Share Black, not Hispanic and Share separated
Where Share Black, not Hispanic is higher, Share separated tends to be higher. The link is moderate: +0.51 across 1,967 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 31 states, the middle value of the link is +0.35.
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
Share separated
The percentage of people aged 15 and over who are separated. This is not a fifth group next to the other four. The Census counts a separated person as married with the spouse away, so this is part of the married share and must never be added to it.
Census ACS 5-year · ACS table B12001_007…B12001_016 (2 cells), divided by population aged 15 and over
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 | Share separated | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Holmes County, MS | 82.4% | 6.57% |
| Tunica County, MS | 79.3% | 3.64% |
| Humphreys County, MS | 78.8% | 3.72% |
| Macon County, AL | 78.2% | 2.07% |
| Coahoma County, MS | 75.9% | 3.43% |
| Lowest | ||
| San Juan County, CO | 0% | 0% |
| Yauco Municipio, PR | 0% | 1.14% |
| San Sebastián Municipio, PR | 0% | 1.59% |
| Orocovis Municipio, PR | 0% | 2.45% |
| Morovis Municipio, PR | 0% | 2.59% |
By share separated
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Share separated | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Lee County, KY | 2.14% | 6.77% |
| Holmes County, MS | 82.4% | 6.57% |
| Woodruff County, AR | 27.1% | 6.36% |
| Wilcox County, AL | 70.7% | 6.03% |
| Sharkey County, MS | 73.7% | 5.99% |
| Lowest | ||
| San Juan County, CO | 0% | 0% |
| King County, TX | 0% | 0% |
| Kenedy County, TX | 0% | 0% |
| Glasscock County, TX | 0% | 0% |
| Sanborn County, SD | 0% | 0% |
States
By share Black, not Hispanic
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Share separated | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| District of Columbia | 42.5% | 1.4% |
| Mississippi | 36.9% | 2.49% |
| Georgia | 31% | 1.95% |
| Louisiana | 30.8% | 2.22% |
| Maryland | 29.2% | 1.79% |
| Lowest | ||
| Puerto Rico | 0.12% | 2.13% |
| Montana | 0.474% | 1.09% |
| Idaho | 0.686% | 1.04% |
| Wyoming | 0.815% | 1.26% |
| Utah | 1.04% | 1.16% |
By share separated
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Share separated | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Mississippi | 36.9% | 2.49% |
| South Carolina | 25.1% | 2.35% |
| Louisiana | 30.8% | 2.22% |
| New York | 13.6% | 2.19% |
| North Carolina | 20.3% | 2.18% |
| Lowest | ||
| Wisconsin | 6.01% | 0.869% |
| North Dakota | 3.17% | 0.875% |
| Minnesota | 6.73% | 0.888% |
| Maine | 1.63% | 0.97% |
| Nebraska | 4.62% | 0.993% |
Metro areas
By share Black, not Hispanic
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Share separated | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Clarksdale, MS | 75.9% | 3.43% |
| Greenville, MS | 72% | 3.09% |
| Selma, AL | 70.3% | 3.3% |
| Greenwood, MS | 63.9% | 3.93% |
| Cleveland, MS | 63.2% | 3.46% |
| Lowest | ||
| Ponce, PR | 0% | 1.82% |
| Mitchell, SD | 0% | 0% |
| Mayagüez, PR | 0% | 2.13% |
| Hailey, ID | 0% | 1.22% |
| Guayama, PR | 0% | 2.06% |
By share separated
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Share separated | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Raymondville, TX | 1.45% | 4.62% |
| Orangeburg, SC | 61.5% | 4.61% |
| Bainbridge, GA | 41.7% | 4.55% |
| Henderson, NC | 48.9% | 4.53% |
| Forrest City, AR | 54.8% | 4.31% |
| Lowest | ||
| Mitchell, SD | 0% | 0% |
| Dickinson, ND | 2.28% | 0% |
| Ottawa, KS | 0.781% | 0.332% |
| Marquette, MI | 1.45% | 0.355% |
| Alexandria, MN | 0.47% | 0.412% |
Cities and towns
By share Black, not Hispanic
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Share separated | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Panthersville CDP, GA | 92.1% | 3.83% |
| Jennings city, MO | 91.1% | 4.33% |
| Redan CDP, GA | 91% | 4.03% |
| Dolton village, IL | 90.9% | 1.94% |
| South Fulton city, GA | 90.9% | 1.32% |
| Lowest | ||
| Mead town, CO | 0% | 0% |
| Gypsum town, CO | 0% | 0% |
| Avon town, CO | 0% | 0% |
| Mammoth Lakes town, CA | 0% | 0% |
| Farmersville city, CA | 0% | 3.02% |
By share separated
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Share separated | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Westgate CDP, FL | 18.9% | 11% |
