Chickasaw Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
COMPARE
Chickasaw
Select to Compare
Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
Chickasaw Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
19.6%
POVERTY | GIRLS < 16
0.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
262nd/ 347
METRIC RANK
Chickasaw Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 146,952,830 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw and poverty level among girls under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.542 and weighted average of 19.6%. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chickasaw within a typical geography, there is an increase of 1.3% in poverty level among girls under the age of 16.
It is essential to understand that the correlation between the percentage of Chickasaw and poverty level among girls under the age of 16 does not imply a direct cause-and-effect relationship. It remains uncertain whether the presence of Chickasaw influences an upward or downward trend in the level of poverty level among girls under the age of 16 within an area, or if Chickasaw simply ended up residing in those areas with higher or lower levels of poverty level among girls under the age of 16 due to other factors.
Demographics Similar to Chickasaw by Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
In terms of child poverty among girls under 16, the demographic groups most similar to Chickasaw are Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar (19.7%, a difference of 0.12%), Jamaican (19.7%, a difference of 0.23%), Vietnamese (19.5%, a difference of 0.52%), Mexican American Indian (19.5%, a difference of 0.61%), and Immigrants from Jamaica (19.8%, a difference of 0.67%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 |
| Immigrants from Ecuador | 0.3 /100 | #255 | Tragic 19.3% |
| Trinidadians and Tobagonians | 0.2 /100 | #256 | Tragic 19.3% |
| Guyanese | 0.2 /100 | #257 | Tragic 19.4% |
| Salvadorans | 0.2 /100 | #258 | Tragic 19.4% |
| Ottawa | 0.2 /100 | #259 | Tragic 19.4% |
| Mexican American Indians | 0.2 /100 | #260 | Tragic 19.5% |
| Vietnamese | 0.2 /100 | #261 | Tragic 19.5% |
| Chickasaw | 0.1 /100 | #262 | Tragic 19.6% |
| Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar | 0.1 /100 | #263 | Tragic 19.7% |
| Jamaicans | 0.1 /100 | #264 | Tragic 19.7% |
| Immigrants from Jamaica | 0.1 /100 | #265 | Tragic 19.8% |
| Spanish Americans | 0.1 /100 | #266 | Tragic 19.8% |
| Immigrants from Bangladesh | 0.1 /100 | #267 | Tragic 19.9% |
| Spanish American Indians | 0.1 /100 | #268 | Tragic 19.9% |
| Liberians | 0.1 /100 | #269 | Tragic 19.9% |
Chickasaw Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Chickasaw Data | Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Data |
| Minimum | 0.032% | 3.8% |
| Maximum | 36.8% | 100.0% |
| Range | 36.8% | 96.2% |
| Mean | 8.2% | 26.8% |
| Median | 7.0% | 21.7% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 3.2% | 17.6% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 11.5% | 31.3% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 8.3% | 13.6% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 6.7% | 15.5% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 6.6% | 15.4% |
