Tlingit-Haida vs Chickasaw Female Poverty
COMPARE
Tlingit-Haida
Chickasaw
Female Poverty
Female Poverty Comparison
Tlingit-Haida
Chickasaw
12.5%
FEMALE POVERTY
94.8/ 100
METRIC RATING
101st/ 347
METRIC RANK
15.9%
FEMALE POVERTY
0.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
270th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Tlingit-Haida vs Chickasaw Female Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 60,854,909 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Tlingit-Haida and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.293 and weighted average of 12.5%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 147,658,289 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.004 and weighted average of 15.9%, a difference of 26.9%.
![Tlingit-Haida vs Chickasaw Female Poverty](/correlation-charts/metric-comparison/female-poverty/tlingit-haida-vs-chickasaw-female-poverty-chart.webp)
Female Poverty Correlation Summary
Measurement | Tlingit-Haida | Chickasaw |
Minimum | 3.4% | 1.9% |
Maximum | 32.4% | 38.6% |
Range | 29.1% | 36.7% |
Mean | 14.0% | 18.1% |
Median | 12.3% | 17.3% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 8.4% | 14.6% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 17.8% | 20.7% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 9.3% | 6.1% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 7.4% | 5.9% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 7.3% | 5.9% |
Similar Demographics by Female Poverty
Demographics Similar to Tlingit-Haida by Female Poverty
In terms of female poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Tlingit-Haida are Immigrants from Latvia (12.5%, a difference of 0.0%), Romanian (12.5%, a difference of 0.15%), Immigrants from China (12.5%, a difference of 0.15%), Native Hawaiian (12.5%, a difference of 0.17%), and Slavic (12.5%, a difference of 0.17%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Female Poverty |
Immigrants | Indonesia | 95.4 /100 | #94 | Exceptional 12.5% |
Immigrants | South Africa | 95.4 /100 | #95 | Exceptional 12.5% |
British | 95.2 /100 | #96 | Exceptional 12.5% |
Australians | 95.2 /100 | #97 | Exceptional 12.5% |
Native Hawaiians | 95.1 /100 | #98 | Exceptional 12.5% |
Romanians | 95.1 /100 | #99 | Exceptional 12.5% |
Immigrants | Latvia | 94.8 /100 | #100 | Exceptional 12.5% |
Tlingit-Haida | 94.8 /100 | #101 | Exceptional 12.5% |
Immigrants | China | 94.5 /100 | #102 | Exceptional 12.5% |
Slavs | 94.5 /100 | #103 | Exceptional 12.5% |
Palestinians | 94.3 /100 | #104 | Exceptional 12.5% |
Scottish | 94.1 /100 | #105 | Exceptional 12.5% |
Immigrants | Turkey | 93.8 /100 | #106 | Exceptional 12.6% |
Laotians | 93.4 /100 | #107 | Exceptional 12.6% |
Portuguese | 93.1 /100 | #108 | Exceptional 12.6% |
Demographics Similar to Chickasaw by Female Poverty
In terms of female poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Chickasaw are Iroquois (15.8%, a difference of 0.26%), Immigrants from St. Vincent and the Grenadines (15.9%, a difference of 0.28%), Belizean (15.9%, a difference of 0.50%), Haitian (15.9%, a difference of 0.51%), and Barbadian (15.9%, a difference of 0.51%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Female Poverty |
Cherokee | 0.1 /100 | #263 | Tragic 15.6% |
Immigrants | Ecuador | 0.1 /100 | #264 | Tragic 15.6% |
Immigrants | Liberia | 0.1 /100 | #265 | Tragic 15.7% |
Immigrants | El Salvador | 0.1 /100 | #266 | Tragic 15.7% |
Sub-Saharan Africans | 0.1 /100 | #267 | Tragic 15.8% |
Immigrants | Nicaragua | 0.1 /100 | #268 | Tragic 15.8% |
Iroquois | 0.1 /100 | #269 | Tragic 15.8% |
Chickasaw | 0.1 /100 | #270 | Tragic 15.9% |
Immigrants | St. Vincent and the Grenadines | 0.0 /100 | #271 | Tragic 15.9% |
Belizeans | 0.0 /100 | #272 | Tragic 15.9% |
Haitians | 0.0 /100 | #273 | Tragic 15.9% |
Barbadians | 0.0 /100 | #274 | Tragic 15.9% |
Immigrants | Barbados | 0.0 /100 | #275 | Tragic 16.0% |
Central Americans | 0.0 /100 | #276 | Tragic 16.0% |
Bangladeshis | 0.0 /100 | #277 | Tragic 16.0% |