Creek vs Chinese Married-Couple Family Poverty
COMPARE
Creek
Chinese
Married-Couple Family Poverty
Married-Couple Family Poverty Comparison
Creek
Chinese
6.2%
MARRIED-COUPLE FAMILY POVERTY
0.2/ 100
METRIC RATING
266th/ 347
METRIC RANK
3.6%
MARRIED-COUPLE FAMILY POVERTY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
2nd/ 347
METRIC RANK
Creek vs Chinese Married-Couple Family Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 177,846,952 people shows a mild positive correlation between the proportion of Creek and poverty level among married-couple families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.312 and weighted average of 6.2%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 64,670,469 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Chinese and poverty level among married-couple families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.040 and weighted average of 3.6%, a difference of 69.2%.
Married-Couple Family Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Creek | Chinese |
| Minimum | 0.52% | 0.44% |
| Maximum | 34.7% | 17.1% |
| Range | 34.2% | 16.7% |
| Mean | 8.8% | 4.2% |
| Median | 7.1% | 3.3% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 5.5% | 2.2% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 10.3% | 4.1% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 4.8% | 1.9% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 5.9% | 3.4% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 5.8% | 3.4% |
Similar Demographics by Married-Couple Family Poverty
Demographics Similar to Creek by Married-Couple Family Poverty
In terms of married-couple family poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Creek are Spanish American (6.2%, a difference of 0.050%), Blackfeet (6.2%, a difference of 0.080%), Immigrants from Congo (6.1%, a difference of 0.51%), Alaska Native (6.2%, a difference of 0.53%), and Immigrants from West Indies (6.2%, a difference of 0.70%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Married-Couple Family Poverty |
| Alaskan Athabascans | 0.4 /100 | #259 | Tragic 6.1% |
| Jamaicans | 0.3 /100 | #260 | Tragic 6.1% |
| Senegalese | 0.3 /100 | #261 | Tragic 6.1% |
| Shoshone | 0.3 /100 | #262 | Tragic 6.1% |
| Immigrants | Senegal | 0.3 /100 | #263 | Tragic 6.1% |
| Immigrants | Congo | 0.2 /100 | #264 | Tragic 6.1% |
| Blackfeet | 0.2 /100 | #265 | Tragic 6.2% |
| Creek | 0.2 /100 | #266 | Tragic 6.2% |
| Spanish Americans | 0.2 /100 | #267 | Tragic 6.2% |
| Alaska Natives | 0.2 /100 | #268 | Tragic 6.2% |
| Immigrants | West Indies | 0.1 /100 | #269 | Tragic 6.2% |
| Immigrants | Jamaica | 0.1 /100 | #270 | Tragic 6.2% |
| Immigrants | Bahamas | 0.1 /100 | #271 | Tragic 6.2% |
| Trinidadians and Tobagonians | 0.1 /100 | #272 | Tragic 6.2% |
| Colville | 0.1 /100 | #273 | Tragic 6.3% |
Demographics Similar to Chinese by Married-Couple Family Poverty
In terms of married-couple family poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Chinese are Immigrants from India (3.6%, a difference of 0.18%), Norwegian (3.7%, a difference of 1.9%), Slovene (3.8%, a difference of 5.6%), Swedish (3.9%, a difference of 5.7%), and Luxembourger (3.9%, a difference of 6.4%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Married-Couple Family Poverty |
| Immigrants | India | 100.0 /100 | #1 | Exceptional 3.6% |
| Chinese | 100.0 /100 | #2 | Exceptional 3.6% |
| Norwegians | 100.0 /100 | #3 | Exceptional 3.7% |
| Slovenes | 100.0 /100 | #4 | Exceptional 3.8% |
| Swedes | 100.0 /100 | #5 | Exceptional 3.9% |
| Luxembourgers | 100.0 /100 | #6 | Exceptional 3.9% |
| Latvians | 100.0 /100 | #7 | Exceptional 3.9% |
| Thais | 100.0 /100 | #8 | Exceptional 3.9% |
| Croatians | 100.0 /100 | #9 | Exceptional 3.9% |
| Carpatho Rusyns | 100.0 /100 | #10 | Exceptional 3.9% |
| Lithuanians | 100.0 /100 | #11 | Exceptional 4.0% |
| Bulgarians | 100.0 /100 | #12 | Exceptional 4.0% |
| Czechs | 100.0 /100 | #13 | Exceptional 4.0% |
| Slovaks | 100.0 /100 | #14 | Exceptional 4.0% |
| Poles | 100.0 /100 | #15 | Exceptional 4.0% |