Chickasaw vs Yup'ik Single Female Poverty
COMPARE
Chickasaw
Yup'ik
Single Female Poverty
Single Female Poverty Comparison
Chickasaw
Yup'ik
26.3%
SINGLE FEMALE POVERTY
0.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
318th/ 347
METRIC RANK
26.6%
SINGLE FEMALE POVERTY
0.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
321st/ 347
METRIC RANK
Chickasaw vs Yup'ik 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 39,804,505 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Yup'ik and poverty level among single females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.156 and weighted average of 26.6%, a difference of 1.3%.
Single Female Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Chickasaw | Yup'ik |
| Minimum | 11.1% | 2.9% |
| Maximum | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Range | 88.9% | 97.1% |
| Mean | 35.8% | 36.3% |
| Median | 30.6% | 30.7% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 24.5% | 20.3% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 42.2% | 42.3% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 17.7% | 22.0% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 19.0% | 25.0% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 18.8% | 24.8% |
Demographics Similar to Chickasaw and Yup'ik 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%), Immigrants from Somalia (25.8%, a difference of 1.9%), and Iroquois (25.7%, a difference of 2.0%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Yup'ik are Arapaho (26.4%, a difference of 0.64%), Seminole (26.8%, a difference of 0.74%), Chippewa (26.8%, a difference of 0.84%), Black/African American (26.4%, a difference of 0.95%), and Kiowa (26.9%, a difference of 1.3%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Single Female Poverty |
| Dominicans | 0.0 /100 | #309 | Tragic 25.4% |
| Central American Indians | 0.0 /100 | #310 | Tragic 25.5% |
| Immigrants | Honduras | 0.0 /100 | #311 | Tragic 25.5% |
| Paiute | 0.0 /100 | #312 | Tragic 25.5% |
| Comanche | 0.0 /100 | #313 | Tragic 25.6% |
| Cherokee | 0.0 /100 | #314 | Tragic 25.7% |
| 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% |