Lithuanian vs Immigrants from Asia Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 411,360,859 people shows a significant positive correlation between the proportion of Lithuanians and poverty level among boys under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.662 and weighted average of 14.0%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 532,124,226 people shows a substantial negative correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Asia and poverty level among boys under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.590 and weighted average of 13.9%, a difference of 0.090%.

Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16 Correlation Summary

Measurement	Lithuanian	Immigrants from Asia
Minimum	7.6%	2.1%
Maximum	100.0%	24.7%
Range	92.4%	22.6%
Mean	26.4%	11.3%
Median	18.0%	11.4%
Interquartile 25% (IQ1)	11.5%	8.9%
Interquartile 75% (IQ3)	34.4%	14.0%
Interquartile Range (IQR)	22.9%	5.1%
Standard Deviation (Sample)	22.4%	4.2%
Standard Deviation (Population)	22.2%	4.2%

Demographics Similar to Lithuanians and Immigrants from Asia by Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16

In terms of child poverty among boys under 16, the demographic groups most similar to Lithuanians are Korean (14.0%, a difference of 0.030%), Immigrants from Australia (13.9%, a difference of 0.33%), Immigrants from Northern Europe (13.9%, a difference of 0.47%), Croatian (14.0%, a difference of 0.53%), and Immigrants from Sri Lanka (13.9%, a difference of 0.61%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Immigrants from Asia are Korean (14.0%, a difference of 0.11%), Immigrants from Australia (13.9%, a difference of 0.24%), Immigrants from Northern Europe (13.9%, a difference of 0.38%), Immigrants from Sri Lanka (13.9%, a difference of 0.53%), and Croatian (14.0%, a difference of 0.61%).

Demographics	Rating \| Rank	Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16
Swedes	99.8 /100 \| #30	Exceptional 13.6%
Turks	99.8 /100 \| #31	Exceptional 13.6%
Immigrants \| China	99.8 /100 \| #32	Exceptional 13.6%
Danes	99.8 /100 \| #33	Exceptional 13.6%
Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs	99.8 /100 \| #34	Exceptional 13.6%
Russians	99.7 /100 \| #35	Exceptional 13.8%
Luxembourgers	99.7 /100 \| #36	Exceptional 13.8%
Immigrants \| Sri Lanka	99.6 /100 \| #37	Exceptional 13.9%
Immigrants \| Northern Europe	99.6 /100 \| #38	Exceptional 13.9%
Immigrants \| Australia	99.6 /100 \| #39	Exceptional 13.9%
Immigrants \| Asia	99.6 /100 \| #40	Exceptional 13.9%
Lithuanians	99.6 /100 \| #41	Exceptional 14.0%
Koreans	99.6 /100 \| #42	Exceptional 14.0%
Croatians	99.5 /100 \| #43	Exceptional 14.0%
Estonians	99.4 /100 \| #44	Exceptional 14.1%
Immigrants \| Scotland	99.4 /100 \| #45	Exceptional 14.1%
Greeks	99.4 /100 \| #46	Exceptional 14.1%
Immigrants \| Moldova	99.4 /100 \| #47	Exceptional 14.1%
Immigrants \| Indonesia	99.4 /100 \| #48	Exceptional 14.1%
Czechs	99.3 /100 \| #49	Exceptional 14.1%
Italians	99.2 /100 \| #50	Exceptional 14.2%