Immigrants from Jamaica vs Mexican American Indian Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 297,997,980 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Jamaica and poverty level among girls under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.139 and weighted average of 19.8%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 315,250,046 people shows a significant positive correlation between the proportion of Mexican American Indians and poverty level among girls under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.673 and weighted average of 19.5%, a difference of 1.3%.

Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Correlation Summary

Measurement	Immigrants from Jamaica	Mexican American Indian
Minimum	1.5%	3.6%
Maximum	48.1%	77.1%
Range	46.6%	73.5%
Mean	19.2%	29.2%
Median	18.8%	23.5%
Interquartile 25% (IQ1)	14.9%	20.3%
Interquartile 75% (IQ3)	22.6%	32.5%
Interquartile Range (IQR)	7.7%	12.2%
Standard Deviation (Sample)	8.3%	15.3%
Standard Deviation (Population)	8.2%	15.1%

Demographics Similar to Immigrants from Jamaica and Mexican American Indians by Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16

In terms of child poverty among girls under 16, the demographic groups most similar to Immigrants from Jamaica are Spanish American (19.8%, a difference of 0.25%), Jamaican (19.7%, a difference of 0.43%), Immigrants from Bangladesh (19.9%, a difference of 0.46%), Spanish American Indian (19.9%, a difference of 0.50%), and Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar (19.7%, a difference of 0.55%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Mexican American Indians are Vietnamese (19.5%, a difference of 0.090%), Ottawa (19.4%, a difference of 0.58%), Chickasaw (19.6%, a difference of 0.61%), Salvadoran (19.4%, a difference of 0.67%), and Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar (19.7%, a difference of 0.73%).

Demographics	Rating \| Rank	Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
Immigrants \| Middle Africa	0.3 /100 \| #252	Tragic 19.2%
Immigrants \| Guyana	0.3 /100 \| #253	Tragic 19.3%
Immigrants \| Western Africa	0.3 /100 \| #254	Tragic 19.3%
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%
Cherokee	0.1 /100 \| #270	Tragic 19.9%
Immigrants \| Barbados	0.1 /100 \| #271	Tragic 19.9%
Immigrants \| El Salvador	0.1 /100 \| #272	Tragic 20.0%