Czech vs Chickasaw Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16
COMPARE
Czech
Chickasaw
Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16
Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16 Comparison
Czechs
Chickasaw
14.1%
CHILD POVERTY AMONG BOYS UNDER 16
99.3/ 100
METRIC RATING
49th/ 347
METRIC RANK
19.8%
CHILD POVERTY AMONG BOYS UNDER 16
0.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
271st/ 347
METRIC RANK
Czech vs Chickasaw Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16 Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 471,396,955 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Czechs and poverty level among boys under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.025 and weighted average of 14.1%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 146,816,928 people shows a moderate positive correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw and poverty level among boys under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.488 and weighted average of 19.8%, a difference of 40.1%.
Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16 Correlation Summary
Measurement | Czech | Chickasaw |
Minimum | 1.1% | 3.3% |
Maximum | 36.6% | 100.0% |
Range | 35.5% | 96.7% |
Mean | 14.9% | 27.0% |
Median | 14.5% | 23.7% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 10.2% | 18.1% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 18.4% | 30.0% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 8.1% | 11.9% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 7.0% | 15.5% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 6.9% | 15.4% |
Similar Demographics by Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16
Demographics Similar to Czechs by Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16
In terms of child poverty among boys under 16, the demographic groups most similar to Czechs are Immigrants from Indonesia (14.1%, a difference of 0.090%), Immigrants from Moldova (14.1%, a difference of 0.11%), Greek (14.1%, a difference of 0.38%), Immigrants from Scotland (14.1%, a difference of 0.48%), and Italian (14.2%, a difference of 0.49%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16 |
Koreans | 99.6 /100 | #42 | Exceptional 14.0% |
Croatians | 99.5 /100 | #43 | Exceptional 14.0% |
Estonians | 99.4 /100 | #44 | Exceptional 14.1% |
Immigrants | Scotland | 99.4 /100 | #45 | Exceptional 14.1% |
Greeks | 99.4 /100 | #46 | Exceptional 14.1% |
Immigrants | Moldova | 99.4 /100 | #47 | Exceptional 14.1% |
Immigrants | Indonesia | 99.4 /100 | #48 | Exceptional 14.1% |
Czechs | 99.3 /100 | #49 | Exceptional 14.1% |
Italians | 99.2 /100 | #50 | Exceptional 14.2% |
Immigrants | Greece | 99.2 /100 | #51 | Exceptional 14.2% |
Laotians | 99.0 /100 | #52 | Exceptional 14.3% |
Immigrants | Philippines | 99.0 /100 | #53 | Exceptional 14.3% |
Immigrants | Serbia | 99.0 /100 | #54 | Exceptional 14.3% |
Immigrants | Pakistan | 99.0 /100 | #55 | Exceptional 14.3% |
Zimbabweans | 99.0 /100 | #56 | Exceptional 14.3% |
Demographics Similar to Chickasaw by Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16
In terms of child poverty among boys under 16, the demographic groups most similar to Chickasaw are Immigrants from Ecuador (19.8%, a difference of 0.22%), Belizean (19.9%, a difference of 0.36%), Cherokee (19.7%, a difference of 0.50%), Immigrants from Bangladesh (19.9%, a difference of 0.62%), and Jamaican (20.0%, a difference of 0.74%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16 |
Iroquois | 0.1 /100 | #264 | Tragic 19.6% |
Guyanese | 0.1 /100 | #265 | Tragic 19.6% |
Immigrants | El Salvador | 0.1 /100 | #266 | Tragic 19.6% |
Vietnamese | 0.1 /100 | #267 | Tragic 19.6% |
Spanish American Indians | 0.1 /100 | #268 | Tragic 19.6% |
Immigrants | Cabo Verde | 0.1 /100 | #269 | Tragic 19.7% |
Cherokee | 0.1 /100 | #270 | Tragic 19.7% |
Chickasaw | 0.1 /100 | #271 | Tragic 19.8% |
Immigrants | Ecuador | 0.1 /100 | #272 | Tragic 19.8% |
Belizeans | 0.1 /100 | #273 | Tragic 19.9% |
Immigrants | Bangladesh | 0.0 /100 | #274 | Tragic 19.9% |
Jamaicans | 0.0 /100 | #275 | Tragic 20.0% |
Sub-Saharan Africans | 0.0 /100 | #276 | Tragic 20.0% |
Immigrants | Barbados | 0.0 /100 | #277 | Tragic 20.0% |
Immigrants | West Indies | 0.0 /100 | #278 | Tragic 20.0% |