Central American vs Iroquois Female Poverty
COMPARE
Central American
Iroquois
Female Poverty
Female Poverty Comparison
Central Americans
Iroquois
16.0%
FEMALE POVERTY
0.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
276th/ 347
METRIC RANK
15.8%
FEMALE POVERTY
0.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
269th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Central American vs Iroquois Female Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 503,924,730 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of Central Americans and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.554 and weighted average of 16.0%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 207,228,109 people shows a significant positive correlation between the proportion of Iroquois and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.698 and weighted average of 15.8%, a difference of 0.97%.
Female Poverty Correlation Summary
Measurement | Central American | Iroquois |
Minimum | 1.3% | 4.7% |
Maximum | 100.0% | 100.0% |
Range | 98.8% | 95.3% |
Mean | 20.2% | 22.4% |
Median | 16.9% | 16.7% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 14.3% | 12.0% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 22.2% | 25.5% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 7.9% | 13.5% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 12.8% | 19.0% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 12.8% | 18.8% |
Demographics Similar to Central Americans and Iroquois by Female Poverty
In terms of female poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Central Americans are Immigrants from Barbados (16.0%, a difference of 0.13%), Barbadian (15.9%, a difference of 0.19%), Bangladeshi (16.0%, a difference of 0.19%), Belizean (15.9%, a difference of 0.20%), and Haitian (15.9%, a difference of 0.20%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Iroquois are Chickasaw (15.9%, a difference of 0.26%), Immigrants from Nicaragua (15.8%, a difference of 0.37%), Subsaharan African (15.8%, a difference of 0.43%), Immigrants from St. Vincent and the Grenadines (15.9%, a difference of 0.54%), and Belizean (15.9%, a difference of 0.76%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Female Poverty |
Mexican American Indians | 0.1 /100 | #262 | Tragic 15.6% |
Cherokee | 0.1 /100 | #263 | Tragic 15.6% |
Immigrants | Ecuador | 0.1 /100 | #264 | Tragic 15.6% |
Immigrants | Liberia | 0.1 /100 | #265 | Tragic 15.7% |
Immigrants | El Salvador | 0.1 /100 | #266 | Tragic 15.7% |
Sub-Saharan Africans | 0.1 /100 | #267 | Tragic 15.8% |
Immigrants | Nicaragua | 0.1 /100 | #268 | Tragic 15.8% |
Iroquois | 0.1 /100 | #269 | Tragic 15.8% |
Chickasaw | 0.1 /100 | #270 | Tragic 15.9% |
Immigrants | St. Vincent and the Grenadines | 0.0 /100 | #271 | Tragic 15.9% |
Belizeans | 0.0 /100 | #272 | Tragic 15.9% |
Haitians | 0.0 /100 | #273 | Tragic 15.9% |
Barbadians | 0.0 /100 | #274 | Tragic 15.9% |
Immigrants | Barbados | 0.0 /100 | #275 | Tragic 16.0% |
Central Americans | 0.0 /100 | #276 | Tragic 16.0% |
Bangladeshis | 0.0 /100 | #277 | Tragic 16.0% |
Immigrants | West Indies | 0.0 /100 | #278 | Tragic 16.1% |
Immigrants | Bahamas | 0.0 /100 | #279 | Tragic 16.1% |
Vietnamese | 0.0 /100 | #280 | Tragic 16.1% |
West Indians | 0.0 /100 | #281 | Tragic 16.1% |
Immigrants | Haiti | 0.0 /100 | #282 | Tragic 16.1% |