Lumbee vs Chickasaw Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
COMPARE
Lumbee
Chickasaw
Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Comparison
Lumbee
Chickasaw
30.7%
CHILD POVERTY AMONG GIRLS UNDER 16
0.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
345th/ 347
METRIC RANK
19.6%
CHILD POVERTY AMONG GIRLS UNDER 16
0.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
262nd/ 347
METRIC RANK
Lumbee vs Chickasaw Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 91,796,627 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Lumbee and poverty level among girls under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.121 and weighted average of 30.7%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 146,952,830 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw and poverty level among girls under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.542 and weighted average of 19.6%, a difference of 56.5%.
Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Correlation Summary
Measurement | Lumbee | Chickasaw |
Minimum | 10.0% | 3.8% |
Maximum | 78.3% | 100.0% |
Range | 68.3% | 96.2% |
Mean | 38.6% | 26.8% |
Median | 35.6% | 21.7% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 25.0% | 17.6% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 51.4% | 31.3% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 26.4% | 13.6% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 16.2% | 15.5% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 16.0% | 15.4% |
Similar Demographics by Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
Demographics Similar to Lumbee by Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
In terms of child poverty among girls under 16, the demographic groups most similar to Lumbee are Navajo (30.5%, a difference of 0.78%), Tohono O'odham (31.6%, a difference of 2.9%), Immigrants from Yemen (29.5%, a difference of 4.1%), Puerto Rican (32.7%, a difference of 6.4%), and Pima (28.2%, a difference of 8.8%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 |
Blacks/African Americans | 0.0 /100 | #333 | Tragic 24.7% |
Menominee | 0.0 /100 | #334 | Tragic 25.0% |
Pueblo | 0.0 /100 | #335 | Tragic 25.2% |
Sioux | 0.0 /100 | #336 | Tragic 25.6% |
Yup'ik | 0.0 /100 | #337 | Tragic 25.8% |
Cheyenne | 0.0 /100 | #338 | Tragic 26.3% |
Crow | 0.0 /100 | #339 | Tragic 26.4% |
Yuman | 0.0 /100 | #340 | Tragic 27.1% |
Hopi | 0.0 /100 | #341 | Tragic 27.9% |
Pima | 0.0 /100 | #342 | Tragic 28.2% |
Immigrants | Yemen | 0.0 /100 | #343 | Tragic 29.5% |
Navajo | 0.0 /100 | #344 | Tragic 30.5% |
Lumbee | 0.0 /100 | #345 | Tragic 30.7% |
Tohono O'odham | 0.0 /100 | #346 | Tragic 31.6% |
Puerto Ricans | 0.0 /100 | #347 | Tragic 32.7% |
Demographics Similar to Chickasaw by Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
In terms of child poverty among girls under 16, the demographic groups most similar to Chickasaw are Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar (19.7%, a difference of 0.12%), Jamaican (19.7%, a difference of 0.23%), Vietnamese (19.5%, a difference of 0.52%), Mexican American Indian (19.5%, a difference of 0.61%), and Immigrants from Jamaica (19.8%, a difference of 0.67%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 |
Immigrants | Ecuador | 0.3 /100 | #255 | Tragic 19.3% |
Trinidadians and Tobagonians | 0.2 /100 | #256 | Tragic 19.3% |
Guyanese | 0.2 /100 | #257 | Tragic 19.4% |
Salvadorans | 0.2 /100 | #258 | Tragic 19.4% |
Ottawa | 0.2 /100 | #259 | Tragic 19.4% |
Mexican American Indians | 0.2 /100 | #260 | Tragic 19.5% |
Vietnamese | 0.2 /100 | #261 | Tragic 19.5% |
Chickasaw | 0.1 /100 | #262 | Tragic 19.6% |
Immigrants | Burma/Myanmar | 0.1 /100 | #263 | Tragic 19.7% |
Jamaicans | 0.1 /100 | #264 | Tragic 19.7% |
Immigrants | Jamaica | 0.1 /100 | #265 | Tragic 19.8% |
Spanish Americans | 0.1 /100 | #266 | Tragic 19.8% |
Immigrants | Bangladesh | 0.1 /100 | #267 | Tragic 19.9% |
Spanish American Indians | 0.1 /100 | #268 | Tragic 19.9% |
Liberians | 0.1 /100 | #269 | Tragic 19.9% |