Cherokee vs Zimbabwean Community Comparison

COMPARE

Cherokee
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAmericanApacheArabArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSenegaleseSerbianSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSoviet UnionSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianTaiwaneseThaiTlingit-HaidaTohono O'OdhamTonganTrinidadian and TobagonianTsimshianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanUteVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYup'ik
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
Zimbabwean
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta 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

Cherokee

Zimbabweans

Fair
Exceptional
2,697
SOCIAL INDEX
24.5/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
243rd/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
9,358
SOCIAL INDEX
91.0/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
18th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Zimbabwean Integration in Cherokee Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 67,653,008 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Zimbabweans within Cherokee communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.015. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Cherokee within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.000% in Zimbabweans. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Cherokee corresponds to a decrease of 0.3 Zimbabweans.
Cherokee Integration in Zimbabwean Communities

Cherokee vs Zimbabwean Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Cherokee and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in median family income ($88,209 compared to $110,011, a difference of 24.7%), median household income ($72,682 compared to $90,618, a difference of 24.7%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($86,125 compared to $106,849, a difference of 24.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (27.4% compared to 26.3%, a difference of 4.2%), householder income under 25 years ($47,848 compared to $51,259, a difference of 7.1%), and median male earnings ($48,669 compared to $56,302, a difference of 15.7%).
Cherokee vs Zimbabwean Income
Income MetricCherokeeZimbabwean
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$37,203
Exceptional
$45,804
Median Family Income
Tragic
$88,209
Exceptional
$110,011
Median Household Income
Tragic
$72,682
Exceptional
$90,618
Median Earnings
Tragic
$41,252
Exceptional
$48,229
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$48,669
Excellent
$56,302
Median Female Earnings
Tragic
$34,742
Exceptional
$40,798
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$47,848
Tragic
$51,259
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Tragic
$80,843
Exceptional
$98,586
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Tragic
$86,125
Exceptional
$106,849
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Tragic
$54,133
Exceptional
$65,854
Wage/Income Gap
Tragic
27.4%
Fair
26.3%

Cherokee vs Zimbabwean Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Cherokee and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in female poverty among 25-34 year olds (17.2% compared to 11.7%, a difference of 47.3%), child poverty under the age of 5 (21.7% compared to 15.2%, a difference of 42.9%), and married-couple family poverty (5.8% compared to 4.1%, a difference of 41.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 75 (12.0% compared to 11.2%, a difference of 7.8%), female poverty among 18-24 year olds (22.7% compared to 20.4%, a difference of 11.0%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (11.0% compared to 9.6%, a difference of 14.1%).
Cherokee vs Zimbabwean Poverty
Poverty MetricCherokeeZimbabwean
Poverty
Tragic
14.4%
Exceptional
11.3%
Families
Tragic
10.6%
Exceptional
7.8%
Males
Tragic
13.1%
Exceptional
10.2%
Females
Tragic
15.6%
Exceptional
12.3%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
22.7%
Fair
20.4%
Females 25 to 34 years
Tragic
17.2%
Exceptional
11.7%
Children Under 5 years
Tragic
21.7%
Exceptional
15.2%
Children Under 16 years
Tragic
19.5%
Exceptional
14.2%
Boys Under 16 years
Tragic
19.7%
Exceptional
14.3%
Girls Under 16 years
Tragic
19.9%
Exceptional
14.4%
Single Males
Tragic
16.1%
Poor
13.1%
Single Females
Tragic
25.7%
Exceptional
19.5%
Single Fathers
Tragic
19.6%
Exceptional
15.6%
Single Mothers
Tragic
34.5%
Exceptional
27.9%
Married Couples
Tragic
5.8%
Exceptional
4.1%
Seniors Over 65 years
Average
11.0%
Exceptional
9.6%
Seniors Over 75 years
Good
12.0%
Exceptional
11.2%
Receiving Food Stamps
Tragic
13.2%
Exceptional
9.5%

Cherokee vs Zimbabwean Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Cherokee and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (6.4% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 31.8%), unemployment among women with children under 6 years (9.3% compared to 7.3%, a difference of 27.0%), and unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (5.2% compared to 4.3%, a difference of 20.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.1% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 9.3%), unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.4% compared to 5.9%, a difference of 9.7%), and unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.9% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 10.2%).
Cherokee vs Zimbabwean Unemployment
Unemployment MetricCherokeeZimbabwean
Unemployment
Fair
5.3%
Exceptional
4.8%
Males
Tragic
5.6%
Exceptional
4.8%
Females
Fair
5.3%
Exceptional
4.8%
Youth < 25
Fair
11.8%
Exceptional
10.2%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Poor
17.9%
Exceptional
15.4%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Tragic
10.5%
Exceptional
9.2%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Tragic
7.6%
Exceptional
6.4%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Tragic
6.4%
Exceptional
4.8%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
5.2%
Exceptional
4.3%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Poor
4.6%
Exceptional
4.2%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Tragic
5.0%
Exceptional
4.2%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Poor
4.9%
Exceptional
4.5%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Fair
5.4%
Tragic
5.9%
Seniors > 65
Excellent
5.1%
Tragic
5.6%
Seniors > 75
Tragic
9.8%
Average
8.7%
Women w/ Children < 6
Tragic
9.3%
Exceptional
7.3%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Tragic
10.0%
Exceptional
8.6%
Women w/ Children < 18
Tragic
5.7%
Exceptional
5.1%

