Chickasaw vs Hmong Community Comparison
COMPARE
Chickasaw
Hmong
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Chickasaw
Hmong
3,663
SOCIAL INDEX
34.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
212th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
4,737
SOCIAL INDEX
44.9/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
196th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
Hmong Integration in Chickasaw Communities
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 21,267,506 people shows a perfect positive correlation between the proportion of Hmong within Chickasaw communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 1.000. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chickasaw within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.828% in Hmong. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chickasaw corresponds to an increase of 828.3 Hmong.
Chickasaw vs Hmong Income
When considering income, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Hmong communities in the United States are seen in householder income under 25 years ($44,763 compared to $49,364, a difference of 10.3%), median household income ($70,005 compared to $75,839, a difference of 8.3%), and householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($77,929 compared to $84,258, a difference of 8.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of median male earnings ($47,832 compared to $48,254, a difference of 0.88%), wage/income gap (27.2% compared to 27.7%, a difference of 1.9%), and median female earnings ($34,414 compared to $35,498, a difference of 3.2%).
Income Metric | Chickasaw | Hmong |
Per Capita Income | Tragic $36,475 | Tragic $38,120 |
Median Family Income | Tragic $85,356 | Tragic $91,296 |
Median Household Income | Tragic $70,005 | Tragic $75,839 |
Median Earnings | Tragic $40,672 | Tragic $42,111 |
Median Male Earnings | Tragic $47,832 | Tragic $48,254 |
Median Female Earnings | Tragic $34,414 | Tragic $35,498 |
Householder Age | Under 25 years | Tragic $44,763 | Tragic $49,364 |
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years | Tragic $77,929 | Tragic $84,258 |
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years | Tragic $82,193 | Tragic $88,115 |
Householder Age | Over 65 years | Tragic $53,732 | Tragic $56,339 |
Wage/Income Gap | Tragic 27.2% | Tragic 27.7% |
Chickasaw vs Hmong Poverty
When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Hmong communities in the United States are seen in female poverty among 25-34 year olds (17.0% compared to 13.9%, a difference of 22.3%), female poverty among 18-24 year olds (24.5% compared to 20.0%, a difference of 22.1%), and receiving food stamps (13.1% compared to 10.9%, a difference of 20.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.7% compared to 10.4%, a difference of 2.8%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (11.6% compared to 12.0%, a difference of 2.8%), and single mother poverty (34.4% compared to 31.2%, a difference of 10.2%).
Poverty Metric | Chickasaw | Hmong |
Poverty | Tragic 14.7% | Poor 12.8% |
Families | Tragic 10.8% | Average 9.1% |
Males | Tragic 13.5% | Poor 11.6% |
Females | Tragic 15.9% | Fair 13.9% |
Females 18 to 24 years | Tragic 24.5% | Average 20.0% |
Females 25 to 34 years | Tragic 17.0% | Fair 13.9% |
Children Under 5 years | Tragic 21.8% | Tragic 18.5% |
Children Under 16 years | Tragic 19.5% | Poor 17.1% |
Boys Under 16 years | Tragic 19.8% | Fair 16.6% |
Girls Under 16 years | Tragic 19.6% | Poor 17.5% |
Single Males | Tragic 16.3% | Tragic 14.2% |
Single Females | Tragic 26.3% | Tragic 23.1% |
Single Fathers | Tragic 19.0% | Exceptional 15.9% |
Single Mothers | Tragic 34.4% | Tragic 31.2% |
Married Couples | Tragic 5.8% | Excellent 5.0% |
Seniors Over 65 years | Good 10.7% | Exceptional 10.4% |
Seniors Over 75 years | Exceptional 11.6% | Good 12.0% |
Receiving Food Stamps | Tragic 13.1% | Excellent 10.9% |
Chickasaw vs Hmong Unemployment
When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Hmong communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (7.3% compared to 13.7%, a difference of 86.9%), unemployment among women with children under 6 years (9.0% compared to 6.7%, a difference of 34.7%), and unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (6.2% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 27.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.9% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 0.86%), unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (8.6% compared to 8.7%, a difference of 1.1%), and unemployment (5.0% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 1.5%).
