Chickasaw vs Ute Single Female Poverty

On this page

Metric Comparison Correlation Chart Correlation Data Summary Similar Demographics

COMPARE

Chickasaw

Race

Asian Black/African American Hawaiian Hispanic or Latino Native/Alaskan White/Caucasian

Ancestry

Afghan African Alaska Native Alaskan Athabascan Albanian Aleut Alsatian American Apache Arab Arapaho Argentinean Armenian Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac Australian Austrian Bahamian Bangladeshi Barbadian Basque Belgian Belizean Bermudan Bhutanese Blackfeet Bolivian Brazilian British British West Indian Bulgarian Burmese Cajun Cambodian Canadian Cape Verdean Carpatho Rusyn Celtic Central American Central American Indian Cherokee CheyenneChickasawChilean Chinese Chippewa Choctaw Colombian Colville Comanche Costa Rican Cree Creek Croatian Crow Cuban Cypriot Czech Czechoslovakian Danish Delaware Dominican Dutch Dutch West Indian Eastern European Ecuadorian Egyptian English Estonian Ethiopian European Fijian Filipino Finnish French French American Indian French Canadian German German Russian Ghanaian Greek Guamanian/Chamorro Guatemalan Guyanese Haitian Hmong Honduran Hopi Houma Hungarian Icelander Indian (Asian)Indonesian Inupiat Iranian Iraqi Irish Iroquois Israeli Italian Jamaican Japanese Jordanian Kenyan Kiowa Korean Laotian Latvian Lebanese Liberian Lithuanian Lumbee Luxembourger Macedonian Malaysian Maltese Marshallese Menominee Mexican Mexican American Indian Mongolian Moroccan Native Hawaiian Navajo Nepalese New Zealander Nicaraguan Nigerian Northern European Norwegian Okinawan Osage Ottawa Paiute Pakistani Palestinian Panamanian Paraguayan Pennsylvania German Peruvian Pima Polish Portuguese Potawatomi Pueblo Puerto Rican Puget Sound Salish Romanian Russian Salvadoran Samoan Scandinavian Scotch-Irish Scottish Seminole Senegalese Serbian Shoshone Sierra Leonean Sioux Slavic Slovak Slovene Somali South African South American South American Indian Soviet Union Spaniard Spanish Spanish American Spanish American Indian Sri Lankan Subsaharan African Sudanese Swedish Swiss Syrian Taiwanese Thai Tlingit-Haida Tohono O'Odham Tongan Trinidadian and Tobagonian Tsimshian Turkish U.S. Virgin Islander Ugandan Ukrainian Uruguayan Venezuelan Vietnamese Welsh West Indian Yakama Yaqui Yugoslavian Yuman Yup'ik Zimbabwean

Immigration

Nonimmigrants Immigrants Afghanistan Africa Albania Argentina Armenia Asia Australia Austria Bahamas Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Brazil Bulgaria Burma/Myanmar Cabo Verde Cambodia Cameroon Canada Caribbean Central America Chile China Colombia Congo Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Czechoslovakia Denmark Dominica Dominican Republic Eastern Africa Eastern Asia Eastern Europe Ecuador Egypt El Salvador England Eritrea Ethiopia Europe Fiji France Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guatemala Guyana Haiti Honduras Hong Kong Hungary India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Korea Kuwait Laos Latin America Latvia Lebanon Liberia Lithuania Malaysia Mexico Micronesia Middle Africa Moldova Morocco Nepal Netherlands Nicaragua Nigeria North America North Macedonia Northern Africa Northern Europe Norway Oceania Pakistan Panama Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Romania Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland Senegal Serbia Sierra Leone Singapore Somalia South Africa South America South Central Asia South Eastern Asia Southern Europe Spain Sri Lanka St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Thailand Trinidad and Tobago Turkey Uganda Ukraine Uruguay Uzbekistan Venezuela Vietnam West Indies Western Africa Western Asia Western Europe Yemen Zaire Zimbabwe Azores

