Unemployment rate and Social vulnerability to disasters
Where Unemployment rate is higher, Social vulnerability to disasters tends to be higher. The link is weak: +0.30 across 3,121 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 40 states, the middle value of the link is +0.52.
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
Unemployment rate
Unemployed people as a percentage of the labor force (people working or looking for work), not of the whole population. A place where few people look for work at all can have low unemployment and still have few people working.
BLS LAUS · BLS LAUS county annual averages
Social vulnerability to disasters
How hard a disaster is likely to hit the people who live here. Counties are ranked from 0 (least) to 100 (most). The rank is built from ten facts about homes in the Census Bureau's survey: low income, disability, no health insurance, age 65 or older, no car, no internet, crowded homes, no one with a job, trouble with English, and one or no adult to care for others. So it mostly repeats other survey measures on this site. It is not new proof about them. It says nothing about which hazards a place faces.
FEMA National Risk Index (Census and University of South Carolina indexes) · FEMA National Risk Index v1.20, NRI_Table_Counties, SOVI_SCORE
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 unemployment rate
| Unemployment rate | Social vulnerability to disasters | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Imperial County, CA | 17.6% | 85.1 |
| Kusilvak Census Area, AK | 14.8% | 100 |
| Yuma County, AZ | 12.4% | 68.5 |
| Colusa County, CA | 12.4% | 49.5 |
| East Carroll Parish, LA | 11.8% | 99.2 |
| Lowest | ||
| Loving County, TX | 1.3% | 23.6 |
| Brule County, SD | 1.3% | 49.5 |
| King County, TX | 1.4% | 91.9 |
| Sanborn County, SD | 1.4% | 10.6 |
| Hand County, SD | 1.4% | 14.8 |
By social vulnerability to disasters
| Unemployment rate | Social vulnerability to disasters | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Kusilvak Census Area, AK | 14.8% | 100 |
| Bethel Census Area, AK | 9.8% | 100 |
| Nome Census Area, AK | 7.7% | 99.9 |
| Aleutians East Borough, AK | 2.3% | 99.9 |
| Martin County, KY | 7.1% | 99.9 |
| Lowest | ||
| Northeastern Connecticut Planning Region, CT | 3.3% | 10.6 |
| Yuma County, CO | 2.1% | 10.6 |
| Teller County, CO | 3.3% | 10.6 |
| Summit County, CO | 2.6% | 10.6 |
| San Miguel County, CO | 3.4% | 10.6 |
States — Social vulnerability to disasters is not published for states
By unemployment rate
| Unemployment rate | Social vulnerability to disasters | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Puerto Rico | 5.89% | — |
| Nevada | 5.13% | — |
| District of Columbia | 4.86% | — |
| California | 4.72% | — |
| Illinois | 4.49% | — |
| Lowest | ||
| South Dakota | 1.82% | — |
| Vermont | 1.94% | — |
| North Dakota | 2.05% | — |
| Maryland | 2.24% | — |
| New Hampshire | 2.28% | — |
Metro areas — Social vulnerability to disasters is not published for metro areas
By unemployment rate
| Unemployment rate | Social vulnerability to disasters | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| El Centro, CA | 17.6% | — |
| Yuma, AZ | 12.4% | — |
| Deming, NM | 10.3% | — |
| Visalia, CA | 9.8% | — |
| Rio Grande City-Roma, TX | 9.2% | — |
| Lowest | ||
| Pierre, SD | 1.52% | — |
| Yankton, SD | 1.6% | — |
| Los Alamos, NM | 1.6% | — |
| Burlington-South Burlington, VT | 1.61% | — |
| Mitchell, SD | 1.63% | — |
Counties furthest from the pattern
Compared with the straight line that best fits all 3,143 counties: the five with far more social vulnerability to disasters than their unemployment rate would suggest, and the five with far less.
| Unemployment rate | Social vulnerability to disasters | |
|---|---|---|
| Above the line | ||
| King County, TX | 1.4% | 91.9 |
| Aleutians East Borough, AK | 2.3% | 99.9 |
| Cottle County, TX | 2% | 96.5 |
| Faulk County, SD | 1.5% | 90.7 |
| Sioux County, ND | 2.4% | 97.3 |
| Below the line | ||
| Imperial County, CA | 17.6% | 85.1 |
| Colusa County, CA | 12.4% | 49.5 |
| Chattahoochee County, GA | 7% | 10.6 |
| Yuma County, AZ | 12.4% | 68.5 |
| Glenn County, CA | 6.7% | 14.8 |
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 | +0.431 | 3,121 counties reporting both |
| After adjusting for density, income and education | +0.301 | the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is |
| Also adjusting for population size | +0.289 | size taken out as well as density |
| Also comparing only within each state | +0.221 | 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 | +0.313 | the adjusted link for the average resident rather than the average county. With this weighting, the data counts for about 287 equally weighted counties |
| Middle value inside single states | +0.519 | the link worked out inside each of 40 states with at least 20 counties reporting |
| Using ranks, after adjusting | +0.294 | 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 = 2.2e-66. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 4.8e-7. The site tested 29,403 pairs, and testing so many turns up some flukes. The q-value allows for that too. For this pair it is 1.7e-65.
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 +0.29 (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
- Returns reporting unemployment compensation and Unemployment rate — +0.61
- Social vulnerability to disasters and Material security score — -0.53
- Received food stamps and Unemployment rate — +0.44
- Social vulnerability to disasters and Economic connectedness — -0.42
- Returns claiming the earned income credit and Social vulnerability to disasters — +0.42
- Unemployment rate and Medicare enrollees also on Medicaid — +0.40
- Poverty rate and Unemployment rate — +0.39
- Social vulnerability to disasters and Average test score — -0.38
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 Unemployment rate and Social vulnerability to disasters