Chapter 6.2 · Alone together · Report

Civic life, loneliness and partnership

Voter turnout in the 2020 presidential election was 72.1% of adult citizens in the least deprived tenth of counties and 56.4% in the most deprived, and census self-response was 21.0 points lower across the same tenths.

Author: Vishal Singh
Affiliation: NYU Stern
Published: 9 October 2026

Every estimate of the chapter with its interval and every figure as a table, generated from the chapter's data files. Table n of this report is figure n of the chapter. The same report as Markdown: report.md.

Identification

Title

Civic life, loneliness and partnership

Label

Alone together

Chapter

6.2 (Part VI, Environment, connection and well-being; An American life)

Question

How do civic participation, loneliness and living with a partner vary across places, and how do they relate to well-being?

Dek

Grain

counties

Status

published

Published

9 October 2026

Updated

not revised

Data sources

County Health Rankings. County Health Rankings 2024: voter turnout (2020) and census participation (2020 census self-response), membership associations (County Business Patterns, 2021); years: 2024 release; weights: 2019-2023 county population for decile means; 2018 county population for correlations
Area Deprivation Index. Area Deprivation Index 2023, national rank, tract ranks averaged to counties; years: 2023 release (version 4.0.1; built on ACS 2019-2023); weights: 2019-2023 tract population
American Community Survey. ACS 2019-2023 tract file: tract population as the weight for county deprivation, and county controls (income, percent Black, poverty) for the regressions; years: 2019-2023 (5-year); weights: 2019-2023 tract population
Opportunity Atlas. County outcomes of children born 1978 to 1983 to parents at the 25th percentile (mean adult household income rank, as a percentile); years: 1978-1983 birth cohorts (2018 release); weights: 2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas)
Social Capital Atlas. Economic connectedness, civic groups per capita and volunteering group membership by county, 2022; years: 2022 (friendship snapshot); weights: 2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas)
JEC Social Capital Index. JEC Social Capital Index and subindices by county, 2018 release with components from 2010 to 2016, and religious congregations per 1,000 (2010); years: 2018 release (components from about 2010-2016); weights: 2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas)
Gallup U.S. Daily Poll. Gallup U.S. Daily tracking poll, 2009-2017 (the 2008 interviews are left out because of a question-order artifact in the ladder): Cantril ladder score and marital status; aggregates only; years: 2008-2017; weights: none (unweighted)
CDC PLACES. CDC PLACES 2025 release, ZCTA estimates of loneliness and depression (BRFSS 2023); ZCTA characteristics are ACS 2019-2023 five-year estimates for each ZCTA, from a Census API pull; years: 2024 release (tracts); 2025 release (ZCTAs, 2023 data year); weights: 2020 census adult population of the ZCTA

Canonical URL

https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership

Markdown

https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/report.md

BibTeX

@misc{singh2026civiclifelonelinessandpartnership,
  author = {Singh, Vishal},
  title = {Civic life, loneliness and partnership},
  year = {2026},
  url = {https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership},
  note = {In ZIP Code Destiny. Published 9 October 2026.}
}

Principal estimates

The facts the dek and the opening prose cite, in order of appearance. Every fact is in the table of all estimates below.

Estimand	Population	Period	Value	Interval	n	Weights	Source	Fact id
mean of county voter turnout in a tenth of counties (equal numbers of counties, ranked by county Area Deprivation Index; county ADI is the mean of the county's tract Area Deprivation Index national ranks, weighted by 2019-2023 tract population), weighted by county population, bootstrap interval over counties	citizens aged 18 and over in counties in the least deprived tenth of counties by Area Deprivation Index	2020 presidential election	72.1%	95% CI 70.6% to 73.8%	307 counties	2019-2023 county population	County Health Rankings	voter_d1
mean of county voter turnout in a tenth of counties (equal numbers of counties, ranked by county Area Deprivation Index; county ADI is the mean of the county's tract Area Deprivation Index national ranks, weighted by 2019-2023 tract population), weighted by county population, bootstrap interval over counties	citizens aged 18 and over in counties in the most deprived tenth of counties by Area Deprivation Index	2020 presidential election	56.4%	95% CI 55.4% to 57.6%	310 counties	2019-2023 county population	County Health Rankings	voter_d10
difference between the population-weighted means of census self-response in the least and the most deprived tenth of counties, bootstrap interval over counties with shared draws	households in counties in the two extreme tenths of counties by Area Deprivation Index	2020 census	21.0	95% CI 19.0 to 22.9	624 counties	2019-2023 county population	County Health Rankings	census_gap
mean of county census self-response in a tenth of counties (equal numbers of counties, ranked by county Area Deprivation Index; county ADI is the mean of the county's tract Area Deprivation Index national ranks, weighted by 2019-2023 tract population), weighted by county population, bootstrap interval over counties	households in counties in the least deprived tenth of counties by Area Deprivation Index	2020 census	68.6%	95% CI 67.4% to 69.9%	312 counties	2019-2023 county population	County Health Rankings	census_d1
mean of county census self-response in a tenth of counties (equal numbers of counties, ranked by county Area Deprivation Index; county ADI is the mean of the county's tract Area Deprivation Index national ranks, weighted by 2019-2023 tract population), weighted by county population, bootstrap interval over counties	households in counties in the most deprived tenth of counties by Area Deprivation Index	2020 census	47.6%	95% CI 46.1% to 49.1%	312 counties	2019-2023 county population	County Health Rankings	census_d10
unweighted difference between the mean ladder score of adults who are married or in a domestic partnership and the mean of all others, interval clustered by county	adults interviewed with a ladder score, a marital status and a county	interviews in 2009 to 2017	0.50	95% CI 0.49 to 0.51	2,189,201 respondents	none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll	partner_premium
correlation across ZCTAs of PLACES modeled loneliness with the married share of residents 15 and older, weighted by adult population, bootstrap interval over counties	adults in ZCTAs with a loneliness estimate and at least 500 residents	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)	−0.65	95% CI −0.69 to −0.62	19,681 ZCTAs	2020 census adult population of the ZCTA	CDC PLACES	lonely_married_r

Findings

Voter turnout in the 2020 presidential election was 72.1% among adult citizens in the tenth of counties with the lowest Area Deprivation Index scores and 56.4% in the tenth with the highest. The share of households that answered the 2020 census on their own fell from 68.6% to 47.6% across the same ten groups.[1] The point estimates of both measures fall at every step from the least to the most deprived tenth, and neither keeps a link to upward mobility once county income, racial composition and poverty are held fixed.

Gallup respondents who were married or in a domestic partnership rated their lives 0.50 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.51) ladder points higher than other adults, and the difference was no smaller in counties with more social capital. Across ZIP Code Tabulation Areas, modeled loneliness is lower where more residents are married, a correlation of −0.65 (95% CI −0.69 to −0.62). The model that produces those estimates already uses age, so part of that gradient is built in.

The results describe three different units. County results describe places, the Gallup results describe people in unweighted interviews from 2009 to 2017, and the loneliness estimates describe ZCTAs, the Census Bureau's approximation of ZIP codes. A pattern in one unit is not a finding about another, and the chapter keeps them apart.

Participation falls with county deprivation

Counties are ranked on the Area Deprivation Index, where each county takes the mean national percentile rank of its tracts weighted by tract population, and are cut into ten groups with equal numbers of the 3,128 counties that have a rank. County Health Rankings supplies two measures of showing up. Voter turnout is the share of adult citizens who voted in the 2020 presidential election, and census self-response is the share of all households that answered the 2020 census online, by mail or by phone without a visit from a census taker.[1] The point estimates of both are lower at every step from the least to the most deprived tenth (Table 1). Between the two extreme tenths, turnout is 15.6 (95% CI 13.9 to 17.7) points lower and self-response 21.0 (95% CI 19.0 to 22.9) points lower, so the self-response gradient is the steeper of the two.

Table 1. Voter turnout and census self-response fall with county deprivation, and across counties they correlate less with upward mobility than family structure and friendship across incomes do

These are means weighted by county population. Counting each county once puts turnout at 76.9% in the least deprived tenth and 58.8% in the most deprived, and self-response at 65.0% and 46.3%. In every tenth the unweighted turnout is higher than the weighted one and the unweighted self-response lower, so small counties vote more and respond less on their own than the counties where most people live. The gradient points the same way under either weighting.

Neither measure is a pure gauge of civic willingness. Turnout counts only citizens, depends on state voting laws, and leaves out people who have lost their voting rights.[1] Self-response depends on how a place was counted. Census takers counted households in person instead of inviting them to respond in remote Alaska, in remote parts of northern Maine and southeast Alaska, and optionally in tribal areas, so a low rate there reflects the operation as well as the residents.[2]

Table 2 maps self-response by county. With counties weighted by population, the mean is 66.0%, the fifth percentile 51.8% and the ninety-fifth percentile 77.5%. State averages are highest in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan and lowest in Alaska, West Virginia and Maine, and the four lowest county values are all in Alaska.

Table 2. Census self-response in 2020 was highest in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan and lowest in Alaska, West Virginia and Maine

Voting tracks mobility less than family structure and friendship do

The second tab of Table 1 asks which county measures of civic life go with the upward mobility of children from low-income families. Mobility is the mean adult income rank of children born in 1978 to 1983 to parents at the 25th percentile of the national income distribution, which the Opportunity Atlas reports by county (Chapter 4.3, Race, income and mobility describes it). Each measure is correlated with mobility across counties weighted by their 2018 population, with intervals from a bootstrap over counties.

Voter turnout correlates +0.35 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.42) with mobility and census self-response +0.32 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.37). The organization measures sit lower. Civic groups per capita, from the Social Capital Atlas, correlate +0.06 (95% CI −0.01 to 0.14), membership associations −0.05 (95% CI −0.12 to 0.02) and religious congregations −0.10 (95% CI −0.15 to −0.04), while membership in volunteering groups reaches +0.19 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.25). Putnam's account of declining social capital gave associations a central place,[3] yet across counties the density of associations says little about where children from low-income families rise, and congregations run the other way. The measures come from different sources and years (Facebook groups, business records and a 2010 religion census), which limits what a gap between two of them can show.

The Joint Economic Committee's county Social Capital Index has four parts. Family unity uses births to unmarried mothers, children in single-parent families and the share of women in midlife who are married. Community health uses nonprofits, congregations and a state-level measure of civic engagement. Institutional health uses presidential voting, census mail response and state-level confidence in institutions. Collective efficacy is measured at the county level by violent-crime rates.[4]

Family unity has the highest correlation with mobility of any measure, +0.71 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.74). Economic connectedness, the measure of friendships across income lines that Chapter 4.3, Race, income and mobility examines,[5] is +0.69 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.74), with an overlapping interval. The overall index is +0.61 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.68), collective efficacy (low violent crime) +0.51 (95% CI 0.43 to 0.58), institutional health +0.24 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.33) and community health +0.19 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.28). Of the four parts, the two that describe families and safety sit well above the two that describe participation and associations.

Collective efficacy in the county index is a violent-crime rate, so its correlation with mobility is a statement about crime and not about residents acting together.

Counties with high turnout also differ in income, racial composition and poverty, so Table 3 enters those characteristics. With the four civic measures alone in the model, turnout has a standardized coefficient of 0.24 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.42) on mobility. With the log of median household income, the Black share of residents and the poverty rate added, it falls to 0.00 (95% CI −0.15 to 0.16) and the coefficient on census self-response is −0.08 (95% CI −0.21 to 0.05).

Once economic connectedness is added, its own coefficient is 0.63 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.79), the largest in the model, while the coefficients on census self-response and volunteering become negative, −0.15 (95% CI −0.26 to −0.05) and −0.16 (95% CI −0.22 to −0.09). These are partial associations among measures that move together, and the change of sign says that each coefficient depends on which others share the model.

Table 3. Once income, race and poverty are in the model, voter turnout has a coefficient of 0.00 on county mobility, and economic connectedness has 0.63

The measures also have different dates. Mobility is for children born in 1978 to 1983, the participation measures are for 2020, the Facebook measures for 2022 and the Joint Economic Committee components for 2010 to 2016. Using recent civic life to describe where children rose decades ago assumes that county differences persist, which these data do not test.

The partner premium in the ladder score

The Gallup U.S. Daily survey has 2,189,201 interviews from 2009 to 2017, in 3,140 counties, with both a marital status and a score on the Cantril ladder, which asks people to place their life on a ladder from the worst possible life to the best possible one. The item was asked of nearly all respondents in 2010 to 2012, of 85% in 2009 and of 49% from 2013 to 2017, so 61% of these interviews are from 2009 to 2012. Every Gallup figure here is unweighted, because the extract has no survey weights. Intervals are clustered by the respondent's county, so they describe sampling variation in these interviews and not national prevalence.

Adults who were married or in a domestic partnership placed their lives at 7.28 (95% CI 7.27 to 7.29) on average, and adults who were never married, separated, divorced or widowed placed theirs at 6.78 (95% CI 6.77 to 6.79). The never married (6.77) and the separated, divorced or widowed (6.78) score the same, so the chapter compares the partnered with everyone else. The difference, 0.50 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.51) ladder points, is the partner premium.

The 2008 interviews are left out. In 2008 Gallup asked political questions immediately before the ladder, which lowers the ladder score, and it removed them from part of the sample in January 2009 and added a transition question in April 2009.[6] Including 2008 would put the group means at 7.22 and 6.73 and leave the premium at 0.50 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.51). Leaving out 2009 as well gives 0.50 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.51).

The premium is not an artifact of where partnered people live. Comparing each respondent only with others in the same county (county fixed effects) gives 0.50 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.50), the same as the national difference. It is larger once age and sex are taken into account, 0.64 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.65) within county and year with a fixed effect for each year of age and for sex, so the unadjusted difference is lowered by the age mix of the two groups. A fixed effect for each year of age is used because the ladder is U-shaped in age and the premium varies with it, and a single linear age term gives a lower premium. Among the interviews that report household income and education, adding both lowers the premium to 0.31 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.32). Household income includes a partner's earnings, so partnered adults are more likely to live in households with higher incomes, and this model compares adults within the same income and education group.

