Chickasaw vs Pima Community Comparison

COMPARE

Chickasaw
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSenegaleseSerbianShoshoneSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSoviet UnionSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianTaiwaneseThaiTlingit-HaidaTohono O'OdhamTonganTrinidadian and TobagonianTsimshianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanUteVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYumanYup'ikZimbabwean
Immigration
NonimmigrantsImmigrantsAfghanistanAfricaAlbaniaArgentinaArmeniaAsiaAustraliaAustriaBahamasBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilBulgariaBurma/MyanmarCabo VerdeCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral AmericaChileChinaColombiaCongoCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkDominicaDominican RepublicEastern AfricaEastern AsiaEastern EuropeEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEnglandEritreaEthiopiaEuropeFijiFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasHong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKoreaKuwaitLaosLatin AmericaLatviaLebanonLiberiaLithuaniaMalaysiaMexicoMicronesiaMiddle AfricaMoldovaMoroccoNepalNetherlandsNicaraguaNigeriaNorth AmericaNorth MacedoniaNorthern AfricaNorthern EuropeNorwayOceaniaPakistanPanamaPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSaudi ArabiaScotlandSenegalSerbiaSierra LeoneSingaporeSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth AmericaSouth Central AsiaSouth Eastern AsiaSouthern EuropeSpainSri LankaSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudanSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanThailandTrinidad and TobagoTurkeyUgandaUkraineUruguayUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamWest IndiesWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeYemenZaireZimbabweAzores
Pima
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPimaPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSenegaleseSerbianShoshoneSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSoviet UnionSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianTaiwaneseThaiTlingit-HaidaTohono O'OdhamTonganTrinidadian and TobagonianTsimshianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanUteVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYumanYup'ikZimbabwean
Immigration
NonimmigrantsImmigrantsAfghanistanAfricaAlbaniaArgentinaArmeniaAsiaAustraliaAustriaBahamasBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilBulgariaBurma/MyanmarCabo VerdeCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral AmericaChileChinaColombiaCongoCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkDominicaDominican RepublicEastern AfricaEastern AsiaEastern EuropeEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEnglandEritreaEthiopiaEuropeFijiFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasHong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKoreaKuwaitLaosLatin AmericaLatviaLebanonLiberiaLithuaniaMalaysiaMexicoMicronesiaMiddle AfricaMoldovaMoroccoNepalNetherlandsNicaraguaNigeriaNorth AmericaNorth MacedoniaNorthern AfricaNorthern EuropeNorwayOceaniaPakistanPanamaPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSaudi ArabiaScotlandSenegalSerbiaSierra LeoneSingaporeSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth AmericaSouth Central AsiaSouth Eastern AsiaSouthern EuropeSpainSri LankaSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudanSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanThailandTrinidad and TobagoTurkeyUgandaUkraineUruguayUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamWest IndiesWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeYemenZaireZimbabweAzores
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Income
Poverty
Unemployment
Labor Participation
Family Structure
Vehicle Availability
Education Level
Disability

Social Comparison

Chickasaw

Pima

Fair
Poor
3,663
SOCIAL INDEX
34.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
212th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
1,700
SOCIAL INDEX
14.5/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
291st/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Pima Integration in Chickasaw Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 48,064,971 people shows a significant positive correlation between the proportion of Pima within Chickasaw communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.671. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chickasaw within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.468% in Pima. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chickasaw corresponds to an increase of 468.2 Pima.
Chickasaw Integration in Pima Communities

Chickasaw vs Pima Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Pima communities in the United States are seen in wage/income gap (27.2% compared to 21.1%, a difference of 28.7%), per capita income ($36,475 compared to $30,644, a difference of 19.0%), and householder income under 25 years ($44,763 compared to $51,503, a difference of 15.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of median female earnings ($34,414 compared to $35,326, a difference of 2.6%), median earnings ($40,672 compared to $38,285, a difference of 6.2%), and householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($77,929 compared to $82,821, a difference of 6.3%).
Chickasaw vs Pima Income
Income MetricChickasawPima
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$36,475
Tragic
$30,644
Median Family Income
Tragic
$85,356
Tragic
$77,431
Median Household Income
Tragic
$70,005
Tragic
$63,262
Median Earnings
Tragic
$40,672
Tragic
$38,285
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$47,832
Tragic
$42,357
Median Female Earnings
Tragic
$34,414
Tragic
$35,326
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$44,763
Poor
$51,503
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Tragic
$77,929
Tragic
$82,821
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Tragic
$82,193
Tragic
$73,365
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Tragic
$53,732
Tragic
$50,539
Wage/Income Gap
Tragic
27.2%
Exceptional
21.1%

