.2%-3.21

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+0.4452,382 counties reporting both
After adjusting for density, income and education+0.308the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is
Also adjusting for population size+0.309size taken out as well as density
Also comparing only within each state+0.280each county is compared only with others in its own state, so this is no longer a comparison between states
Giving bigger counties more weight+0.371the 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+0.403the link worked out inside each of 36 states with at least 20 counties reporting
Using ranks, after adjusting+0.220uses 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 = 1.3e-53. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 6.7e-8. The site tested 29,646 pairs, and testing so many turns up some flukes. The q-value allows for that too. For this pair it is 9.0e-53.

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 +0.30 (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?

Not measurable: at least one of these is published for too few of the years a change needs (2014–2019 or 2019–2023), or for too few counties in both.

Related pairs

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 now married and Safety score