Chickasaw vs Houma Community Comparison
COMPARE
Chickasaw
Houma
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Chickasaw
Houma
3,663
SOCIAL INDEX
34.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
212th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
384
SOCIAL INDEX
1.4/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
346th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
Houma Integration in Chickasaw Communities
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 28,334,074 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Houma within Chickasaw communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.139. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chickasaw within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.025% in Houma. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chickasaw corresponds to an increase of 25.2 Houma.
Chickasaw vs Houma Income
When considering income, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Houma communities in the United States are seen in wage/income gap (27.2% compared to 38.7%, a difference of 42.3%), householder income over 65 years ($53,732 compared to $44,822, a difference of 19.9%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($82,193 compared to $72,093, a difference of 14.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($44,763 compared to $44,356, a difference of 0.92%), householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($77,929 compared to $77,044, a difference of 1.1%), and median earnings ($40,672 compared to $38,949, a difference of 4.4%).
Income Metric | Chickasaw | Houma |
Per Capita Income | Tragic $36,475 | Tragic $32,996 |
Median Family Income | Tragic $85,356 | Tragic $76,188 |
Median Household Income | Tragic $70,005 | Tragic $62,575 |
Median Earnings | Tragic $40,672 | Tragic $38,949 |
Median Male Earnings | Tragic $47,832 | Tragic $50,547 |
Median Female Earnings | Tragic $34,414 | Tragic $30,343 |
Householder Age | Under 25 years | Tragic $44,763 | Tragic $44,356 |
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years | Tragic $77,929 | Tragic $77,044 |
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years | Tragic $82,193 | Tragic $72,093 |
Householder Age | Over 65 years | Tragic $53,732 | Tragic $44,822 |
Wage/Income Gap | Tragic 27.2% | Tragic 38.7% |
Chickasaw vs Houma Poverty
When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Houma communities in the United States are seen in single male poverty (16.3% compared to 23.5%, a difference of 43.7%), single father poverty (19.0% compared to 26.7%, a difference of 41.1%), and seniors poverty over the age of 75 (11.6% compared to 16.2%, a difference of 39.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of child poverty under the age of 5 (21.8% compared to 22.7%, a difference of 4.1%), female poverty among 18-24 year olds (24.5% compared to 26.2%, a difference of 7.0%), and child poverty among girls under 16 (19.6% compared to 21.5%, a difference of 9.4%).
Poverty Metric | Chickasaw | Houma |
Poverty | Tragic 14.7% | Tragic 18.4% |
Families | Tragic 10.8% | Tragic 14.6% |
Males | Tragic 13.5% | Tragic 16.7% |
Females | Tragic 15.9% | Tragic 20.0% |
Females 18 to 24 years | Tragic 24.5% | Tragic 26.2% |
Females 25 to 34 years | Tragic 17.0% | Tragic 22.7% |
Children Under 5 years | Tragic 21.8% | Tragic 22.7% |
Children Under 16 years | Tragic 19.5% | Tragic 24.9% |
Boys Under 16 years | Tragic 19.8% | Tragic 26.2% |
Girls Under 16 years | Tragic 19.6% | Tragic 21.5% |
Single Males | Tragic 16.3% | Tragic 23.5% |
Single Females | Tragic 26.3% | Tragic 33.8% |
Single Fathers | Tragic 19.0% | Tragic 26.7% |
Single Mothers | Tragic 34.4% | Tragic 43.5% |
Married Couples | Tragic 5.8% | Tragic 6.4% |
Seniors Over 65 years | Good 10.7% | Tragic 14.7% |
Seniors Over 75 years | Exceptional 11.6% | Tragic 16.2% |
Receiving Food Stamps | Tragic 13.1% | Tragic 16.5% |
Chickasaw vs Houma Unemployment
When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Houma communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.9% compared to 7.8%, a difference of 59.2%), unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (8.6% compared to 12.5%, a difference of 45.0%), and male unemployment (5.2% compared to 7.1%, a difference of 37.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among women with children under 6 years (9.0% compared to 9.4%, a difference of 4.9%), unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.4% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 8.2%), and unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.3% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 13.2%).