Ute

Race

Asian Black/African American Hawaiian Hispanic or Latino Native/Alaskan White/Caucasian

Ancestry

Afghan African Alaska Native Alaskan Athabascan Albanian Aleut Alsatian American Apache Arab Arapaho Argentinean Armenian Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac Australian Austrian Bahamian Bangladeshi Barbadian Basque Belgian Belizean Bermudan Bhutanese Blackfeet Bolivian Brazilian British British West Indian Bulgarian Burmese Cajun Cambodian Canadian Cape Verdean Carpatho Rusyn Celtic Central American Central American Indian Cherokee Cheyenne Chilean Chinese Chippewa Choctaw Colombian Colville Comanche Costa Rican Cree Creek Croatian Crow Cuban Cypriot Czech Czechoslovakian Danish Delaware Dominican Dutch Dutch West Indian Eastern European Ecuadorian Egyptian English Estonian Ethiopian European Fijian Filipino Finnish French French American Indian French Canadian German German Russian Ghanaian Greek Guamanian/Chamorro Guatemalan Guyanese Haitian Hmong Honduran Hopi Houma Hungarian Icelander Indian (Asian)Indonesian Inupiat Iranian Iraqi Irish Iroquois Israeli Italian Jamaican Japanese Jordanian Kenyan Kiowa Korean Laotian Latvian Lebanese Liberian Lithuanian Lumbee Luxembourger Macedonian Malaysian Maltese Marshallese Menominee Mexican Mexican American Indian Mongolian Moroccan Native Hawaiian Navajo Nepalese New Zealander Nicaraguan Nigerian Northern European Norwegian Okinawan Osage Ottawa Paiute Pakistani Palestinian Panamanian Paraguayan Pennsylvania German Peruvian Pima Polish Portuguese Potawatomi Pueblo Puerto Rican Puget Sound Salish Romanian Russian Salvadoran Samoan Scandinavian Scotch-Irish Scottish Seminole Senegalese Serbian Shoshone Sierra Leonean Sioux Slavic Slovak Slovene Somali South African South American South American Indian Soviet Union Spaniard Spanish Spanish American Spanish American Indian Sri Lankan Subsaharan African Sudanese Swedish Swiss Syrian Taiwanese Thai Tlingit-Haida Tohono O'Odham Tongan Trinidadian and Tobagonian Tsimshian Turkish U.S. Virgin Islander Ugandan Ukrainian UruguayanUteVenezuelan Vietnamese Welsh West Indian Yakama Yaqui Yugoslavian Yuman Yup'ik Zimbabwean

Immigration

Single Female Poverty

Social Comparison

Income

Per Capita Income Median Family Income Median Household Income Median Earnings Median Male Earnings Median Female Earnings Householder Income Under 25 years Householder Income Ages 25 - 44 years Householder Income Ages 45 - 64 years Householder Income Over 65 years Wage/Income Gap

Poverty

Poverty Family Poverty Male Poverty Female Poverty Female Poverty Among 18-24 Year Olds Female Poverty Among 25-34 Year Olds Child Poverty Under the Age of 5 Child Poverty Under the Age of 16 Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16 Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Single Male PovertySingle Female PovertySingle Father Poverty Single Mother Poverty Married-Couple Family Poverty Seniors Poverty Over the Age of 65 Seniors Poverty Over the Age of 75 Receiving Food Stamps

Unemployment

Labor Participation

Family Structure

Family Households Family Households with Children Married-couple Households Average Family Size Single Father Households Single Mother Households Currently Married Divorced or Separated Births to Unmarried Women

Vehicle Availability

No Vehicles in Household 1 or more Vehicles in Household 2 or more Vehicles in Household 3 or more Vehicles in Household 4 or more Vehicles in Household