| Central City city, KY | 4.06% | 6.97% |
| Gonzales city, TX | 8.68% | 6.77% |
| Monticello village, NY | 19.6% | 6.7% |
| Ville Platte city, LA | 66.6% | 6.62% |
| Lowest | ||
| Mead town, CO | 0% | 0% |
| Gypsum town, CO | 0% | 0% |
| Avon town, CO | 0% | 0% |
| Mammoth Lakes town, CA | 0% | 0% |
| Redland CDP, AL | 15% | 0% |
ZIP codes
By share Black, not Hispanic
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Share separated | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| ZIP 36610 (Prichard city, AL) | 97.2% | 3.46% |
| ZIP 36617 (Mobile city, AL) | 96.6% | 2.71% |
| ZIP 71109 (Shreveport city, LA) | 95.4% | 3.53% |
| ZIP 48227 (Detroit city, MI) | 95.2% | 3.43% |
| ZIP 39213 (Jackson city, MS) | 95.2% | 5.54% |
| Lowest | ||
| ZIP 06791 (Litchfield County, CT) | 0% | 0% |
| ZIP 06419 (Middlesex County, CT) | 0% | 0% |
| ZIP 05454 (Franklin County, VT) | 0% | 0% |
| ZIP 04572 (Lincoln County, ME) | 0% | 0% |
| ZIP 04281 (Oxford County, ME) | 0% | 0% |
By share separated
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Share separated | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| ZIP 39095 (Holmes County, MS) | 80.1% | 10.2% |
| ZIP 63106 (St. Louis city, MO) | 89.1% | 8.33% |
| ZIP 33128 (Miami city, FL) | 3.98% | 8.26% |
| ZIP 36784 (Clarke County, AL) | 42.9% | 8.07% |
| ZIP 10474 (New York city, NY) | 24.7% | 8.02% |
| Lowest | ||
| ZIP 06791 (Litchfield County, CT) | 0% | 0% |
| ZIP 06419 (Middlesex County, CT) | 0% | 0% |
| ZIP 06269 (Storrs CDP, CT) | 9.59% | 0% |
| ZIP 05454 (Franklin County, VT) | 0% | 0% |
| ZIP 04572 (Lincoln County, ME) | 0% | 0% |
Counties furthest from the pattern
Compared with the straight line that best fits all 1,971 counties: the five with far more share separated than their share Black, not Hispanic would suggest, and the five with far less.
| Share Black, not Hispanic | Share separated | |
|---|---|---|
| Above the line | ||
| Lee County, KY | 2.14% | 6.77% |
| Woodruff County, AR | 27.1% | 6.36% |
| Forest County, PA | 13.7% | 5.5% |
| Martin County, KY | 7.31% | 4.94% |
| Clay County, KY | 4.57% | 4.77% |
| Below the line | ||
| Macon County, AL | 78.2% | 2.07% |
| Hertford County, NC | 56.4% | 1.69% |
| Adams County, MS | 55.5% | 1.67% |
| Claiborne Parish, LA | 48.5% | 1.54% |
| Sumter County, AL | 71.1% | 2.31% |
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 | +0.563 | 1,967 counties reporting both |
| After adjusting for density, income and education | +0.513 | the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is |
| Also adjusting for population size | +0.510 | size taken out as well as density |
| Also comparing only within each state | +0.359 | 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 | +0.380 | the adjusted link for the average resident rather than the average county. With this weighting, the data counts for about 265 equally weighted counties |
| Middle value inside single states | +0.349 | the link worked out inside each of 31 states with at least 20 counties reporting |
| Using ranks, after adjusting | +0.478 | 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 = 1.4e-132. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 5.1e-16. 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 1.3e-131.
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 +0.27 (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 share separatedmove 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 | 1,963 | +0.04 | +0.02 | — |
| 2019–2023 a repeat check: its two five-year survey figures both include 2019, and it covers the COVID years | 1,853 | +0.04 | -0.00 | — |
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
- Share Black, not Hispanic and Homicide rate — +0.74
- Share Black, not Hispanic and Children in single-parent households — +0.73
- Share Black, not Hispanic and Homicide rate, annual — +0.69
- Share Black, not Hispanic and Black Protestant adherents — +0.68
- Share Black, not Hispanic and Returns claiming the earned income credit — +0.68
- Share Black, not Hispanic and Material security score — -0.60
- Share separated and Returns claiming the earned income credit — +0.59
- Share Black, not Hispanic and Returns claiming charitable contributions — +0.57
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 Share separated