English vs Yugoslavian Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16
COMPARE
English
Yugoslavian
Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16
Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16 Comparison
English
Yugoslavians
15.1%
CHILD POVERTY AMONG BOYS UNDER 16
94.3/ 100
METRIC RATING
110th/ 347
METRIC RANK
15.9%
CHILD POVERTY AMONG BOYS UNDER 16
75.9/ 100
METRIC RATING
158th/ 347
METRIC RANK
English vs Yugoslavian Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16 Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 556,516,168 people shows a significant positive correlation between the proportion of English and poverty level among boys under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.612 and weighted average of 15.1%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 282,204,208 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Yugoslavians and poverty level among boys under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.219 and weighted average of 15.9%, a difference of 5.0%.
Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16 Correlation Summary
Measurement | English | Yugoslavian |
Minimum | 4.3% | 2.4% |
Maximum | 100.0% | 60.0% |
Range | 95.7% | 57.6% |
Mean | 25.5% | 16.6% |
Median | 16.4% | 14.9% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 12.4% | 9.7% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 28.2% | 17.2% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 15.8% | 7.5% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 23.3% | 11.3% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 23.2% | 11.1% |
Similar Demographics by Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16
Demographics Similar to English by Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16
In terms of child poverty among boys under 16, the demographic groups most similar to English are Immigrants from Zimbabwe (15.2%, a difference of 0.050%), Basque (15.2%, a difference of 0.25%), Pakistani (15.1%, a difference of 0.26%), Irish (15.2%, a difference of 0.29%), and Immigrants from England (15.1%, a difference of 0.30%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16 |
Immigrants | Denmark | 95.6 /100 | #103 | Exceptional 15.0% |
Immigrants | Switzerland | 95.4 /100 | #104 | Exceptional 15.0% |
Dutch | 95.4 /100 | #105 | Exceptional 15.0% |
Serbians | 95.2 /100 | #106 | Exceptional 15.1% |
Jordanians | 95.1 /100 | #107 | Exceptional 15.1% |
Immigrants | England | 94.8 /100 | #108 | Exceptional 15.1% |
Pakistanis | 94.7 /100 | #109 | Exceptional 15.1% |
English | 94.3 /100 | #110 | Exceptional 15.1% |
Immigrants | Zimbabwe | 94.2 /100 | #111 | Exceptional 15.2% |
Basques | 93.8 /100 | #112 | Exceptional 15.2% |
Irish | 93.8 /100 | #113 | Exceptional 15.2% |
Immigrants | Ukraine | 93.6 /100 | #114 | Exceptional 15.2% |
Armenians | 93.6 /100 | #115 | Exceptional 15.2% |
Immigrants | South Eastern Asia | 93.5 /100 | #116 | Exceptional 15.2% |
Immigrants | Vietnam | 93.5 /100 | #117 | Exceptional 15.2% |
Demographics Similar to Yugoslavians by Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16
In terms of child poverty among boys under 16, the demographic groups most similar to Yugoslavians are Immigrants from Nepal (15.9%, a difference of 0.010%), Israeli (15.9%, a difference of 0.10%), French Canadian (15.9%, a difference of 0.11%), Immigrants from Chile (15.9%, a difference of 0.17%), and Syrian (15.9%, a difference of 0.26%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16 |
Puget Sound Salish | 79.8 /100 | #151 | Good 15.8% |
Immigrants | Venezuela | 79.5 /100 | #152 | Good 15.8% |
French | 78.7 /100 | #153 | Good 15.8% |
Syrians | 77.5 /100 | #154 | Good 15.9% |
French Canadians | 76.6 /100 | #155 | Good 15.9% |
Israelis | 76.5 /100 | #156 | Good 15.9% |
Immigrants | Nepal | 76.0 /100 | #157 | Good 15.9% |
Yugoslavians | 75.9 /100 | #158 | Good 15.9% |
Immigrants | Chile | 74.8 /100 | #159 | Good 15.9% |
Immigrants | Northern Africa | 71.3 /100 | #160 | Good 16.0% |
Immigrants | Oceania | 71.3 /100 | #161 | Good 16.0% |
Guamanians/Chamorros | 69.6 /100 | #162 | Good 16.1% |
Costa Ricans | 68.1 /100 | #163 | Good 16.1% |
Immigrants | Albania | 67.9 /100 | #164 | Good 16.1% |
Colombians | 65.2 /100 | #165 | Good 16.1% |