Hopi vs Chickasaw Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
COMPARE
Hopi
Chickasaw
Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Comparison
Hopi
Chickasaw
27.9%
CHILD POVERTY AMONG GIRLS UNDER 16
0.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
341st/ 347
METRIC RANK
19.6%
CHILD POVERTY AMONG GIRLS UNDER 16
0.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
262nd/ 347
METRIC RANK
Hopi vs Chickasaw Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 74,572,915 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Hopi and poverty level among girls under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.207 and weighted average of 27.9%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 146,952,830 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw and poverty level among girls under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.542 and weighted average of 19.6%, a difference of 41.9%.
Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Hopi | Chickasaw |
| Minimum | 2.1% | 3.8% |
| Maximum | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Range | 97.9% | 96.2% |
| Mean | 38.3% | 26.8% |
| Median | 27.2% | 21.7% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 22.8% | 17.6% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 55.8% | 31.3% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 33.0% | 13.6% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 25.3% | 15.5% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 24.7% | 15.4% |
Similar Demographics by Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
Demographics Similar to Hopi by Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
In terms of child poverty among girls under 16, the demographic groups most similar to Hopi are Pima (28.2%, a difference of 1.3%), Yuman (27.1%, a difference of 2.9%), Crow (26.4%, a difference of 5.7%), Immigrants from Yemen (29.5%, a difference of 5.9%), and Cheyenne (26.3%, a difference of 6.0%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 |
| Blacks/African Americans | 0.0 /100 | #333 | Tragic 24.7% |
| Menominee | 0.0 /100 | #334 | Tragic 25.0% |
| Pueblo | 0.0 /100 | #335 | Tragic 25.2% |
| Sioux | 0.0 /100 | #336 | Tragic 25.6% |
| Yup'ik | 0.0 /100 | #337 | Tragic 25.8% |
| Cheyenne | 0.0 /100 | #338 | Tragic 26.3% |
| Crow | 0.0 /100 | #339 | Tragic 26.4% |
| Yuman | 0.0 /100 | #340 | Tragic 27.1% |
| Hopi | 0.0 /100 | #341 | Tragic 27.9% |
| Pima | 0.0 /100 | #342 | Tragic 28.2% |
| Immigrants | Yemen | 0.0 /100 | #343 | Tragic 29.5% |
| Navajo | 0.0 /100 | #344 | Tragic 30.5% |
| Lumbee | 0.0 /100 | #345 | Tragic 30.7% |
| Tohono O'odham | 0.0 /100 | #346 | Tragic 31.6% |
| Puerto Ricans | 0.0 /100 | #347 | Tragic 32.7% |
Demographics Similar to Chickasaw by Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
In terms of child poverty among girls under 16, the demographic groups most similar to Chickasaw are Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar (19.7%, a difference of 0.12%), Jamaican (19.7%, a difference of 0.23%), Vietnamese (19.5%, a difference of 0.52%), Mexican American Indian (19.5%, a difference of 0.61%), and Immigrants from Jamaica (19.8%, a difference of 0.67%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 |
| Immigrants | Ecuador | 0.3 /100 | #255 | Tragic 19.3% |
| Trinidadians and Tobagonians | 0.2 /100 | #256 | Tragic 19.3% |
| Guyanese | 0.2 /100 | #257 | Tragic 19.4% |
| Salvadorans | 0.2 /100 | #258 | Tragic 19.4% |
| Ottawa | 0.2 /100 | #259 | Tragic 19.4% |
| Mexican American Indians | 0.2 /100 | #260 | Tragic 19.5% |
| Vietnamese | 0.2 /100 | #261 | Tragic 19.5% |
| Chickasaw | 0.1 /100 | #262 | Tragic 19.6% |
| Immigrants | Burma/Myanmar | 0.1 /100 | #263 | Tragic 19.7% |
| Jamaicans | 0.1 /100 | #264 | Tragic 19.7% |
| Immigrants | Jamaica | 0.1 /100 | #265 | Tragic 19.8% |
| Spanish Americans | 0.1 /100 | #266 | Tragic 19.8% |
| Immigrants | Bangladesh | 0.1 /100 | #267 | Tragic 19.9% |
| Spanish American Indians | 0.1 /100 | #268 | Tragic 19.9% |
| Liberians | 0.1 /100 | #269 | Tragic 19.9% |