Education Level

No Schooling Completed Nursery School Kindergarten 1st Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade, No Diploma High School Diploma GED/Equivalency College, Under 1 year College, 1 year or more Associate's Degree Bachelor's Degree Master's Degree Professional Degree Doctorate Degree

Disability

Disability Male Disability Female Disability Disability Age Under 5 Disability Age 5 to 17 Disability Age 18 to 34 Disability Age 35 to 64 Disability Age 65 to 74 Disability Age Over 75 Vision Disability Hearing Disability Cognitive Disability Ambulatory Disability Self-Care Disability

Single Female Poverty Comparison

Chickasaw

Ute

Tragic

26.3%

SINGLE FEMALE POVERTY

0.0/ 100

METRIC RATING

318th/ 347

METRIC RANK

28.4%

SINGLE FEMALE POVERTY

0.0/ 100

METRIC RATING

333rd/ 347

METRIC RANK

Chickasaw vs Ute Single Female Poverty Correlation Chart

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 147,052,400 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw and poverty level among single females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.290 and weighted average of 26.3%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 55,519,789 people shows a mild positive correlation between the proportion of Ute and poverty level among single females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.325 and weighted average of 28.4%, a difference of 8.2%.

Single Female Poverty Correlation Summary

Measurement	Chickasaw	Ute
Minimum	11.1%	18.0%
Maximum	100.0%	100.0%
Range	88.9%	82.0%
Mean	35.8%	43.7%
Median	30.6%	37.5%
Interquartile 25% (IQ1)	24.5%	27.4%
Interquartile 75% (IQ3)	42.2%	43.8%
Interquartile Range (IQR)	17.7%	16.3%
Standard Deviation (Sample)	19.0%	23.4%
Standard Deviation (Population)	18.8%	22.9%

Demographics Similar to Chickasaw and Ute by Single Female Poverty

In terms of single female poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Chickasaw are Black/African American (26.4%, a difference of 0.33%), Arapaho (26.4%, a difference of 0.63%), Ottawa (26.0%, a difference of 1.0%), Yup'ik (26.6%, a difference of 1.3%), and Immigrants from Somalia (25.8%, a difference of 1.9%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Ute are Yakama (28.3%, a difference of 0.42%), Native/Alaskan (28.2%, a difference of 0.68%), Pueblo (28.6%, a difference of 0.73%), Hopi (28.0%, a difference of 1.3%), and Immigrants from Yemen (28.9%, a difference of 1.9%).

Demographics	Rating \| Rank	Single Female Poverty
Iroquois	0.0 /100 \| #315	Tragic 25.7%
Immigrants \| Somalia	0.0 /100 \| #316	Tragic 25.8%
Ottawa	0.0 /100 \| #317	Tragic 26.0%
Chickasaw	0.0 /100 \| #318	Tragic 26.3%
Blacks/African Americans	0.0 /100 \| #319	Tragic 26.4%
Arapaho	0.0 /100 \| #320	Tragic 26.4%
Yup'ik	0.0 /100 \| #321	Tragic 26.6%
Seminole	0.0 /100 \| #322	Tragic 26.8%
Chippewa	0.0 /100 \| #323	Tragic 26.8%
Kiowa	0.0 /100 \| #324	Tragic 26.9%
Choctaw	0.0 /100 \| #325	Tragic 27.2%
Creek	0.0 /100 \| #326	Tragic 27.4%
Dutch West Indians	0.0 /100 \| #327	Tragic 27.5%
Apache	0.0 /100 \| #328	Tragic 27.7%
Menominee	0.0 /100 \| #329	Tragic 27.8%
Hopi	0.0 /100 \| #330	Tragic 28.0%
Natives/Alaskans	0.0 /100 \| #331	Tragic 28.2%
Yakama	0.0 /100 \| #332	Tragic 28.3%
Ute	0.0 /100 \| #333	Tragic 28.4%
Pueblo	0.0 /100 \| #334	Tragic 28.6%
Immigrants \| Yemen	0.0 /100 \| #335	Tragic 28.9%