By age band, with the same adjustment inside each band, the premium is smallest in the youngest band (0.15 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.18)) and next smallest in the oldest (0.35 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.37)), and it is largest in the middle of adulthood, 0.80 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.82) at its highest.

Table 4. The partner premium is 0.50 ladder points overall and 0.50 within counties, and runs from 0.15 in the youngest age band to 0.80 in its largest band

Study evidenceLongitudinal panel following the same people over time

Whether partnership moves with the ladder score

The interviews compare different people, and happier people may be more likely to marry and to stay married. Two studies follow the same people over time in the German Socio-Economic Panel. Stutzer and Frey compared the life satisfaction of single people who later married with that of people who stayed single, and found that happier singles were more likely to marry, so part of a cross-sectional difference reflects who marries.[7] Lucas and colleagues followed a large panel through changes in marital status and found that, on average, life satisfaction reacted to marriage and then moved back toward its earlier level, with large differences between individuals.[8]

Neither study randomizes marriage. Lucas and colleagues compare people with themselves over time, which removes differences that do not change. Stutzer and Frey also compare people who later married with people who stayed single, which is a comparison between persons before marriage. Neither speaks to the Gallup interviews, which have no before and after.

If community could stand in for a partner, the premium would be smaller in counties with more of it. Table 5 sorts interviews into ten groups by the Joint Economic Committee's Social Capital Index of the respondent's county, a standardized score from the 2018 release whose components date from 2010 to 2016, and compares the partnered with everyone else in each group. The premium was 0.45 (95% CI 0.43 to 0.48) ladder points in the lowest group and 0.49 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.51) in the highest, with a largest value of 0.53 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.55) in one of the upper groups, so it did not shrink. The point estimates are smaller in the three lowest groups than in the other seven, although some intervals overlap.

The mean ladder score of the partnered is 7.25 (95% CI 7.21 to 7.30) in the lowest group and 7.35 (95% CI 7.33 to 7.37) in the highest, and that of the others 6.80 (95% CI 6.75 to 6.84) and 6.86 (95% CI 6.83 to 6.89).

Table 5. The partner premium does not shrink where county social capital is higher: 0.45 ladder points in the lowest decile and 0.49 in the highest

A regression with an interaction between partnership and the county index puts the premium 0.023 (95% CI 0.012 to 0.034) ladder points higher for each standard deviation of the index. The same coefficient has a positive point estimate for the index's four parts and for the Social Capital Atlas measures of civic groups and volunteering, from 0.007 (95% CI −0.005 to 0.019) to 0.035 (95% CI 0.019 to 0.051). These intervals cluster on the respondent's state, because the community-health and institutional-health subindexes include state-level inputs. Of the seven intervals, 3 include zero, those for community health, institutional health and civic groups. The data support "the premium does not shrink" and do not establish that it grows. The index includes family structure, which moves with the share of partnered adults in a county, and the Atlas measures do not, so they serve as a check on that overlap.

The comparison says that the premium is not smaller in places with more social capital by these measures. It does not say that community adds to a partner's value, because counties differ in age, income and other ways that this comparison does not hold fixed, and the county measures describe places while the ladder scores describe people.

Modeled loneliness follows who lives in a ZCTA

CDC PLACES publishes modeled estimates of the share of adults who say they feel lonely always, usually or sometimes for each ZCTA. The measure comes from an optional module of the 2023 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System that only some states asked. The estimates cover 39 states, those in which at least 90% of ZCTAs have an estimate, and ZCTAs that hold 75% of the residents of ZCTAs in the PLACES file.[9] The values are modeled estimates: a multilevel regression predicts a respondent's answer from age, sex, race and ethnicity and education, with the county poverty rate and state and county effects, and the prediction is applied to the 2020 census population of each ZCTA.[10][11] The county input is the share of adults below 150% of the federal poverty level. Marital status and population density are not inputs. A ZCTA estimate therefore reports who lives there, as the survey answers by age, sex, race and education and county poverty imply. A gradient against a characteristic that moves with those inputs, including age and the poverty rate, is partly built in.

Across the 19,684 ZCTAs with an estimate and at least 500 residents, weighted by adult population, modeled loneliness averages 34.4%; 68 of those ZCTAs are assigned to other states. It is lower where more adults are married, a correlation of −0.65 (95% CI −0.69 to −0.62).

Modeled loneliness is also lower where the population is older, −0.53 (95% CI −0.57 to −0.49) with median age and −0.48 (95% CI −0.51 to −0.45) with the share of older residents (Table 6). It is higher where the poverty rate is higher, +0.56 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.62), which is partly built in through the county poverty input. It is higher where population density is higher, +0.40 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.47) in logs, and lower where median household income is higher, −0.38 (95% CI −0.47 to −0.31) in logs.

Counting each ZCTA once gives −0.63 (95% CI −0.65 to −0.61) for the married share and +0.50 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.53) for poverty. The residents floor matters for the unweighted figures. With no floor, the weighted correlation with the married share is −0.65 (95% CI −0.69 to −0.62) and the unweighted one −0.54 (95% CI −0.57 to −0.52).

The Area Deprivation Index is the exception. Its correlation is +0.02 (95% CI −0.13 to 0.20) when weighted and +0.16 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.27) when each ZCTA counts once, so the book's deprivation measure says little about modeled loneliness, although the poverty rate says a good deal. The ZCTA values of the index are an area-weighted approximation, and the index understates deprivation in high-cost cities.

Table 6. Modeled loneliness is lower in ZCTAs with more married adults, a correlation of −0.65, and higher where poverty is higher, +0.56

Sorted into ten groups by married share, ZCTAs run from a mean of 28.2% to 67.4%, and modeled loneliness falls from 38.8% (95% CI 38.2% to 39.4%) to 29.9% (95% CI 29.6% to 30.3%).

Sorted by median age, from 30.2 years to 57.8 years, it falls from 37.8% (95% CI 37.1% to 38.6%) to 29.6% (95% CI 29.1% to 30.0%) (Table 7). The two gradients overlap, because ZCTAs with more married adults are older, and age is an input to the model.

Table 7. Modeled loneliness is higher in ZCTAs with fewer married adults and a younger population

Density shows that the model does not produce one gradient for every outcome. Modeled loneliness is 32.8% (95% CI 32.6% to 33.0%) in ZCTAs with fewer than 100 people per square mile and 37.8% (95% CI 36.6% to 38.9%) in those with 5,000 or more.

Across the same density groups, modeled depression falls from 23.6% (95% CI 23.4% to 23.7%) to 19.7% (95% CI 18.9% to 20.7%) (Table 8). Depression here is the share of adults ever told by a health professional that they have a depressive disorder, which depends in part on access to care, and both measures come from the same model inputs.

Table 8. Modeled loneliness rises from 32.8% to 37.8% across density classes of ZCTAs while modeled depression falls from 23.6% to 19.7%

A regression of ZCTA loneliness on median age, the share of older residents, race and ethnicity shares and the share with a bachelor's degree, weighted by adults, shows how much of the pattern lines up with composition. It has an R-squared of 65% (95% CI 62% to 69%), and adding the married share raises it by 5.2 (95% CI 3.7 to 6.8) points of R-squared. Most of the variation in the estimates lines up with the characteristics the model works from, and the married share adds little beyond them.

The ladder scores in the Gallup survey and the modeled loneliness in PLACES are different measures at different grains. The first is how a person rates their life, estimated from interviews, and the second is the modeled share of a ZCTA's adults who feel lonely. Partnered adults rate their lives higher and ZCTAs with fewer married adults have higher modeled loneliness, but the first statement is about people and the second about places built from a model, and one does not stand in for the other. Chapter 6.3, Life evaluation and daily feelings covers the ladder and daily feelings in full.

Voter turnout falls with deprivation under all four rankings

Table 9 ranks the 3,096 counties that have a 2020 turnout and all four rankings in four ways, with the tenths cut within that common sample. Ranked by the ADI, turnout among adult citizens is 72.0% (95% CI 70.4% to 73.6%) in the least deprived tenth and 56.5% (95% CI 55.4% to 57.7%) in the most deprived, and the rank correlation between tenth and turnout is −1.00. Under the standardized index the two ends are 75.9% (95% CI 74.9% to 77.0%) and 55.7% (95% CI 54.3% to 57.3%), with a correlation of −0.98. Under median household income they are 73.7% (95% CI 72.1% to 75.2%) and 57.9% (95% CI 56.9% to 58.8%), with a correlation of −0.99, and under the bachelor's degree share they are 73.8% (95% CI 72.5% to 75.2%) and 56.4% (95% CI 55.4% to 57.3%), with a correlation of −0.98, so none of the three counts as a change under the book's rule (Chapter 9.1, How far one ranking goes).

Table 9. Voter turnout is steadily worse toward the more deprived end under the ADI and under each of the three other rankings

What these data cannot show

The county and ZCTA patterns are ecological. A county with low turnout need not be one where the same people stayed home and had fewer chances to rise, and a ZCTA with high modeled loneliness need not hold lonelier people than its neighbors. Deaths are outside this chapter (Chapter 8.2, Overdose, alcohol and suicide maps overdose, alcohol and suicide deaths).

The county measures are dated 2010 to 2022 and mobility refers to children born in 1978 to 1983, so the comparisons assume that county differences persist. Census self-response reflects the operation as well as the residents in places counted in person, and turnout is limited to citizens and shaped by state law. The Joint Economic Committee index is a compiled snapshot of inputs from different years, and the Atlas measures describe active Facebook users in 2022, not a census of ties. The regressions are partial associations among correlated measures, with errors clustered on state.

The Gallup partner premium is a comparison between people at one time, in a repeated cross-section and not a panel. Selection into partnership is the main limit, and the panel studies above find evidence of it. Partnered means married or in a domestic partnership, so adults who live with a partner and call themselves single are in the comparison group. County comes from the respondent's ZIP code and is approximate near county lines. The extract is unweighted, so the levels can differ from the weighted figures Gallup publishes, and the evaluative ladder is the only Gallup measure used here.

The PLACES loneliness estimates are modeled, exist only for the states that asked the question, and do not include marital status as an input. The ZCTA characteristics are American Community Survey estimates for 2019 to 2023 for each ZCTA, without margins of error, so small ZCTAs carry sampling error that the intervals do not show. The married share counts residents aged fifteen and older who are married and not separated. An earlier version took these characteristics from a table of undocumented year. ZCTAs are not ZIP codes. The intervals in the figures describe the bootstrap over counties and do not carry the model's own uncertainty for each ZCTA. Puerto Rico is not in County Health Rankings and is not drawn, and Connecticut appears under its legacy counties in the county files and drops out of the regressions that need the ACS tract file, which uses planning-region codes.

Tables

Table 1. Voter turnout and census self-response fall with county deprivation, and across counties they correlate less with upward mobility than family structure and friendship across incomes do

County Health Rankings 2024 participation measures by decile of county deprivation, and county measures of civic life against the adult income rank of children born 1978 to 1983 to parents at the 25th percentile

Table 1.1. Participation by deprivation

Voter turnout fell from 72.1% to 56.4% and census self-response from 68.6% to 47.6% across deciles of county deprivation

Population-weighted mean voter turnout (citizens aged 18 and over, 2020 election) and census self-response (households, 2020 census) by decile of county deprivation

conf_high	conf_low	decile	estimate	measure	n_units
73.80	70.58	1	72.06	Voter turnout, 2020	307
71	67.93	2	69.33	Voter turnout, 2020	304
68.58	64.62	3	66.59	Voter turnout, 2020	309
65.57	62.07	4	63.95	Voter turnout, 2020	309
64.15	61.43	5	62.84	Voter turnout, 2020	310
62.08	59.10	6	60.63	Voter turnout, 2020	310
60.94	58.84	7	59.85	Voter turnout, 2020	313
60.52	56.90	8	58.66	Voter turnout, 2020	315
59.01	57.18	9	58.06	Voter turnout, 2020	311
57.59	55.37	10	56.43	Voter turnout, 2020	310
69.94	67.39	1	68.60	Census self-response, 2020	312
68.15	65.91	2	66.97	Census self-response, 2020	312
68.04	65	3	66.45	Census self-response, 2020	312
66.25	63.61	4	64.94	Census self-response, 2020	312
64.80	62.56	5	63.80	Census self-response, 2020	314
62.88	60.24	6	61.63	Census self-response, 2020	311
61.85	59.72	7	60.76	Census self-response, 2020	313
58.76	55.75	8	57.15	Census self-response, 2020	315
55.21	53.18	9	54.20	Census self-response, 2020	312
49.12	46.11	10	47.63	Census self-response, 2020	312

Table 1.2. Correlation with mobility

Across counties, family unity and economic connectedness correlate about +0.71 and +0.69 with upward mobility, voter turnout +0.35 and civic groups +0.06

Population-weighted correlation of each county measure with the mean adult income rank of children from low-income families, county measures dated 2010 to 2022

conf_high	conf_low	estimate	group	measure	n_units
0.744	0.666	0.706	JEC index and its parts	JEC family unity	2,913
0.741	0.644	0.693	Contact across incomes	Economic connectedness	2,942
0.676	0.535	0.608	JEC index and its parts	JEC Social Capital Index	2,889
0.584	0.431	0.514	JEC index and its parts	JEC collective efficacy (low violent crime)	2,885
0.417	0.283	0.354	Voting and census response	Voter turnout, 2020	2,964
0.368	0.258	0.316	Voting and census response	Census self-response, 2020	2,982
0.327	0.163	0.244	JEC index and its parts	JEC institutional health	2,959
0.253	0.121	0.187	Organizations and membership	Volunteering group membership	2,983
0.278	0.096	0.186	JEC index and its parts	JEC community health	2,983
0.138	−0.011	0.062	Organizations and membership	Civic groups per capita	2,983
0.020	−0.122	−0.052	Organizations and membership	Membership associations per 10,000 residents	2,982
−0.036	−0.155	−0.097	Organizations and membership	Religious congregations per 1,000 residents	2,983

Note: Deciles hold equal numbers of counties. County deprivation is the mean of the tract Area Deprivation Index national ranks (1 = least deprived), weighted by tract population. Turnout counts only citizens and depends on state voting laws; self-response is low where census takers counted households in person.

