Comanche vs Chickasaw Family Poverty
COMPARE
Comanche
Chickasaw
Family Poverty
Family Poverty Comparison
Comanche
Chickasaw
11.0%
FAMILY POVERTY
0.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
267th/ 347
METRIC RANK
10.8%
FAMILY POVERTY
0.2/ 100
METRIC RATING
256th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Comanche vs Chickasaw Family Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 109,722,823 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of Comanche and poverty level among families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.506 and weighted average of 11.0%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 147,601,652 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw and poverty level among families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.000 and weighted average of 10.8%, a difference of 1.9%.
Family Poverty Correlation Summary
Measurement | Comanche | Chickasaw |
Minimum | 4.3% | 3.7% |
Maximum | 50.0% | 33.3% |
Range | 45.7% | 29.7% |
Mean | 14.5% | 12.7% |
Median | 13.1% | 12.0% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 10.2% | 9.8% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 15.7% | 14.5% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 5.5% | 4.7% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 8.6% | 5.3% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 8.4% | 5.2% |
Demographics Similar to Comanche and Chickasaw by Family Poverty
In terms of family poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Comanche are Immigrants from El Salvador (11.0%, a difference of 0.010%), Jamaican (11.1%, a difference of 0.10%), Immigrants from Ecuador (11.1%, a difference of 0.58%), Immigrants from Nicaragua (11.1%, a difference of 0.59%), and Immigrants from Bahamas (11.1%, a difference of 0.84%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Chickasaw are Immigrants from Ghana (10.8%, a difference of 0.040%), Subsaharan African (10.9%, a difference of 0.070%), Mexican American Indian (10.9%, a difference of 0.11%), Immigrants from Liberia (10.8%, a difference of 0.26%), and Bangladeshi (10.9%, a difference of 0.46%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Family Poverty |
Iroquois | 0.3 /100 | #251 | Tragic 10.7% |
Immigrants | Zaire | 0.3 /100 | #252 | Tragic 10.7% |
Immigrants | Western Africa | 0.3 /100 | #253 | Tragic 10.7% |
Ecuadorians | 0.2 /100 | #254 | Tragic 10.8% |
Immigrants | Liberia | 0.2 /100 | #255 | Tragic 10.8% |
Chickasaw | 0.2 /100 | #256 | Tragic 10.8% |
Immigrants | Ghana | 0.2 /100 | #257 | Tragic 10.8% |
Sub-Saharan Africans | 0.2 /100 | #258 | Tragic 10.9% |
Mexican American Indians | 0.2 /100 | #259 | Tragic 10.9% |
Bangladeshis | 0.2 /100 | #260 | Tragic 10.9% |
Shoshone | 0.2 /100 | #261 | Tragic 10.9% |
Spanish American Indians | 0.2 /100 | #262 | Tragic 10.9% |
Cape Verdeans | 0.1 /100 | #263 | Tragic 10.9% |
Trinidadians and Tobagonians | 0.1 /100 | #264 | Tragic 10.9% |
Immigrants | Trinidad and Tobago | 0.1 /100 | #265 | Tragic 10.9% |
Immigrants | El Salvador | 0.1 /100 | #266 | Tragic 11.0% |
Comanche | 0.1 /100 | #267 | Tragic 11.0% |
Jamaicans | 0.1 /100 | #268 | Tragic 11.1% |
Immigrants | Ecuador | 0.1 /100 | #269 | Tragic 11.1% |
Immigrants | Nicaragua | 0.1 /100 | #270 | Tragic 11.1% |
Immigrants | Bahamas | 0.1 /100 | #271 | Tragic 11.1% |