Chickasaw vs Central American Poverty
COMPARE
Chickasaw
Central American
Poverty
Poverty Comparison
Chickasaw
Central Americans
14.7%
POVERTY
0.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
272nd/ 347
METRIC RANK
14.6%
POVERTY
0.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
270th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Chickasaw vs Central American Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 147,672,043 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw and poverty level in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.009 and weighted average of 14.7%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 504,069,914 people shows a mild positive correlation between the proportion of Central Americans and poverty level in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.354 and weighted average of 14.6%, a difference of 0.63%.

Poverty Correlation Summary
Measurement | Chickasaw | Central American |
Minimum | 0.99% | 1.8% |
Maximum | 35.7% | 62.9% |
Range | 34.7% | 61.2% |
Mean | 16.2% | 17.4% |
Median | 15.3% | 15.0% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 13.3% | 13.0% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 18.7% | 19.4% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 5.4% | 6.3% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 5.4% | 9.1% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 5.4% | 9.1% |
Demographics Similar to Chickasaw and Central Americans by Poverty
In terms of poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Chickasaw are Shoshone (14.7%, a difference of 0.040%), Spanish American (14.7%, a difference of 0.53%), Immigrants from Cuba (14.6%, a difference of 0.77%), Subsaharan African (14.5%, a difference of 0.92%), and Barbadian (14.8%, a difference of 0.93%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Central Americans are Immigrants from Cuba (14.6%, a difference of 0.14%), Subsaharan African (14.5%, a difference of 0.29%), Iroquois (14.5%, a difference of 0.33%), Shoshone (14.7%, a difference of 0.58%), and Guyanese (14.5%, a difference of 0.65%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Poverty |
Cherokee | 0.1 /100 | #261 | Tragic 14.4% |
Immigrants | Liberia | 0.1 /100 | #262 | Tragic 14.4% |
Jamaicans | 0.1 /100 | #263 | Tragic 14.4% |
Immigrants | Jamaica | 0.1 /100 | #264 | Tragic 14.4% |
Immigrants | Guyana | 0.1 /100 | #265 | Tragic 14.5% |
Guyanese | 0.1 /100 | #266 | Tragic 14.5% |
Iroquois | 0.1 /100 | #267 | Tragic 14.5% |
Sub-Saharan Africans | 0.1 /100 | #268 | Tragic 14.5% |
Immigrants | Cuba | 0.1 /100 | #269 | Tragic 14.6% |
Central Americans | 0.1 /100 | #270 | Tragic 14.6% |
Shoshone | 0.0 /100 | #271 | Tragic 14.7% |
Chickasaw | 0.0 /100 | #272 | Tragic 14.7% |
Spanish Americans | 0.0 /100 | #273 | Tragic 14.7% |
Barbadians | 0.0 /100 | #274 | Tragic 14.8% |
Immigrants | West Indies | 0.0 /100 | #275 | Tragic 14.8% |
Immigrants | Bahamas | 0.0 /100 | #276 | Tragic 14.8% |
Bangladeshis | 0.0 /100 | #277 | Tragic 14.8% |
Belizeans | 0.0 /100 | #278 | Tragic 14.8% |
Immigrants | St. Vincent and the Grenadines | 0.0 /100 | #279 | Tragic 14.9% |
Haitians | 0.0 /100 | #280 | Tragic 14.9% |
Immigrants | Barbados | 0.0 /100 | #281 | Tragic 14.9% |