Native/Alaskan vs Chickasaw Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 146,219,402 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw within Native/Alaskan communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.162. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Natives/Alaskans within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.014% in Chickasaw. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Natives/Alaskans corresponds to an increase of 13.8 Chickasaw.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Native/Alaskan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in wage/income gap (24.6% compared to 27.2%, a difference of 10.6%), per capita income ($33,279 compared to $36,475, a difference of 9.6%), and median male earnings ($44,775 compared to $47,832, a difference of 6.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of median female earnings ($33,806 compared to $34,414, a difference of 1.8%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($79,816 compared to $82,193, a difference of 3.0%), and householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($75,647 compared to $77,929, a difference of 3.0%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Native/Alaskan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (8.2% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 41.4%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (14.2% compared to 10.7%, a difference of 33.2%), and seniors poverty over the age of 75 (15.5% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 33.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female poverty among 18-24 year olds (25.4% compared to 24.5%, a difference of 3.8%), single mother poverty (36.6% compared to 34.4%, a difference of 6.4%), and single female poverty (28.2% compared to 26.3%, a difference of 7.4%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Native/Alaskan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in male unemployment (7.7% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 49.2%), unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (7.3% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 47.4%), and unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (9.8% compared to 6.7%, a difference of 45.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (6.0% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 25.4%), unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (6.0% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 28.2%), and unemployment among women with children under 6 years (11.5% compared to 9.0%, a difference of 28.6%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Native/Alaskan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (36.6% compared to 38.3%, a difference of 4.9%), in labor force | age 30-34 (79.2% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 3.5%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (79.3% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 3.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 45-54 (77.1% compared to 79.0%, a difference of 2.5%), in labor force | age 35-44 (78.9% compared to 80.9%, a difference of 2.6%), and in labor force | age 20-24 (72.4% compared to 74.5%, a difference of 2.8%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Native/Alaskan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (43.0% compared to 36.3%, a difference of 18.4%), single father households (3.2% compared to 2.8%, a difference of 16.5%), and single mother households (8.0% compared to 7.0%, a difference of 13.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households with children (28.4% compared to 28.2%, a difference of 0.65%), family households (66.4% compared to 64.4%, a difference of 3.0%), and married-couple households (43.5% compared to 45.9%, a difference of 5.7%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Native/Alaskan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (10.5% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 33.5%), 4 or more vehicles in household (8.2% compared to 7.4%, a difference of 10.1%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (57.0% compared to 59.0%, a difference of 3.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 3 or more vehicles in household (22.7% compared to 22.2%, a difference of 2.5%), 1 or more vehicles in household (89.8% compared to 92.3%, a difference of 2.7%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (57.0% compared to 59.0%, a difference of 3.6%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Native/Alaskan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (2.2% compared to 1.7%, a difference of 32.5%), bachelor's degree (26.3% compared to 30.4%, a difference of 15.5%), and master's degree (9.9% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 15.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.0% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.42%), kindergarten (98.0% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.42%), and 1st grade (97.9% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.43%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Native/Alaskan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.9% compared to 1.7%, a difference of 11.7%), disability age 18 to 34 (8.2% compared to 9.0%, a difference of 9.2%), and disability age 5 to 17 (6.3% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 8.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age 65 to 74 (30.4% compared to 30.2%, a difference of 0.62%), self-care disability (2.8% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 1.9%), and cognitive disability (18.1% compared to 18.5%, a difference of 1.9%).