Unemployment Metric | Chickasaw | Hmong |
Unemployment | Exceptional 5.0% | Exceptional 5.0% |
Males | Excellent 5.2% | Tragic 5.5% |
Females | Excellent 5.1% | Exceptional 4.4% |
Youth < 25 | Exceptional 11.2% | Exceptional 10.8% |
Age | 16 to 19 years | Exceptional 16.7% | Exceptional 16.3% |
Age | 20 to 24 years | Exceptional 9.9% | Exceptional 9.4% |
Age | 25 to 29 years | Fair 6.7% | Exceptional 5.7% |
Age | 30 to 34 years | Tragic 6.2% | Exceptional 4.9% |
Age | 35 to 44 years | Tragic 4.9% | Tragic 5.0% |
Age | 45 to 54 years | Exceptional 4.2% | Exceptional 3.7% |
Age | 55 to 59 years | Good 4.8% | Tragic 5.7% |
Age | 60 to 64 years | Exceptional 4.3% | Exceptional 4.0% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Exceptional 4.7% | Exceptional 4.2% |
Seniors > 65 | Exceptional 4.4% | Exceptional 4.2% |
Seniors > 75 | Exceptional 7.3% | Tragic 13.7% |
Women w/ Children < 6 | Tragic 9.0% | Exceptional 6.7% |
Women w/ Children 6 to 17 | Exceptional 8.6% | Exceptional 8.7% |
Women w/ Children < 18 | Good 5.4% | Exceptional 4.5% |
Chickasaw vs Hmong Labor Participation
When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Hmong communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 45-54 (79.0% compared to 81.7%, a difference of 3.4%), in labor force | age > 16 (62.3% compared to 64.1%, a difference of 2.9%), and in labor force | age 20-24 (74.5% compared to 76.5%, a difference of 2.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (81.9% compared to 82.4%, a difference of 0.62%), in labor force | age 16-19 (38.3% compared to 38.7%, a difference of 1.0%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (80.9% compared to 82.6%, a difference of 2.1%).
Labor Participation Metric | Chickasaw | Hmong |
In Labor Force | Age > 16 | Tragic 62.3% | Tragic 64.1% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-64 | Tragic 76.2% | Tragic 77.9% |
In Labor Force | Age 16-19 | Exceptional 38.3% | Exceptional 38.7% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-24 | Poor 74.5% | Exceptional 76.5% |
In Labor Force | Age 25-29 | Tragic 81.9% | Tragic 83.7% |
In Labor Force | Age 30-34 | Tragic 81.9% | Tragic 82.4% |
In Labor Force | Age 35-44 | Tragic 80.9% | Tragic 82.6% |
In Labor Force | Age 45-54 | Tragic 79.0% | Tragic 81.7% |
Chickasaw vs Hmong Family Structure
When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Hmong communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (36.3% compared to 27.7%, a difference of 30.8%), single father households (2.8% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 16.2%), and divorced or separated (14.2% compared to 12.3%, a difference of 15.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.19 compared to 3.21, a difference of 0.65%), family households (64.4% compared to 64.9%, a difference of 0.73%), and currently married (46.6% compared to 47.1%, a difference of 1.0%).
Family Structure Metric | Chickasaw | Hmong |
Family Households | Good 64.4% | Exceptional 64.9% |
Family Households with Children | Exceptional 28.2% | Exceptional 28.6% |
Married-couple Households | Fair 45.9% | Good 47.0% |
Average Family Size | Tragic 3.19 | Fair 3.21 |
Single Father Households | Tragic 2.8% | Fair 2.4% |
Single Mother Households | Tragic 7.0% | Fair 6.4% |
Currently Married | Average 46.6% | Good 47.1% |
Divorced or Separated | Tragic 14.2% | Tragic 12.3% |
Births to Unmarried Women | Tragic 36.3% | Exceptional 27.7% |
Chickasaw vs Hmong Vehicle Availability
When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Hmong communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (7.9% compared to 10.4%, a difference of 31.9%), 4 or more vehicles in household (7.4% compared to 7.0%, a difference of 6.6%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 21.0%, a difference of 5.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 2 or more vehicles in household (59.0% compared to 57.8%, a difference of 2.1%), 1 or more vehicles in household (92.3% compared to 89.6%, a difference of 2.9%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 21.0%, a difference of 5.8%).