Note: Across all the counties in the first tab, population-weighted voter turnout is 67.8% and census self-response is 66.0%.

Note: Intervals resample whole counties. Resampling whole states gives wider intervals for every point, and the decile intervals still separate the first from the last decile.

Note: Counties with a missing measure drop out of that point only, so the number of counties differs by measure. The JEC collective-efficacy subindex is measured at the county level by violent-crime rates, and the JEC institutional-health and community-health subindexes include state-level inputs.

Source: County Health Rankings 2024 (voter turnout and census participation, 2020), Area Deprivation Index 2023 and ACS 2019-2023 county population, population-weighted; second tab adds Social Capital Atlas 2022, JEC Social Capital Index 2018 release and Opportunity Atlas county outcomes (1978-1983 birth cohorts), population-weighted by 2018 county population

Data: vishalsingh.org/zipcode/report/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/figures/civic_gradient.json

Table 2. Census self-response in 2020 was highest in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan and lowest in Alaska, West Virginia and Maine

Percent of households that answered the 2020 census online, by mail or by phone without a visit from a census taker, by county

No inline rows: the values of Table 2 are in /data/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/census_response_map.json.

Note: Each gray county has its reason in the tooltip. Puerto Rico is not in County Health Rankings and is not drawn. Connecticut appears as its eight legacy counties.

Note: Census takers counted households in person instead of inviting them to respond in remote Alaska, in remote parts of northern Maine and southeast Alaska, and optionally in tribal areas, so a low self-response rate there reflects how the count was run as well as the residents.

Note: The tooltip also gives voter turnout in the 2020 presidential election, which depends on state voting laws, counts only citizens and divides ballots by an ACS estimate of adult citizens.

Source: County Health Rankings 2024 release, census participation (2020 census; full count of households) and voter turnout (2020; ballots over an ACS 5-year estimate of adult citizens)

Data: vishalsingh.org/zipcode/report/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/figures/census_response_map.json

Table 3. Once income, race and poverty are in the model, voter turnout has a coefficient of 0.00 on county mobility, and economic connectedness has 0.63

Standardized coefficients on the adult income rank of children from low-income families (born 1978 to 1983) in three county regressions, weighted by 2018 county population

conf_high	conf_low	estimate	model	n_units	term
0.420	0.058	0.239	Civic measures only	2,915	Voter turnout
0.327	−0.007	0.160	Civic measures only	2,915	Census self-response
0.127	−0.150	−0.012	Civic measures only	2,915	Civic groups per capita
0.253	−0.016	0.118	Civic measures only	2,915	Volunteering group membership
0.161	−0.152	0.004	Plus income, percent Black and poverty	2,915	Voter turnout
0.047	−0.212	−0.083	Plus income, percent Black and poverty	2,915	Census self-response
0.160	−0.103	0.028	Plus income, percent Black and poverty	2,915	Civic groups per capita
0.091	−0.061	0.015	Plus income, percent Black and poverty	2,915	Volunteering group membership
0.593	0.238	0.415	Plus income, percent Black and poverty	2,915	Log median household income
−0.425	−0.608	−0.517	Plus income, percent Black and poverty	2,915	Percent Black
0.076	−0.158	−0.041	Plus income, percent Black and poverty	2,915	Poverty rate
0.101	−0.121	−0.010	Plus economic connectedness	2,915	Voter turnout
−0.053	−0.256	−0.155	Plus economic connectedness	2,915	Census self-response
0.049	−0.146	−0.049	Plus economic connectedness	2,915	Civic groups per capita
−0.094	−0.220	−0.157	Plus economic connectedness	2,915	Volunteering group membership
0.790	0.467	0.628	Plus economic connectedness	2,915	Economic connectedness
0.323	−0.053	0.135	Plus economic connectedness	2,915	Log median household income
−0.339	−0.480	−0.409	Plus economic connectedness	2,915	Percent Black
0.145	−0.074	0.036	Plus economic connectedness	2,915	Poverty rate

Note: Every variable is a z-score using the Atlas's 2018 county population as the weight. The controls are the log of median household income, the percent Black and the percent below poverty from the ACS 2019-2023 tract file, averaged to counties; Connecticut drops out because the ACS tract file uses planning-region codes.

Note: Intervals use t distributions on the state clusters. These are partial associations among correlated county measures, and a coefficient can change sign when its neighbors change.

Source: County Health Rankings 2024, Social Capital Atlas 2022, Opportunity Atlas county outcomes (1978-1983 birth cohorts) and ACS 2019-2023 county aggregates; population-weighted by 2018 county population

Data: vishalsingh.org/zipcode/report/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/figures/participation_and_connectedness.json

Table 4. The partner premium is 0.50 ladder points overall and 0.50 within counties, and runs from 0.15 in the youngest age band to 0.80 in its largest band

Difference in mean Cantril ladder score between adults who are married or in a domestic partnership and all others, under successive adjustments and by age band, Gallup U.S. Daily 2009 to 2017

conf_high	conf_low	estimate	group	label	n
0.506	0.489	0.498	All adults	Difference of means, no controls	2,189,201
0.504	0.488	0.496	All adults	Within county	2,189,199
0.650	0.630	0.640	All adults	Within county and year, adjusted for single-year age and sex	2,163,354
0.318	0.301	0.310	All adults	Same, adding household income and education	1,786,303
0.183	0.121	0.152	By age band, adjusted for single-year age and sex	Ages 18 to 24	147,891
0.632	0.586	0.609	By age band, adjusted for single-year age and sex	Ages 25 to 34	226,935
0.809	0.762	0.785	By age band, adjusted for single-year age and sex	Ages 35 to 44	268,006
0.817	0.779	0.798	By age band, adjusted for single-year age and sex	Ages 45 to 54	377,207
0.787	0.758	0.772	By age band, adjusted for single-year age and sex	Ages 55 to 64	461,305
0.609	0.579	0.594	By age band, adjusted for single-year age and sex	Ages 65 to 74	394,603
0.368	0.333	0.350	By age band, adjusted for single-year age and sex	Ages 75 and over	286,964

Note: The last all-adults row uses the interviews that report household income and education, a smaller sample than the other rows. Household income includes a partner's earnings. The rows are statistical adjustments, and none identifies an effect of partnership; the age-band rows are separate regressions with county, year, single-year age and sex fixed effects. A linear age term fits poorly because the ladder is U-shaped in age, and it gives a lower premium.

Note: Partnered means married or in a domestic partnership, which is how Gallup's three-way marital status counts domestic partners. Adults who live with a partner and call themselves single are in the other group.

Note: Gallup's extract has no survey weights, so every estimate is unweighted. County comes from the respondent's ZIP code and is approximate near county lines.

Source: Gallup U.S. Daily, 2009-2017; unweighted, intervals clustered by county

Data: vishalsingh.org/zipcode/report/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/figures/partner_premium_specifications.json

Table 5. The partner premium does not shrink where county social capital is higher: 0.45 ladder points in the lowest decile and 0.49 in the highest

Cantril ladder scores of partnered and other adults by decile of the JEC Social Capital Index of the respondent's county, and the change in the premium per standard deviation of seven county measures

Table 5.1. Ladder scores

Ladder scores differ little between the lowest and highest decile of county social capital, 7.25 and 7.35 among partnered adults and 6.80 and 6.86 among others

Unweighted mean Cantril ladder score by decile of the JEC Social Capital Index of the respondent's county, Gallup U.S. Daily interviews 2009 to 2017

conf_high	conf_low	decile	estimate	group	n
7.30	7.21	1	7.25	Married or domestic partner	112,277
6.84	6.75	1	6.80	Single, separated, divorced or widowed	106,246
7.30	7.23	2	7.26	Married or domestic partner	119,477
6.85	6.77	2	6.81	Single, separated, divorced or widowed	97,396
7.30	7.24	3	7.27	Married or domestic partner	117,601
6.85	6.78	3	6.81	Single, separated, divorced or widowed	101,443
7.28	7.22	4	7.25	Married or domestic partner	125,048
6.77	6.71	4	6.74	Single, separated, divorced or widowed	92,165
7.29	7.23	5	7.26	Married or domestic partner	126,801
6.78	6.71	5	6.74	Single, separated, divorced or widowed	91,539
7.28	7.22	6	7.25	Married or domestic partner	131,967
6.79	6.70	6	6.75	Single, separated, divorced or widowed	90,649
7.29	7.23	7	7.26	Married or domestic partner	129,786
6.77	6.70	7	6.74	Single, separated, divorced or widowed	83,949
7.30	7.25	8	7.28	Married or domestic partner	134,032
6.79	6.73	8	6.76	Single, separated, divorced or widowed	81,701
7.35	7.29	9	7.32	Married or domestic partner	135,115
6.83	6.76	9	6.79	Single, separated, divorced or widowed	82,489
7.37	7.33	10	7.35	Married or domestic partner	141,007
6.89	6.83	10	6.86	Single, separated, divorced or widowed	79,202

Table 5.2. Partner premium

The partner premium is 0.45 ladder points in the lowest decile of county social capital and 0.49 in the highest

Unweighted difference in mean ladder score, partnered minus other adults, by decile of the JEC Social Capital Index of the respondent's county, 2009 to 2017

conf_high	conf_low	decile	estimate	n
0.479	0.427	1	0.453	218,523
0.486	0.423	2	0.455	216,873
0.495	0.431	3	0.463	219,044
0.534	0.492	4	0.513	217,213
0.536	0.495	5	0.515	218,340
0.525	0.483	6	0.504	222,616
0.546	0.507	7	0.527	213,735
0.536	0.492	8	0.514	215,733
0.548	0.504	9	0.526	217,604
0.511	0.472	10	0.491	220,209

Table 5.3. Change per standard deviation

The partner premium is 0.007 to 0.035 ladder points larger for each standard deviation of the seven county community measures

Change in the partner premium (ladder points) per standard deviation of each county measure, interaction coefficients from regressions of the ladder score, 2009 to 2017

conf_high	conf_low	estimate	measure	n	source
0.034	0.012	0.023	JEC Social Capital Index	2,179,890	JEC Social Capital Project
0.039	0.018	0.028	JEC family unity	2,182,603	JEC Social Capital Project
0.033	−0.010	0.012	JEC community health	2,188,939	JEC Social Capital Project
0.019	−0.005	0.007	JEC institutional health	2,186,233	JEC Social Capital Project
0.021	0.007	0.014	JEC collective efficacy (low violent crime)	2,174,228	JEC Social Capital Project
0.039	−0.002	0.018	Civic groups per capita	2,185,410	Social Capital Atlas
0.051	0.019	0.035	Volunteering group membership	2,185,410	Social Capital Atlas

Note: Gallup's extract has no survey weights, so every estimate is unweighted and levels can differ from the weighted figures Gallup publishes. County comes from the respondent's ZIP code and is approximate near county lines. The ladder is the evaluative measure, and daily feelings are not used here.

Note: Deciles hold about a tenth of interviews each, and a county sits in one decile. The JEC index combines family unity, community health, institutional health and collective efficacy, and family unity includes the share of women who are married, so the Atlas measures serve as a check that does not depend on marriage.

Note: The premium in the second tab is largest in one of the upper deciles; the highest of the ten estimates is selected for being the highest.

Note: The third tab clusters errors on the respondent's state, because the JEC community-health and institutional-health subindexes include state-level inputs; the first two tabs cluster on county.

Source: Gallup U.S. Daily, 2009-2017, unweighted, intervals clustered by county (by state in the third tab); JEC Social Capital Index 2018 release (components 2010-2016) and Social Capital Atlas 2022 joined on the county of the interview

Data: vishalsingh.org/zipcode/report/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/figures/partner_premium_by_social_capital.json

Table 6. Modeled loneliness is lower in ZCTAs with more married adults, a correlation of −0.65, and higher where poverty is higher, +0.56

Correlation of CDC PLACES modeled loneliness (percent of adults, BRFSS 2023) with seven ZCTA characteristics, ZCTAs with an estimate and at least 500 residents

conf_high	conf_low	estimate	group	label	n_units
−0.623	−0.695	−0.653	Weighted by adult population	Married share, residents 15 and older	19,681
−0.610	−0.649	−0.630	Each ZCTA counted once	Married share, residents 15 and older	19,681
−0.495	−0.573	−0.530	Weighted by adult population	Median age	19,679
−0.468	−0.512	−0.490	Each ZCTA counted once	Median age	19,679
−0.446	−0.509	−0.476	Weighted by adult population	Share aged 65 and over	19,681
−0.409	−0.459	−0.435	Each ZCTA counted once	Share aged 65 and over	19,681
0.474	0.303	0.396	Weighted by adult population	Population density (log)	19,681
0.410	0.271	0.341	Each ZCTA counted once	Population density (log)	19,681
−0.312	−0.474	−0.384	Weighted by adult population	Median household income (log)	19,335
−0.303	−0.425	−0.365	Each ZCTA counted once	Median household income (log)	19,335
0.616	0.514	0.557	Weighted by adult population	Poverty rate	19,588
0.527	0.468	0.496	Each ZCTA counted once	Poverty rate	19,588
0.201	−0.128	0.025	Weighted by adult population	Area Deprivation Index	19,622
0.266	0.034	0.156	Each ZCTA counted once	Area Deprivation Index	19,622

Note: PLACES estimates come from a model fed by age, sex, race and ethnicity, education and the county share of adults below a multiple of the poverty line, so a gradient against characteristics that move with those inputs, including age, poverty and income, is partly built in. Marital status and population density are not inputs.

