Cities with the Highest Child Poverty Level Among Girls Under the Age of 16 in Oklahoma

RELATED REPORTS & OPTIONS

Highest Poverty | Girls 0-16
Population
Families and Households
Female Fertility
Female Fertility (Unmarried)
Race (Community Size)
Race (Percentage)
Ancestry (Community Size)
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian / Chaldean / SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta 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
Ancestry (Percentage)
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian / Chaldean / SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta 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
Immigrant Origin (Total)
AfghanistanAfricaAlbaniaArgentinaArmeniaAsiaAustraliaAustriaAzoresBahamasBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilBulgariaBurma / MyanmarCabo VerdeCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral AmericaChileChinaColombiaCongoCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkDominicaDominican RepublicEastern AfricaEastern AsiaEastern EuropeEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEnglandEritreaEthiopiaEuropeFijiFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasHong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKoreaKuwaitLaosLatin AmericaLatviaLebanonLiberiaLithuaniaMalaysiaMexicoMicronesiaMiddle AfricaMoldovaMoroccoNepalNetherlandsNicaraguaNigeriaNorth MacedoniaNorthern AfricaNorthern EuropeNorwayOceaniaPakistanPanamaPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSaudi ArabiaScotlandSenegalSerbiaSierra LeoneSingaporeSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth AmericaSouth Central AsiaSouth Eastern AsiaSouthern EuropeSpainSri LankaSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudanSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanThailandTrinidad and TobagoTurkeyUgandaUkraineUruguayUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamWest IndiesWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeYemenZaireZimbabwe
Immigrant Origin (Percentage)
AfghanistanAfricaAlbaniaArgentinaArmeniaAsiaAustraliaAustriaAzoresBahamasBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilBulgariaBurma / MyanmarCabo VerdeCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral AmericaChileChinaColombiaCongoCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkDominicaDominican RepublicEastern AfricaEastern AsiaEastern EuropeEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEnglandEritreaEthiopiaEuropeFijiFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasHong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKoreaKuwaitLaosLatin AmericaLatviaLebanonLiberiaLithuaniaMalaysiaMexicoMicronesiaMiddle AfricaMoldovaMoroccoNepalNetherlandsNicaraguaNigeriaNorth MacedoniaNorthern AfricaNorthern EuropeNorwayOceaniaPakistanPanamaPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSaudi ArabiaScotlandSenegalSerbiaSierra LeoneSingaporeSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth AmericaSouth Central AsiaSouth Eastern AsiaSouthern EuropeSpainSri LankaSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudanSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanThailandTrinidad and TobagoTurkeyUgandaUkraineUruguayUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamWest IndiesWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeYemenZaireZimbabwe
Income
Income (Families)
Income (Households)
Poverty
Poverty (Families)
Unemployment
Employment Occupations
Employment Industries
Employer Class
Commute Time
Commute Means
School Enrollment
Education by Degree Field
Occupancy
Finances
Physical Characteristics
Oklahoma
Compare Cities
Comparison Subject

Map of Cities with the Highest Child Poverty Level Among Girls Under the Age of 16 in Oklahoma

0.0%
100.0%
Cities with the Highest Child Poverty Level Among Girls Under the Age of 16 in Oklahoma Map

Cities with the Highest Child Poverty Level Among Girls Under the Age of 16 in Oklahoma

