Alsatian vs Czechoslovakian Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
COMPARE
Alsatian
Czechoslovakian
Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Comparison
Alsatians
Czechoslovakians
18.6%
CHILD POVERTY AMONG GIRLS UNDER 16
1.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
236th/ 347
METRIC RANK
15.5%
CHILD POVERTY AMONG GIRLS UNDER 16
89.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
135th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Alsatian vs Czechoslovakian Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 82,194,745 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Alsatians and poverty level among girls under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.237 and weighted average of 18.6%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 361,103,905 people shows a mild positive correlation between the proportion of Czechoslovakians and poverty level among girls under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.338 and weighted average of 15.5%, a difference of 20.3%.
Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Correlation Summary
Measurement | Alsatian | Czechoslovakian |
Minimum | 2.1% | 3.3% |
Maximum | 48.4% | 57.5% |
Range | 46.3% | 54.2% |
Mean | 21.1% | 21.9% |
Median | 16.6% | 17.6% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 11.8% | 13.3% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 25.8% | 26.5% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 14.0% | 13.1% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 12.9% | 13.6% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 12.6% | 13.4% |
Similar Demographics by Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
Demographics Similar to Alsatians by Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
In terms of child poverty among girls under 16, the demographic groups most similar to Alsatians are Nepalese (18.6%, a difference of 0.010%), Fijian (18.6%, a difference of 0.060%), Sudanese (18.6%, a difference of 0.13%), Immigrants from Nigeria (18.6%, a difference of 0.13%), and Immigrants from Sudan (18.6%, a difference of 0.17%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 |
Ghanaians | 1.4 /100 | #229 | Tragic 18.5% |
Osage | 1.3 /100 | #230 | Tragic 18.5% |
Cree | 1.3 /100 | #231 | Tragic 18.5% |
Immigrants | Sudan | 1.1 /100 | #232 | Tragic 18.6% |
Sudanese | 1.1 /100 | #233 | Tragic 18.6% |
Fijians | 1.1 /100 | #234 | Tragic 18.6% |
Nepalese | 1.1 /100 | #235 | Tragic 18.6% |
Alsatians | 1.1 /100 | #236 | Tragic 18.6% |
Immigrants | Nigeria | 1.0 /100 | #237 | Tragic 18.6% |
Immigrants | Eritrea | 1.0 /100 | #238 | Tragic 18.7% |
Marshallese | 0.9 /100 | #239 | Tragic 18.7% |
Nigerians | 0.9 /100 | #240 | Tragic 18.7% |
Americans | 0.8 /100 | #241 | Tragic 18.8% |
Immigrants | Cuba | 0.7 /100 | #242 | Tragic 18.8% |
Immigrants | Nicaragua | 0.7 /100 | #243 | Tragic 18.8% |
Demographics Similar to Czechoslovakians by Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
In terms of child poverty among girls under 16, the demographic groups most similar to Czechoslovakians are Native Hawaiian (15.5%, a difference of 0.020%), Immigrants from Spain (15.5%, a difference of 0.030%), South African (15.5%, a difference of 0.11%), Brazilian (15.4%, a difference of 0.19%), and Mongolian (15.4%, a difference of 0.21%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 |
Albanians | 90.5 /100 | #128 | Exceptional 15.4% |
Immigrants | South Eastern Asia | 90.5 /100 | #129 | Exceptional 15.4% |
Puget Sound Salish | 90.1 /100 | #130 | Exceptional 15.4% |
Immigrants | Western Europe | 90.0 /100 | #131 | Exceptional 15.4% |
Mongolians | 89.7 /100 | #132 | Excellent 15.4% |
Brazilians | 89.6 /100 | #133 | Excellent 15.4% |
Immigrants | Spain | 89.1 /100 | #134 | Excellent 15.5% |
Czechoslovakians | 89.0 /100 | #135 | Excellent 15.5% |
Native Hawaiians | 89.0 /100 | #136 | Excellent 15.5% |
South Africans | 88.7 /100 | #137 | Excellent 15.5% |
Immigrants | Vietnam | 88.2 /100 | #138 | Excellent 15.5% |
Armenians | 87.9 /100 | #139 | Excellent 15.5% |
New Zealanders | 87.2 /100 | #140 | Excellent 15.6% |
Immigrants | Jordan | 87.2 /100 | #141 | Excellent 15.6% |
Canadians | 87.1 /100 | #142 | Excellent 15.6% |