Note: The ZCTA characteristics are ACS 2019-2023 five-year estimates for each ZCTA; the married share counts residents 15 and older who are now married, except separated. ZCTAs are not ZIP codes.

Note: The Area Deprivation Index at ZCTA grain is an area-weighted approximation and understates deprivation in high-cost cities.

Source: CDC PLACES 2025 release (BRFSS 2023), ZCTA modeled estimates, with ACS 2019-2023 ZCTA characteristics and the Area Deprivation Index 2023; modeled estimates, population-weighted by adults

Data: vishalsingh.org/zipcode/report/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/figures/loneliness_correlates.json

Table 7. Modeled loneliness is higher in ZCTAs with fewer married adults and a younger population

CDC PLACES modeled loneliness (percent of adults, BRFSS 2023) by decile of ZCTA married share and of ZCTA median age, population-weighted

Table 7.1. By married share

Modeled loneliness falls from 38.8% in the tenth of ZCTAs with the lowest married share to 29.9% in the tenth with the highest

Population-weighted mean of CDC PLACES modeled loneliness by decile of ZCTA married share, ZCTAs with an estimate and at least 500 residents

conf_high	conf_low	decile	estimate	n_units	x
39.44	38.15	1	38.79	1,968	28.22
37.62	35.75	2	36.60	1,968	39.29
36.04	34.55	3	35.25	1,968	44.47
34.75	33.77	4	34.25	1,968	48.06
33.84	32.92	5	33.38	1,968	50.94
33.04	32.23	6	32.62	1,968	53.65
32.60	31.78	7	32.19	1,968	56.11
31.80	31.04	8	31.39	1,968	58.77
31.41	30.65	9	31.02	1,968	62.15
30.30	29.59	10	29.93	1,969	67.45

Table 7.2. By median age

Modeled loneliness falls from 37.8% in the tenth of ZCTAs with the lowest median age to 29.6% in the tenth with the highest

Population-weighted mean of CDC PLACES modeled loneliness by decile of ZCTA median age, ZCTAs with an estimate and at least 500 residents

conf_high	conf_low	decile	estimate	n_units	x
38.63	37.13	1	37.84	1,966	30.23
37.21	35.64	2	36.39	1,926	35.06
35.86	34.37	3	35.09	2,009	37.35
34.72	33.58	4	34.13	2,011	39.19
33.86	32.84	5	33.33	1,904	40.78
33.28	32.37	6	32.82	1,960	42.37
33.17	31.91	7	32.48	1,963	44.15
32.23	31.19	8	31.68	2,004	46.44
31.53	30.81	9	31.16	1,969	49.93
30.01	29.13	10	29.56	1,967	57.80

Note: PLACES uses age as an input to the model, so the age gradient is partly built in, and the married-share gradient moves with age. The estimates describe ZCTAs, not the people in them.

Note: Deciles hold equal numbers of ZCTAs. The ZCTA characteristics are ACS 2019-2023 five-year estimates; the married share counts residents 15 and older. ZCTAs are not ZIP codes.

Source: CDC PLACES 2025 release (BRFSS 2023), ZCTA modeled estimates, and ACS 2019-2023 ZCTA characteristics; modeled estimates, population-weighted by adults

Data: vishalsingh.org/zipcode/report/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/figures/loneliness_by_marriage_and_age.json

Table 8. Modeled loneliness rises from 32.8% to 37.8% across density classes of ZCTAs while modeled depression falls from 23.6% to 19.7%

Population-weighted mean of two CDC PLACES modeled measures (percent of adults, BRFSS 2023) by population density of the ZCTA, ZCTAs with both estimates and at least 500 residents

conf_high	conf_low	estimate	label	measure	n_units
32.97	32.65	32.81	Under 100 people per square mile	Feeling lonely	9,893
23.70	23.39	23.55	Under 100 people per square mile	Depression diagnosis	9,893
33.38	32.84	33.11	100 to 999 people per square mile	Feeling lonely	5,023
23.57	23.08	23.32	100 to 999 people per square mile	Depression diagnosis	5,023
34.44	33.44	33.94	1,000 to 4,999 people per square mile	Feeling lonely	3,262
22.02	20.93	21.47	1,000 to 4,999 people per square mile	Depression diagnosis	3,262
38.90	36.56	37.75	5,000 and over people per square mile	Feeling lonely	1,504
20.66	18.89	19.65	5,000 and over people per square mile	Depression diagnosis	1,504

Note: Feeling lonely is the share of adults who say they feel lonely always, usually or sometimes. Depression is the share ever told by a health professional that they have a depressive disorder, which depends on access to diagnosis.

Note: Both are modeled from the same inputs. Density classes use ACS 2019-2023 residents per square mile of 2020 land area. Lower cuts are inclusive.

Source: CDC PLACES 2025 release (BRFSS 2023), ZCTA modeled estimates, and ZCTA population density from ACS 2019-2023 residents and 2020 TIGER land area; modeled estimates, population-weighted by adults

Data: vishalsingh.org/zipcode/report/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/figures/loneliness_by_density.json

Table 9. Voter turnout is steadily worse toward the more deprived end under the ADI and under each of the three other rankings

Voter turnout, 2020 (% of citizens aged 18 and over) by tenth of counties ranked four ways, over the 3,096 counties that have all four rankings

bin	conf_high	conf_low	estimate	n_units	ranking
1	73.60	70.38	71.96	309	Area Deprivation Index
2	71.09	67.92	69.40	310	Area Deprivation Index
3	68.75	64.92	66.81	309	Area Deprivation Index
4	65.86	62.24	64.04	310	Area Deprivation Index
5	62.99	60.64	61.82	310	Area Deprivation Index
6	63.29	59.41	61.42	309	Area Deprivation Index
7	61.47	59.53	60.54	310	Area Deprivation Index
8	60.51	56.80	58.52	309	Area Deprivation Index
9	58.84	56.98	57.88	310	Area Deprivation Index
10	57.69	55.38	56.49	310	Area Deprivation Index
1	77.02	74.89	75.95	309	Standardized index
2	71.34	68.61	69.92	310	Standardized index
3	69.73	67.56	68.47	309	Standardized index
4	65.50	61.85	63.55	310	Standardized index
5	63.63	60.43	61.90	310	Standardized index
6	64.11	61.26	62.73	309	Standardized index
7	61.02	58.32	59.69	310	Standardized index
8	59.30	56.88	58.08	309	Standardized index
9	57.18	53.81	55.34	310	Standardized index
10	57.26	54.34	55.70	310	Standardized index
1	75.22	72.13	73.67	309	Median household income
2	70.05	66.50	68.27	310	Median household income
3	68.92	64.64	66.61	309	Median household income
4	66.11	62.22	64.25	310	Median household income
5	64.40	60.66	62.50	310	Median household income
6	63.66	59.94	61.88	309	Median household income
7	61.47	59.33	60.38	310	Median household income
8	60.17	56.69	58.42	309	Median household income
9	59.50	57.42	58.47	310	Median household income
10	58.82	56.89	57.86	310	Median household income
1	75.21	72.46	73.83	309	Bachelor's degree share
2	70.22	67.65	68.97	310	Bachelor's degree share
3	66.89	63.66	65.30	309	Bachelor's degree share
4	65.51	61.31	63.47	310	Bachelor's degree share
5	65.46	62.93	64.19	310	Bachelor's degree share
6	63.74	60.36	61.97	309	Bachelor's degree share
7	63.36	60.99	62.13	310	Bachelor's degree share
8	61.38	58.95	60.19	309	Bachelor's degree share
9	59.86	57.83	58.87	310	Bachelor's degree share
10	57.34	55.40	56.36	310	Bachelor's degree share

Note: Least and most deprived tenth: ADI 72.0% and 56.5%, rank correlation −1.00; standardized index 75.9% and 55.7%, −0.98; median household income 73.7% and 57.9%, −0.99; bachelor's degree share 73.8% and 56.4%, −0.98.

Note: The standardized index applies the ADI's coefficients to its measures after standardizing each one, so home value and income carry less weight than in the ADI. Income and degree share are single census measures, each ranked from the highest value to the lowest.

Source: County Health Rankings 2024 (voter turnout, 2020 presidential election), Area Deprivation Index 2023 and ACS 2019-2023 county population, population-weighted; ADI 2023 and ACS 2019-2023 tract tables (B19013, B15003 and the 15 rebuilt ADI measures)

Data: vishalsingh.org/zipcode/report/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/figures/alt_rankings.json

All estimates

Every fact in facts.json (117), sorted by id. The same values as JSON: facts.json.