Correlation Details
| Chickasaw Percentile | Sample Size | Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 |
[ 0.0% - 0.5% ] 0.032% | 136,283,268 | 18.7% |
[ 0.0% - 0.5% ] 0.25% | 5,154,282 | 16.8% |
[ 0.0% - 0.5% ] 0.45% | 1,526,973 | 17.6% |
[ 0.5% - 1.0% ] 0.60% | 1,567,135 | 21.7% |
[ 0.5% - 1.0% ] 0.83% | 805,086 | 20.4% |
[ 0.5% - 1.0% ] 0.98% | 447,390 | 18.2% |
[ 1.0% - 1.5% ] 1.19% | 229,116 | 20.5% |
[ 1.0% - 1.5% ] 1.35% | 247,179 | 19.4% |
[ 1.5% - 2.0% ] 1.53% | 76,917 | 18.8% |
[ 1.5% - 2.0% ] 1.74% | 80,844 | 21.5% |
[ 1.5% - 2.0% ] 1.93% | 52,228 | 15.4% |
[ 2.0% - 2.5% ] 2.14% | 45,386 | 22.7% |
[ 2.0% - 2.5% ] 2.28% | 51,909 | 20.9% |
[ 2.5% - 3.0% ] 2.51% | 15,979 | 21.3% |
[ 2.5% - 3.0% ] 2.67% | 11,432 | 23.6% |
[ 2.5% - 3.0% ] 2.88% | 66,212 | 21.4% |
[ 3.0% - 3.5% ] 3.00% | 18,243 | 24.1% |
[ 3.0% - 3.5% ] 3.24% | 15,996 | 28.4% |
[ 3.0% - 3.5% ] 3.46% | 7,995 | 16.6% |
[ 3.5% - 4.0% ] 3.58% | 7,909 | 28.9% |
[ 3.5% - 4.0% ] 3.84% | 1,538 | 39.3% |
[ 3.5% - 4.0% ] 3.93% | 2,773 | 25.0% |
[ 4.0% - 4.5% ] 4.14% | 4,957 | 21.6% |
[ 4.0% - 4.5% ] 4.35% | 20,308 | 20.6% |
[ 4.5% - 5.0% ] 4.53% | 26,620 | 20.0% |
[ 4.5% - 5.0% ] 4.70% | 3,744 | 22.0% |
[ 4.5% - 5.0% ] 4.85% | 1,773 | 8.6% |
[ 5.0% - 5.5% ] 5.12% | 2,482 | 35.4% |
[ 5.0% - 5.5% ] 5.18% | 40,771 | 17.6% |
[ 5.5% - 6.0% ] 5.56% | 3,670 | 20.8% |
[ 5.5% - 6.0% ] 6.00% | 4,135 | 30.0% |
[ 6.0% - 6.5% ] 6.16% | 438 | 14.9% |
[ 6.0% - 6.5% ] 6.36% | 6,967 | 20.8% |
[ 6.5% - 7.0% ] 6.65% | 1,234 | 31.3% |
[ 6.5% - 7.0% ] 6.95% | 4,633 | 14.1% |
[ 7.0% - 7.5% ] 7.04% | 668 | 52.9% |
[ 7.0% - 7.5% ] 7.28% | 8,480 | 27.2% |
[ 7.0% - 7.5% ] 7.45% | 2,925 | 23.3% |
[ 7.5% - 8.0% ] 7.56% | 6,148 | 32.1% |
[ 7.5% - 8.0% ] 7.88% | 2,449 | 15.1% |
[ 8.0% - 8.5% ] 8.00% | 350 | 15.5% |
[ 8.0% - 8.5% ] 8.21% | 633 | 16.1% |
[ 8.0% - 8.5% ] 8.29% | 4,329 | 23.3% |
[ 8.5% - 9.0% ] 8.81% | 919 | 52.5% |
[ 8.5% - 9.0% ] 8.95% | 1,195 | 44.6% |
[ 9.0% - 9.5% ] 9.11% | 966 | 24.4% |
[ 9.0% - 9.5% ] 9.44% | 4,841 | 24.3% |
[ 9.5% - 10.0% ] 9.70% | 268 | 40.0% |
[ 10.0% - 10.5% ] 10.00% | 7,518 | 21.9% |
[ 10.0% - 10.5% ] 10.49% | 286 | 44.4% |
[ 10.5% - 11.0% ] 10.75% | 930 | 13.2% |
[ 10.5% - 11.0% ] 10.95% | 5,491 | 17.5% |
[ 11.0% - 11.5% ] 11.15% | 1,283 | 39.6% |
[ 11.5% - 12.0% ] 11.54% | 208 | 27.8% |
[ 11.5% - 12.0% ] 11.68% | 1,516 | 3.8% |
[ 11.5% - 12.0% ] 11.85% | 16,537 | 25.1% |
[ 11.5% - 12.0% ] 11.98% | 31,368 | 16.5% |
[ 12.0% - 12.5% ] 12.37% | 897 | 18.9% |
[ 13.0% - 13.5% ] 13.12% | 7,470 | 33.0% |
[ 13.0% - 13.5% ] 13.31% | 3,110 | 52.5% |
[ 13.0% - 13.5% ] 13.45% | 119 | 13.3% |
[ 14.5% - 15.0% ] 14.64% | 560 | 32.6% |
[ 15.0% - 15.5% ] 15.30% | 791 | 19.4% |
[ 15.5% - 16.0% ] 15.98% | 488 | 38.5% |
[ 16.5% - 17.0% ] 16.79% | 262 | 27.3% |
[ 18.0% - 18.5% ] 18.29% | 82 | 75.0% |
[ 18.0% - 18.5% ] 18.46% | 428 | 13.0% |
[ 21.0% - 21.5% ] 21.23% | 212 | 52.6% |
[ 23.5% - 24.0% ] 23.81% | 189 | 58.8% |
[ 25.5% - 26.0% ] 25.74% | 1,286 | 8.3% |
[ 36.5% - 37.0% ] 36.79% | 106 | 100.0% |