City Child Poverty (Girls) vs State vs National
1. Cedar Crest 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#1 17.0% (+83.0)#291
2. Colony 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#2 17.0% (+83.0)#424
3. Whitesboro 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#4 17.0% (+83.0)#435
4. Bee 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#5 17.0% (+83.0)#436
5. Box 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#6 17.0% (+83.0)#452
6. Murphy 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#7 17.0% (+83.0)#454
7. Martha 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#8 17.0% (+83.0)#467
8. Moyers 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#9 17.0% (+83.0)#495
9. Platter 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#10 17.0% (+83.0)#509
10. Ratliff City 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#11 17.0% (+83.0)#521
11. Smithville 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#12 17.0% (+83.0)#531
12. Hoyt 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#13 17.0% (+83.0)#532
13. Blue 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#14 17.0% (+83.0)#536
14. Atwood 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#15 17.0% (+83.0)#540
15. Cowlington 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#16 17.0% (+83.0)#543
16. Mulberry 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#17 17.0% (+83.0)#585
17. New Alluwe 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#18 17.0% (+83.0)#594
18. Hendrix 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#19 17.0% (+83.0)#604
19. Emet 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#20 17.0% (+83.0)#625
20. Whippoorwill 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#21 17.0% (+83.0)#634
21. Ashland 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#22 17.0% (+83.0)#638
22. Badger Lee 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#23 17.0% (+83.0)#642
23. Bunch 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#24 17.0% (+83.0)#655
24. Douglas 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#25 17.0% (+83.0)#663
25. Rosston 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#26 17.0% (+83.0)#666
26. Amorita 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#27 17.0% (+83.0)#672
27. Piney 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#28 17.0% (+83.0)#674
28. Friendship 100.0% 20.8% (+79.2)#29 17.0% (+83.0)#680
29. Bell 86.3% 20.8% (+65.4)#30 17.0% (+69.3)#843
30. Dacoma 83.3% 20.8% (+62.5)#31 17.0% (+66.4)#929
31. Eldorado 83.0% 20.8% (+62.1)#32 17.0% (+66.0)#936
32. Boley 80.0% 20.8% (+59.2)#33 17.0% (+63.0)#1,017
33. Lebanon 78.9% 20.8% (+58.1)#34 17.0% (+62.0)#1,075
34. Yeager 77.8% 20.8% (+56.9)#35 17.0% (+60.8)#1,112
35. Loyal 77.8% 20.8% (+56.9)#36 17.0% (+60.8)#1,113
36. Monroe 75.0% 20.8% (+54.2)#37 17.0% (+58.0)#1,228
37. Burbank 75.0% 20.8% (+54.2)#38 17.0% (+58.0)#1,229
38. Bowring 75.0% 20.8% (+54.2)#39 17.0% (+58.0)#1,233
39. Blanco 75.0% 20.8% (+54.2)#40 17.0% (+58.0)#1,234
40. Langston 73.6% 20.8% (+52.8)#41 17.0% (+56.6)#1,276
41. Spavinaw 73.1% 20.8% (+52.2)#42 17.0% (+56.1)#1,300
42. Glencoe 72.9% 20.8% (+52.1)#43 17.0% (+55.9)#1,309
43. Tyrone 72.8% 20.8% (+52.0)#44 17.0% (+55.9)#1,316
44. Carlisle 72.7% 20.8% (+51.9)#45 17.0% (+55.8)#1,322
45. Peoria 71.4% 20.8% (+50.6)#46 17.0% (+54.5)#1,398
46. Avard 71.4% 20.8% (+50.6)#47 17.0% (+54.5)#1,399
47. Tenkiller 71.0% 20.8% (+50.1)#48 17.0% (+54.0)#1,421
48. Hastings 70.0% 20.8% (+49.2)#49 17.0% (+53.0)#1,465
49. Elm Grove 68.4% 20.8% (+47.6)#50 17.0% (+51.4)#1,544
50. Hallett 66.7% 20.8% (+45.8)#51 17.0% (+49.7)#1,660