Unemployment Metric | Chickasaw | Houma |
Unemployment | Exceptional 5.0% | Tragic 6.7% |
Males | Excellent 5.2% | Tragic 7.1% |
Females | Excellent 5.1% | Tragic 6.4% |
Youth < 25 | Exceptional 11.2% | Tragic 13.8% |
Age | 16 to 19 years | Exceptional 16.7% | Tragic 21.6% |
Age | 20 to 24 years | Exceptional 9.9% | Tragic 12.6% |
Age | 25 to 29 years | Fair 6.7% | Tragic 8.7% |
Age | 30 to 34 years | Tragic 6.2% | Tragic 7.2% |
Age | 35 to 44 years | Tragic 4.9% | Tragic 7.8% |
Age | 45 to 54 years | Exceptional 4.2% | Tragic 5.6% |
Age | 55 to 59 years | Good 4.8% | Tragic 5.6% |
Age | 60 to 64 years | Exceptional 4.3% | Fair 4.9% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Exceptional 4.7% | Tragic 5.8% |
Seniors > 65 | Exceptional 4.4% | Exceptional 4.8% |
Seniors > 75 | Exceptional 7.3% | Tragic 9.1% |
Women w/ Children < 6 | Tragic 9.0% | Tragic 9.4% |
Women w/ Children 6 to 17 | Exceptional 8.6% | Tragic 12.5% |
Women w/ Children < 18 | Good 5.4% | Tragic 6.8% |
Chickasaw vs Houma Labor Participation
When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Houma communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (38.3% compared to 35.6%, a difference of 7.6%), in labor force | age 45-54 (79.0% compared to 74.1%, a difference of 6.7%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (76.2% compared to 72.7%, a difference of 4.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 25-29 (81.9% compared to 81.2%, a difference of 0.80%), in labor force | age 20-24 (74.5% compared to 73.7%, a difference of 1.1%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (80.9% compared to 79.5%, a difference of 1.8%).
Labor Participation Metric | Chickasaw | Houma |
In Labor Force | Age > 16 | Tragic 62.3% | Tragic 59.5% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-64 | Tragic 76.2% | Tragic 72.7% |
In Labor Force | Age 16-19 | Exceptional 38.3% | Poor 35.6% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-24 | Poor 74.5% | Tragic 73.7% |
In Labor Force | Age 25-29 | Tragic 81.9% | Tragic 81.2% |
In Labor Force | Age 30-34 | Tragic 81.9% | Tragic 79.9% |
In Labor Force | Age 35-44 | Tragic 80.9% | Tragic 79.5% |
In Labor Force | Age 45-54 | Tragic 79.0% | Tragic 74.1% |
Chickasaw vs Houma Family Structure
When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Houma communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (36.3% compared to 46.6%, a difference of 28.3%), single mother households (7.0% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 12.6%), and single father households (2.8% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 6.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.19 compared to 3.18, a difference of 0.28%), family households with children (28.2% compared to 28.5%, a difference of 1.1%), and family households (64.4% compared to 65.7%, a difference of 2.0%).
Family Structure Metric | Chickasaw | Houma |
Family Households | Good 64.4% | Exceptional 65.7% |
Family Households with Children | Exceptional 28.2% | Exceptional 28.5% |
Married-couple Households | Fair 45.9% | Tragic 44.6% |
Average Family Size | Tragic 3.19 | Tragic 3.18 |
Single Father Households | Tragic 2.8% | Tragic 2.9% |
Single Mother Households | Tragic 7.0% | Tragic 7.9% |
Currently Married | Average 46.6% | Tragic 45.5% |
Divorced or Separated | Tragic 14.2% | Tragic 13.6% |
Births to Unmarried Women | Tragic 36.3% | Tragic 46.6% |
Chickasaw vs Houma Vehicle Availability
When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Houma communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (7.4% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 51.4%), no vehicles in household (7.9% compared to 11.5%, a difference of 45.9%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 16.1%, a difference of 38.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (92.3% compared to 88.6%, a difference of 4.1%), 2 or more vehicles in household (59.0% compared to 54.4%, a difference of 8.4%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 16.1%, a difference of 38.2%).
