Chickasaw vs Immigrants from St. Vincent and the Grenadines Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 146,816,928 people shows a moderate positive correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw and poverty level among boys under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.488 and weighted average of 19.8%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 56,103,487 people shows a poor negative correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from St. Vincent and the Grenadines and poverty level among boys under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.105 and weighted average of 20.3%, a difference of 2.6%.

Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16 Correlation Summary

Measurement	Chickasaw	Immigrants from St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Minimum	3.3%	0.43%
Maximum	100.0%	46.4%
Range	96.7%	46.0%
Mean	27.0%	15.5%
Median	23.7%	15.5%
Interquartile 25% (IQ1)	18.1%	6.9%
Interquartile 75% (IQ3)	30.0%	20.3%
Interquartile Range (IQR)	11.9%	13.4%
Standard Deviation (Sample)	15.5%	9.8%
Standard Deviation (Population)	15.4%	9.7%

Demographics Similar to Chickasaw and Immigrants from St. Vincent and the Grenadines by Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16

In terms of child poverty among boys under 16, the demographic groups most similar to Chickasaw are Immigrants from Ecuador (19.8%, a difference of 0.22%), Belizean (19.9%, a difference of 0.36%), Cherokee (19.7%, a difference of 0.50%), Immigrants from Bangladesh (19.9%, a difference of 0.62%), and Jamaican (20.0%, a difference of 0.74%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Immigrants from St. Vincent and the Grenadines are Blackfeet (20.4%, a difference of 0.24%), Immigrants from Belize (20.3%, a difference of 0.27%), West Indian (20.3%, a difference of 0.33%), Arapaho (20.2%, a difference of 0.68%), and Barbadian (20.2%, a difference of 0.82%).

Demographics	Rating \| Rank	Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16
Immigrants \| Cabo Verde	0.1 /100 \| #269	Tragic 19.7%
Cherokee	0.1 /100 \| #270	Tragic 19.7%
Chickasaw	0.1 /100 \| #271	Tragic 19.8%
Immigrants \| Ecuador	0.1 /100 \| #272	Tragic 19.8%
Belizeans	0.1 /100 \| #273	Tragic 19.9%
Immigrants \| Bangladesh	0.0 /100 \| #274	Tragic 19.9%
Jamaicans	0.0 /100 \| #275	Tragic 20.0%
Sub-Saharan Africans	0.0 /100 \| #276	Tragic 20.0%
Immigrants \| Barbados	0.0 /100 \| #277	Tragic 20.0%
Immigrants \| West Indies	0.0 /100 \| #278	Tragic 20.0%
Bangladeshis	0.0 /100 \| #279	Tragic 20.0%
Central Americans	0.0 /100 \| #280	Tragic 20.1%
Immigrants \| Zaire	0.0 /100 \| #281	Tragic 20.1%
Comanche	0.0 /100 \| #282	Tragic 20.1%
Immigrants \| Jamaica	0.0 /100 \| #283	Tragic 20.1%
Barbadians	0.0 /100 \| #284	Tragic 20.2%
Arapaho	0.0 /100 \| #285	Tragic 20.2%
West Indians	0.0 /100 \| #286	Tragic 20.3%
Immigrants \| Belize	0.0 /100 \| #287	Tragic 20.3%
Immigrants \| St. Vincent and the Grenadines	0.0 /100 \| #288	Tragic 20.3%
Blackfeet	0.0 /100 \| #289	Tragic 20.4%