51. Hitchita 66.7% 20.8% (+45.8)#52 17.0% (+49.7)#1,668
52. Bluejacket 65.2% 20.8% (+44.4)#53 17.0% (+48.2)#1,742
53. Peggs 64.2% 20.8% (+43.3)#54 17.0% (+47.2)#1,795
54. Mulhall 63.6% 20.8% (+42.8)#55 17.0% (+46.7)#1,839
55. Dustin 63.4% 20.8% (+42.5)#56 17.0% (+46.4)#1,849
56. Indianola 63.3% 20.8% (+42.5)#57 17.0% (+46.4)#1,850
57. Waurika 63.2% 20.8% (+42.4)#58 17.0% (+46.2)#1,856
58. Boynton 62.5% 20.8% (+41.7)#59 17.0% (+45.5)#1,911
59. Dripping Springs 62.5% 20.8% (+41.7)#60 17.0% (+45.5)#1,916
60. Heavener 62.5% 20.8% (+41.6)#61 17.0% (+45.5)#1,917
61. Texhoma 62.4% 20.8% (+41.5)#62 17.0% (+45.4)#1,920
62. Vici 62.2% 20.8% (+41.3)#63 17.0% (+45.2)#1,934
63. Peavine 61.9% 20.8% (+41.1)#64 17.0% (+44.9)#1,953
64. Simms 61.7% 20.8% (+40.8)#65 17.0% (+44.7)#1,966
65. Twin Oaks 60.0% 20.8% (+39.2)#66 17.0% (+43.0)#2,090
66. Freedom 60.0% 20.8% (+39.2)#67 17.0% (+43.0)#2,095
67. Flint Creek 59.8% 20.8% (+39.0)#68 17.0% (+42.8)#2,115
68. Oaks 59.1% 20.8% (+38.3)#69 17.0% (+42.1)#2,158
69. Kiowa 58.6% 20.8% (+37.7)#70 17.0% (+41.6)#2,207
70. White Eagle 58.1% 20.8% (+37.3)#71 17.0% (+41.1)#2,254
71. Langley 57.9% 20.8% (+37.1)#72 17.0% (+40.9)#2,266
72. Lawrence Creek 57.1% 20.8% (+36.3)#73 17.0% (+40.2)#2,333
73. Hoffman 57.1% 20.8% (+36.3)#74 17.0% (+40.2)#2,335
74. Elohim 57.1% 20.8% (+36.3)#75 17.0% (+40.2)#2,338
75. Carmen 56.8% 20.8% (+35.9)#76 17.0% (+39.8)#2,361
76. Bennington 56.0% 20.8% (+35.2)#77 17.0% (+39.0)#2,416
77. Kaw City 56.0% 20.8% (+35.2)#78 17.0% (+39.0)#2,418
78. Braggs 56.0% 20.8% (+35.2)#79 17.0% (+39.0)#2,421
79. Hardesty 55.6% 20.8% (+34.7)#80 17.0% (+38.6)#2,470
80. Wapanucka 55.4% 20.8% (+34.6)#81 17.0% (+38.5)#2,487
81. Shady Point 55.3% 20.8% (+34.5)#82 17.0% (+38.3)#2,498
82. Panama 54.8% 20.8% (+34.0)#83 17.0% (+37.9)#2,535
83. Eakly 54.0% 20.8% (+33.2)#84 17.0% (+37.0)#2,614
84. Reydon 53.8% 20.8% (+33.0)#85 17.0% (+36.9)#2,640
85. Foss 53.8% 20.8% (+33.0)#86 17.0% (+36.9)#2,641
86. Spiro 53.8% 20.8% (+32.9)#87 17.0% (+36.8)#2,650
87. Custer City 53.7% 20.8% (+32.9)#88 17.0% (+36.8)#2,652
88. Roosevelt 53.3% 20.8% (+32.5)#89 17.0% (+36.4)#2,690
89. Wetumka 53.1% 20.8% (+32.2)#90 17.0% (+36.1)#2,725
90. Dewey 52.9% 20.8% (+32.0)#91 17.0% (+35.9)#2,749
91. Drummond 52.8% 20.8% (+32.0)#92 17.0% (+35.9)#2,751
92. Dougherty 52.6% 20.8% (+31.8)#93 17.0% (+35.7)#2,778
93. Wainwright 52.6% 20.8% (+31.8)#94 17.0% (+35.7)#2,779
94. Colbert 52.5% 20.8% (+31.7)#95 17.0% (+35.6)#2,781
95. Tishomingo 52.5% 20.8% (+31.7)#96 17.0% (+35.6)#2,783
96. Rocky Mountain 52.5% 20.8% (+31.6)#97 17.0% (+35.5)#2,792
97. Lowrey 52.1% 20.8% (+31.2)#98 17.0% (+35.1)#2,825
98. Okeene 51.9% 20.8% (+31.1)#99 17.0% (+34.9)#2,842
99. Grandfield 51.7% 20.8% (+30.9)#100 17.0% (+34.8)#2,856
100. Colcord 51.5% 20.8% (+30.6)#101 17.0% (+34.5)#2,880

Common Questions

What are the Top 10 Cities with the Highest Child Poverty Level Among Girls Under the Age of 16 in Oklahoma?
Top 10 Cities with the Highest Child Poverty Level Among Girls Under the Age of 16 in Oklahoma are:
#1
100.0%
#2
100.0%
#3
100.0%
#4
100.0%
#5
100.0%
#6
100.0%
#7
100.0%
#8
100.0%
#9
100.0%
#10
100.0%
What city has the Highest Child Poverty Level Among Girls Under the Age of 16 in Oklahoma?
Cedar Crest has the Highest Child Poverty Level Among Girls Under the Age of 16 in Oklahoma with 100.0%.
What is the Poverty Level Among Girls Under the Age of 16 in the State of Oklahoma?
Poverty Level Among Girls Under the Age of 16 in Oklahoma is 20.8%.
What is the Poverty Level Among Girls Under the Age of 16 in the United States?
Poverty Level Among Girls Under the Age of 16 in the United States is 17.0%.