Chickasaw vs Iroquois Family Poverty
COMPARE
Chickasaw
Iroquois
Family Poverty
Family Poverty Comparison
Chickasaw
Iroquois
10.8%
FAMILY POVERTY
0.2/ 100
METRIC RATING
256th/ 347
METRIC RANK
10.7%
FAMILY POVERTY
0.3/ 100
METRIC RATING
251st/ 347
METRIC RANK
Chickasaw vs Iroquois Family Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 147,601,652 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw and poverty level among families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.000 and weighted average of 10.8%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 207,014,123 people shows a strong positive correlation between the proportion of Iroquois and poverty level among families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.753 and weighted average of 10.7%, a difference of 1.2%.
Family Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Chickasaw | Iroquois |
| Minimum | 3.7% | 1.5% |
| Maximum | 33.3% | 100.0% |
| Range | 29.7% | 98.5% |
| Mean | 12.7% | 15.6% |
| Median | 12.0% | 12.1% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 9.8% | 8.6% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 14.5% | 17.2% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 4.7% | 8.6% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 5.3% | 16.1% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 5.2% | 15.9% |
Demographics Similar to Chickasaw and Iroquois by Family Poverty
In terms of family poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Chickasaw are Immigrants from Ghana (10.8%, a difference of 0.040%), Subsaharan African (10.9%, a difference of 0.070%), Mexican American Indian (10.9%, a difference of 0.11%), Immigrants from Liberia (10.8%, a difference of 0.26%), and Bangladeshi (10.9%, a difference of 0.46%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Iroquois are Immigrants from Zaire (10.7%, a difference of 0.12%), Immigrants from Western Africa (10.7%, a difference of 0.23%), Salvadoran (10.7%, a difference of 0.28%), Ecuadorian (10.8%, a difference of 0.53%), and Cuban (10.6%, a difference of 0.81%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Family Poverty |
| Nepalese | 0.8 /100 | #243 | Tragic 10.4% |
| Cree | 0.7 /100 | #244 | Tragic 10.5% |
| Immigrants | Burma/Myanmar | 0.6 /100 | #245 | Tragic 10.5% |
| Cherokee | 0.5 /100 | #246 | Tragic 10.6% |
| Liberians | 0.4 /100 | #247 | Tragic 10.6% |
| Nicaraguans | 0.4 /100 | #248 | Tragic 10.6% |
| Cubans | 0.4 /100 | #249 | Tragic 10.6% |
| Salvadorans | 0.3 /100 | #250 | Tragic 10.7% |
| Iroquois | 0.3 /100 | #251 | Tragic 10.7% |
| Immigrants | Zaire | 0.3 /100 | #252 | Tragic 10.7% |
| Immigrants | Western Africa | 0.3 /100 | #253 | Tragic 10.7% |
| Ecuadorians | 0.2 /100 | #254 | Tragic 10.8% |
| Immigrants | Liberia | 0.2 /100 | #255 | Tragic 10.8% |
| Chickasaw | 0.2 /100 | #256 | Tragic 10.8% |
| Immigrants | Ghana | 0.2 /100 | #257 | Tragic 10.8% |
| Sub-Saharan Africans | 0.2 /100 | #258 | Tragic 10.9% |
| Mexican American Indians | 0.2 /100 | #259 | Tragic 10.9% |
| Bangladeshis | 0.2 /100 | #260 | Tragic 10.9% |
| Shoshone | 0.2 /100 | #261 | Tragic 10.9% |
| Spanish American Indians | 0.2 /100 | #262 | Tragic 10.9% |
| Cape Verdeans | 0.1 /100 | #263 | Tragic 10.9% |