Vehicle Availability Metric | Chickasaw | Hmong |
No Vehicles Available | Exceptional 7.9% | Average 10.4% |
1+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 92.3% | Average 89.6% |
2+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 59.0% | Exceptional 57.8% |
3+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 22.2% | Exceptional 21.0% |
4+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 7.4% | Exceptional 7.0% |
Chickasaw vs Hmong Education Level
When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Hmong communities in the United States are seen in master's degree (11.4% compared to 13.4%, a difference of 17.3%), no schooling completed (1.7% compared to 1.9%, a difference of 15.0%), and bachelor's degree (30.4% compared to 34.8%, a difference of 14.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 10th grade (94.1% compared to 94.1%, a difference of 0.070%), 6th grade (97.6% compared to 97.4%, a difference of 0.27%), and 9th grade (95.5% compared to 95.2%, a difference of 0.27%).
Education Level Metric | Chickasaw | Hmong |
No Schooling Completed | Exceptional 1.7% | Excellent 1.9% |
Nursery School | Exceptional 98.4% | Good 98.1% |
Kindergarten | Exceptional 98.4% | Good 98.1% |
1st Grade | Exceptional 98.3% | Good 98.0% |
2nd Grade | Exceptional 98.3% | Good 98.0% |
3rd Grade | Exceptional 98.2% | Excellent 97.9% |
4th Grade | Exceptional 98.0% | Excellent 97.7% |
5th Grade | Exceptional 97.9% | Exceptional 97.6% |
6th Grade | Exceptional 97.6% | Exceptional 97.4% |
7th Grade | Exceptional 96.7% | Exceptional 96.4% |
8th Grade | Exceptional 96.4% | Excellent 96.1% |
9th Grade | Exceptional 95.5% | Excellent 95.2% |
10th Grade | Excellent 94.1% | Excellent 94.1% |
11th Grade | Fair 92.3% | Good 92.8% |
12th Grade, No Diploma | Tragic 90.3% | Average 91.3% |
High School Diploma | Poor 88.4% | Average 89.1% |
GED/Equivalency | Tragic 83.8% | Poor 84.9% |
College, Under 1 year | Tragic 60.4% | Tragic 63.5% |
College, 1 year or more | Tragic 53.3% | Tragic 57.2% |
Associate's Degree | Tragic 38.6% | Tragic 43.4% |
Bachelor's Degree | Tragic 30.4% | Tragic 34.8% |
Master's Degree | Tragic 11.4% | Tragic 13.4% |
Professional Degree | Tragic 3.4% | Tragic 3.7% |
Doctorate Degree | Tragic 1.5% | Tragic 1.6% |
Chickasaw vs Hmong Disability
When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Hmong communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.7% compared to 1.1%, a difference of 53.9%), vision disability (3.2% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 38.7%), and hearing disability (4.5% compared to 3.4%, a difference of 30.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (18.5% compared to 18.4%, a difference of 0.29%), disability age over 75 (51.2% compared to 48.2%, a difference of 6.2%), and disability age 5 to 17 (6.8% compared to 6.3%, a difference of 7.9%).
Disability Metric | Chickasaw | Hmong |
Disability | Tragic 15.2% | Tragic 12.8% |
Males | Tragic 15.1% | Tragic 12.5% |
Females | Tragic 15.2% | Tragic 13.1% |
Age | Under 5 years | Tragic 1.7% | Exceptional 1.1% |
Age | 5 to 17 years | Tragic 6.8% | Tragic 6.3% |
Age | 18 to 34 years | Tragic 9.0% | Tragic 8.1% |
Age | 35 to 64 years | Tragic 16.1% | Tragic 13.1% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Tragic 30.2% | Tragic 25.7% |
Age | Over 75 years | Tragic 51.2% | Tragic 48.2% |
Vision | Tragic 3.2% | Tragic 2.3% |
Hearing | Tragic 4.5% | Tragic 3.4% |
Cognitive | Tragic 18.5% | Tragic 18.4% |
Ambulatory | Tragic 8.0% | Tragic 6.6% |
Self-Care | Tragic 2.9% | Excellent 2.4% |