Vehicle Availability Metric | Chickasaw | Houma |
No Vehicles Available | Exceptional 7.9% | Tragic 11.5% |
1+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 92.3% | Tragic 88.6% |
2+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 59.0% | Poor 54.4% |
3+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 22.2% | Tragic 16.1% |
4+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 7.4% | Tragic 4.9% |
Chickasaw vs Houma Education Level
When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Houma communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (1.7% compared to 2.8%, a difference of 64.4%), doctorate degree (1.5% compared to 0.96%, a difference of 57.5%), and professional degree (3.4% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 51.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 3rd grade (98.2% compared to 97.1%, a difference of 1.1%), 2nd grade (98.3% compared to 97.2%, a difference of 1.1%), and nursery school (98.4% compared to 97.3%, a difference of 1.1%).
Education Level Metric | Chickasaw | Houma |
No Schooling Completed | Exceptional 1.7% | Tragic 2.8% |
Nursery School | Exceptional 98.4% | Tragic 97.3% |
Kindergarten | Exceptional 98.4% | Tragic 97.3% |
1st Grade | Exceptional 98.3% | Tragic 97.2% |
2nd Grade | Exceptional 98.3% | Tragic 97.2% |
3rd Grade | Exceptional 98.2% | Tragic 97.1% |
4th Grade | Exceptional 98.0% | Tragic 96.8% |
5th Grade | Exceptional 97.9% | Tragic 96.6% |
6th Grade | Exceptional 97.6% | Tragic 96.2% |
7th Grade | Exceptional 96.7% | Tragic 95.1% |
8th Grade | Exceptional 96.4% | Tragic 94.2% |
9th Grade | Exceptional 95.5% | Tragic 92.3% |
10th Grade | Excellent 94.1% | Tragic 90.2% |
11th Grade | Fair 92.3% | Tragic 87.0% |
12th Grade, No Diploma | Tragic 90.3% | Tragic 83.7% |
High School Diploma | Poor 88.4% | Tragic 81.5% |
GED/Equivalency | Tragic 83.8% | Tragic 75.0% |
College, Under 1 year | Tragic 60.4% | Tragic 47.6% |
College, 1 year or more | Tragic 53.3% | Tragic 41.2% |
Associate's Degree | Tragic 38.6% | Tragic 28.2% |
Bachelor's Degree | Tragic 30.4% | Tragic 21.4% |
Master's Degree | Tragic 11.4% | Tragic 7.9% |
Professional Degree | Tragic 3.4% | Tragic 2.2% |
Doctorate Degree | Tragic 1.5% | Tragic 0.96% |
Chickasaw vs Houma Disability
When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Houma communities in the United States are seen in disability age 5 to 17 (6.8% compared to 9.1%, a difference of 32.4%), disability age 35 to 64 (16.1% compared to 18.7%, a difference of 16.1%), and ambulatory disability (8.0% compared to 9.3%, a difference of 15.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (18.5% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 4.2%), self-care disability (2.9% compared to 3.0%, a difference of 4.4%), and hearing disability (4.5% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 5.8%).
Disability Metric | Chickasaw | Houma |
Disability | Tragic 15.2% | Tragic 17.1% |
Males | Tragic 15.1% | Tragic 17.4% |
Females | Tragic 15.2% | Tragic 16.9% |
Age | Under 5 years | Tragic 1.7% | Tragic 1.9% |
Age | 5 to 17 years | Tragic 6.8% | Tragic 9.1% |
Age | 18 to 34 years | Tragic 9.0% | Tragic 9.7% |
Age | 35 to 64 years | Tragic 16.1% | Tragic 18.7% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Tragic 30.2% | Tragic 32.3% |
Age | Over 75 years | Tragic 51.2% | Tragic 56.2% |
Vision | Tragic 3.2% | Tragic 3.4% |
Hearing | Tragic 4.5% | Tragic 4.2% |
Cognitive | Tragic 18.5% | Tragic 19.3% |
Ambulatory | Tragic 8.0% | Tragic 9.3% |
Self-Care | Tragic 2.9% | Tragic 3.0% |