Tlingit-Haida vs Slavic Female Poverty
COMPARE
Tlingit-Haida
Slavic
Female Poverty
Female Poverty Comparison
Tlingit-Haida
Slavs
12.5%
FEMALE POVERTY
94.8/ 100
METRIC RATING
101st/ 347
METRIC RANK
12.5%
FEMALE POVERTY
94.5/ 100
METRIC RATING
103rd/ 347
METRIC RANK
Tlingit-Haida vs Slavic Female Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 60,854,909 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Tlingit-Haida and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.293 and weighted average of 12.5%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 270,757,305 people shows a strong positive correlation between the proportion of Slavs and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.707 and weighted average of 12.5%, a difference of 0.17%.
Female Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Tlingit-Haida | Slavic |
| Minimum | 3.4% | 0.21% |
| Maximum | 32.4% | 46.6% |
| Range | 29.1% | 46.4% |
| Mean | 14.0% | 12.0% |
| Median | 12.3% | 10.7% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 8.4% | 7.9% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 17.8% | 13.8% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 9.3% | 5.9% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 7.4% | 8.1% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 7.3% | 8.0% |
Demographics Similar to Tlingit-Haida and Slavs by Female Poverty
In terms of female poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Tlingit-Haida are Immigrants from Latvia (12.5%, a difference of 0.0%), Romanian (12.5%, a difference of 0.15%), Immigrants from China (12.5%, a difference of 0.15%), Native Hawaiian (12.5%, a difference of 0.17%), and Australian (12.5%, a difference of 0.19%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Slavs are Immigrants from China (12.5%, a difference of 0.020%), Palestinian (12.5%, a difference of 0.090%), Immigrants from Latvia (12.5%, a difference of 0.17%), Scottish (12.5%, a difference of 0.20%), and Romanian (12.5%, a difference of 0.32%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Female Poverty |
| Czechoslovakians | 95.7 /100 | #92 | Exceptional 12.4% |
| Immigrants | Egypt | 95.5 /100 | #93 | Exceptional 12.5% |
| Immigrants | Indonesia | 95.4 /100 | #94 | Exceptional 12.5% |
| Immigrants | South Africa | 95.4 /100 | #95 | Exceptional 12.5% |
| British | 95.2 /100 | #96 | Exceptional 12.5% |
| Australians | 95.2 /100 | #97 | Exceptional 12.5% |
| Native Hawaiians | 95.1 /100 | #98 | Exceptional 12.5% |
| Romanians | 95.1 /100 | #99 | Exceptional 12.5% |
| Immigrants | Latvia | 94.8 /100 | #100 | Exceptional 12.5% |
| Tlingit-Haida | 94.8 /100 | #101 | Exceptional 12.5% |
| Immigrants | China | 94.5 /100 | #102 | Exceptional 12.5% |
| Slavs | 94.5 /100 | #103 | Exceptional 12.5% |
| Palestinians | 94.3 /100 | #104 | Exceptional 12.5% |
| Scottish | 94.1 /100 | #105 | Exceptional 12.5% |
| Immigrants | Turkey | 93.8 /100 | #106 | Exceptional 12.6% |
| Laotians | 93.4 /100 | #107 | Exceptional 12.6% |
| Portuguese | 93.1 /100 | #108 | Exceptional 12.6% |
| Immigrants | Zimbabwe | 93.1 /100 | #109 | Exceptional 12.6% |
| Paraguayans | 93.0 /100 | #110 | Exceptional 12.6% |
| Soviet Union | 92.4 /100 | #111 | Exceptional 12.6% |
| Immigrants | Israel | 92.0 /100 | #112 | Exceptional 12.6% |