Latvian vs Celtic Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
COMPARE
Latvian
Celtic
Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Comparison
Latvians
Celtics
13.5%
CHILD POVERTY AMONG GIRLS UNDER 16
99.8/ 100
METRIC RATING
27th/ 347
METRIC RANK
17.0%
CHILD POVERTY AMONG GIRLS UNDER 16
25.2/ 100
METRIC RATING
196th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Latvian vs Celtic Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 217,091,398 people shows a strong positive correlation between the proportion of Latvians and poverty level among girls under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.730 and weighted average of 13.5%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 167,177,387 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Celtics and poverty level among girls under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.158 and weighted average of 17.0%, a difference of 25.5%.
Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Latvian | Celtic |
| Minimum | 1.2% | 3.3% |
| Maximum | 100.0% | 70.9% |
| Range | 98.8% | 67.6% |
| Mean | 20.0% | 25.7% |
| Median | 14.5% | 20.4% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 8.5% | 15.9% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 20.2% | 34.3% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 11.7% | 18.4% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 20.8% | 14.5% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 20.6% | 14.3% |
Similar Demographics by Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
Demographics Similar to Latvians by Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
In terms of child poverty among girls under 16, the demographic groups most similar to Latvians are Eastern European (13.5%, a difference of 0.020%), Tongan (13.6%, a difference of 0.26%), Bolivian (13.6%, a difference of 0.38%), Immigrants from China (13.4%, a difference of 0.81%), and Asian (13.7%, a difference of 1.1%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 |
| Immigrants | Japan | 99.9 /100 | #20 | Exceptional 13.3% |
| Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs | 99.9 /100 | #21 | Exceptional 13.3% |
| Indians (Asian) | 99.9 /100 | #22 | Exceptional 13.3% |
| Norwegians | 99.9 /100 | #23 | Exceptional 13.3% |
| Immigrants | Eastern Asia | 99.9 /100 | #24 | Exceptional 13.4% |
| Immigrants | China | 99.8 /100 | #25 | Exceptional 13.4% |
| Eastern Europeans | 99.8 /100 | #26 | Exceptional 13.5% |
| Latvians | 99.8 /100 | #27 | Exceptional 13.5% |
| Tongans | 99.8 /100 | #28 | Exceptional 13.6% |
| Bolivians | 99.8 /100 | #29 | Exceptional 13.6% |
| Asians | 99.7 /100 | #30 | Exceptional 13.7% |
| Turks | 99.7 /100 | #31 | Exceptional 13.7% |
| Danes | 99.7 /100 | #32 | Exceptional 13.7% |
| Swedes | 99.7 /100 | #33 | Exceptional 13.7% |
| Maltese | 99.7 /100 | #34 | Exceptional 13.7% |
Demographics Similar to Celtics by Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
In terms of child poverty among girls under 16, the demographic groups most similar to Celtics are Immigrants from Costa Rica (17.0%, a difference of 0.050%), Spaniard (17.0%, a difference of 0.050%), Immigrants from Lebanon (17.1%, a difference of 0.41%), Immigrants from Afghanistan (17.1%, a difference of 0.43%), and Spanish (16.9%, a difference of 0.48%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 |
| Immigrants | Bosnia and Herzegovina | 32.5 /100 | #189 | Fair 16.8% |
| Kenyans | 32.3 /100 | #190 | Fair 16.8% |
| Immigrants | Azores | 31.3 /100 | #191 | Fair 16.8% |
| Immigrants | Uganda | 31.3 /100 | #192 | Fair 16.8% |
| Aleuts | 28.7 /100 | #193 | Fair 16.9% |
| Spanish | 28.6 /100 | #194 | Fair 16.9% |
| Immigrants | Costa Rica | 25.6 /100 | #195 | Fair 17.0% |
| Celtics | 25.2 /100 | #196 | Fair 17.0% |
| Spaniards | 24.9 /100 | #197 | Fair 17.0% |
| Immigrants | Lebanon | 22.6 /100 | #198 | Fair 17.1% |
| Immigrants | Afghanistan | 22.4 /100 | #199 | Fair 17.1% |
| Immigrants | Uzbekistan | 21.5 /100 | #200 | Fair 17.1% |
| Immigrants | Kenya | 17.8 /100 | #201 | Poor 17.2% |
| Immigrants | Sierra Leone | 17.6 /100 | #202 | Poor 17.2% |
| Ugandans | 17.5 /100 | #203 | Poor 17.2% |