Chinese vs Filipino Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
COMPARE
Chinese
Filipino
Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Comparison
Chinese
Filipinos
12.3%
CHILD POVERTY AMONG GIRLS UNDER 16
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
7th/ 347
METRIC RANK
11.4%
CHILD POVERTY AMONG GIRLS UNDER 16
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
3rd/ 347
METRIC RANK
Chinese vs Filipino Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 64,581,051 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Chinese and poverty level among girls under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.252 and weighted average of 12.3%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 250,600,431 people shows a slight negative correlation between the proportion of Filipinos and poverty level among girls under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.075 and weighted average of 11.4%, a difference of 8.1%.
Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Correlation Summary
Measurement | Chinese | Filipino |
Minimum | 2.5% | 0.99% |
Maximum | 53.8% | 31.6% |
Range | 51.4% | 30.7% |
Mean | 15.2% | 8.9% |
Median | 12.8% | 8.3% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 6.5% | 5.2% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 17.1% | 11.4% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 10.6% | 6.3% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 12.3% | 5.7% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 12.2% | 5.7% |
Demographics Similar to Chinese and Filipinos by Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
In terms of child poverty among girls under 16, the demographic groups most similar to Chinese are Immigrants from Hong Kong (12.3%, a difference of 0.13%), Iranian (12.4%, a difference of 0.53%), Immigrants from Singapore (12.5%, a difference of 0.96%), Immigrants from Iran (12.6%, a difference of 1.9%), and Immigrants from South Central Asia (12.7%, a difference of 3.2%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Filipinos are Tsimshian (11.5%, a difference of 0.52%), Immigrants from Taiwan (11.3%, a difference of 0.87%), Immigrants from India (11.0%, a difference of 3.5%), Thai (11.8%, a difference of 3.6%), and Immigrants from Hong Kong (12.3%, a difference of 8.0%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 |
Immigrants | India | 100.0 /100 | #1 | Exceptional 11.0% |
Immigrants | Taiwan | 100.0 /100 | #2 | Exceptional 11.3% |
Filipinos | 100.0 /100 | #3 | Exceptional 11.4% |
Tsimshian | 100.0 /100 | #4 | Exceptional 11.5% |
Thais | 100.0 /100 | #5 | Exceptional 11.8% |
Immigrants | Hong Kong | 100.0 /100 | #6 | Exceptional 12.3% |
Chinese | 100.0 /100 | #7 | Exceptional 12.3% |
Iranians | 100.0 /100 | #8 | Exceptional 12.4% |
Immigrants | Singapore | 100.0 /100 | #9 | Exceptional 12.5% |
Immigrants | Iran | 100.0 /100 | #10 | Exceptional 12.6% |
Immigrants | South Central Asia | 100.0 /100 | #11 | Exceptional 12.7% |
Bhutanese | 100.0 /100 | #12 | Exceptional 12.7% |
Immigrants | Ireland | 99.9 /100 | #13 | Exceptional 12.9% |
Burmese | 99.9 /100 | #14 | Exceptional 13.0% |
Okinawans | 99.9 /100 | #15 | Exceptional 13.0% |
Immigrants | Lithuania | 99.9 /100 | #16 | Exceptional 13.1% |
Bulgarians | 99.9 /100 | #17 | Exceptional 13.1% |
Immigrants | Korea | 99.9 /100 | #18 | Exceptional 13.1% |
Cypriots | 99.9 /100 | #19 | Exceptional 13.2% |
Immigrants | Japan | 99.9 /100 | #20 | Exceptional 13.3% |