Fact id	Value	Unit	Estimand	Population	Period	Interval	n	Weights	Source	Note
alt_adi_least	72.0%	Voter turnout, 2020 (% of citizens aged 18 and over)	population-weighted mean of county voter turnout; 95% intervals from a bootstrap over counties	the least deprived tenth of counties ranked by Area Deprivation Index, among the counties with all four rankings	2020 presidential election	95% CI 70.4% to 73.6%	309 counties	2019-2023 county population	County Health Rankings
alt_adi_most	56.5%	Voter turnout, 2020 (% of citizens aged 18 and over)	population-weighted mean of county voter turnout; 95% intervals from a bootstrap over counties	the most deprived tenth of counties ranked by Area Deprivation Index, among the counties with all four rankings	2020 presidential election	95% CI 55.4% to 57.7%	310 counties	2019-2023 county population	County Health Rankings
alt_adi_rho	−1.00	rank correlation	Spearman rank correlation between bin order and bin mean, each bin counted once	the bins of counties ranked by Area Deprivation Index	2020 presidential election			each bin counted once	County Health Rankings
alt_degree_least	73.8%	Voter turnout, 2020 (% of citizens aged 18 and over)	population-weighted mean of county voter turnout; 95% intervals from a bootstrap over counties	the least deprived tenth of counties ranked by Bachelor's degree share, among the counties with all four rankings	2020 presidential election	95% CI 72.5% to 75.2%	309 counties	2019-2023 county population	County Health Rankings
alt_degree_most	56.4%	Voter turnout, 2020 (% of citizens aged 18 and over)	population-weighted mean of county voter turnout; 95% intervals from a bootstrap over counties	the most deprived tenth of counties ranked by Bachelor's degree share, among the counties with all four rankings	2020 presidential election	95% CI 55.4% to 57.3%	310 counties	2019-2023 county population	County Health Rankings
alt_degree_rho	−0.98	rank correlation	Spearman rank correlation between bin order and bin mean, each bin counted once	the bins of counties ranked by Bachelor's degree share	2020 presidential election			each bin counted once	County Health Rankings
alt_income_least	73.7%	Voter turnout, 2020 (% of citizens aged 18 and over)	population-weighted mean of county voter turnout; 95% intervals from a bootstrap over counties	the least deprived tenth of counties ranked by Median household income, among the counties with all four rankings	2020 presidential election	95% CI 72.1% to 75.2%	309 counties	2019-2023 county population	County Health Rankings
alt_income_most	57.9%	Voter turnout, 2020 (% of citizens aged 18 and over)	population-weighted mean of county voter turnout; 95% intervals from a bootstrap over counties	the most deprived tenth of counties ranked by Median household income, among the counties with all four rankings	2020 presidential election	95% CI 56.9% to 58.8%	310 counties	2019-2023 county population	County Health Rankings
alt_income_rho	−0.99	rank correlation	Spearman rank correlation between bin order and bin mean, each bin counted once	the bins of counties ranked by Median household income	2020 presidential election			each bin counted once	County Health Rankings
alt_n_places	3,096	counties	count of counties in the common sample of the ranking comparison	counties with the outcome and all four rankings	2020 presidential election			none (full count)	County Health Rankings
alt_rho_cut	0.9	absolute rank correlation	threshold between a steady and an uneven gradient	the rule for changed gradients (docs/RANKING_SWITCH_RULE.md)	2020 presidential election			none (a fixed rule)	County Health Rankings
alt_rho_margin	0.1	absolute rank correlation	smallest move in the rank correlation that counts as a change of shape	the rule for changed gradients (docs/RANKING_SWITCH_RULE.md)	2020 presidential election			none (a fixed rule)	County Health Rankings
alt_std_least	75.9%	Voter turnout, 2020 (% of citizens aged 18 and over)	population-weighted mean of county voter turnout; 95% intervals from a bootstrap over counties	the least deprived tenth of counties ranked by Standardized index, among the counties with all four rankings	2020 presidential election	95% CI 74.9% to 77.0%	309 counties	2019-2023 county population	County Health Rankings
alt_std_most	55.7%	Voter turnout, 2020 (% of citizens aged 18 and over)	population-weighted mean of county voter turnout; 95% intervals from a bootstrap over counties	the most deprived tenth of counties ranked by Standardized index, among the counties with all four rankings	2020 presidential election	95% CI 54.3% to 57.3%	310 counties	2019-2023 county population	County Health Rankings
alt_std_rho	−0.98	rank correlation	Spearman rank correlation between bin order and bin mean, each bin counted once	the bins of counties ranked by Standardized index	2020 presidential election			each bin counted once	County Health Rankings
assoc_mobility_r	−0.05	correlation coefficient	population-weighted correlation across counties of the measure with the mean adult household income rank, bootstrap interval over counties	counties with the measure and a mobility estimate (children born 1978 to 1983 to parents at the 25th income percentile)	county measure of membership associations in 2021 against mobility of children born 1978 to 1983	95% CI −0.12 to 0.02	2,982 counties	2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas)	County Health Rankings
ce_mobility_r	+0.51	correlation coefficient	population-weighted correlation across counties of the measure with the mean adult household income rank, bootstrap interval over counties	counties with the measure and a mobility estimate (children born 1978 to 1983 to parents at the 25th income percentile)	county measure of JEC collective efficacy (violent crime, FBI reports 2008 to 2014) against mobility of children born 1978 to 1983	95% CI 0.43 to 0.58	2,885 counties	2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas)	JEC Social Capital Index
census_beta_b	−0.08	standard deviations of county mobility per standard deviation of the measure	standardized coefficient on census self-response in model B (plus income, percent black and poverty) of county mobility, weighted least squares, errors clustered on state	counties with every measure in the model and a mobility estimate (Connecticut is absent)	county measure of census self-response against mobility of children born 1978 to 1983	95% CI −0.21 to 0.05	2,915 counties	2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas)	County Health Rankings
census_beta_c	−0.15	standard deviations of county mobility per standard deviation of the measure	standardized coefficient on census self-response in model C (plus economic connectedness) of county mobility, weighted least squares, errors clustered on state	counties with every measure in the model and a mobility estimate (Connecticut is absent)	county measure of census self-response against mobility of children born 1978 to 1983	95% CI −0.26 to −0.05	2,915 counties	2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas)	County Health Rankings
census_d1	68.6%	percent of households that answered the census without a visit from a census taker	mean of county census self-response in a tenth of counties (equal numbers of counties, ranked by county Area Deprivation Index; county ADI is the mean of the county's tract Area Deprivation Index national ranks, weighted by 2019-2023 tract population), weighted by county population, bootstrap interval over counties	households in counties in the least deprived tenth of counties by Area Deprivation Index	2020 census	95% CI 67.4% to 69.9%	312 counties	2019-2023 county population	County Health Rankings
census_d10	47.6%	percent of households that answered the census without a visit from a census taker	mean of county census self-response in a tenth of counties (equal numbers of counties, ranked by county Area Deprivation Index; county ADI is the mean of the county's tract Area Deprivation Index national ranks, weighted by 2019-2023 tract population), weighted by county population, bootstrap interval over counties	households in counties in the most deprived tenth of counties by Area Deprivation Index	2020 census	95% CI 46.1% to 49.1%	312 counties	2019-2023 county population	County Health Rankings
census_d10_unw	46.3%	percent of households that answered the census without a visit from a census taker	unweighted mean of county census self-response in a tenth of counties (each county counted once), bootstrap interval over counties	households in counties in the most deprived tenth of counties by Area Deprivation Index	2020 census	95% CI 45.2% to 47.3%	312 counties	none (each county counts once)	County Health Rankings
census_d1_unw	65.0%	percent of households that answered the census without a visit from a census taker	unweighted mean of county census self-response in a tenth of counties (each county counted once), bootstrap interval over counties	households in counties in the least deprived tenth of counties by Area Deprivation Index	2020 census	95% CI 63.7% to 66.3%	312 counties	none (each county counts once)	County Health Rankings
census_gap	21.0	percentage points, least deprived tenth minus most deprived tenth of counties	difference between the population-weighted means of census self-response in the least and the most deprived tenth of counties, bootstrap interval over counties with shared draws	households in counties in the two extreme tenths of counties by Area Deprivation Index	2020 census	95% CI 19.0 to 22.9	624 counties	2019-2023 county population	County Health Rankings
census_mean	66.0%	percent of households that answered the census without a visit from a census taker	mean of county self-response rates weighted by county population	households in counties with a published rate	2020 census		3,140 counties	county population (County Health Rankings)	County Health Rankings
census_mobility_r	+0.32	correlation coefficient	population-weighted correlation across counties of the measure with the mean adult household income rank, bootstrap interval over counties	counties with the measure and a mobility estimate (children born 1978 to 1983 to parents at the 25th income percentile)	county measure of census self-response in 2020 against mobility of children born 1978 to 1983	95% CI 0.26 to 0.37	2,982 counties	2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas)	County Health Rankings
census_nodata	3	counties	count of map units with no published self-response rate	counties and county equivalents on the map	2020 census			none (full count)	County Health Rankings
census_p5	51.8%	percent of households that answered the census without a visit from a census taker	5th percentile of county self-response rates, counties weighted by population	households in counties with a published rate	2020 census		3,140 counties	county population (County Health Rankings)	County Health Rankings
census_p95	77.5%	percent of households that answered the census without a visit from a census taker	95th percentile of county self-response rates, counties weighted by population	households in counties with a published rate	2020 census		3,140 counties	county population (County Health Rankings)	County Health Rankings
civorg_mobility_r	+0.06	correlation coefficient	population-weighted correlation across counties of the measure with the mean adult household income rank, bootstrap interval over counties	counties with the measure and a mobility estimate (children born 1978 to 1983 to parents at the 25th income percentile)	county measure of civic groups in 2022 against mobility of children born 1978 to 1983	95% CI −0.01 to 0.14	2,983 counties	2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas)	Social Capital Atlas
commhealth_mobility_r	+0.19	correlation coefficient	population-weighted correlation across counties of the measure with the mean adult household income rank, bootstrap interval over counties	counties with the measure and a mobility estimate (children born 1978 to 1983 to parents at the 25th income percentile)	county measure of JEC community health, components from 2010 to 2015 against mobility of children born 1978 to 1983	95% CI 0.10 to 0.28	2,983 counties	2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas)	JEC Social Capital Index
comp_gap_hi	0.49	ladder points, partnered minus not partnered	unweighted difference in mean ladder score between partnered and other adults within a tenth of interviews ranked by the JEC Social Capital Index, interval clustered by county	adults in counties in the highest tenth of interviews by the JEC Social Capital Index of the respondent's county	interviews in 2009 to 2017	95% CI 0.47 to 0.51	220,209 respondents	none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll
comp_gap_lo	0.45	ladder points, partnered minus not partnered	unweighted difference in mean ladder score between partnered and other adults within a tenth of interviews ranked by the JEC Social Capital Index, interval clustered by county	adults in counties in the lowest tenth of interviews by the JEC Social Capital Index of the respondent's county	interviews in 2009 to 2017	95% CI 0.43 to 0.48	218,523 respondents	none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll
comp_gap_peak	0.53	ladder points, partnered minus not partnered	the largest of the ten decile premiums, which is also the one most likely to be too high (selected for being largest)	adults in counties in the tenth of interviews with the largest premium	interviews in 2009 to 2017	95% CI 0.51 to 0.55	213,735 respondents	none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll
comp_other_hi	6.86	Cantril ladder score (0 worst possible life, 10 best possible life)	unweighted mean of the 0 to 10 ladder score, interval clustered by county	adults who are single, separated, divorced or widowed, in the highest tenth of interviews by the JEC Social Capital Index of the respondent's county	interviews in 2009 to 2017	95% CI 6.83 to 6.89	79,202 respondents	none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll
comp_other_lo	6.80	Cantril ladder score (0 worst possible life, 10 best possible life)	unweighted mean of the 0 to 10 ladder score, interval clustered by county	adults who are single, separated, divorced or widowed, in the lowest tenth of interviews by the JEC Social Capital Index of the respondent's county	interviews in 2009 to 2017	95% CI 6.75 to 6.84	106,246 respondents	none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll
comp_partnered_hi	7.35	Cantril ladder score (0 worst possible life, 10 best possible life)	unweighted mean of the 0 to 10 ladder score, interval clustered by county	adults who are married or in a domestic partnership, in the highest tenth of interviews by the JEC Social Capital Index of the respondent's county	interviews in 2009 to 2017	95% CI 7.33 to 7.37	141,007 respondents	none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll
comp_partnered_lo	7.25	Cantril ladder score (0 worst possible life, 10 best possible life)	unweighted mean of the 0 to 10 ladder score, interval clustered by county	adults who are married or in a domestic partnership, in the lowest tenth of interviews by the JEC Social Capital Index of the respondent's county	interviews in 2009 to 2017	95% CI 7.21 to 7.30	112,277 respondents	none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll
dens_cut_high	5,000	people per square mile	the higher cut between density classes (a definition of the groups)	ZCTAs in the density comparison	ACS 2019-2023 (5-year), ZCTA estimates			none (definition)	CDC PLACES
dens_cut_low	100	people per square mile	the lower cut between density classes (a definition of the groups)	ZCTAs in the density comparison	ACS 2019-2023 (5-year), ZCTA estimates			none (definition)	CDC PLACES
dep_dens_high	19.7%	percent of adults ever told by a health professional that they have a depressive disorder	mean of ZCTA modeled prevalence of depression weighted by adult population, bootstrap interval over counties; ZCTAs with both measures	adults in ZCTAs with a population density at or above the higher density cut	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)	95% CI 18.9% to 20.7%	1,504 ZCTAs	2020 census adult population of the ZCTA	CDC PLACES
dep_dens_low	23.6%	percent of adults ever told by a health professional that they have a depressive disorder	mean of ZCTA modeled prevalence of depression weighted by adult population, bootstrap interval over counties; ZCTAs with both measures	adults in ZCTAs with a population density under the lower density cut	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)	95% CI 23.4% to 23.7%	9,893 ZCTAs	2020 census adult population of the ZCTA	CDC PLACES
ec_beta_c	0.63	standard deviations of county mobility per standard deviation of the measure	standardized coefficient on economic connectedness in model C (plus economic connectedness) of county mobility, weighted least squares, errors clustered on state	counties with every measure in the model and a mobility estimate (Connecticut is absent)	county measure of economic connectedness against mobility of children born 1978 to 1983	95% CI 0.47 to 0.79	2,915 counties	2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas)	Social Capital Atlas
ec_mobility_r	+0.69	correlation coefficient	population-weighted correlation across counties of the measure with the mean adult household income rank, bootstrap interval over counties	counties with the measure and a mobility estimate (children born 1978 to 1983 to parents at the 25th income percentile)	county measure of economic connectedness in 2022 against mobility of children born 1978 to 1983	95% CI 0.64 to 0.74	2,942 counties	2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas)	Social Capital Atlas
famunity_mobility_r	+0.71	correlation coefficient	population-weighted correlation across counties of the measure with the mean adult household income rank, bootstrap interval over counties	counties with the measure and a mobility estimate (children born 1978 to 1983 to parents at the 25th income percentile)	county measure of JEC family unity, components from 2012 to 2016 against mobility of children born 1978 to 1983	95% CI 0.67 to 0.74	2,913 counties	2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas)	JEC Social Capital Index
insthealth_mobility_r	+0.24	correlation coefficient	population-weighted correlation across counties of the measure with the mean adult household income rank, bootstrap interval over counties	counties with the measure and a mobility estimate (children born 1978 to 1983 to parents at the 25th income percentile)	county measure of JEC institutional health, components from 2010 to 2016 against mobility of children born 1978 to 1983	95% CI 0.16 to 0.33	2,959 counties	2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas)	JEC Social Capital Index
inter_max	0.035	ladder points of premium per standard deviation of the county measure	the largest of the seven interaction coefficients (Volunteering group membership)	adults interviewed in counties with the measure	interviews in 2009 to 2017	95% CI 0.019 to 0.051	2,185,410 respondents	none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll
inter_min	0.007	ladder points of premium per standard deviation of the county measure	the smallest of the seven interaction coefficients (JEC institutional health)	adults interviewed in counties with the measure	interviews in 2009 to 2017	95% CI −0.005 to 0.019	2,186,233 respondents	none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll
inter_n_zero	3	of the seven interaction coefficients	count of the seven 95% intervals (clustered by state) that include zero	adults interviewed in counties with each of the seven county measures	interviews in 2009 to 2017			none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll
inter_sci	0.023	ladder points of premium per standard deviation of the JEC Social Capital Index	coefficient on the interaction of partnership with the county measure (standardized across counties) in a regression of the ladder score, unweighted, errors clustered on the respondent's state because the JEC community-health and institutional-health subindexes include state-level inputs	adults interviewed in counties with a JEC index	interviews in 2009 to 2017	95% CI 0.012 to 0.034	2,179,890 respondents	none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll
ladder_never_married	6.77	Cantril ladder score (0 worst possible life, 10 best possible life)	unweighted mean of the 0 to 10 ladder score, interval clustered by the respondent's county	adults who are never married	interviews in 2009 to 2017	95% CI 6.76 to 6.79	389,678 respondents	none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll
ladder_partnered	7.28	Cantril ladder score (0 worst possible life, 10 best possible life)	unweighted mean of the 0 to 10 ladder score, interval clustered by the respondent's county	adults who are married or in a domestic partnership	interviews in 2009 to 2017	95% CI 7.27 to 7.29	1,278,658 respondents	none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll
ladder_partnered_with2008	7.22	Cantril ladder score (0 worst possible life, 10 best possible life)	unweighted mean of the 0 to 10 ladder score including the 2008 interviews, interval clustered by the respondent's county	adults who are married or in a domestic partnership	interviews in 2008 to 2017	95% CI 7.21 to 7.24	1,489,101 respondents	none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll	The 2008 ladder is lowered by a question-order artifact, so this comparison is not the chapter's estimate.
ladder_sdw	6.78	Cantril ladder score (0 worst possible life, 10 best possible life)	unweighted mean of the 0 to 10 ladder score, interval clustered by the respondent's county	adults who are separated, divorced or widowed	interviews in 2009 to 2017	95% CI 6.77 to 6.80	520,865 respondents	none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll
ladder_share_2009	85%	percent of the year's interviews that carry a ladder score	share of the year's interviews with a ladder score (unweighted count, before any county or marital-status filter)	all Gallup interviews in 2009	2009		353,849 respondents	none (unweighted count)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll
ladder_share_late	49%	percent of interviews that carry a ladder score	share of interviews with a ladder score (unweighted count, before any county or marital-status filter)	all Gallup interviews from 2013 to 2017	2013 to 2017		1,761,191 respondents	none (unweighted count)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll
ladder_unpartnered	6.78	Cantril ladder score (0 worst possible life, 10 best possible life)	unweighted mean of the 0 to 10 ladder score, interval clustered by the respondent's county	adults who are never married, separated, divorced or widowed	interviews in 2009 to 2017	95% CI 6.77 to 6.79	910,543 respondents	none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll
ladder_unpartnered_with2008	6.73	Cantril ladder score (0 worst possible life, 10 best possible life)	unweighted mean of the 0 to 10 ladder score including the 2008 interviews, interval clustered by the respondent's county	adults who are never married, separated, divorced or widowed	interviews in 2008 to 2017	95% CI 6.72 to 6.74	1,050,196 respondents	none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll	The 2008 ladder is lowered by a question-order artifact, so this comparison is not the chapter's estimate.
lonely_65_r	−0.48	correlation coefficient	correlation across ZCTAs of PLACES modeled loneliness with the share of residents aged 65 and over, weighted by adult population, bootstrap interval over counties	adults in ZCTAs with a loneliness estimate and at least 500 residents	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)	95% CI −0.51 to −0.45	19,681 ZCTAs	2020 census adult population of the ZCTA	CDC PLACES	PLACES estimates come from a model; the ZCTA covariate is an ACS 2019-2023 five-year estimate for the ZCTA.
lonely_adi_r	+0.02	correlation coefficient	correlation across ZCTAs of PLACES modeled loneliness with the Area Deprivation Index national rank, weighted by adult population, bootstrap interval over counties	adults in ZCTAs with a loneliness estimate and at least 500 residents	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)	95% CI −0.13 to 0.20	19,622 ZCTAs	2020 census adult population of the ZCTA	CDC PLACES	PLACES estimates come from a model; the ZCTA covariate is an ACS 2019-2023 five-year estimate for the ZCTA.
