Alaskan Athabascan vs Chickasaw Community Comparison

COMPARE

Alaskan Athabascan
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
Chickasaw
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlbanianAleutAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsagePaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPimaPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSerbianShoshoneSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianThaiTlingit-HaidaTohono O'OdhamTonganTrinidadian and TobagonianTsimshianTurkishUgandanUkrainianUruguayanUteVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYumanYup'ikZimbabwean
Immigration
NonimmigrantsImmigrantsAfghanistanAfricaAlbaniaArgentinaArmeniaAsiaAustraliaAustriaBahamasBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilBulgariaBurma/MyanmarCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral AmericaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaCubaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkDominicaDominican RepublicEastern AfricaEastern AsiaEastern EuropeEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEnglandEritreaEthiopiaEuropeFijiFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasHong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanKazakhstanKenyaKoreaLaosLatin AmericaLatviaLebanonLiberiaLithuaniaMalaysiaMexicoMicronesiaMiddle AfricaMoldovaMoroccoNepalNetherlandsNicaraguaNigeriaNorth AmericaNorth MacedoniaNorthern AfricaNorthern EuropeNorwayOceaniaPakistanPanamaPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSaudi ArabiaScotlandSerbiaSingaporeSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth AmericaSouth Central AsiaSouth Eastern AsiaSouthern EuropeSpainSri LankaSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudanSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanThailandTrinidad and TobagoTurkeyUgandaUkraineUruguayUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeZimbabweAzores
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Income
Poverty
Unemployment
Labor Participation
Family Structure
Vehicle Availability
Education Level
Disability

Social Comparison

Alaskan Athabascans

Chickasaw

Fair
Fair
2,687
SOCIAL INDEX
24.4/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
246th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
3,663
SOCIAL INDEX
34.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
212th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Chickasaw Integration in Alaskan Athabascan Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 32,188,731 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw within Alaskan Athabascan communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.573. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Alaskan Athabascans within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.073% in Chickasaw. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Alaskan Athabascans corresponds to an increase of 73.0 Chickasaw.
Alaskan Athabascan Integration in Chickasaw Communities

Alaskan Athabascan vs Chickasaw Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Alaskan Athabascan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in householder income over 65 years ($62,330 compared to $53,732, a difference of 16.0%), householder income under 25 years ($51,713 compared to $44,763, a difference of 15.5%), and householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($88,446 compared to $77,929, a difference of 13.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of median male earnings ($49,748 compared to $47,832, a difference of 4.0%), wage/income gap (25.8% compared to 27.2%, a difference of 5.4%), and median earnings ($43,393 compared to $40,672, a difference of 6.7%).
Alaskan Athabascan vs Chickasaw Income
Income MetricAlaskan AthabascanChickasaw
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$39,163
Tragic
$36,475
Median Family Income
Tragic
$94,429
Tragic
$85,356
Median Household Income
Tragic
$76,383
Tragic
$70,005
Median Earnings
Tragic
$43,393
Tragic
$40,672
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$49,748
Tragic
$47,832
Median Female Earnings
Tragic
$37,905
Tragic
$34,414
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Fair
$51,713
Tragic
$44,763
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Tragic
$88,446
Tragic
$77,929
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Tragic
$90,951
Tragic
$82,193
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Excellent
$62,330
Tragic
$53,732
Wage/Income Gap
Average
25.8%
Tragic
27.2%

Alaskan Athabascan vs Chickasaw Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Alaskan Athabascan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in seniors poverty over the age of 75 (13.4% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 14.8%), single mother poverty (30.3% compared to 34.4%, a difference of 13.8%), and child poverty among boys under 16 (17.6% compared to 19.8%, a difference of 12.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of child poverty under the age of 5 (21.8% compared to 21.8%, a difference of 0.010%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.6% compared to 10.7%, a difference of 0.71%), and single male poverty (16.1% compared to 16.3%, a difference of 1.3%).
Alaskan Athabascan vs Chickasaw Poverty
Poverty MetricAlaskan AthabascanChickasaw
Poverty
Tragic
13.6%
Tragic
14.7%
Families
Tragic
10.1%
Tragic
10.8%
Males
Tragic
12.8%
Tragic
13.5%
Females
Tragic
14.4%
Tragic
15.9%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
22.5%
Tragic
24.5%
Females 25 to 34 years
Tragic
19.1%
Tragic
17.0%
Children Under 5 years
Tragic
21.8%
Tragic
21.8%
Children Under 16 years
Tragic
17.5%
Tragic
19.5%
Boys Under 16 years
Tragic
17.6%
Tragic
19.8%
Girls Under 16 years
Tragic
18.3%
Tragic
19.6%
Single Males
Tragic
16.1%
Tragic
16.3%
Single Females
Tragic
23.6%
Tragic
26.3%
Single Fathers
Tragic
18.1%
Tragic
19.0%
Single Mothers
Tragic
30.3%
Tragic
34.4%
Married Couples
Tragic
6.1%
Tragic
5.8%
Seniors Over 65 years
Good
10.6%
Good
10.7%
Seniors Over 75 years
Tragic
13.4%
Exceptional
11.6%
Receiving Food Stamps
Tragic
14.7%
Tragic
13.1%

