Spanish American vs Immigrants from Bangladesh Child Poverty Under the Age of 16

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 102,994,758 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of Spanish Americans and poverty level among children under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.546 and weighted average of 19.2%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 202,953,129 people shows a moderate positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Bangladesh and poverty level among children under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.457 and weighted average of 19.8%, a difference of 2.9%.

Child Poverty Under the Age of 16 Correlation Summary

Measurement	Spanish American	Immigrants from Bangladesh
Minimum	3.4%	5.0%
Maximum	100.0%	49.6%
Range	96.6%	44.6%
Mean	27.5%	21.0%
Median	18.9%	17.6%
Interquartile 25% (IQ1)	14.7%	13.8%
Interquartile 75% (IQ3)	30.1%	26.3%
Interquartile Range (IQR)	15.4%	12.5%
Standard Deviation (Sample)	23.2%	10.7%
Standard Deviation (Population)	22.9%	10.7%

Demographics Similar to Spanish Americans and Immigrants from Bangladesh by Child Poverty Under the Age of 16

In terms of child poverty under the age of 16, the demographic groups most similar to Spanish Americans are Ottawa (19.2%, a difference of 0.080%), Inupiat (19.2%, a difference of 0.090%), Trinidadian and Tobagonian (19.2%, a difference of 0.18%), Mexican American Indian (19.3%, a difference of 0.55%), and Guyanese (19.3%, a difference of 0.65%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Immigrants from Bangladesh are Immigrants from Jamaica (19.8%, a difference of 0.24%), Immigrants from Liberia (19.7%, a difference of 0.31%), Immigrants from Cabo Verde (19.9%, a difference of 0.39%), Immigrants from Barbados (19.9%, a difference of 0.40%), and Spanish American Indian (19.7%, a difference of 0.43%).

Demographics	Rating \| Rank	Child Poverty Under the Age of 16
Trinidadians and Tobagonians	0.2 /100 \| #255	Tragic 19.2%
Inupiat	0.2 /100 \| #256	Tragic 19.2%
Ottawa	0.2 /100 \| #257	Tragic 19.2%
Spanish Americans	0.2 /100 \| #258	Tragic 19.2%
Mexican American Indians	0.2 /100 \| #259	Tragic 19.3%
Guyanese	0.2 /100 \| #260	Tragic 19.3%
Immigrants \| Burma/Myanmar	0.1 /100 \| #261	Tragic 19.4%
Immigrants \| Guyana	0.1 /100 \| #262	Tragic 19.4%
Vietnamese	0.1 /100 \| #263	Tragic 19.4%
Immigrants \| Ecuador	0.1 /100 \| #264	Tragic 19.4%
Chickasaw	0.1 /100 \| #265	Tragic 19.5%
Liberians	0.1 /100 \| #266	Tragic 19.5%
Cherokee	0.1 /100 \| #267	Tragic 19.5%
Jamaicans	0.1 /100 \| #268	Tragic 19.7%
Immigrants \| El Salvador	0.1 /100 \| #269	Tragic 19.7%
Spanish American Indians	0.1 /100 \| #270	Tragic 19.7%
Immigrants \| Liberia	0.1 /100 \| #271	Tragic 19.7%
Immigrants \| Bangladesh	0.1 /100 \| #272	Tragic 19.8%
Immigrants \| Jamaica	0.1 /100 \| #273	Tragic 19.8%
Immigrants \| Cabo Verde	0.1 /100 \| #274	Tragic 19.9%
Immigrants \| Barbados	0.1 /100 \| #275	Tragic 19.9%