Chickasaw vs Pima Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Pima communities in the United States are seen in seniors poverty over the age of 75 (11.6% compared to 23.9%, a difference of 105.2%), married-couple family poverty (5.8% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 97.0%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.7% compared to 19.8%, a difference of 85.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single mother poverty (34.4% compared to 38.6%, a difference of 12.1%), single female poverty (26.3% compared to 30.3%, a difference of 15.5%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (24.5% compared to 28.4%, a difference of 16.1%).
Chickasaw vs Pima Poverty
Poverty MetricChickasawPima
Poverty
Tragic
14.7%
Tragic
21.9%
Families
Tragic
10.8%
Tragic
18.4%
Males
Tragic
13.5%
Tragic
20.4%
Females
Tragic
15.9%
Tragic
23.6%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
24.5%
Tragic
28.4%
Females 25 to 34 years
Tragic
17.0%
Tragic
25.3%
Children Under 5 years
Tragic
21.8%
Tragic
27.4%
Children Under 16 years
Tragic
19.5%
Tragic
29.0%
Boys Under 16 years
Tragic
19.8%
Tragic
29.7%
Girls Under 16 years
Tragic
19.6%
Tragic
28.2%
Single Males
Tragic
16.3%
Tragic
20.2%
Single Females
Tragic
26.3%
Tragic
30.3%
Single Fathers
Tragic
19.0%
Exceptional
14.8%
Single Mothers
Tragic
34.4%
Tragic
38.6%
Married Couples
Tragic
5.8%
Tragic
11.4%
Seniors Over 65 years
Good
10.7%
Tragic
19.8%
Seniors Over 75 years
Exceptional
11.6%
Tragic
23.9%
Receiving Food Stamps
Tragic
13.1%
Tragic
19.0%

Chickasaw vs Pima Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Pima communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.9% compared to 11.8%, a difference of 138.9%), unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (8.6% compared to 18.9%, a difference of 119.6%), and unemployment among women with children under 18 years (5.4% compared to 11.7%, a difference of 117.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.3% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 10.5%), unemployment among seniors over 75 years (7.3% compared to 9.2%, a difference of 25.5%), and unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (4.8% compared to 6.6%, a difference of 38.3%).
Chickasaw vs Pima Unemployment
Unemployment MetricChickasawPima
Unemployment
Exceptional
5.0%
Tragic
8.2%
Males
Excellent
5.2%
Tragic
8.3%
Females
Excellent
5.1%
Tragic
9.3%
Youth < 25
Exceptional
11.2%
Tragic
16.2%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Exceptional
16.7%
Tragic
23.1%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Exceptional
9.9%
Tragic
14.2%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Fair
6.7%
Tragic
11.8%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Tragic
6.2%
Tragic
9.6%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
4.9%
Tragic
11.8%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Exceptional
4.2%
Tragic
6.4%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Good
4.8%
Tragic
6.6%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Exceptional
4.3%
Excellent
4.8%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
4.7%
Tragic
6.6%
Seniors > 65
Exceptional
4.4%
Tragic
6.3%
Seniors > 75
Exceptional
7.3%
Tragic
9.2%
Women w/ Children < 6
Tragic
9.0%
Tragic
13.4%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Exceptional
8.6%
Tragic
18.9%
Women w/ Children < 18
Good
5.4%
Tragic
11.7%

Chickasaw vs Pima Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Pima communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (38.3% compared to 34.1%, a difference of 12.4%), in labor force | age 20-64 (76.2% compared to 69.0%, a difference of 10.4%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (81.9% compared to 74.3%, a difference of 10.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (81.9% compared to 79.0%, a difference of 3.6%), in labor force | age 20-24 (74.5% compared to 69.0%, a difference of 7.9%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (80.9% compared to 74.8%, a difference of 8.1%).
Chickasaw vs Pima Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricChickasawPima
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Tragic
62.3%
Tragic
57.4%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Tragic
76.2%
Tragic
69.0%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Exceptional
38.3%
Tragic
34.1%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Poor
74.5%
Tragic
69.0%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Tragic
81.9%
Tragic
74.3%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Tragic
81.9%
Tragic
79.0%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
80.9%
Tragic
74.8%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
79.0%
Tragic
72.8%