Alaskan Athabascan vs Chickasaw Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Alaskan Athabascan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 45 to 54 years (8.5% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 99.4%), unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (8.4% compared to 4.3%, a difference of 93.9%), and male unemployment (9.8% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 89.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among women with children under 6 years (9.1% compared to 9.0%, a difference of 1.5%), unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (8.5% compared to 8.6%, a difference of 1.6%), and unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (17.7% compared to 16.7%, a difference of 6.2%).
Alaskan Athabascan vs Chickasaw Unemployment
Unemployment MetricAlaskan AthabascanChickasaw
Unemployment
Tragic
7.7%
Exceptional
5.0%
Males
Tragic
9.8%
Excellent
5.2%
Females
Tragic
6.1%
Excellent
5.1%
Youth < 25
Tragic
12.2%
Exceptional
11.2%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Fair
17.7%
Exceptional
16.7%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Tragic
11.6%
Exceptional
9.9%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Tragic
10.8%
Fair
6.7%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Tragic
7.0%
Tragic
6.2%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
8.6%
Tragic
4.9%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Tragic
8.5%
Exceptional
4.2%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Tragic
7.1%
Good
4.8%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Tragic
8.4%
Exceptional
4.3%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
7.4%
Exceptional
4.7%
Seniors > 65
Tragic
7.0%
Exceptional
4.4%
Seniors > 75
Tragic
11.0%
Exceptional
7.3%
Women w/ Children < 6
Tragic
9.1%
Tragic
9.0%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Exceptional
8.5%
Exceptional
8.6%
Women w/ Children < 18
Tragic
6.3%
Good
5.4%

Alaskan Athabascan vs Chickasaw Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Alaskan Athabascan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (45.2% compared to 38.3%, a difference of 17.9%), in labor force | age 20-24 (79.1% compared to 74.5%, a difference of 6.2%), and in labor force | age > 16 (64.8% compared to 62.3%, a difference of 4.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (81.7% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 0.27%), in labor force | age 35-44 (81.3% compared to 80.9%, a difference of 0.49%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (82.3% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 0.51%).
Alaskan Athabascan vs Chickasaw Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricAlaskan AthabascanChickasaw
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Poor
64.8%
Tragic
62.3%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Tragic
76.9%
Tragic
76.2%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Exceptional
45.2%
Exceptional
38.3%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Exceptional
79.1%
Poor
74.5%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Tragic
82.3%
Tragic
81.9%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Tragic
81.7%
Tragic
81.9%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
81.3%
Tragic
80.9%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
81.8%
Tragic
79.0%

Alaskan Athabascan vs Chickasaw Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Alaskan Athabascan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in single father households (3.4% compared to 2.8%, a difference of 22.7%), divorced or separated (13.1% compared to 14.2%, a difference of 8.2%), and married-couple households (43.6% compared to 45.9%, a difference of 5.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households with children (27.6% compared to 28.2%, a difference of 2.4%), average family size (3.27 compared to 3.19, a difference of 2.4%), and single mother households (7.3% compared to 7.0%, a difference of 3.7%).
Alaskan Athabascan vs Chickasaw Family Structure
Family Structure MetricAlaskan AthabascanChickasaw
Family Households
Tragic
61.8%
Good
64.4%
Family Households with Children
Good
27.6%
Exceptional
28.2%
Married-couple Households
Tragic
43.6%
Fair
45.9%
Average Family Size
Exceptional
3.27
Tragic
3.19
Single Father Households
Tragic
3.4%
Tragic
2.8%
Single Mother Households
Tragic
7.3%
Tragic
7.0%
Currently Married
Tragic
44.6%
Average
46.6%
Divorced or Separated
Tragic
13.1%
Tragic
14.2%
Births to Unmarried Women
Tragic
37.7%
Tragic
36.3%

