Turkish vs Chickasaw Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16
COMPARE
Turkish
Chickasaw
Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16
Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16 Comparison
Turks
Chickasaw
13.6%
CHILD POVERTY AMONG BOYS UNDER 16
99.8/ 100
METRIC RATING
31st/ 347
METRIC RANK
19.8%
CHILD POVERTY AMONG BOYS UNDER 16
0.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
271st/ 347
METRIC RANK
Turkish vs Chickasaw Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16 Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 268,078,703 people shows a mild positive correlation between the proportion of Turks and poverty level among boys under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.344 and weighted average of 13.6%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 146,816,928 people shows a moderate positive correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw and poverty level among boys under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.488 and weighted average of 19.8%, a difference of 45.8%.

Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16 Correlation Summary
Measurement | Turkish | Chickasaw |
Minimum | 0.40% | 3.3% |
Maximum | 66.7% | 100.0% |
Range | 66.3% | 96.7% |
Mean | 13.5% | 27.0% |
Median | 10.7% | 23.7% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 5.9% | 18.1% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 14.8% | 30.0% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 8.9% | 11.9% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 12.7% | 15.5% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 12.5% | 15.4% |
Similar Demographics by Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16
Demographics Similar to Turks by Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16
In terms of child poverty among boys under 16, the demographic groups most similar to Turks are Swedish (13.6%, a difference of 0.080%), Immigrants from China (13.6%, a difference of 0.090%), Cypriot (13.6%, a difference of 0.18%), Danish (13.6%, a difference of 0.27%), and Eastern European (13.5%, a difference of 0.37%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16 |
Immigrants | Lithuania | 99.8 /100 | #24 | Exceptional 13.5% |
Okinawans | 99.8 /100 | #25 | Exceptional 13.5% |
Immigrants | Bolivia | 99.8 /100 | #26 | Exceptional 13.5% |
Asians | 99.8 /100 | #27 | Exceptional 13.5% |
Eastern Europeans | 99.8 /100 | #28 | Exceptional 13.5% |
Cypriots | 99.8 /100 | #29 | Exceptional 13.6% |
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% |
Demographics Similar to Chickasaw by Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16
In terms of child poverty among boys under 16, the demographic groups most similar to Chickasaw are Immigrants from Ecuador (19.8%, a difference of 0.22%), Belizean (19.9%, a difference of 0.36%), Cherokee (19.7%, a difference of 0.50%), Immigrants from Bangladesh (19.9%, a difference of 0.62%), and Jamaican (20.0%, a difference of 0.74%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Child Poverty Among Boys Under 16 |
Iroquois | 0.1 /100 | #264 | Tragic 19.6% |
Guyanese | 0.1 /100 | #265 | Tragic 19.6% |
Immigrants | El Salvador | 0.1 /100 | #266 | Tragic 19.6% |
Vietnamese | 0.1 /100 | #267 | Tragic 19.6% |
Spanish American Indians | 0.1 /100 | #268 | Tragic 19.6% |
Immigrants | Cabo Verde | 0.1 /100 | #269 | Tragic 19.7% |
Cherokee | 0.1 /100 | #270 | Tragic 19.7% |
Chickasaw | 0.1 /100 | #271 | Tragic 19.8% |
Immigrants | Ecuador | 0.1 /100 | #272 | Tragic 19.8% |
Belizeans | 0.1 /100 | #273 | Tragic 19.9% |
Immigrants | Bangladesh | 0.0 /100 | #274 | Tragic 19.9% |
Jamaicans | 0.0 /100 | #275 | Tragic 20.0% |
Sub-Saharan Africans | 0.0 /100 | #276 | Tragic 20.0% |
Immigrants | Barbados | 0.0 /100 | #277 | Tragic 20.0% |
Immigrants | West Indies | 0.0 /100 | #278 | Tragic 20.0% |