Navajo vs Chinese Married-Couple Family Poverty
COMPARE
Navajo
Chinese
Married-Couple Family Poverty
Married-Couple Family Poverty Comparison
Navajo
Chinese
11.9%
MARRIED-COUPLE FAMILY POVERTY
0.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
344th/ 347
METRIC RANK
3.6%
MARRIED-COUPLE FAMILY POVERTY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
2nd/ 347
METRIC RANK
Navajo vs Chinese Married-Couple Family Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 223,988,346 people shows a moderate positive correlation between the proportion of Navajo and poverty level among married-couple families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.482 and weighted average of 11.9%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 64,670,469 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Chinese and poverty level among married-couple families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.040 and weighted average of 3.6%, a difference of 225.0%.
Married-Couple Family Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Navajo | Chinese |
| Minimum | 1.7% | 0.44% |
| Maximum | 57.8% | 17.1% |
| Range | 56.1% | 16.7% |
| Mean | 16.7% | 4.2% |
| Median | 12.4% | 3.3% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 6.7% | 2.2% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 25.0% | 4.1% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 18.3% | 1.9% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 11.8% | 3.4% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 11.8% | 3.4% |
Similar Demographics by Married-Couple Family Poverty
Demographics Similar to Navajo by Married-Couple Family Poverty
In terms of married-couple family poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Navajo are Pima (11.4%, a difference of 3.9%), Tohono O'odham (11.2%, a difference of 5.6%), Puerto Rican (12.6%, a difference of 6.6%), Pueblo (11.1%, a difference of 6.6%), and Immigrants from Yemen (12.8%, a difference of 8.0%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Married-Couple Family Poverty |
| Lumbee | 0.0 /100 | #333 | Tragic 8.3% |
| Immigrants | Dominican Republic | 0.0 /100 | #334 | Tragic 8.4% |
| Sioux | 0.0 /100 | #335 | Tragic 8.7% |
| Apache | 0.0 /100 | #336 | Tragic 9.0% |
| Yakama | 0.0 /100 | #337 | Tragic 9.0% |
| Cheyenne | 0.0 /100 | #338 | Tragic 9.4% |
| Crow | 0.0 /100 | #339 | Tragic 9.6% |
| Yuman | 0.0 /100 | #340 | Tragic 9.7% |
| Pueblo | 0.0 /100 | #341 | Tragic 11.1% |
| Tohono O'odham | 0.0 /100 | #342 | Tragic 11.2% |
| Pima | 0.0 /100 | #343 | Tragic 11.4% |
| Navajo | 0.0 /100 | #344 | Tragic 11.9% |
| Puerto Ricans | 0.0 /100 | #345 | Tragic 12.6% |
| Immigrants | Yemen | 0.0 /100 | #346 | Tragic 12.8% |
| Yup'ik | 0.0 /100 | #347 | Tragic 13.4% |
Demographics Similar to Chinese by Married-Couple Family Poverty
In terms of married-couple family poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Chinese are Immigrants from India (3.6%, a difference of 0.18%), Norwegian (3.7%, a difference of 1.9%), Slovene (3.8%, a difference of 5.6%), Swedish (3.9%, a difference of 5.7%), and Luxembourger (3.9%, a difference of 6.4%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Married-Couple Family Poverty |
| Immigrants | India | 100.0 /100 | #1 | Exceptional 3.6% |
| Chinese | 100.0 /100 | #2 | Exceptional 3.6% |
| Norwegians | 100.0 /100 | #3 | Exceptional 3.7% |
| Slovenes | 100.0 /100 | #4 | Exceptional 3.8% |
| Swedes | 100.0 /100 | #5 | Exceptional 3.9% |
| Luxembourgers | 100.0 /100 | #6 | Exceptional 3.9% |
| Latvians | 100.0 /100 | #7 | Exceptional 3.9% |
| Thais | 100.0 /100 | #8 | Exceptional 3.9% |
| Croatians | 100.0 /100 | #9 | Exceptional 3.9% |
| Carpatho Rusyns | 100.0 /100 | #10 | Exceptional 3.9% |
| Lithuanians | 100.0 /100 | #11 | Exceptional 4.0% |
| Bulgarians | 100.0 /100 | #12 | Exceptional 4.0% |
| Czechs | 100.0 /100 | #13 | Exceptional 4.0% |
| Slovaks | 100.0 /100 | #14 | Exceptional 4.0% |
| Poles | 100.0 /100 | #15 | Exceptional 4.0% |