# Civic life, loneliness and partnership: report

Chapter 6.2 of ZIP Code Destiny, by Vishal Singh (NYU Stern). Generated from the chapter's data files; the reading version is at https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership. Table n of this report is figure n of the chapter.

## 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: 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.
- Grain: counties
- Status: published
- Published: 2026-10-09
- 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
- Report: https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/report
- Markdown: https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/report.md
- BibTeX key: singh2026civiclifelonelinessandpartnership

```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.

| 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 (https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/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 (https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/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.

 (Note: 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 evidence: Whether partnership moves with the ladder score (Longitudinal panel following the same people over time)
>
> 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.

### The premium does not shrink where county social capital is higher

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

## All estimates

Every fact in facts.json (117), sorted by id.

| 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.

Explains Table 2, Table 1 and Table 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.

Explains Table 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.

Explains Table 4.

### County social capital and the interaction models

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.

Explains Table 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.

Explains Table 8, Table 7 and Table 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.

Explains Table 9.

## 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 (https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/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.

## References

1. 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). https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/sites/default/files/media/document/2024%20CHRR%20Technical%20Document_1.pdf
2. 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. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/decade/2020/planning-management/operational-adjustments.html
3. Putnam, Robert D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster, New York.
4. 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. https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/2018/4/the-geography-of-social-capital-in-america
5. 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. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04996-4
6. Deaton, Angus (2012). The financial crisis and the well-being of Americans: 2011 OEP Hicks Lecture. Oxford Economic Papers 64(1): 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpr051
7. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2005.11.043
8. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.527
9. 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. https://www.cdc.gov/places/measure-definitions/health-related-social-needs.html
10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2025). PLACES Methodology. CDC PLACES: Local Data for Better Health, web page last reviewed December 7, 2025. https://www.cdc.gov/places/methodology/index.html
11. 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. https://doi.org/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 (HTML): https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership/report
- 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