Chickasaw vs Pima Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Pima communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.8% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 51.7%), births to unmarried women (36.3% compared to 51.5%, a difference of 41.8%), and currently married (46.6% compared to 35.9%, a difference of 29.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (64.4% compared to 65.9%, a difference of 2.4%), family households with children (28.2% compared to 27.1%, a difference of 4.1%), and divorced or separated (14.2% compared to 12.9%, a difference of 10.3%).
Chickasaw vs Pima Family Structure
Family Structure MetricChickasawPima
Family Households
Good
64.4%
Exceptional
65.9%
Family Households with Children
Exceptional
28.2%
Tragic
27.1%
Married-couple Households
Fair
45.9%
Tragic
35.6%
Average Family Size
Tragic
3.19
Exceptional
3.75
Single Father Households
Tragic
2.8%
Tragic
4.2%
Single Mother Households
Tragic
7.0%
Tragic
8.3%
Currently Married
Average
46.6%
Tragic
35.9%
Divorced or Separated
Tragic
14.2%
Tragic
12.9%
Births to Unmarried Women
Tragic
36.3%
Tragic
51.5%

Chickasaw vs Pima Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Pima communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (7.9% compared to 14.1%, a difference of 79.8%), 2 or more vehicles in household (59.0% compared to 52.0%, a difference of 13.4%), and 1 or more vehicles in household (92.3% compared to 86.3%, a difference of 6.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 22.0%, a difference of 0.75%), 4 or more vehicles in household (7.4% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 5.8%), and 1 or more vehicles in household (92.3% compared to 86.3%, a difference of 6.9%).
Chickasaw vs Pima Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricChickasawPima
No Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.9%
Tragic
14.1%
1+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
92.3%
Tragic
86.3%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
59.0%
Tragic
52.0%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
22.2%
Exceptional
22.0%
4+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.4%
Exceptional
7.9%

Chickasaw vs Pima Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Pima communities in the United States are seen in bachelor's degree (30.4% compared to 23.2%, a difference of 31.0%), associate's degree (38.6% compared to 30.2%, a difference of 27.8%), and no schooling completed (1.7% compared to 2.1%, a difference of 24.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.4% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.15%), kindergarten (98.4% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.15%), and 1st grade (98.3% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.15%).
Chickasaw vs Pima Education Level
Education Level MetricChickasawPima
No Schooling Completed
Exceptional
1.7%
Average
2.1%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.4%
Exceptional
98.2%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.4%
Exceptional
98.2%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
98.2%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
98.2%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
98.0%
4th Grade
Exceptional
98.0%
Exceptional
97.7%
5th Grade
Exceptional
97.9%
Exceptional
97.6%
6th Grade
Exceptional
97.6%
Excellent
97.2%
7th Grade
Exceptional
96.7%
Good
96.1%
8th Grade
Exceptional
96.4%
Fair
95.6%
9th Grade
Exceptional
95.5%
Tragic
93.9%
10th Grade
Excellent
94.1%
Tragic
91.2%
11th Grade
Fair
92.3%
Tragic
88.3%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Tragic
90.3%
Tragic
84.6%
High School Diploma
Poor
88.4%
Tragic
81.6%
GED/Equivalency
Tragic
83.8%
Tragic
76.4%
College, Under 1 year
Tragic
60.4%
Tragic
51.4%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
53.3%
Tragic
45.6%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
38.6%
Tragic
30.2%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
30.4%
Tragic
23.2%
Master's Degree
Tragic
11.4%
Tragic
9.2%
Professional Degree
Tragic
3.4%
Tragic
3.3%
Doctorate Degree
Tragic
1.5%
Tragic
1.3%

Chickasaw vs Pima Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Pima communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.7% compared to 1.1%, a difference of 64.0%), disability age 65 to 74 (30.2% compared to 38.6%, a difference of 27.8%), and hearing disability (4.5% compared to 3.7%, a difference of 20.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age 35 to 64 (16.1% compared to 16.1%, a difference of 0.20%), cognitive disability (18.5% compared to 18.8%, a difference of 1.6%), and ambulatory disability (8.0% compared to 8.2%, a difference of 2.6%).
Chickasaw vs Pima Disability
Disability MetricChickasawPima
Disability
Tragic
15.2%
Tragic
13.7%
Males
Tragic
15.1%
Tragic
12.8%
Females
Tragic
15.2%
Tragic
14.8%
Age | Under 5 years
Tragic
1.7%
Exceptional
1.1%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Tragic
6.8%
Tragic
6.2%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
9.0%
Tragic
7.7%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Tragic
16.1%
Tragic
16.1%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
30.2%
Tragic
38.6%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
51.2%
Tragic
55.8%
Vision
Tragic
3.2%
Tragic
3.3%
Hearing
Tragic
4.5%
Tragic
3.7%
Cognitive
Tragic
18.5%
Tragic
18.8%
Ambulatory
Tragic
8.0%
Tragic
8.2%
Self-Care
Tragic
2.9%
Tragic
2.8%