lonely_adi_r_unw	+0.16	correlation coefficient	correlation across ZCTAs of PLACES modeled loneliness with the Area Deprivation Index national rank, each ZCTA counted once, bootstrap interval over counties	adults in ZCTAs with a loneliness estimate and at least 500 residents	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)	95% CI 0.03 to 0.27	19,622 ZCTAs	none (each ZCTA counts once)	CDC PLACES
lonely_age_d1	37.8%	percent of adults who feel lonely always, usually or sometimes	mean of ZCTA modeled prevalence in a tenth of ZCTAs (equal numbers, ranked by median age) weighted by adult population, bootstrap interval over counties	adults in the lowest tenth of ZCTAs by median age	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)	95% CI 37.1% to 38.6%	1,966 ZCTAs	2020 census adult population of the ZCTA	CDC PLACES
lonely_age_d10	29.6%	percent of adults who feel lonely always, usually or sometimes	mean of ZCTA modeled prevalence in a tenth of ZCTAs (equal numbers, ranked by median age) weighted by adult population, bootstrap interval over counties	adults in the highest tenth of ZCTAs by median age	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)	95% CI 29.1% to 30.0%	1,967 ZCTAs	2020 census adult population of the ZCTA	CDC PLACES
lonely_age_r	−0.53	correlation coefficient	correlation across ZCTAs of PLACES modeled loneliness with the median age, weighted by adult population, bootstrap interval over counties	adults in ZCTAs with a loneliness estimate and at least 500 residents	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)	95% CI −0.57 to −0.49	19,679 ZCTAs	2020 census adult population of the ZCTA	CDC PLACES	PLACES estimates come from a model; the ZCTA covariate is an ACS 2019-2023 five-year estimate for the ZCTA.
lonely_dens_high	37.8%	percent of adults who feel lonely always, usually or sometimes	mean of ZCTA modeled prevalence of feeling lonely weighted by adult population, bootstrap interval over counties; ZCTAs with both measures	adults in ZCTAs with a population density at or above the higher density cut	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)	95% CI 36.6% to 38.9%	1,504 ZCTAs	2020 census adult population of the ZCTA	CDC PLACES
lonely_dens_low	32.8%	percent of adults who feel lonely always, usually or sometimes	mean of ZCTA modeled prevalence of feeling lonely weighted by adult population, bootstrap interval over counties; ZCTAs with both measures	adults in ZCTAs with a population density under the lower density cut	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)	95% CI 32.6% to 33.0%	9,893 ZCTAs	2020 census adult population of the ZCTA	CDC PLACES
lonely_density_r	+0.40	correlation coefficient	correlation across ZCTAs of PLACES modeled loneliness with the log of population density, weighted by adult population, bootstrap interval over counties	adults in ZCTAs with a loneliness estimate and at least 500 residents	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)	95% CI 0.30 to 0.47	19,681 ZCTAs	2020 census adult population of the ZCTA	CDC PLACES	PLACES estimates come from a model; the ZCTA covariate is an ACS 2019-2023 five-year estimate for the ZCTA.
lonely_income_r	−0.38	correlation coefficient	correlation across ZCTAs of PLACES modeled loneliness with the log of median household income, weighted by adult population, bootstrap interval over counties	adults in ZCTAs with a loneliness estimate and at least 500 residents	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)	95% CI −0.47 to −0.31	19,335 ZCTAs	2020 census adult population of the ZCTA	CDC PLACES	PLACES estimates come from a model; the ZCTA covariate is an ACS 2019-2023 five-year estimate for the ZCTA.
lonely_married_d1	38.8%	percent of adults who feel lonely always, usually or sometimes	mean of ZCTA modeled prevalence in a tenth of ZCTAs (equal numbers, ranked by married share of residents 15 and older) weighted by adult population, bootstrap interval over counties	adults in the lowest tenth of ZCTAs by married share of residents 15 and older	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)	95% CI 38.2% to 39.4%	1,968 ZCTAs	2020 census adult population of the ZCTA	CDC PLACES
lonely_married_d10	29.9%	percent of adults who feel lonely always, usually or sometimes	mean of ZCTA modeled prevalence in a tenth of ZCTAs (equal numbers, ranked by married share of residents 15 and older) weighted by adult population, bootstrap interval over counties	adults in the highest tenth of ZCTAs by married share of residents 15 and older	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)	95% CI 29.6% to 30.3%	1,969 ZCTAs	2020 census adult population of the ZCTA	CDC PLACES
lonely_married_r	−0.65	correlation coefficient	correlation across ZCTAs of PLACES modeled loneliness with the married share of residents 15 and older, weighted by adult population, bootstrap interval over counties	adults in ZCTAs with a loneliness estimate and at least 500 residents	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)	95% CI −0.69 to −0.62	19,681 ZCTAs	2020 census adult population of the ZCTA	CDC PLACES	PLACES estimates come from a model; the ZCTA covariate is an ACS 2019-2023 five-year estimate for the ZCTA.
lonely_married_r_nofloor	−0.65	correlation coefficient	correlation across ZCTAs of PLACES modeled loneliness with the married share of residents 15 and older, weighted by adult population, bootstrap interval over counties (no residents floor)	adults in ZCTAs of the states with an estimate, with no minimum number of residents	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)	95% CI −0.69 to −0.62	23,770 ZCTAs	2020 census adult population of the ZCTA	CDC PLACES
lonely_married_r_unw	−0.63	correlation coefficient	correlation across ZCTAs of PLACES modeled loneliness with the married share of residents 15 and older, each ZCTA counted once, bootstrap interval over counties	adults in ZCTAs with a loneliness estimate and at least 500 residents	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)	95% CI −0.65 to −0.61	19,681 ZCTAs	none (each ZCTA counts once)	CDC PLACES
lonely_married_r_unw_nofloor	−0.54	correlation coefficient	correlation across ZCTAs of PLACES modeled loneliness with the married share of residents 15 and older, each ZCTA counted once, bootstrap interval over counties (no residents floor)	adults in ZCTAs of the states with an estimate, with no minimum number of residents	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)	95% CI −0.57 to −0.52	23,770 ZCTAs	none (each ZCTA counts once)	CDC PLACES
lonely_mean	34.4%	percent of adults who feel lonely always, usually or sometimes	mean of ZCTA modeled prevalence weighted by adult population	adults in ZCTAs with a loneliness estimate and at least 500 residents	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)		19,684 ZCTAs	2020 census adult population of the ZCTA	CDC PLACES
lonely_poverty_r	+0.56	correlation coefficient	correlation across ZCTAs of PLACES modeled loneliness with the poverty rate, weighted by adult population, bootstrap interval over counties	adults in ZCTAs with a loneliness estimate and at least 500 residents	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)	95% CI 0.51 to 0.62	19,588 ZCTAs	2020 census adult population of the ZCTA	CDC PLACES	PLACES estimates come from a model; the ZCTA covariate is an ACS 2019-2023 five-year estimate for the ZCTA.
lonely_poverty_r_unw	+0.50	correlation coefficient	correlation across ZCTAs of PLACES modeled loneliness with the poverty rate, each ZCTA counted once, bootstrap interval over counties	adults in ZCTAs with a loneliness estimate and at least 500 residents	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)	95% CI 0.47 to 0.53	19,588 ZCTAs	none (each ZCTA counts once)	CDC PLACES
married_share_d1	28.2%	percent of residents 15 and older who are now married, except separated	mean of the ZCTA married share of residents 15 and older in the tenth, weighted by adult population	residents 15 and older of the lowest tenth of ZCTAs by married share of residents 15 and older	ACS 2019-2023 (5-year), ZCTA estimates		1,968 ZCTAs	2020 census adult population of the ZCTA	CDC PLACES
married_share_d10	67.4%	percent of residents 15 and older who are now married, except separated	mean of the ZCTA married share of residents 15 and older in the tenth, weighted by adult population	residents 15 and older of the highest tenth of ZCTAs by married share of residents 15 and older	ACS 2019-2023 (5-year), ZCTA estimates		1,969 ZCTAs	2020 census adult population of the ZCTA	CDC PLACES
median_age_d1	30.2	years of age	mean of the ZCTA median age in the tenth, weighted by adult population	residents of the lowest tenth of ZCTAs by median age	ACS 2019-2023 (5-year), ZCTA estimates		1,966 ZCTAs	2020 census adult population of the ZCTA	CDC PLACES
median_age_d10	57.8	years of age	mean of the ZCTA median age in the tenth, weighted by adult population	residents of the highest tenth of ZCTAs by median age	ACS 2019-2023 (5-year), ZCTA estimates		1,967 ZCTAs	2020 census adult population of the ZCTA	CDC PLACES
n_counties_adi	3,128	counties	count of counties ranked into tenths	counties and county equivalents with an Area Deprivation Index and a population (Puerto Rico excluded)	ADI 2023, population 2019-2023			none (full count)	Area Deprivation Index
n_gallup	2,189,201	interviews	count of interviews with a ladder score, a marital status and a county	adults interviewed with a ladder score, a marital status and a county	interviews in 2009 to 2017			none (unweighted count)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll
n_gallup_counties	3,140	counties	count of distinct counties assigned to respondents (county is derived from the ZIP code)	counties of the respondents' ZIP codes in the analysis	interviews in 2009 to 2017			none (unweighted count)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll
n_states_lonely	39	states	count of states with an estimate	states in which at least 90 percent of ZCTAs have a PLACES loneliness estimate	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)			none (full count)	CDC PLACES
n_zcta_lonely	19,684	ZCTAs	count of ZCTAs in the analysis	ZCTAs with a loneliness estimate, a match in the ZCTA atlas and at least 500 residents	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)			none (full count)	CDC PLACES
n_zcta_outside	68	ZCTAs	count of analysis ZCTAs whose primary state falls under the 90 percent rule	ZCTAs in the analysis assigned to a state with an estimate in fewer than 90 percent of its ZCTAs	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)			none (full count)	CDC PLACES
partner_premium	0.50	ladder points, partnered minus not partnered	unweighted difference between the mean ladder score of adults who are married or in a domestic partnership and the mean of all others, interval clustered by county	adults interviewed with a ladder score, a marital status and a county	interviews in 2009 to 2017	95% CI 0.49 to 0.51	2,189,201 respondents	none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll
partner_premium_from2010	0.50	ladder points, partnered minus not partnered	unweighted difference between the mean ladder score of adults who are married or in a domestic partnership and the mean of all others, leaving out 2009 as well, interval clustered by county	adults interviewed with a ladder score, a marital status and a county, from 2010 on	interviews in 2010 to 2017	95% CI 0.49 to 0.51	1,890,860 respondents	none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll
partner_premium_with2008	0.50	ladder points, partnered minus not partnered	unweighted difference between the mean ladder score of adults who are married or in a domestic partnership and the mean of all others, including the 2008 interviews, interval clustered by county	adults interviewed with a ladder score, a marital status and a county, including 2008	interviews in 2008 to 2017	95% CI 0.49 to 0.51	2,539,297 respondents	none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll	The 2008 ladder is lowered by a question-order artifact, so this comparison is not the chapter's estimate.
partner_premium_within	0.50	ladder points, partnered minus not partnered	coefficient on being married or in a domestic partnership in a regression of the ladder score on county fixed effects, unweighted, errors clustered on the respondent's county	adults interviewed with a ladder score, a marital status and a county	interviews in 2009 to 2017	95% CI 0.49 to 0.50	2,189,199 respondents	none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll
places_poverty_line	150%	percent of the federal poverty level	the county input of the PLACES model is the share of adults below this multiple of the poverty line (a definition)	adults in the county input of the PLACES model	PLACES 2025 release			none (definition)	CDC PLACES
premium_adj_age_sex	0.64	ladder points, partnered minus not partnered	coefficient on being married or in a domestic partnership in a regression of the ladder score on county, year, single-year age and sex fixed effects, unweighted, errors clustered on the respondent's county	adults interviewed with a ladder score, a marital status, an age and a sex	interviews in 2009 to 2017	95% CI 0.63 to 0.65	2,163,354 respondents	none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll
premium_adj_full	0.31	ladder points, partnered minus not partnered	coefficient on being married or in a domestic partnership in a regression of the ladder score on county, year, single-year age, sex, household income and education fixed effects, unweighted, errors clustered on the respondent's county	adults interviewed with a ladder score, a marital status, an age, a sex, a household income bracket and an education level	interviews in 2009 to 2017	95% CI 0.30 to 0.32	1,786,303 respondents	none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll
premium_age_old	0.35	ladder points, partnered minus not partnered	coefficient on being married or in a domestic partnership in a regression of the ladder score on county, year, single-year age and sex fixed effects, estimated separately in the age band, unweighted, errors clustered on the respondent's county	adults aged 75 and over with a ladder score, a marital status, an age and a sex	interviews in 2009 to 2017	95% CI 0.33 to 0.37	286,964 respondents	none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll	Estimated within the age band, with single-year age and sex fixed effects.
premium_age_peak	0.80	ladder points, partnered minus not partnered	coefficient on being married or in a domestic partnership in a regression of the ladder score on county, year, single-year age and sex fixed effects, estimated separately in the age band, unweighted, errors clustered on the respondent's county	adults aged 45 to 54 with a ladder score, a marital status, an age and a sex	interviews in 2009 to 2017	95% CI 0.78 to 0.82	377,207 respondents	none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll	Estimated within the age band, with single-year age and sex fixed effects.
premium_age_young	0.15	ladder points, partnered minus not partnered	coefficient on being married or in a domestic partnership in a regression of the ladder score on county, year, single-year age and sex fixed effects, estimated separately in the age band, unweighted, errors clustered on the respondent's county	adults aged 18 to 24 with a ladder score, a marital status, an age and a sex	interviews in 2009 to 2017	95% CI 0.12 to 0.18	147,891 respondents	none (unweighted)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll	Estimated within the age band, with single-year age and sex fixed effects.
r2_composition	65%	percent of the weighted variance in ZCTA modeled loneliness	R-squared of a regression of ZCTA modeled loneliness on median age, share aged 65 and over, race and ethnicity shares and share with a bachelor's degree or more, weighted by adult population, bootstrap interval over counties	adults in ZCTAs with a loneliness estimate and at least 500 residents	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)	95% CI 62% to 69%	19,659 ZCTAs	2020 census adult population of the ZCTA	CDC PLACES
r2_gain_married	5.2	percentage points of R-squared	increase in R-squared from adding the married share to the composition regression, bootstrap interval over counties	adults in ZCTAs with a loneliness estimate and at least 500 residents	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)	95% CI 3.7 to 6.8	19,659 ZCTAs	2020 census adult population of the ZCTA	CDC PLACES
relig_mobility_r	−0.10	correlation coefficient	population-weighted correlation across counties of the measure with the mean adult household income rank, bootstrap interval over counties	counties with the measure and a mobility estimate (children born 1978 to 1983 to parents at the 25th income percentile)	county measure of religious congregations in 2010 against mobility of children born 1978 to 1983	95% CI −0.15 to −0.04	2,983 counties	2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas)	JEC Social Capital Index
sci_mobility_r	+0.61	correlation coefficient	population-weighted correlation across counties of the measure with the mean adult household income rank, bootstrap interval over counties	counties with the measure and a mobility estimate (children born 1978 to 1983 to parents at the 25th income percentile)	county measure of the JEC index, 2018 release with components from 2010 to 2016 against mobility of children born 1978 to 1983	95% CI 0.53 to 0.68	2,889 counties	2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas)	JEC Social Capital Index
share_interviews_early	61%	percent of the interviews in the analysis	share of the analysis interviews that were conducted in 2009 to 2012 (unweighted count)	adults interviewed with a ladder score, a marital status and a county	interviews in 2009 to 2017		2,189,201 respondents	none (unweighted count)	Gallup U.S. Daily Poll
share_pop_lonely	75%	percent of the residents of ZCTAs in PLACES	residents of ZCTAs with a loneliness estimate as a share of residents of all ZCTAs in the file	residents of ZCTAs in the PLACES ZCTA file	2020 census population			none (full count)	CDC PLACES
state_coverage_cut	90%	percent of a state's ZCTAs	minimum share of a state's ZCTAs with a loneliness estimate for the state to count as covered (a definition)	states in the PLACES ZCTA file	BRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)			none (definition)	CDC PLACES
us_census_response	66.0%	percent of households that answered the census without a visit from a census taker	mean of county census self-response over all the counties ranked into tenths (county ADI is the mean of the county's tract Area Deprivation Index national ranks, weighted by 2019-2023 tract population), weighted by county population, bootstrap interval over counties	households in all the counties ranked into tenths by Area Deprivation Index (all ten tenths pooled)	2020 census	95% CI 65.5% to 66.6%	3,125 counties	2019-2023 county population	County Health Rankings
us_turnout	67.8%	percent of citizens aged 18 and over who voted	mean of county voter turnout over all the counties ranked into tenths (county ADI is the mean of the county's tract Area Deprivation Index national ranks, weighted by 2019-2023 tract population), weighted by county population, bootstrap interval over counties	citizens aged 18 and over in all the counties ranked into tenths by Area Deprivation Index (all ten tenths pooled)	2020 presidential election	95% CI 67.1% to 68.6%	3,098 counties	2019-2023 county population	County Health Rankings
vol_beta_c	−0.16	standard deviations of county mobility per standard deviation of the measure	standardized coefficient on volunteering group membership in model C (plus economic connectedness) of county mobility, weighted least squares, errors clustered on state	counties with every measure in the model and a mobility estimate (Connecticut is absent)	county measure of volunteering group membership against mobility of children born 1978 to 1983	95% CI −0.22 to −0.09	2,915 counties	2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas)	Social Capital Atlas
vol_mobility_r	+0.19	correlation coefficient	population-weighted correlation across counties of the measure with the mean adult household income rank, bootstrap interval over counties	counties with the measure and a mobility estimate (children born 1978 to 1983 to parents at the 25th income percentile)	county measure of volunteering group membership in 2022 against mobility of children born 1978 to 1983	95% CI 0.12 to 0.25	2,983 counties	2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas)	Social Capital Atlas
voter_beta_a	0.24	standard deviations of county mobility per standard deviation of the measure	standardized coefficient on voter turnout in model A (civic measures only) of county mobility, weighted least squares, errors clustered on state	counties with every measure in the model and a mobility estimate (Connecticut is absent)	county measure of voter turnout against mobility of children born 1978 to 1983	95% CI 0.06 to 0.42	2,915 counties	2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas)	County Health Rankings
voter_beta_b	0.00	standard deviations of county mobility per standard deviation of the measure	standardized coefficient on voter turnout in model B (plus income, percent black and poverty) of county mobility, weighted least squares, errors clustered on state	counties with every measure in the model and a mobility estimate (Connecticut is absent)	county measure of voter turnout against mobility of children born 1978 to 1983	95% CI −0.15 to 0.16	2,915 counties	2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas)	County Health Rankings
voter_d1	72.1%	percent of citizens aged 18 and over who voted	mean of county voter turnout in a tenth of counties (equal numbers of counties, ranked by county Area Deprivation Index; county ADI is the mean of the county's tract Area Deprivation Index national ranks, weighted by 2019-2023 tract population), weighted by county population, bootstrap interval over counties	citizens aged 18 and over in counties in the least deprived tenth of counties by Area Deprivation Index	2020 presidential election	95% CI 70.6% to 73.8%	307 counties	2019-2023 county population	County Health Rankings
voter_d10	56.4%	percent of citizens aged 18 and over who voted	mean of county voter turnout in a tenth of counties (equal numbers of counties, ranked by county Area Deprivation Index; county ADI is the mean of the county's tract Area Deprivation Index national ranks, weighted by 2019-2023 tract population), weighted by county population, bootstrap interval over counties	citizens aged 18 and over in counties in the most deprived tenth of counties by Area Deprivation Index	2020 presidential election	95% CI 55.4% to 57.6%	310 counties	2019-2023 county population	County Health Rankings
voter_d10_unw	58.8%	percent of citizens aged 18 and over who voted	unweighted mean of county voter turnout in a tenth of counties (each county counted once), bootstrap interval over counties	citizens aged 18 and over in counties in the most deprived tenth of counties by Area Deprivation Index	2020 presidential election	95% CI 57.7% to 59.9%	310 counties	none (each county counts once)	County Health Rankings
voter_d1_unw	76.9%	percent of citizens aged 18 and over who voted	unweighted mean of county voter turnout in a tenth of counties (each county counted once), bootstrap interval over counties	citizens aged 18 and over in counties in the least deprived tenth of counties by Area Deprivation Index	2020 presidential election	95% CI 76.0% to 77.9%	307 counties	none (each county counts once)	County Health Rankings
voter_gap	15.6	percentage points, least deprived tenth minus most deprived tenth of counties	difference between the population-weighted means of voter turnout in the least and the most deprived tenth of counties, bootstrap interval over counties with shared draws	citizens aged 18 and over in counties in the two extreme tenths of counties by Area Deprivation Index	2020 presidential election	95% CI 13.9 to 17.7	617 counties	2019-2023 county population	County Health Rankings
voter_mobility_r	+0.35	correlation coefficient	population-weighted correlation across counties of the measure with the mean adult household income rank, bootstrap interval over counties	counties with the measure and a mobility estimate (children born 1978 to 1983 to parents at the 25th income percentile)	county measure of voter turnout in 2020 against mobility of children born 1978 to 1983	95% CI 0.28 to 0.42	2,964 counties	2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas)	County Health Rankings
zcta_floor	500	residents	minimum number of residents for a ZCTA to enter (a definition of the sample)	ZCTAs in the loneliness analysis	2020 census			none (definition)	CDC PLACES