Alaskan Athabascan vs Chickasaw Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Alaskan Athabascan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (15.6% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 98.5%), 4 or more vehicles in household (8.1% compared to 7.4%, a difference of 8.6%), and 1 or more vehicles in household (86.0% compared to 92.3%, a difference of 7.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 3 or more vehicles in household (21.9% compared to 22.2%, a difference of 1.1%), 2 or more vehicles in household (55.2% compared to 59.0%, a difference of 6.9%), and 1 or more vehicles in household (86.0% compared to 92.3%, a difference of 7.3%).
Alaskan Athabascan vs Chickasaw Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricAlaskan AthabascanChickasaw
No Vehicles Available
Tragic
15.6%
Exceptional
7.9%
1+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
86.0%
Exceptional
92.3%
2+ Vehicles Available
Average
55.2%
Exceptional
59.0%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
21.9%
Exceptional
22.2%
4+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
8.1%
Exceptional
7.4%

Alaskan Athabascan vs Chickasaw Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Alaskan Athabascan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (1.5% compared to 1.7%, a difference of 15.6%), doctorate degree (1.7% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 13.6%), and professional degree (3.8% compared to 3.4%, a difference of 13.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of college, 1 year or more (53.4% compared to 53.3%, a difference of 0.18%), nursery school (98.8% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.42%), and kindergarten (98.8% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.42%).
Alaskan Athabascan vs Chickasaw Education Level
Education Level MetricAlaskan AthabascanChickasaw
No Schooling Completed
Exceptional
1.5%
Exceptional
1.7%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.8%
Exceptional
98.4%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.8%
Exceptional
98.4%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.8%
Exceptional
98.3%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.7%
Exceptional
98.3%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.7%
Exceptional
98.2%
4th Grade
Exceptional
98.4%
Exceptional
98.0%
5th Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
97.9%
6th Grade
Exceptional
98.1%
Exceptional
97.6%
7th Grade
Exceptional
97.6%
Exceptional
96.7%
8th Grade
Exceptional
97.3%
Exceptional
96.4%
9th Grade
Exceptional
96.4%
Exceptional
95.5%
10th Grade
Exceptional
95.4%
Excellent
94.1%
11th Grade
Exceptional
93.9%
Fair
92.3%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Exceptional
92.3%
Tragic
90.3%
High School Diploma
Exceptional
90.9%
Poor
88.4%
GED/Equivalency
Fair
85.3%
Tragic
83.8%
College, Under 1 year
Tragic
61.0%
Tragic
60.4%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
53.4%
Tragic
53.3%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
36.5%
Tragic
38.6%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
28.8%
Tragic
30.4%
Master's Degree
Tragic
11.6%
Tragic
11.4%
Professional Degree
Tragic
3.8%
Tragic
3.4%
Doctorate Degree
Poor
1.7%
Tragic
1.5%

Alaskan Athabascan vs Chickasaw Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Alaskan Athabascan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.5% compared to 1.7%, a difference of 20.0%), hearing disability (5.3% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 18.9%), and ambulatory disability (6.9% compared to 8.0%, a difference of 16.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of vision disability (3.1% compared to 3.2%, a difference of 0.93%), male disability (14.9% compared to 15.1%, a difference of 1.4%), and disability age 35 to 64 (15.7% compared to 16.1%, a difference of 2.5%).
Alaskan Athabascan vs Chickasaw Disability
Disability MetricAlaskan AthabascanChickasaw
Disability
Tragic
14.4%
Tragic
15.2%
Males
Tragic
14.9%
Tragic
15.1%
Females
Tragic
13.9%
Tragic
15.2%
Age | Under 5 years
Tragic
1.5%
Tragic
1.7%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Tragic
6.3%
Tragic
6.8%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
9.4%
Tragic
9.0%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Tragic
15.7%
Tragic
16.1%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
32.4%
Tragic
30.2%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
54.0%
Tragic
51.2%
Vision
Tragic
3.1%
Tragic
3.2%
Hearing
Tragic
5.3%
Tragic
4.5%
Cognitive
Tragic
17.6%
Tragic
18.5%
Ambulatory
Tragic
6.9%
Tragic
8.0%
Self-Care
Poor
2.5%
Tragic
2.9%