Cherokee vs Zimbabwean Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Cherokee and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age > 16 (61.9% compared to 67.3%, a difference of 8.6%), in labor force | age 45-54 (79.0% compared to 84.0%, a difference of 6.4%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (76.2% compared to 81.0%, a difference of 6.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (75.9% compared to 75.6%, a difference of 0.41%), in labor force | age 25-29 (82.1% compared to 84.5%, a difference of 2.9%), and in labor force | age 16-19 (40.2% compared to 38.7%, a difference of 3.9%).
Cherokee vs Zimbabwean Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricCherokeeZimbabwean
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Tragic
61.9%
Exceptional
67.3%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Tragic
76.2%
Exceptional
81.0%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Exceptional
40.2%
Exceptional
38.7%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Exceptional
75.9%
Excellent
75.6%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Tragic
82.1%
Fair
84.5%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Tragic
81.6%
Exceptional
85.6%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
81.4%
Exceptional
86.1%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
79.0%
Exceptional
84.0%

Cherokee vs Zimbabwean Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Cherokee and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (36.7% compared to 28.7%, a difference of 27.8%), divorced or separated (13.7% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 18.6%), and single father households (2.6% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 18.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of currently married (46.9% compared to 47.0%, a difference of 0.14%), average family size (3.18 compared to 3.20, a difference of 0.50%), and married-couple households (46.7% compared to 47.4%, a difference of 1.4%).
Cherokee vs Zimbabwean Family Structure
Family Structure MetricCherokeeZimbabwean
Family Households
Exceptional
65.0%
Fair
64.1%
Family Households with Children
Average
27.5%
Exceptional
27.9%
Married-couple Households
Good
46.7%
Excellent
47.4%
Average Family Size
Tragic
3.18
Poor
3.20
Single Father Households
Tragic
2.6%
Exceptional
2.2%
Single Mother Households
Tragic
6.8%
Excellent
6.1%
Currently Married
Good
46.9%
Good
47.0%
Divorced or Separated
Tragic
13.7%
Exceptional
11.6%
Births to Unmarried Women
Tragic
36.7%
Exceptional
28.7%

Cherokee vs Zimbabwean Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Cherokee and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (7.7% compared to 6.4%, a difference of 20.2%), no vehicles in household (7.7% compared to 9.0%, a difference of 16.8%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (23.0% compared to 20.3%, a difference of 13.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (92.4% compared to 91.0%, a difference of 1.5%), 2 or more vehicles in household (59.9% compared to 57.2%, a difference of 4.6%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (23.0% compared to 20.3%, a difference of 13.5%).
Cherokee vs Zimbabwean Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricCherokeeZimbabwean
No Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.7%
Exceptional
9.0%
1+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
92.4%
Exceptional
91.0%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
59.9%
Exceptional
57.2%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
23.0%
Excellent
20.3%
4+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.7%
Good
6.4%

Cherokee vs Zimbabwean Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Cherokee and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (3.3% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 57.8%), doctorate degree (1.5% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 56.4%), and master's degree (11.4% compared to 17.7%, a difference of 55.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 7th grade (96.8% compared to 96.8%, a difference of 0.020%), nursery school (98.3% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.040%), and 1st grade (98.3% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.040%).
Cherokee vs Zimbabwean Education Level
Education Level MetricCherokeeZimbabwean
No Schooling Completed
Exceptional
1.7%
Exceptional
1.7%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
98.3%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
98.3%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
98.3%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
98.2%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
98.1%
4th Grade
Exceptional
98.0%
Exceptional
97.9%
5th Grade
Exceptional
97.8%
Exceptional
97.8%
6th Grade
Exceptional
97.6%
Exceptional
97.6%
7th Grade
Exceptional
96.8%
Exceptional
96.8%
8th Grade
Exceptional
96.5%
Exceptional
96.5%
9th Grade
Exceptional
95.4%
Exceptional
95.9%
10th Grade
Excellent
94.1%
Exceptional
94.9%
11th Grade
Average
92.4%
Exceptional
93.9%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Tragic
90.5%
Exceptional
92.7%
High School Diploma
Poor
88.5%
Exceptional
91.1%
GED/Equivalency
Tragic
83.9%
Exceptional
88.0%
College, Under 1 year
Tragic
60.1%
Exceptional
69.9%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
53.2%
Exceptional
64.2%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
38.9%
Exceptional
51.3%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
30.2%
Exceptional
43.3%
Master's Degree
Tragic
11.4%
Exceptional
17.7%
Professional Degree
Tragic
3.3%
Exceptional
5.2%
Doctorate Degree
Tragic
1.5%
Exceptional
2.3%

Cherokee vs Zimbabwean Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Cherokee and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.8% compared to 1.2%, a difference of 50.5%), vision disability (2.9% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 48.4%), and hearing disability (4.2% compared to 2.8%, a difference of 48.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (18.0% compared to 17.6%, a difference of 2.1%), disability age over 75 (50.2% compared to 48.1%, a difference of 4.5%), and disability age 5 to 17 (6.9% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 24.8%).
Cherokee vs Zimbabwean Disability
Disability MetricCherokeeZimbabwean
Disability
Tragic
14.8%
Exceptional
10.9%
Males
Tragic
14.8%
Exceptional
10.6%
Females
Tragic
14.9%
Exceptional
11.3%
Age | Under 5 years
Tragic
1.8%
Exceptional
1.2%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Tragic
6.9%
Good
5.5%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
8.7%
Good
6.5%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Tragic
15.5%
Exceptional
10.4%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
28.2%
Exceptional
21.5%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
50.2%
Tragic
48.1%
Vision
Tragic
2.9%
Exceptional
2.0%
Hearing
Tragic
4.2%
Excellent
2.8%
Cognitive
Tragic
18.0%
Tragic
17.6%
Ambulatory
Tragic
7.9%
Exceptional
5.4%
Self-Care
Tragic
2.9%
Exceptional
2.2%