Definitions

Area Deprivation Index (ADI): A score that ranks neighborhoods by income, education, employment and housing conditions drawn from the American Community Survey. In this book a higher national percentile means a more deprived neighborhood.
ZCTA: ZIP Code Tabulation Area, the Census Bureau's approximation of a ZIP code as a set of census blocks. It lets census data be reported by ZIP code, though some ZIP codes have no matching ZCTA.
Income rank (kfr): The position that adult children reach in the national distribution of household income, from the lowest rank to the highest, averaged over children who grew up in a place with parents at a stated income level. The Opportunity Atlas labels this measure kfr.
Bootstrap interval: A range for an estimate found by recomputing it on many random resamples of the data and reading the range from the results. It shows how much the estimate would vary from sample to sample.
Economic connectedness: A measure of friendship across class lines, based on the share of high-status friends among people below the median in socioeconomic status. It is scaled so that friendships mixing in proportion to the population give the reference value.
Cantril ladder: A survey question that asks people to place their life on a ladder whose bottom step is the worst possible life and whose top step is the best possible. It measures how people evaluate their life as a whole, not how they felt yesterday.
Fixed effects: A regression adjustment that gives each group, such as each county, its own baseline. The estimate then rests on differences within groups.
Modeled estimate: A figure produced by a statistical model instead of a direct count or measurement, usually for small areas where direct data are thin, borrowing strength from surveys, neighboring areas or other data. Neighboring areas can share errors, so single extremes call for caution.
Ecological inference: Drawing conclusions about individuals from data about places or groups. A pattern across counties need not hold for the people inside them.

Methods

This chapter compares voter turnout and census self-response across ten groups of counties ordered by deprivation, the Gallup life-evaluation score of partnered and unpartnered adults, and modeled loneliness across ZCTAs. All Gallup estimates are unweighted, the 2008 interviews are left out, and the ladder was asked of different shares of respondents in different years, so the pooled figures weight 2009 to 2012 most. Loneliness and depression are modeled estimates, and the ZCTA characteristics are ACS 2019-2023 five-year estimates without margins of error. Gallup respondent rows are read inside Box and aggregated; nothing at respondent level is published.

County deprivation, civic measures and intervals

County deprivation is the mean of the Area Deprivation Index 2023 national ranks of a county's tracts, weighted by 2019-2023 tract population (Connecticut tracts move to the eight legacy counties; Puerto Rico is excluded), and counties are cut into ten groups of equal numbers of counties.

Decile means of voter turnout and census self-response (County Health Rankings 2024) are weighted by county population, with 95% percentile intervals from 2,000 draws of whole counties with replacement (seed 12345); the same routine gives the correlations across counties, which are weighted by the Social Capital Atlas 2018 population as in the chapter on race, income and mobility, and the differences between deciles with shared draws.

The three county regressions use z-scores with the same weight, and errors clustered on state with t intervals.

Figures explained here: Figure 2, Figure 1 and Figure 3

The Gallup sample is unweighted and its years differ by question coverage

Gallup respondent rows are read inside Box and aggregated; nothing at respondent level is published. All Gallup estimates are unweighted.

The 2008 interviews are left out because Gallup asked political questions immediately before the ladder in 2008, which lowers the ladder score (Deaton 2012); including them leaves the premium at 0.50. The ladder was asked of nearly all respondents in 2010 to 2012, of 85% in 2009 and of 49% from 2013 to 2017, so 61% of the analysis interviews are from 2009 to 2012 and the pooled figures weight those years most.

Partnered means married or in a domestic partnership.

Figure explained here: Figure 4

Adjusted comparisons and their standard errors

Group means and differences have errors clustered on the respondent's county (derived from the ZIP code), and the fixed-effect models are linear regressions with county, year, single-year age and sex fixed effects (and household income and education where stated) and errors clustered on county, with t intervals; a fixed effect for each year of age is used because the ladder is U-shaped in age and a linear age term fits poorly.

Figure explained here: Figure 4

The county Social Capital Index of the respondent's county is joined in Box on the county code and respondents are cut into ten groups of about equal numbers of interviews.

The interaction models cluster on the respondent's state, because the JEC community-health and institutional-health subindexes include state-level inputs.

Figure explained here: Figure 5

Modeled loneliness and depression across ZCTAs

Loneliness and depression are PLACES 2025 release ZCTA estimates (BRFSS 2023), modeled by multilevel regression and poststratification; ZCTAs enter with at least 500 residents, and correlations, decile means and the R-squared are weighted by the ZCTA's adult population and use bootstrap intervals over counties with the same draws.

The R-squared and its gain come from the sums of the weighted regression within each county, resampled with the same draws.

ZCTA characteristics are ACS 2019-2023 five-year estimates for each ZCTA (the ZCTA's own estimate, not a sum of tracts), pulled from the Census API: the married share is now married except separated, of residents 15 and older; race shares are race alone; education is the share of adults 25 and older with a bachelor's degree or more; density is residents per square mile of 2020 TIGER land area. An earlier version used ACS-based values of undocumented year from the project's ZCTA atlas.

Figures explained here: Figure 8, Figure 7 and Figure 6

Four rankings of the same places

The comparison follows the book's ranking switch rule, fixed on October 28, 2026 before any of these gradients was computed. The main gradient of the chapter is recomputed under four rankings of the same places, with the outcome, period, weights, bins and intervals unchanged: the published ADI; a standardized index that applies the ADI's coefficients to its measures after standardizing each one across tracts; median household income; and the share of adults 25 and older with a bachelor's degree or more. The three alternatives come from ACS tract estimates for 2019 to 2023, the period of the ADI.

All four rankings use the same places, the 3,096 counties that have the outcome and all four rankings, so the ADI panel can differ slightly from the chapter's main figure. Tracts enter only if they have every input of the standardized index, which leaves out tracts without a median rent, home value or mortgage cost. A county takes the population-weighted mean of the ranks of its common-sample tracts, weighted by 2019-2023 tract population, with Connecticut tracts assigned to the eight legacy counties; the decile means keep the chapter's weight, the county population of all its tracts, and the deciles are cut within the common sample.

A pattern counts as changed when the worse end switches sides, when the two ends differ under one ranking and not the other, or when the rank correlation of bin order and bin mean falls on the other side of 0.9 and moves by at least 0.1.

Figure explained here: Figure 9

What these data cannot show

References

University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute (2024). County Health Rankings & Roadmaps Technical Documentation, Version 2. University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute (updated March 18, 2024). www.countyhealthrankings.org/sites/default/files/media/document/2024%20CHRR%20Technical%20Document_1.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau (2024). 2020 Census Operational Timeline and Adjustments Due to COVID-19. U.S. Census Bureau web page, last revised September 16, 2024. www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/decade/2020/planning-management/operational-adjustments.html
Putnam, Robert D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster, New York.
U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee, Social Capital Project (2018). The Geography of Social Capital in America. Social Capital Project Report No. 1-18, Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress. www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/2018/4/the-geography-of-social-capital-in-america
Chetty, Raj; Jackson, Matthew O.; Kuchler, Theresa; Stroebel, Johannes; et al. (2022). Social capital I: measurement and associations with economic mobility. Nature 608: 108-121. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04996-4
Deaton, Angus (2012). The financial crisis and the well-being of Americans: 2011 OEP Hicks Lecture. Oxford Economic Papers 64(1): 1-26. doi:10.1093/oep/gpr051
Stutzer, Alois; Frey, Bruno S. (2006). Does marriage make people happy, or do happy people get married?. The Journal of Socio-Economics 35(2): 326-347. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2005.11.043
Lucas, Richard E.; Clark, Andrew E.; Georgellis, Yannis; Diener, Ed (2003). Reexamining adaptation and the set point model of happiness: Reactions to changes in marital status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84(3): 527-539. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.527
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2025). PLACES Measure Definitions: Health-Related Social Needs. CDC PLACES: Local Data for Better Health, web page updated December 7, 2025. www.cdc.gov/places/measure-definitions/health-related-social-needs.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2025). PLACES Methodology. CDC PLACES: Local Data for Better Health, web page last reviewed December 7, 2025. www.cdc.gov/places/methodology/index.html
Zhang, Xingyou; Holt, James B.; Lu, Hua; Wheaton, Anne G.; Ford, Earl S.; Greenlund, Kurt J.; Croft, Janet B. (2014). Multilevel regression and poststratification for small-area estimation of population health outcomes: a case study of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease prevalence using the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. American Journal of Epidemiology 179(8): 1025-1033. doi:10.1093/aje/kwu018

Provenance

Pipeline version: 0.1.0
Build script: book2/chapters/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/build.py (sha256 a980485db4acdff837ba27a3a56ad644427977a36d02b22e04fa916e4d411758)
Built on: 2026-10-07
Site commit: c2b1ff3309cb4a10833f884da91ac0057a66ad0a

Inputs

File	Size (bytes)	SHA-256, first 1 MB	SHA-256, last 1 MB
book2/chapters/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/civic_data.py	16,647	d19ee2c18a2b9a7ab4a8f41150a0b0a66c562c463daf3a45f8116df7c329cedf	d19ee2c18a2b9a7ab4a8f41150a0b0a66c562c463daf3a45f8116df7c329cedf
book2/chapters/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/lonely_data.py	11,042	bdb0b9d8ff4441dc5d344112b48678e42b021e0503beb61ec7c72dd2e1522dae	bdb0b9d8ff4441dc5d344112b48678e42b021e0503beb61ec7c72dd2e1522dae
book2/chapters/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/partner_data.py	12,972	56cba90356e8b6e25ea0bf73f9ff1312322f7c1a7a0d58d74b3f8bf447552bb3	56cba90356e8b6e25ea0bf73f9ff1312322f7c1a7a0d58d74b3f8bf447552bb3
data/analytic/tract_atlas.parquet	39,659,925	29d5e4d943552d54aeb6ba92aadc939d9bd15bdea553c78357dbd516757be627	1e10d1ecf722340f23ee2212d4999a90250f85b65fa89b39e32db06d9472e22e
data/analytic/zcta_atlas.parquet	674,348,737	0abfad485b74b74eb956fdc57c88e504abe10d601a2e99a3f16467469826578c	0e37a4ce00d8569d49dccd0b2dfdc2c8435934f9c8a606bbca2ca1dad2c9effe
data/geo/zctas_2020.parquet	795,216,625	f0928267645eb4deedf7037797ce412fd13f7ceb083db8d7dac0b8b9dab8fca0	13af30cbf46cbb47798c9ae53ff4b4f3685b8f39dea763d8721a7082dab1f7d9
data/raw/acs/deprivation_components_2019_2023/tract.parquet	13,197,793	5545cde2cbe96a8b56e468d65388248a241aa6bd300d3c9e325d08d3f86b11da	5c8ec454d066988b0f1a01aaa6ed34ebfc05d162e01cf9c6bb01f9198cbaff12
data/raw/acs/zcta_controls_2019_2023/zcta.parquet	5,262,344	291be093b86c45b966601918649e0c30e34dba24ab5a501398659d6d3a0457a8	961d494333cc7df244d280317fd111c5743822c5bb18b07ca0d84cc331e020a4
data/raw/gallup/gallup_us.parquet	209,530,597	b57c719f2c1d4749e43b1a70ca6dbd97f0480a0b538983091eea7eadfec40551	b8167235969e50da6143a0e8d3e74ffb8f7c231743acc9fb2a78130a602af6f5
data/staged/adi/adi_atlas_tract2020_2023.parquet	798,078	5e409bc212ff871def780fa27b4cf8b616d9da420b2b9f6455517eddcd8c1a95	5e409bc212ff871def780fa27b4cf8b616d9da420b2b9f6455517eddcd8c1a95
data/staged/crosswalks/ct_tract2020_to_old_county.parquet	15,842	961ef39f31596ef65fca2c67d5f2f63e533c5dc9b49745d3bb6437844e4b831d	961ef39f31596ef65fca2c67d5f2f63e533c5dc9b49745d3bb6437844e4b831d
data/staged/health/chr_county_2024.parquet	8,776,933	619795f7ecfec8aff10694b649eaee5e421dbeffbe4be47af4161b51ceefa5cd	c69357f1bcf630407bb9716cb445618838999558c019aaaf77d4681b6bf45c56
data/staged/health/places_zcta_latest.parquet	5,315,556	1b38963b19eebcdd7f803cdef49d3586aee3f1c32d22bd67063ae823c6a604e4	9a1f9bd34ba5e645312981527a7d51bb100a0684f41cff37108b189294496f1d
data/staged/mobility/oa_outcomes_county.parquet	721,343	fd7bc55294fbd3f7a646f27083500c1f12415775db7a3607878b522d277f8140	fd7bc55294fbd3f7a646f27083500c1f12415775db7a3607878b522d277f8140
data/staged/ses/acs5_tract2020_2019_2023.parquet	7,232,424	5fe6f730a35225f14d5d8abfc6b9bce58b52e545f309a7eac74f1dae74d7a31c	7b4a2475b3852d3f91804716a04566ef8ceadacec2be9fb85f5eb642078efac6
data/staged/social_capital/jec_social_capital_county.parquet	460,297	1f042e817f25c79bc96cf0a256133c4068e655bd10caff55c2ae0dc3c8f7df22	1f042e817f25c79bc96cf0a256133c4068e655bd10caff55c2ae0dc3c8f7df22
data/staged/social_capital/sc_atlas_county_2022.parquet	655,734	9ee5596513748a9b62c3e5fc559ad41b804696702c9f92848be04a05222f2f46	9ee5596513748a9b62c3e5fc559ad41b804696702c9f92848be04a05222f2f46
data/staged/svi/svi_tract2020_2022.parquet	17,740,415	cb3860d8edc2aaf1f2a02211a58f7a0b80457eb6ad9a37b5ec8abb2d5da9da10	e371a4a696d5bed05d54ad7c5b6ca2504508805b847ec415c2322be7f66ec2b2

Outputs

File	SHA-256
facts.json	885b22dae15bf5507523280f10d2ec8ad50a4009d4607d9ea4e70c0c6fa8d1c6
figures/alt_rankings.json	ee02e7e5c4deefeb5d2b37f55efc742af66468028d2cd7818d70a22f684b901b
figures/census_response_map.json	8948582cb33833025e00bd2109e0d482ae6eb20e433aa52de952931dccf8ae89
figures/civic_gradient.json	16152938d8fc8a1900bb13ce35aeea159621130649fbd0567a20ee5cb1ee1795
figures/loneliness_by_density.json	9a3bdba30478fb6295b963b131db9173b7315949ffa9579c4d8833382f1f2590
figures/loneliness_by_marriage_and_age.json	34ebe0e3760a72788611685ed79243c9ea5424a4bcdf2e948d07573222765d95
figures/loneliness_correlates.json	4971cfa6ed3b22af3676db6031fb96df4d3ff4c8aa48a6581a914b24664530a4
figures/participation_and_connectedness.json	155995f053e9bc7077764ab3c11a60021d4304c180dbe930174d0b8ec9038069
figures/partner_premium_by_social_capital.json	18532469287af81fa09ffe4b5e5291e632ebeb72c53ee892131e6602efdd81f2
figures/partner_premium_specifications.json	4a0caa49b79969551405bd0f4be5b5f9983ab86dfa415aa137a61f34c424fc98
meta.json	591e8a5b81bbb3a06d9ad8abcb604ec32c6831dfaaef4df0eb5781b0f3e8eb27
public/data/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/census_response_map.json	1358ea4fe8d258685a4c30c82c573120bed317114f6b9a505c1f5b07be6d4301
refs.json	3ad232faa21f0634b62742682e7b21bf651123b771d98a12ecb44c652213a0a3

Machine formats

Report (Markdown): https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/report.md
Every estimate (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/report/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/facts.json
Table 1, figure "civic_gradient" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/report/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/figures/civic_gradient.json
Table 2, figure "census_response_map" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/report/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/figures/census_response_map.json
Table 3, figure "participation_and_connectedness" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/report/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/figures/participation_and_connectedness.json
Table 4, figure "partner_premium_specifications" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/report/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/figures/partner_premium_specifications.json
Table 5, figure "partner_premium_by_social_capital" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/report/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/figures/partner_premium_by_social_capital.json
Table 6, figure "loneliness_correlates" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/report/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/figures/loneliness_correlates.json
Table 7, figure "loneliness_by_marriage_and_age" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/report/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/figures/loneliness_by_marriage_and_age.json
Table 8, figure "loneliness_by_density" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/report/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/figures/loneliness_by_density.json
Table 9, figure "alt_rankings" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/report/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/figures/alt_rankings.json
Payload of "census_response_map" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/data/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/census_response_map.json
Index of every report: https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/llms.txt; all reports in one file: https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/llms-full.txt

Identification

Principal estimates

Findings

Participation falls with county deprivation

Voting tracks mobility less than family structure and friendship do

The partner premium in the ladder score

The premium does not shrink where county social capital is higher

Modeled loneliness follows who lives in a ZCTA

Voter turnout falls with deprivation under all four rankings

What these data cannot show

Tables

Table 1. Voter turnout and census self-response fall with county deprivation, and across counties they correlate less with upward mobility than family structure and friendship across incomes do

Table 1.1. Participation by deprivation

Table 1.2. Correlation with mobility

Table 2. Census self-response in 2020 was highest in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan and lowest in Alaska, West Virginia and Maine

Table 3. Once income, race and poverty are in the model, voter turnout has a coefficient of 0.00 on county mobility, and economic connectedness has 0.63

Table 4. The partner premium is 0.50 ladder points overall and 0.50 within counties, and runs from 0.15 in the youngest age band to 0.80 in its largest band

Table 5. The partner premium does not shrink where county social capital is higher: 0.45 ladder points in the lowest decile and 0.49 in the highest

Table 5.1. Ladder scores

Table 5.2. Partner premium

Table 5.3. Change per standard deviation

Table 6. Modeled loneliness is lower in ZCTAs with more married adults, a correlation of −0.65, and higher where poverty is higher, +0.56

Table 7. Modeled loneliness is higher in ZCTAs with fewer married adults and a younger population

Table 7.1. By married share

Table 7.2. By median age

Table 8. Modeled loneliness rises from 32.8% to 37.8% across density classes of ZCTAs while modeled depression falls from 23.6% to 19.7%

Table 9. Voter turnout is steadily worse toward the more deprived end under the ADI and under each of the three other rankings

All estimates

Definitions

Methods

County deprivation, civic measures and intervals

The Gallup sample is unweighted and its years differ by question coverage

Adjusted comparisons and their standard errors

County social capital and the interaction models

Modeled loneliness and depression across ZCTAs

Four rankings of the same places

What these data cannot show

References

Provenance

Machine formats